That's your personal interpretation of "re-inventing the wheel", but that doesn't mean it's the generally accepted one.
Another example: When I tried to find out who invented the mixing valve, I found that there are at least 2,500 patents for a mixing valve. Each of it was either improving the State of the Art enough to get a new patent, or such a new way to create a mixing valve that no one thought of it before. And if we look deep enough into other inventions, we find the same picture again and again: We are constantly re-inventing everything. And it's not just successively improving existing designs, it's often completely new approaches to the same problem.
Complaining about re-inventing in general is missing the point.
#308280 (rickest) reinventing the wheel is exactly what allows us to travel 80mph without even feeling it. the original wheel fell apart at about 5mph after 100 yards. now they're rubber, self-healing, last 4000 times longer. whoever intended the phrase "you're reinventing the wheel" to be an insult was an idiot.
It helps against bugs which write into kernel memory and overwrite kernel code. As the memory mapping is different every time, the chance that the bug will force the kernel to execute arbitrary code is close to nil, as the chance that the bug overwrites just exactly the right part of the kernel is nil.
Free market economics only works if there is someone setting the rules and enforcing them. There is no free market without rules everyone has to adhere to. Without rules and their enforcement, the guy who can muster the most thugs and can amass the most guns and ammunition has a monopoly on everything.
"The government needs to stay out of free market economics" means that someone has no idea under what conditions a free market works. For a free market to work it is necessary that the rules balance the power between the different actors on the market. One often overlooked problem is that normally, consumers know much less about the products they are buying than the manufacturers and the sellers. While consumers need many different products of very different product classes and need to have a very broad knowledge about virtually everything, manufacturers and sellers can specialize on their sector of the market and thus have a big informational advantage, which they leverage in contract negotiations. Many regulations thus are concerned with consumer protection and try to shift the balance of power away from the manufacturers and sellers which have to adhere to very strict rules to stop potential or real abuse of their negotiational power.
You are juristically correct. No country has to ever allow entry to anyone. Not even to their own citizens. The U.S. has a constitution which guarantees free movement to their own citizens, but there is no international law requiring any country to have similar regulations.
You also have no obligation to invite anyone in your home. It will still raise questions if you arbitrarily deny entry, and people will think you are a quite strange guy.
The difference here is the European understanding of "privacy". While in the U.S., there is this "expectation of privacy", which is routinely denied if you are using a publicly accessible website, the European understanding is different. Here, privacy means that you have the right to control which information about you is publicly available and who has a right to make use of it. This was first established in 1983 in the landmark decision of the German Constitutional Court, which established the informational self-determination.
Yes, because EVs use much less energy than internal combustion engines. Tesla's Model 3 will be using about 11 kWh per hour, compared to 60-80 kWh per hour for a normal sedan. Thus an additional user of energy like the AC has a relatively larger impact to total energy usage.
The fact remains that the US prosecution doesn't want to ask anyone for help and rather have the law changed for them to get than to follow normal procedures -- consequences -- schmonzequences.
It's called "dignity of Man", and it is part of the preamble of the German constitution. From there, the so called "Census decision" of 1983 derived the right to informational self-determination.
It might not be illegal, because also in the E.U. there are crimes, where the police can demand the data stored on servers by internet providers. If the U.S. can prove that this is the case here (drug trafficking surely falls into that category), it should not be a problem for the local police in Ireland to get a warrant for the data and provide it to the U.S. prosecution.
It still is illegal (in the other country). Sure, there is a person in the U.S. able to travel to Ireland and shoot a person in the head. But that doesn't make it legal.
One of the possible consequences might be that a court in Ireland finds both the U.S. judge and the person transferring the data in contempt of the irish court and asks the U.S. to expel them to face prosecution in Ireland.
It works in both direction. Any U.S. company following an U.S. order in a foreign country running afoul the local laws will be in deep trouble. You have seen the fines the E.U. will impose on U.S. companies if they break E.U. law.
What will happen then? Simply, U.S. companies will no longer have direct subsidaries in other countries, but local intermediares upon which they don't have any direct command. It will be joint ventures outside the U.S. jurisdiction. So what does the U.S. win with those expansion of jurisdiction? Exactly. Nothing.
And U.S. judges using that legal instrument to force U.S. companies to comply will no longer be able to travel abroad, because they will face prosecution in other countries for an assumption of power they never had in that country. The argument "But it is legal in the U.S." will be answered with "This is not the U.S.".
Put it more clearly: Any employee of the local subsidary has to refuse that order by the employer, because it is against the law. And firing him because of that refusal will bring the local employer into deep trouble because then the local prosecution could use the local equivalent of RICO laws to shut the company down.
But then the other court sends a "contempt of the court" verdict to the U.S. judge and asks the U.S. to expel him to face prosecution for violation of local law. Simply put: The U.S. might really want to have jurisdiction about data stored in other countries, but in the end, does it really matter? Whatever the U.S. judge decides, he can't really get it through without the cooperation of a court in another country.
