According to the people in charge of the meters in my city, the money taken in by the meters just about covers the costs of collecting it and maintaining the meters. The real net revenue to the city comes from the fines for parking at an expired meter. So Apple's reimbursement would have to include the fines that would be collected, and maybe the bureaucrats don't want to admit that their meters are just a means of creating fineable offenses.
I don't know about Montreal, but here in my city it's illegal to put more money in the meter after the initial feeding. I doubt that it's ever enforced here, but if Montreal had such a law and Apple pissed them off, you can bet that they'd enforce it.
By far the best science-related television show I ever saw was "The Mechanical Universe... and Beyond". It's university freshman-level physics, but intelligent and interested high school kids would get much out of it too. At 52 episodes, you'd probably not be able to get through all of it in a semester, but you could selectively pick which areas to cover.
Why you're even re-naming things more significant than a class level private variable while programming, I don't know.
Exactly: you don't know.
Bless you if you've never worked in an environment where your development software is a generation or more out of date and management suddenly decides that what you're working on is now an image analysis tool instead of a image data collection tool.
If you can afford to rename something from the project level all the way down, then you're clearly the only person working on the project. If you're the only person working the project, then who cares about the naming, you're the only one using it. Either way, your case is largely irrelevant.
If that were so, I wouldn't have brought it up. Even a lone developer is developing code for at least one maintainer (himself).
I've worked in multi-developer teams in the past where we planned everything thoroughly before a single line of code was written, and yet refactoring was necessary during the coding phase. Perhaps its because what I've been doing has been in the realm of R&D/experimentation and not straight-line development, but in my experience, as the saying goes, "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy."
The thing I like best about Eclipse vs Visual Studio was refactoring. I tend to, ahem, revise my thinking during programming, and the ability to rename everything from the project itself down to the lowest-level variable was like heaven. Having to go back and use VS where I can't do that (at least, not easily) is torture.
That was the response of a MS tech regarding a defect that a bunch of us found in one of their C libraries some years ago. They must have had that guy train his successors.
... but what are you FOR? You don't want a federal-approved ID, so what form of ID do you think is acceptable? Just anything a state feels like issuing? Should we even require a picture on it, or would that be too much of an imposition? If I'm an airport screener, can I reasonably be expected to recognize over 100 types of ID (driver's license or alternative ID from 50 states and every US territory/commonwealth) and be able to detect forgeries?
Personally, I think the feds should just say that any any place under their control where ID is required, present your passport. That way the states wouldn't have a bitch about the cost, since they could just keep issuing their existing licenses, and the feds would have only one form of ID to worry about.
Anyone have a better idea that would still accomplish the main goal of assuring that the person on the ID is who they say they are?
No, I think you're referring to speculators, brokers (stock, real estate, mortgage, etc), and middle managers. Just about anyone who takes a percentage of someone else's transaction or work would apply. Very little value is given, and normally the value is simply in navagating a set of rules (governmental, legal) that is not normally encountered in daily life.
Speculators are people who take risks in the expectation of profits. The term for the behavior you describe is "rent-seeking".
Operating from a 'list' means that someone has to have discovered, logged, and issued notification of the virus (or terrorist) before, while detecting virus- (or terrorist-) like behavior will catch the problem when it first appears. While the list approach has its place, I know I want behavior-based screening used as well.
Try to avoid statements designed to "stir the pot" such as "quietly released". I know it's a tempting expression to use and just about everyone does it. However, it carries with it the implication of NASA being forced to release the data but not wanting it to be noticed.
This brings to mind the beginning of my all-time favorite Wall Street Journal editorial:
It was hard to see, but a week ago Friday the Clinton administration, while driving a large black sedan at high speed across the 14th street bridge, opened the door and shoved out their revised downward GDP estimate for this year, to 2.5% from 3.1%.
Who posts this bollocks to Slashdot? Just the same as what radio station will we listen to, what will we both watch on TV, we like different foods, etc. etc. Is this some journalism student trying to come up with an 'angle' on a 'story'?
Geez indeed. It's somebody noticing that characteristic human behavior is following us to new venues, and doing an article about it. No, it isn't a story about the fall of the Berlin wall, Iran-Contra, or the curing of cancer, but there's room for some inconsequential human interest stuff in my reading material. If not in yours, you aren't required to read it you know.
