In the days before cold storage for sperm was available, it was quite often the closest intern to hand, as well.
There's a great article on the guy who made sperm banks what they are today - it's rather interesting, in fact. For one, they guy was a eugenicist! http://www.reason.com/0510/cr.kh.the.shtml
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. So, what about memory? The human brain encodes and stores all information retrieved by the senses. If I read a book and successfully memorize it, I have succeeded in making a complete copy of the book.
This is one of those areas where people suddenly go all funny: if a human memorizes a book, there's no restriction on the memory copy - even if he rented the book from the library. If he then writes down the book from memory (even if it's not exact!), THAT is a copy. If he recites the book to himself or some friends, that is not a copy. If he recites the book for a commercial performance, that is a copy.
But somehow with a computer everything is suddenly special!
The problem isn't that the copyright framework doesn't apply to computers, it's that we aren't using the right analogues yet. That'll come in time as more judges "get it." They really are smart fellas - the legal system just doesn't move very quickly.
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
I think, at this point, that we really need to ask "what is a copy?"
Is the book on your hard drive and the book loaded into RAM two copies?
I think that the best way to describe what Google is doing is that they are having the computer read the book. The "copy" is an artifact of the way computers work - much as the way a student reading aloud a section of a book to themselves is not the same as a spoken performance of the work but bears a mechanical resemblance.
I'd say that in order for something to be a copy, it has to be in a state where it is then available to be given to someone else - as the indexing process does not give out the book afterward, it is not a copy.
I believe that the Congressmen confuse the issue of indexing a book with creating a private database to sell to others - which quite clearly does fall within copyright law.
It is important not to confuse the issue just because a machine is involved. If you were to hire a person to read all the books in the public library and then answer questions about which books are related to what and recall a book from a quote would that be considered copying?
The point is, as long as Google maintains a closed box - that is a system that behaves in a "reading" manner and not a "copying" manner - they should be fine.
First, let me just say that I *like* the name policy on RP servers. It helps with the RP, yes, and it also helps get rid of l4m3rz. Seriously. I've found that most kiddies, when denied their 1337 names, decide to go elsewhere. As such, when the level gets high I will do some gardening by reporting names.
And I have, myself, been reported.
I had a gnome warlock named "CruelCoconut" early on (first week of WoW), and after a few months she got reported and had her name changed to a random one.
I looked through the TOS, through the explanations of the naming policy, talked to other people about "is this RP?" - I couldn't find anyone who would say that "CruelCoconut" was not a good RP name for a gnome warlock (well, there were a few who said it sucked, but that's besides the point;-) ).
So, I emailed Blizzard at the contact email they provided with my argument, and a request to find out how my name violated the policy.
I don't think they even read anything beyond figuring out who I was and what I was complaining about. They emailed back a form reply that boiled down to "no" - they didn't even tell me HOW it violated the policy.
This, after saying that that email address was for appeals!
I would've felt a lot better about it if they had just told me how I violated the terms. As it is, I think it's left up to the determination of individual GMs, and I think they vary widely in their thoughts on the matter.
For instance, "FreshPrince" is around after being reported. I had a few other instances, but can't think of them now. I'm sure others can.
The point is that what's really galling is how hidden away the decisions are, and how indeterminant reporting is.
"A man is free who has to obey no man by the law."
At the very least, Blizzard should state what aspect of the naming policy is violated. Internally, they need to distribute a calibration test: a list of (say) 20 names. 5 firm violations, 5 firm non-violations, and 10 borderlines. Make sure everyone's on the same page.
But, of course, it's their game and their rules - they can do what they want.
I did, however, search for "cap" and "case", but I didn't find any reference to things having to be in all uppercase/allcaps.
in case of a writing must be conspicuous
That's from section two. They make it allcaps so they can say it's conspicuous. A usual case of being overlawyered. It's the size of the print that matters, not the fact that it's titlecase.
However, since that's become the norm, you could say that large blocks of titlecase text is conspicuously legalese.
Incidentally, that section also mentions why they always make mention of merchantability in such contracts.
They like the foods that humans like. E.g. macraronic and cheese, banannas and Pasta. They hate the foods that we hate: raw vegetables. Fried chicken and pizza they really like! They are very human in their tastes.
Mine like pasta and grains, also big on chicken and pizza. They get really excited whenever I bring back a bucket o' chicken because they know that means they get chicken bones and scrap meat.