So why not go the way it has always been and should be in the future: Ask the court in the other country to help in that matter. If the U.S. court can prove that the data is really needed in a case, then it should be no problem to get it in a way legal in the country it is stored.
If the idea of U.S. jurisdiction to data stored in other country really gets track, the only result will be that companies will no longer directly operate in other countries, but always have local intermediates which are legally independent of the U.S. company.
And when you order lumber 99 percent of all folks call those 2x4x8 precut studs.
This might be true for people of the trade, but Home Depot caters to those who are not of the trade. Anything "custom to the trade" that is surprising for amateurs does not belong into Home Depot's advertising materials, as their target group is non-professionals. And for those, 2" x 4" x 8' means the actual wood is 51 mm x 102 mm x 2438 mm.
Actually, the Government is not the Legislative. So this implication is not a given. The Government is all the organisations, institutions and persons (including the President), which actually execute the Law, hence the name "Executive power". Quite often the Government really wants a law to be passed, but in this case has to go to the Legislative and propose said law. But it's not up to the Government to pass it. In this case, it was a branch of the Government, the Copyright Office, which proposed legislation, thus the title is exactly describing the situation.
This is a misunderstanding. While programming per se might not disappear, many tasks in programming get automated and will be further automated, thus reducing the necessary work hours to complete a given project. It's like servicing computers. While 40 years ago, there were scheduled maintenance windows to readjust the read/write heads of winchester drives, to replace fans and clean sockets, plugs and switches, today's computers run untouched for years until they reach their replacement time. While there still are maintenance people being employed by manufacturers and deployers of large computing bases, the number of people per computer unit has shrunken tremendously.
When I started with my current company, we had 15 maintenance people covering the region. Now there are only three of them left.
You see the same with programmers. With each new framework, with each new testing suite, code profiler etc.pp., the number of people necessary to develop and maintain a given project is reduced. While programmers will be needed in the foreseeable future, their number might be much less than today.
I don't have one, and I don't plan to buy one. And I know many people who don't own a car though they had the money to buy one. So this is not a given.
People don't necessarily want a car. They want to get from A to B. A car is a means to an end, not a value per se.
Ah! I like this factoid, completely taken out of context and thus confusing simple minds.
A new Ice age, naturally occuring, was predicted to start about the years 3000 to 5000, far away from the 2040 you claim.
If we had continued with putting that much dust and particles into the atmosphere as we did in the 1920ies to 1960ies, the layer of particles would have shielded a part of the sun light, cooling the Earth. Luckily we started putting filters in exhausts and chimneys, moved away from heating appartements with coal and wood, and thus seriously decreased the numbers of pneumonia, lung cancer and other diseases of the respiratory apparatus. As a side effect, we limited the probability of a global cooling.
It peaked, for the YEAR, at 10% (the rest of the year it is less) - that isn't "seriously cutting into market share", that's "peaking at a noticeable level before sinking back into irrelevence."
That's hell of an asumption. As the rest of the year is still another 6 and a half month, and we haven't even seen the numbers for April and May yet, I would put your claim into the "wishful thinking" category.
Slashdot Mirror
1. The current President of the U.S. and his staff have repeatedly stated that @realDonaldTrump is his official channel to communicate to the public.
2. It allows to comment and to reply and to further discuss.
3. Thus it is a public forum.
4. Thus banning someone to participate in that public forum is a violation of the First.
Another example: When I tried to find out who invented the mixing valve, I found that there are at least 2,500 patents for a mixing valve. Each of it was either improving the State of the Art enough to get a new patent, or such a new way to create a mixing valve that no one thought of it before. And if we look deep enough into other inventions, we find the same picture again and again: We are constantly re-inventing everything. And it's not just successively improving existing designs, it's often completely new approaches to the same problem.
Complaining about re-inventing in general is missing the point.
#308280 (rickest) reinventing the wheel is exactly what allows us to travel 80mph without even feeling it. the original wheel fell apart at about 5mph after 100 yards. now they're rubber, self-healing, last 4000 times longer. whoever intended the phrase "you're reinventing the wheel" to be an insult was an idiot.
It helps against bugs which write into kernel memory and overwrite kernel code. As the memory mapping is different every time, the chance that the bug will force the kernel to execute arbitrary code is close to nil, as the chance that the bug overwrites just exactly the right part of the kernel is nil.
"The government needs to stay out of free market economics" means that someone has no idea under what conditions a free market works. For a free market to work it is necessary that the rules balance the power between the different actors on the market. One often overlooked problem is that normally, consumers know much less about the products they are buying than the manufacturers and the sellers. While consumers need many different products of very different product classes and need to have a very broad knowledge about virtually everything, manufacturers and sellers can specialize on their sector of the market and thus have a big informational advantage, which they leverage in contract negotiations. Many regulations thus are concerned with consumer protection and try to shift the balance of power away from the manufacturers and sellers which have to adhere to very strict rules to stop potential or real abuse of their negotiational power.
You also have no obligation to invite anyone in your home. It will still raise questions if you arbitrarily deny entry, and people will think you are a quite strange guy.