Interesting what you get when you attempt to make a system foolproof. All this came about because one state didn't have effective rules on what amounted to a 'vote' in a close election, and because somebody couldn't figure out how to lay out a ballot so a bunch of retirees wouldn't end up voting for the wrong candidate. Now in the quest for perfection, we're getting a system that's even more vulnerable to manipulation and failure. I said at the time that we should just go back to the "blacken a dot" type ballots, but noooo.... Our CA state and local officials were sold a bill of goods by Diebold, saying how impenetrable their security was, how swell it would be when you could just upload all the electronic results and have a near-instant tally, blah blah blah. Then the first election we had here in my city, it turns out the voting machines had been sitting in people's garages for so long they lost their programming and computer-savvy voters who happened in were assisting in rebooting them and restoring their programming. Debacle doesn't even begin to describe this whole mess.
I like the comments where people are clearly trying to maintain their cool on a touchy subject, but it still comes out. "You're an uneducated boob-head. No judgment implied."
It's just kinda creepy to see so many people trying to get government funding of stem cells from the "people who won't vote" (to put it mildly). It's like one party in America loves to put a bounty on the heads of the unborn; ever notice?
The main utility of embryonic stem cell research is as a wedge issue to portray those who object to it as knuckle-dragging, sister-marrying, holy-rolling retards whose fondest hope is for the poor sick to die of their infirmities. Personally I don't have a problem with the use of fetal cells from artificially-created (for purposes of possible implantation) embryos that would just end up being discarded anyway. However, I can understand the objection of those who do, just as I understand, but disagree with, the objections of those who don't want Nazi prisoner medical research used. It isn't clear to me that having government involved is such a terrific idea anyway: Californians passed a proposition back in 2004 to have the state fund embryonic stem cell research to the tune of $3 billion. Last I heard, the agency that administers the money was still arguing with various pressure groups about how to allocate most of it.
I'd be less inclined to view the prosecution as a bunch of douchebags if they'd dropped the charges instead of going for another trial. There are cases of prosecutors who, after somebody is tried, convicted, and jailed, still fight like hell to keep them there even when later DNA evidence shows conclusively that the person is innocent. I don't know what it is that leads some prosecutors to want to railroad the innocent, but I'd like to see THAT made a crime.
It's not even that. They're either nakedly afraid of change or don't think it's worth the cost because they're going to heaven anyway.
Seems to me that the people afraid of change are the environmentalists. For evolution to take place, species have to be stressed, and climate change is (and historically has been) one of the major stressors. Based on what's been coming from the environmental camp, I gather that no climate change is acceptable, and neither are species extinctions. I can only infer that they believe that the environment should be in stasis from now until the end of time, although I suspect that if the human race were to die off, that would be an exception they'd be willing to make.
Speaking of SciFi, I remember a short story from quite a while back. Set in a near future, it was essentially a tale of a musical intellectual-property dystopia in which no new melody could be created without infringing on an earlier work because it was nearly impossible to create a work that could completely avoid combinations of notes appearing somewhere else. Writers were getting sued because some sequence of 6 (or however many it was in the story) notes showed up in The Beatle's "My Sweet Lord" or whatever. I don't remember if this world was the result of the eternalization of copyright, but the solution in the story was to "forget" (i.e. expire) the copy protection accorded music after some period of time.
This makes a lot of sense -- how many professionals like working with their software in the office as much as gaming after hours?
I like sitting in my recliner at home a lot more than in my office chair at work, but it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the work chair. Different missions (pleasure vs productivity) yield different levels of enjoyment.
This is a pretty shortsighted post. People whose houses are burning down who don't have fire insurance are screwed because they should have bought fire insurance before the house burned down.
If you knew you could get insurance at any time, wouldn't you wait until you had a need for it? Why pay premiums for years when you can get a policy at any time?
This bill is for the people who know that they will, one day, suffer from the symptoms of Huntington's disease.
If you know you can get coverage when the symptoms manifest, why wouldn't you wait until then and save the money? Further, unless there's only a one-size-fits-all type of coverage, when the time came, wouldn't you get the best possible coverage available and not some lesser policy? When I needed treatment, I'd opt for the private room, 100% drug coverage, no co-pay etc.