However, let me also say that one of their favorite foods is lettuce - and they kinda like raw carrots okay - so I'm not too sure about the raw vegetables bit. Haven't tried out much in that area.
They do learn extremely quickly that whatever you're eating is probably something they'll find tasty. And, yes, they're shameless beggars.
That's pretty much the most common question. The answer is: do dogs bite?
If the rat is well-socialized (handled by humans since young) and not kept by himself[1], then pretty much no. If the rat gets a pineal tumor or the like, it is possible that they can develop aggression - then again, if the rat has a pineal tumor, he's not long for this world.
None of my rats have ever bitten me. I stepped on Snow's tail once, and she screeched bloody murder, but she never bit me. I've fed them meat with my fingers (not a great idea with any animal, since your fingers then smell like meat) and they would start to chomp on my finger then stop when they realized it was me - a spooky feeling, but I never felt like they were going to bite.
I'm really not sure what I'd have to do to get one of them to bite, but that's pretty much all I can say: it's never happened to me.
The one almost-exception I'll make is for feet: for some reason, human feet drive rats wild. They'll rarely bite, but they will mouth them or groom them (slight nibbling). If you make a noise (like a squeak) they'll learn that they're hurting you and will stop.
I suppose that the health and disease issues can be solved by purchasing a pet from a reliable breeder. How about the temperament, though?
Well-raised rats are disgustingly healthy. They almost never need to go to the vet, there's no shots, nothing. They bathe themselves like cats (and they bathe all the time, it's a big deal). The one thing you have to keep in mind is to change their bedding on a regular basis. How often "regular" is depends on how many you have. I have 3 males (male rat urine is MUCH stronger than female) and have to change the bedding material about once every 4-5 days and their nesting material (what goes in their nest, like paper towels) about once every 2-3 days. You'll know when you need to.
Lastly, as to temperament: rats have worked out very well for some of the pet therapy groups that operate at children's hospitals. Children who are confined to the hospital get to play with an animal for a while - it's very nice. Rats do well for kids who are confined to their bed, as the rat can play on their bed with them and not disturb any tubes and the like. Some of them are very "kissy" (they lick people), which is a big hit with the kids.
You mention a drama queen rat. Are males more suitable for pets?
Well, the drama queen in this case is actually a male. "Drama king" just doesn't sound quite right. He doesn't do anything, he just lets you know that he is Not Amused when you pick him up from something he wanted to do. Within about 3 seconds he changes his mind and decides that what he REALLY wants to do is play with you. So there you go.
Both males and females work out great - but if you put them together they will breed like you can barely comprehend. Think litters of 10-16 every 5 months. Yeah.
However, if you fix the females or the males, they can go together great. Male rats will not fight over females, and the females like the attention.
Females are smaller and more busy than the males. Males tend to be a bit more affectionate, though the variation between rats is bigger than the variation between sexes. The females are prone to tumors, unfortunately, but if you get them fixed that subsides. The males are smellier than the females, but it's not bad.
Oh, and the males wrestle all the time. It's a lot of fun to watch. It's how they establish the pecking order - and they just like to do it. Usually at least once a night I'll have Max and Abernathy pushing each other across the floor. They also usually push each other around to decide who gets to sleep on me when I watch a movie.
[1] - rats are very intelligent and social. They do MUCH better in at least pairs. Most of the incidents I know of "moody" rats were those kept alone. They do okay-ish by themselves, but it's not as good.
Let me just say that this is not surprising (it is, however, neat). They're mischief, they're wily, and they're single-minded.
Most people, when they think at all of it, would place the rat near the mouse, the gerbil, and the hamster in intelligence. Play with a (socialized) rat for about 5 minutes and you'll see that that isn't the case at all: they're curious about their surroundings, they mess with things to see what they are (new things in my apartment are thoroughly inspected by the rats...whether I'd rather they did or not), and they have a concept of hiding as a means to an end[1].
Also, for such a small creature, they are very hardy and cope well with infirmity. I had a rat who took a nasty fall and sprained a forepaw to where she couldn't use it for about two weeks. Since their food was on one level, water on another, and nest on yet another - with the only way between levels to climb the walls of the cage or jump - I was going to move everything to the ground area when I saw her get up to the top level of the cage (cage is about 4' high) by jumping, grabbing the bars, scrambling 3-legged up the side, jump at the level and grab the ledge with her right side paws, and swing her body onto the ledge...to grab a piece of dried macaroni and casually jump to the bottom. No issue.