The difference here is the European understanding of "privacy". While in the U.S., there is this "expectation of privacy", which is routinely denied if you are using a publicly accessible website, the European understanding is different. Here, privacy means that you have the right to control which information about you is publicly available and who has a right to make use of it. This was first established in 1983 in the landmark decision of the German Constitutional Court, which established the informational self-determination.
Yes, because EVs use much less energy than internal combustion engines. Tesla's Model 3 will be using about 11 kWh per hour, compared to 60-80 kWh per hour for a normal sedan. Thus an additional user of energy like the AC has a relatively larger impact to total energy usage.
EVs actually marvel in traffic, because differently than internal combustion engines, an electric motor doesn't have an "optimum range".
Neither of them. The error appears already in TFA.
The fact remains that the US prosecution doesn't want to ask anyone for help and rather have the law changed for them to get than to follow normal procedures -- consequences -- schmonzequences.
It's called "dignity of Man", and it is part of the preamble of the German constitution. From there, the so called "Census decision" of 1983 derived the right to informational self-determination.
It might not be illegal, because also in the E.U. there are crimes, where the police can demand the data stored on servers by internet providers. If the U.S. can prove that this is the case here (drug trafficking surely falls into that category), it should not be a problem for the local police in Ireland to get a warrant for the data and provide it to the U.S. prosecution.
One of the possible consequences might be that a court in Ireland finds both the U.S. judge and the person transferring the data in contempt of the irish court and asks the U.S. to expel them to face prosecution in Ireland.
They technically could. They are technically also able to shut the security person in Ireland watching the servers. But it doesn't it make legal.
What will happen then? Simply, U.S. companies will no longer have direct subsidaries in other countries, but local intermediares upon which they don't have any direct command. It will be joint ventures outside the U.S. jurisdiction. So what does the U.S. win with those expansion of jurisdiction? Exactly. Nothing.
And U.S. judges using that legal instrument to force U.S. companies to comply will no longer be able to travel abroad, because they will face prosecution in other countries for an assumption of power they never had in that country. The argument "But it is legal in the U.S." will be answered with "This is not the U.S.".
Put it more clearly: Any employee of the local subsidary has to refuse that order by the employer, because it is against the law. And firing him because of that refusal will bring the local employer into deep trouble because then the local prosecution could use the local equivalent of RICO laws to shut the company down.
So why not go the way it has always been and should be in the future: Ask the court in the other country to help in that matter. If the U.S. court can prove that the data is really needed in a case, then it should be no problem to get it in a way legal in the country it is stored.
If the idea of U.S. jurisdiction to data stored in other country really gets track, the only result will be that companies will no longer directly operate in other countries, but always have local intermediates which are legally independent of the U.S. company.
And when you order lumber 99 percent of all folks call those 2x4x8 precut studs.
This might be true for people of the trade, but Home Depot caters to those who are not of the trade. Anything "custom to the trade" that is surprising for amateurs does not belong into Home Depot's advertising materials, as their target group is non-professionals. And for those, 2" x 4" x 8' means the actual wood is 51 mm x 102 mm x 2438 mm.
Actually, the Government is not the Legislative. So this implication is not a given. The Government is all the organisations, institutions and persons (including the President), which actually execute the Law, hence the name "Executive power". Quite often the Government really wants a law to be passed, but in this case has to go to the Legislative and propose said law. But it's not up to the Government to pass it. In this case, it was a branch of the Government, the Copyright Office, which proposed legislation, thus the title is exactly describing the situation.
When I started with my current company, we had 15 maintenance people covering the region. Now there are only three of them left.
You see the same with programmers. With each new framework, with each new testing suite, code profiler etc.pp., the number of people necessary to develop and maintain a given project is reduced. While programmers will be needed in the foreseeable future, their number might be much less than today.
Same here. We would rather call the animal a "kiwibird" than the berry a "kiwifruit". Of course, some people refer to them as "chinese strawberries".
Everybody wants a car.
I don't have one, and I don't plan to buy one. And I know many people who don't own a car though they had the money to buy one. So this is not a given.
People don't necessarily want a car. They want to get from A to B. A car is a means to an end, not a value per se.
A new Ice age, naturally occuring, was predicted to start about the years 3000 to 5000, far away from the 2040 you claim.
If we had continued with putting that much dust and particles into the atmosphere as we did in the 1920ies to 1960ies, the layer of particles would have shielded a part of the sun light, cooling the Earth. Luckily we started putting filters in exhausts and chimneys, moved away from heating appartements with coal and wood, and thus seriously decreased the numbers of pneumonia, lung cancer and other diseases of the respiratory apparatus. As a side effect, we limited the probability of a global cooling.
It peaked, for the YEAR, at 10% (the rest of the year it is less) - that isn't "seriously cutting into market share", that's "peaking at a noticeable level before sinking back into irrelevence."
That's hell of an asumption. As the rest of the year is still another 6 and a half month, and we haven't even seen the numbers for April and May yet, I would put your claim into the "wishful thinking" category.