Any "must-issue" plan with no penalty in premiums for those already sick will completely distort the system and cause people to forego coverage until they need it. Without a pool of healthy people paying in, premiums would go to the sky, assuming you could even find insurers willing to offer coverage in such a system.
don't you run the risk of people getting a prognosis for some horrific and debilitating disease and suddenly wanting the gold-plated health and disability plan, which the law would say has to be issued? Like going out and buying fire insurance for your burning house?
Slashdot Mirror
... naming it "The Northwest Passage" was incredible foresight?
According to the people in charge of the meters in my city, the money taken in by the meters just about covers the costs of collecting it and maintaining the meters. The real net revenue to the city comes from the fines for parking at an expired meter. So Apple's reimbursement would have to include the fines that would be collected, and maybe the bureaucrats don't want to admit that their meters are just a means of creating fineable offenses.
I don't know about Montreal, but here in my city it's illegal to put more money in the meter after the initial feeding. I doubt that it's ever enforced here, but if Montreal had such a law and Apple pissed them off, you can bet that they'd enforce it.
By far the best science-related television show I ever saw was "The Mechanical Universe ... and Beyond". It's university freshman-level physics, but intelligent and interested high school kids would get much out of it too. At 52 episodes, you'd probably not be able to get through all of it in a semester, but you could selectively pick which areas to cover.
Exactly: you don't know.
Bless you if you've never worked in an environment where your development software is a generation or more out of date and management suddenly decides that what you're working on is now an image analysis tool instead of a image data collection tool.
If you can afford to rename something from the project level all the way down, then you're clearly the only person working on the project. If you're the only person working the project, then who cares about the naming, you're the only one using it. Either way, your case is largely irrelevant.
If that were so, I wouldn't have brought it up. Even a lone developer is developing code for at least one maintainer (himself).
I've worked in multi-developer teams in the past where we planned everything thoroughly before a single line of code was written, and yet refactoring was necessary during the coding phase. Perhaps its because what I've been doing has been in the realm of R&D/experimentation and not straight-line development, but in my experience, as the saying goes, "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy."
The thing I like best about Eclipse vs Visual Studio was refactoring. I tend to, ahem, revise my thinking during programming, and the ability to rename everything from the project itself down to the lowest-level variable was like heaven. Having to go back and use VS where I can't do that (at least, not easily) is torture.
That was the response of a MS tech regarding a defect that a bunch of us found in one of their C libraries some years ago. They must have had that guy train his successors.
... but what are you FOR? You don't want a federal-approved ID, so what form of ID do you think is acceptable? Just anything a state feels like issuing? Should we even require a picture on it, or would that be too much of an imposition? If I'm an airport screener, can I reasonably be expected to recognize over 100 types of ID (driver's license or alternative ID from 50 states and every US territory/commonwealth) and be able to detect forgeries?
Personally, I think the feds should just say that any any place under their control where ID is required, present your passport. That way the states wouldn't have a bitch about the cost, since they could just keep issuing their existing licenses, and the feds would have only one form of ID to worry about.
Anyone have a better idea that would still accomplish the main goal of assuring that the person on the ID is who they say they are?
Speculators are people who take risks in the expectation of profits. The term for the behavior you describe is "rent-seeking".
... since accusing the US and Israel of killing children and other people is pretty much the usual UN message.
/ Yes, this says something you disagree with! Mod it down!
What, cronyism, featherbedding, and incompetence at the UN? That's unpossible!
Operating from a 'list' means that someone has to have discovered, logged, and issued notification of the virus (or terrorist) before, while detecting virus- (or terrorist-) like behavior will catch the problem when it first appears. While the list approach has its place, I know I want behavior-based screening used as well.
This brings to mind the beginning of my all-time favorite Wall Street Journal editorial:
Anyone else think of the movie "Maximum Overdrive" when they first heard about this?
Geez indeed. It's somebody noticing that characteristic human behavior is following us to new venues, and doing an article about it. No, it isn't a story about the fall of the Berlin wall, Iran-Contra, or the curing of cancer, but there's room for some inconsequential human interest stuff in my reading material. If not in yours, you aren't required to read it you know.