This is the norm for rats: they can lose a paw, lose inner ear functioning (ear infections can do that to them), be in a fair amount of pain, and they'll keep going. In fact, rat owners are cautioned that you need to check your rat for cuts and such because they won't make noise to let you know - the noise would betray them to predators[2].
They have an excellent sense of smell and are good at foraging. Also, unlike many other hoarding animals, rats tend to remember where their stashes are. I gave the rats a ritz cracker apiece one night. About an hour later when I thought they'd eaten them, I let them out to play. Two weeks later I'm watching TV when the rats haul their ritz crackers out of some unknown nook in the apartment and leave crumbs on my couch.
Also, they don't gorge: they have a concept of "saving for later" - you can keep a full bowl of food for them no problem. The only question of whether or not they'll get fat is whether they like their wheel.
That's probably enough rat propaganda except to say that domestic fancy rats are incredibly cute and love people.
a picture to give you an idea of the cute factor.
[1] - many animals that hide do so whenever threatened or fearful. They stop what they were doing, and they hide. When the threat is perceived to be over, they stop hiding. Rats join coyotes and a few other animals in that they understand "cover" - getting close enough to check something out without being observed.
[2] - that is, unless you have a little drama queen who squeaks and fusses whenever you do anything that wasn't her idea. I'd imagine that's a domestic trait.
In the article they mention that the machine can illuminate the target and can work on a mobile platform or can be mounted.
It would seem to me that this would be excellent to have either moving with troops and/or mounted around the barracks in an urban area. If someone takes a shot at you, the sniper is lit with a spotlight which a) prevents them from seeing very well, and b) lets everyone and their dog know where the shot came from. This would be quite useful.
Yes, there are problems, but I'd be interested to see how it worked out.
The holy grail, of course, would be a system which puts a bullet in the head of anyone who takes a shot at you, but that's just not going to happen - way too many unsolvable problems.
Even a system that put a tranq dart or something like that would be very hard to do properly - it's not the tranq dart that's the hard part so much as the problem that your troops might not be able to fire at something, or that a handyman would hammer in something at just the wrong pitch[1].
[1] - on the other hand, they DO get paid by the hour. 10 minutes a nail might be pretty good cash.;-)
You American guys get seriously screwed over then.
Oklahoma is not exactly a tech center for anything but cow-tech. Most are so grateful for an actual internship, they'll sacrifice quite a bit of pay to get it.
On the other hand, some of the positions pay well.
Retention of CS majors in Oklahoma is very, very low. Can't say I blame them.
As to my understanding, it is not possible to "release things" into the public domain. If an author publishes a statement that a given work is being made "public" or something to that effect, and you use that work, or distribute it, or copy it, or whatever, you might still be infringing. If the origional author decides to take you to court over it, we don't know what the outcome of the case would be. I don't think that there is a legal way to say "this work can be used/copied/distributed by anyone, anywhere". This, I believe, is why the "Creative Commons" was formed. I don't know how defensable this agreement is, and IANAL, but I think this is the best we have so far.
In the EU this is limitedly true - it is impossible to release or trade away your creator or "moral" rights to a work.
In the United States you can place something into the public domain by disclaiming all your rights to it by saying: "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide."
When you do this, you no longer have any exclusive rights to the work. One of the differences between public domain and the BSD license (without attribution) is that the public domain holder cannot place any contractual obligation on someone for a work (a license), and cannot claim copyright on it in the future.
Some prefer the BSD license (without attribution) because it allows them to explicitly
disclaim responsibility for the use of the work in contract. This is another topic entirely.
Also keep in mind that Creative Commons does not establish new mechanisms or create new rights. Creative Commons was created to make templates for licenses under current copyright law - to provide licenses retaining some rights. This is the reason for the "some rights reserved" motto.
Perhaps increased demand should lead to higher prices...but then, if we're pricing music based on supply and demand, then the nearly infinite "supply" of digital music should make it damn near free.
This would be true if everyone wanted the same one song over and over and over again.
There IS a supply cost for new songs, particularly with good production values. More accurately, there is a demand for songs that you do not currently have.
For the single song, it would make sense to charge what the market will support. At point of highest demand this would be higher.
If you want to talk about supply influence on a single product, you have to consider that this is not an issue like "how many bananas can I buy for $100" - it's more of "who would be willing to sell me this exact widgit?". There are a limited number of suppliers, the concept of further production doesn't matter.
If you'd really like to upgrade your programming style, why try a real book?
I see so much stuff about writing better OO code, better Java, better PHP...hardly much at all about changing the way you think about programming. I know it's written about Lisp, but it's a book about high-end coding - about what being a master at code is all about.
I think the fundamental problem here is not one of incompetence but one of interest.
When you have ways to get unlimited access into the phone network, some very unscrupulous people with lots of money begin to think that maybe they should have access to it as well.
In Columbia, they ran a "drug tip hotline" that was supposed to be anonymous. They got a few leads, then it dropped off. Why? Because the drug cartel had someone in the phone company feeding them the numbers of everyone who called in - whom they then killed.
They switched it up and told people to call from a pay phone. Cartel solution? They tapped the line and started identifying people by voice.
The program was eventually shut down.
There's not much you can do about some of these things - but having back doors like this hurts more than it helps, and with enough resources you can get the keys.
Another problem is that law enforcement likes as few barriers as possible to do their work (no surprise there, I'd hate to have red tape to cut through just to start up vi), so they tend to avoid solutions with things like...logging.
I'm told that the older CALEA systems do not track their uses, and there were some very odd occurrences in NJ several years ago regarding a mafia case that suggested that someone had a way into the system - specifically confidential informants who discussed some things over the phone were then killed.
Of course, no way to tell - there's no logs.
My point is that when you set something like this up, you are point-balancing a sword with many edges.
Peer group can certainly influence behavior - but I'd remember that there's a certain age when kids start WANTING some things to happen.
Cliques, exclusion, teasing, fights, being nasty to one another - these things don't just fall out of the sky. Even if you put kids in tightly controlled environments, they still occur.
As for a child's behavior devolving online, hile some of it is emulation of those they think are cool, a lot of it is "you know, that's how I've felt for a while, I just didn't know how to express it."
Something I've found in many aspects of life is that the people who are really good at something tend to be able to explain it, clearly and accurately, to someone less experienced
I've found that in arts the difference lies between being able to explain something to someone and being able to teach someone the thinking behind arriving to such a conclusion - how to explore the problem.
I can explain the technique I use in my writing (both code and fiction), the reason for my doing things (well...in most cases), etc. What I cannot do is teach someone how to do the same thing.
Then again, the Japanese style of learning seems to be more suited to this: you mimic, mimic, mimic, then try your own variations. This is how most of us learn how to speak, dance, and make love[1]. What surprise, then, that an art would be best taught in that way[2]?
[1] - Well, sex has less to do with mimicry and more to do with experimentation, but it's one of those things you have to learn by doing.
[2] - This is as opposed to learning from a book, learning just theory. It's important to learn theory as well, but only when you can appreciate it.
I would hazard to guess that "athiests" are generally more intelligent than religious people, because at least they've thought about the plausibility of their beliefs and came to conclusions.
Oh, I've spent quite a bit of time amongst the sides, and I can easily say that there is intellectual laziness aplenty. There are a few C. S. Lewises out there, and many more who merely ponder, but for the most part religious belief is a cultural matter, like being a Republican or a Democrat.
Consider the number of people who, at 35, differ in belief or in political affiliation from their parents - not many.
Atheists are often so because they are rejecting the culture of Christianity (for which you can hardly blame them, having seen some shining examples), or because they consider the religion to be implausible, as you say.
Christians, on the other hand, are often so because they feel more comfortable in the culture of Christianity (having little to do with beliefs, honestly), or because they have "felt the call of the supernatural" - which I believe requires about as much thought as the plausibility test.
Personally, I believe it is equally possible for a man or woman of reason to believe or to reject. I just wish there were more men and women of reason.
6) Perl: Many Perl programmers write maintainable but unreadible code.
7) LISP: See Perl only even more so.
Hmm...having read quite a bit of code in modern common lisp packages, I'm going to have to disagree. For the most part, the code was quite readable and understandable. Some of it took a while to get the hang of (Aranaeda, for instance), but this was because what it was doing was large.
That's the average. On the other side of it I've seen code of blinding clarity that expressed its intentions so straightforwardly that it was amazing. This was done using a system of macros to create the way to describe these things.
On the lower end I've seen some lisp code that would make you puke, yes, but it's been by far the exception.
I find that the ability to express things in an ideal way in common lisp and the fact that programming by that method is the easiest one (if you're experienced in it) leads to very clear code.
Scheme, on the other hand, has been a bit more nasty to me. I have found scheme programs to be a lot larger and quite a bit more complex than their equivalents in common lisp. I think it's mostly because scheme is like talking using small words: it doesn't affect the brilliance of the ideas, it just takes more words to say them - though no one will require a dictionary to understand it, whereas they might with common lisp.