Interesting what you get when you attempt to make a system foolproof. All this came about because one state didn't have effective rules on what amounted to a 'vote' in a close election, and because somebody couldn't figure out how to lay out a ballot so a bunch of retirees wouldn't end up voting for the wrong candidate. Now in the quest for perfection, we're getting a system that's even more vulnerable to manipulation and failure. I said at the time that we should just go back to the "blacken a dot" type ballots, but noooo .... Our CA state and local officials were sold a bill of goods by Diebold, saying how impenetrable their security was, how swell it would be when you could just upload all the electronic results and have a near-instant tally, blah blah blah. Then the first election we had here in my city, it turns out the voting machines had been sitting in people's garages for so long they lost their programming and computer-savvy voters who happened in were assisting in rebooting them and restoring their programming. Debacle doesn't even begin to describe this whole mess.
I like the comments where people are clearly trying to maintain their cool on a touchy subject, but it still comes out. "You're an uneducated boob-head. No judgment implied."
The main utility of embryonic stem cell research is as a wedge issue to portray those who object to it as knuckle-dragging, sister-marrying, holy-rolling retards whose fondest hope is for the poor sick to die of their infirmities. Personally I don't have a problem with the use of fetal cells from artificially-created (for purposes of possible implantation) embryos that would just end up being discarded anyway. However, I can understand the objection of those who do, just as I understand, but disagree with, the objections of those who don't want Nazi prisoner medical research used. It isn't clear to me that having government involved is such a terrific idea anyway: Californians passed a proposition back in 2004 to have the state fund embryonic stem cell research to the tune of $3 billion. Last I heard, the agency that administers the money was still arguing with various pressure groups about how to allocate most of it.
I'd be less inclined to view the prosecution as a bunch of douchebags if they'd dropped the charges instead of going for another trial. There are cases of prosecutors who, after somebody is tried, convicted, and jailed, still fight like hell to keep them there even when later DNA evidence shows conclusively that the person is innocent. I don't know what it is that leads some prosecutors to want to railroad the innocent, but I'd like to see THAT made a crime.
Seems to me that the people afraid of change are the environmentalists. For evolution to take place, species have to be stressed, and climate change is (and historically has been) one of the major stressors. Based on what's been coming from the environmental camp, I gather that no climate change is acceptable, and neither are species extinctions. I can only infer that they believe that the environment should be in stasis from now until the end of time, although I suspect that if the human race were to die off, that would be an exception they'd be willing to make.
Speaking of SciFi, I remember a short story from quite a while back. Set in a near future, it was essentially a tale of a musical intellectual-property dystopia in which no new melody could be created without infringing on an earlier work because it was nearly impossible to create a work that could completely avoid combinations of notes appearing somewhere else. Writers were getting sued because some sequence of 6 (or however many it was in the story) notes showed up in The Beatle's "My Sweet Lord" or whatever. I don't remember if this world was the result of the eternalization of copyright, but the solution in the story was to "forget" (i.e. expire) the copy protection accorded music after some period of time.
I like sitting in my recliner at home a lot more than in my office chair at work, but it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the work chair. Different missions (pleasure vs productivity) yield different levels of enjoyment.
If you knew you could get insurance at any time, wouldn't you wait until you had a need for it? Why pay premiums for years when you can get a policy at any time?
This bill is for the people who know that they will, one day, suffer from the symptoms of Huntington's disease.
If you know you can get coverage when the symptoms manifest, why wouldn't you wait until then and save the money? Further, unless there's only a one-size-fits-all type of coverage, when the time came, wouldn't you get the best possible coverage available and not some lesser policy? When I needed treatment, I'd opt for the private room, 100% drug coverage, no co-pay etc.
Any "must-issue" plan with no penalty in premiums for those already sick will completely distort the system and cause people to forego coverage until they need it. Without a pool of healthy people paying in, premiums would go to the sky, assuming you could even find insurers willing to offer coverage in such a system.
don't you run the risk of people getting a prognosis for some horrific and debilitating disease and suddenly wanting the gold-plated health and disability plan, which the law would say has to be issued? Like going out and buying fire insurance for your burning house?
Couldn't you have made it obvious by screaming and clutching at the drapes as the security guards dragged you out?