Britain is much, much further down the road of fighting internal terrorists than we are. This means they've been playing the "if we only had this power, you would be safe" game for longer.
The powers they have now are far greater than those in the PATRIOT act, and they cannot provide the level of safety that we are willing to trade our freedom for.
So the next time the US gov't says "if we only had this power, you would be safe" game, remember that Brittan can't do it with that power and a lot more.
The amazing part was how the tofight managed to rack up such amazing credit card bills. If they'd just kept their pet on a cash basis, they'd be okay by now.
How sad that a group of students could be led into bankruptcy court - before the age of majority! - by a pet they picked up in Mexico.
Remember kids: it may follow you home, but you don't have to keep it.
Slashdot Mirror
In the days before cold storage for sperm was available, it was quite often the closest intern to hand, as well.
There's a great article on the guy who made sperm banks what they are today - it's rather interesting, in fact. For one, they guy was a eugenicist! http://www.reason.com/0510/cr.kh.the.shtml
Exactly. So, what about memory? The human brain encodes and stores all information retrieved by the senses. If I read a book and successfully memorize it, I have succeeded in making a complete copy of the book.
This is one of those areas where people suddenly go all funny: if a human memorizes a book, there's no restriction on the memory copy - even if he rented the book from the library. If he then writes down the book from memory (even if it's not exact!), THAT is a copy. If he recites the book to himself or some friends, that is not a copy. If he recites the book for a commercial performance, that is a copy.
But somehow with a computer everything is suddenly special!
The problem isn't that the copyright framework doesn't apply to computers, it's that we aren't using the right analogues yet. That'll come in time as more judges "get it." They really are smart fellas - the legal system just doesn't move very quickly.
I think, at this point, that we really need to ask "what is a copy?"
Is the book on your hard drive and the book loaded into RAM two copies?
I think that the best way to describe what Google is doing is that they are having the computer read the book. The "copy" is an artifact of the way computers work - much as the way a student reading aloud a section of a book to themselves is not the same as a spoken performance of the work but bears a mechanical resemblance.
I'd say that in order for something to be a copy, it has to be in a state where it is then available to be given to someone else - as the indexing process does not give out the book afterward, it is not a copy.
I believe that the Congressmen confuse the issue of indexing a book with creating a private database to sell to others - which quite clearly does fall within copyright law.
It is important not to confuse the issue just because a machine is involved. If you were to hire a person to read all the books in the public library and then answer questions about which books are related to what and recall a book from a quote would that be considered copying?
The point is, as long as Google maintains a closed box - that is a system that behaves in a "reading" manner and not a "copying" manner - they should be fine.
Well, they didn't seem to mind very much when /. criticized them for sending marketing to answer the Q&A.
Didn't seem to phase them in the least, in fact.
First, let me just say that I *like* the name policy on RP servers. It helps with the RP, yes, and it also helps get rid of l4m3rz. Seriously. I've found that most kiddies, when denied their 1337 names, decide to go elsewhere. As such, when the level gets high I will do some gardening by reporting names.
And I have, myself, been reported.
I had a gnome warlock named "CruelCoconut" early on (first week of WoW), and after a few months she got reported and had her name changed to a random one.
I looked through the TOS, through the explanations of the naming policy, talked to other people about "is this RP?" - I couldn't find anyone who would say that "CruelCoconut" was not a good RP name for a gnome warlock (well, there were a few who said it sucked, but that's besides the point ;-) ).
So, I emailed Blizzard at the contact email they provided with my argument, and a request to find out how my name violated the policy.
I don't think they even read anything beyond figuring out who I was and what I was complaining about. They emailed back a form reply that boiled down to "no" - they didn't even tell me HOW it violated the policy.
This, after saying that that email address was for appeals!
I would've felt a lot better about it if they had just told me how I violated the terms. As it is, I think it's left up to the determination of individual GMs, and I think they vary widely in their thoughts on the matter.
For instance, "FreshPrince" is around after being reported. I had a few other instances, but can't think of them now. I'm sure others can.
The point is that what's really galling is how hidden away the decisions are, and how indeterminant reporting is.
"A man is free who has to obey no man by the law."
At the very least, Blizzard should state what aspect of the naming policy is violated. Internally, they need to distribute a calibration test: a list of (say) 20 names. 5 firm violations, 5 firm non-violations, and 10 borderlines. Make sure everyone's on the same page.
But, of course, it's their game and their rules - they can do what they want.
If Oracle was thinking smart, they'd make sure InnoDB is free, or at least really cheap.
MySQL is about the best argument out there for Oracle.
I did, however, search for "cap" and "case", but I didn't find any reference to things having to be in all uppercase/allcaps.
That's from section two. They make it allcaps so they can say it's conspicuous. A usual case of being overlawyered. It's the size of the print that matters, not the fact that it's titlecase.
However, since that's become the norm, you could say that large blocks of titlecase text is conspicuously legalese.
Incidentally, that section also mentions why they always make mention of merchantability in such contracts.
They like the foods that humans like. E.g. macraronic and cheese, banannas and Pasta. They hate the foods that we hate: raw vegetables. Fried chicken and pizza they really like! They are very human in their tastes.
Mine like pasta and grains, also big on chicken and pizza. They get really excited whenever I bring back a bucket o' chicken because they know that means they get chicken bones and scrap meat.
However, let me also say that one of their favorite foods is lettuce - and they kinda like raw carrots okay - so I'm not too sure about the raw vegetables bit. Haven't tried out much in that area.
They do learn extremely quickly that whatever you're eating is probably something they'll find tasty. And, yes, they're shameless beggars.
Do they bite?
That's pretty much the most common question. The answer is: do dogs bite?
If the rat is well-socialized (handled by humans since young) and not kept by himself[1], then pretty much no. If the rat gets a pineal tumor or the like, it is possible that they can develop aggression - then again, if the rat has a pineal tumor, he's not long for this world.
None of my rats have ever bitten me. I stepped on Snow's tail once, and she screeched bloody murder, but she never bit me. I've fed them meat with my fingers (not a great idea with any animal, since your fingers then smell like meat) and they would start to chomp on my finger then stop when they realized it was me - a spooky feeling, but I never felt like they were going to bite.
I'm really not sure what I'd have to do to get one of them to bite, but that's pretty much all I can say: it's never happened to me.
The one almost-exception I'll make is for feet: for some reason, human feet drive rats wild. They'll rarely bite, but they will mouth them or groom them (slight nibbling). If you make a noise (like a squeak) they'll learn that they're hurting you and will stop.
I suppose that the health and disease issues can be solved by purchasing a pet from a reliable breeder. How about the temperament, though?
Well-raised rats are disgustingly healthy. They almost never need to go to the vet, there's no shots, nothing. They bathe themselves like cats (and they bathe all the time, it's a big deal). The one thing you have to keep in mind is to change their bedding on a regular basis. How often "regular" is depends on how many you have. I have 3 males (male rat urine is MUCH stronger than female) and have to change the bedding material about once every 4-5 days and their nesting material (what goes in their nest, like paper towels) about once every 2-3 days. You'll know when you need to.
Lastly, as to temperament: rats have worked out very well for some of the pet therapy groups that operate at children's hospitals. Children who are confined to the hospital get to play with an animal for a while - it's very nice. Rats do well for kids who are confined to their bed, as the rat can play on their bed with them and not disturb any tubes and the like. Some of them are very "kissy" (they lick people), which is a big hit with the kids.
You mention a drama queen rat. Are males more suitable for pets?
Well, the drama queen in this case is actually a male. "Drama king" just doesn't sound quite right. He doesn't do anything, he just lets you know that he is Not Amused when you pick him up from something he wanted to do. Within about 3 seconds he changes his mind and decides that what he REALLY wants to do is play with you. So there you go.
Both males and females work out great - but if you put them together they will breed like you can barely comprehend. Think litters of 10-16 every 5 months. Yeah.
However, if you fix the females or the males, they can go together great. Male rats will not fight over females, and the females like the attention.
Females are smaller and more busy than the males. Males tend to be a bit more affectionate, though the variation between rats is bigger than the variation between sexes. The females are prone to tumors, unfortunately, but if you get them fixed that subsides. The males are smellier than the females, but it's not bad.
Oh, and the males wrestle all the time. It's a lot of fun to watch. It's how they establish the pecking order - and they just like to do it. Usually at least once a night I'll have Max and Abernathy pushing each other across the floor. They also usually push each other around to decide who gets to sleep on me when I watch a movie.
[1] - rats are very intelligent and social. They do MUCH better in at least pairs. Most of the incidents I know of "moody" rats were those kept alone. They do okay-ish by themselves, but it's not as good.
Let me just say that this is not surprising (it is, however, neat). They're mischief, they're wily, and they're single-minded.
Most people, when they think at all of it, would place the rat near the mouse, the gerbil, and the hamster in intelligence. Play with a (socialized) rat for about 5 minutes and you'll see that that isn't the case at all: they're curious about their surroundings, they mess with things to see what they are (new things in my apartment are thoroughly inspected by the rats...whether I'd rather they did or not), and they have a concept of hiding as a means to an end[1].
Also, for such a small creature, they are very hardy and cope well with infirmity. I had a rat who took a nasty fall and sprained a forepaw to where she couldn't use it for about two weeks. Since their food was on one level, water on another, and nest on yet another - with the only way between levels to climb the walls of the cage or jump - I was going to move everything to the ground area when I saw her get up to the top level of the cage (cage is about 4' high) by jumping, grabbing the bars, scrambling 3-legged up the side, jump at the level and grab the ledge with her right side paws, and swing her body onto the ledge...to grab a piece of dried macaroni and casually jump to the bottom. No issue.
This is the norm for rats: they can lose a paw, lose inner ear functioning (ear infections can do that to them), be in a fair amount of pain, and they'll keep going. In fact, rat owners are cautioned that you need to check your rat for cuts and such because they won't make noise to let you know - the noise would betray them to predators[2].
They have an excellent sense of smell and are good at foraging. Also, unlike many other hoarding animals, rats tend to remember where their stashes are. I gave the rats a ritz cracker apiece one night. About an hour later when I thought they'd eaten them, I let them out to play. Two weeks later I'm watching TV when the rats haul their ritz crackers out of some unknown nook in the apartment and leave crumbs on my couch. Also, they don't gorge: they have a concept of "saving for later" - you can keep a full bowl of food for them no problem. The only question of whether or not they'll get fat is whether they like their wheel.
That's probably enough rat propaganda except to say that domestic fancy rats are incredibly cute and love people. a picture to give you an idea of the cute factor.
[1] - many animals that hide do so whenever threatened or fearful. They stop what they were doing, and they hide. When the threat is perceived to be over, they stop hiding. Rats join coyotes and a few other animals in that they understand "cover" - getting close enough to check something out without being observed.
[2] - that is, unless you have a little drama queen who squeaks and fusses whenever you do anything that wasn't her idea. I'd imagine that's a domestic trait.
In the article they mention that the machine can illuminate the target and can work on a mobile platform or can be mounted.
It would seem to me that this would be excellent to have either moving with troops and/or mounted around the barracks in an urban area. If someone takes a shot at you, the sniper is lit with a spotlight which a) prevents them from seeing very well, and b) lets everyone and their dog know where the shot came from. This would be quite useful.
Yes, there are problems, but I'd be interested to see how it worked out.
The holy grail, of course, would be a system which puts a bullet in the head of anyone who takes a shot at you, but that's just not going to happen - way too many unsolvable problems.
Even a system that put a tranq dart or something like that would be very hard to do properly - it's not the tranq dart that's the hard part so much as the problem that your troops might not be able to fire at something, or that a handyman would hammer in something at just the wrong pitch[1].
[1] - on the other hand, they DO get paid by the hour. 10 minutes a nail might be pretty good cash. ;-)
You American guys get seriously screwed over then.
Oklahoma is not exactly a tech center for anything but cow-tech. Most are so grateful for an actual internship, they'll sacrifice quite a bit of pay to get it.
On the other hand, some of the positions pay well.
Retention of CS majors in Oklahoma is very, very low. Can't say I blame them.
Depends on where you live. Here in Oklahoma, $9.37/hr is pretty damn nice for a summer student internship.
NYC it's not so hot.
Also, given the nature of the project, it was possible to hold down a part-time job while working on it. So you're not comparing apples to apples.
That "12 weeks * 40 hrs/week = 480 hours" would be with an office space they'd expect you to be in for those 40 hours.
But I'm too busy playing Capture the Flag in Warsong Gulch.
Death to the Horde!
[*] But a salute to the talented Horde on Cenaurion Circle from Art of Battle.
As to my understanding, it is not possible to "release things" into the public domain. If an author publishes a statement that a given work is being made "public" or something to that effect, and you use that work, or distribute it, or copy it, or whatever, you might still be infringing. If the origional author decides to take you to court over it, we don't know what the outcome of the case would be. I don't think that there is a legal way to say "this work can be used/copied/distributed by anyone, anywhere". This, I believe, is why the "Creative Commons" was formed. I don't know how defensable this agreement is, and IANAL, but I think this is the best we have so far.
In the EU this is limitedly true - it is impossible to release or trade away your creator or "moral" rights to a work.
In the United States you can place something into the public domain by disclaiming all your rights to it by saying: "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide."
When you do this, you no longer have any exclusive rights to the work. One of the differences between public domain and the BSD license (without attribution) is that the public domain holder cannot place any contractual obligation on someone for a work (a license), and cannot claim copyright on it in the future.
Some prefer the BSD license (without attribution) because it allows them to explicitly disclaim responsibility for the use of the work in contract. This is another topic entirely.
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Donate_t o_the_public_domain /a> for more details on the public domain and releasing articles into it.
Also keep in mind that Creative Commons does not establish new mechanisms or create new rights. Creative Commons was created to make templates for licenses under current copyright law - to provide licenses retaining some rights. This is the reason for the "some rights reserved" motto.
Perhaps increased demand should lead to higher prices...but then, if we're pricing music based on supply and demand, then the nearly infinite "supply" of digital music should make it damn near free.
This would be true if everyone wanted the same one song over and over and over again.
There IS a supply cost for new songs, particularly with good production values. More accurately, there is a demand for songs that you do not currently have.
For the single song, it would make sense to charge what the market will support. At point of highest demand this would be higher.
If you want to talk about supply influence on a single product, you have to consider that this is not an issue like "how many bananas can I buy for $100" - it's more of "who would be willing to sell me this exact widgit?". There are a limited number of suppliers, the concept of further production doesn't matter.
If you'd really like to upgrade your programming style, why try a real book?
I see so much stuff about writing better OO code, better Java, better PHP...hardly much at all about changing the way you think about programming. I know it's written about Lisp, but it's a book about high-end coding - about what being a master at code is all about.
Free download here.
I think the fundamental problem here is not one of incompetence but one of interest.
When you have ways to get unlimited access into the phone network, some very unscrupulous people with lots of money begin to think that maybe they should have access to it as well.
In Columbia, they ran a "drug tip hotline" that was supposed to be anonymous. They got a few leads, then it dropped off. Why? Because the drug cartel had someone in the phone company feeding them the numbers of everyone who called in - whom they then killed.
They switched it up and told people to call from a pay phone. Cartel solution? They tapped the line and started identifying people by voice.
The program was eventually shut down.
There's not much you can do about some of these things - but having back doors like this hurts more than it helps, and with enough resources you can get the keys.
Another problem is that law enforcement likes as few barriers as possible to do their work (no surprise there, I'd hate to have red tape to cut through just to start up vi), so they tend to avoid solutions with things like...logging.
I'm told that the older CALEA systems do not track their uses, and there were some very odd occurrences in NJ several years ago regarding a mafia case that suggested that someone had a way into the system - specifically confidential informants who discussed some things over the phone were then killed.
Of course, no way to tell - there's no logs.
My point is that when you set something like this up, you are point-balancing a sword with many edges.
Peer group can certainly influence behavior - but I'd remember that there's a certain age when kids start WANTING some things to happen.
Cliques, exclusion, teasing, fights, being nasty to one another - these things don't just fall out of the sky. Even if you put kids in tightly controlled environments, they still occur.
As for a child's behavior devolving online, hile some of it is emulation of those they think are cool, a lot of it is "you know, that's how I've felt for a while, I just didn't know how to express it."
Something I've found in many aspects of life is that the people who are really good at something tend to be able to explain it, clearly and accurately, to someone less experienced
I've found that in arts the difference lies between being able to explain something to someone and being able to teach someone the thinking behind arriving to such a conclusion - how to explore the problem.
I can explain the technique I use in my writing (both code and fiction), the reason for my doing things (well...in most cases), etc. What I cannot do is teach someone how to do the same thing.
Then again, the Japanese style of learning seems to be more suited to this: you mimic, mimic, mimic, then try your own variations. This is how most of us learn how to speak, dance, and make love[1]. What surprise, then, that an art would be best taught in that way[2]?
[1] - Well, sex has less to do with mimicry and more to do with experimentation, but it's one of those things you have to learn by doing.
[2] - This is as opposed to learning from a book, learning just theory. It's important to learn theory as well, but only when you can appreciate it.
I would hazard to guess that "athiests" are generally more intelligent than religious people, because at least they've thought about the plausibility of their beliefs and came to conclusions.
Oh, I've spent quite a bit of time amongst the sides, and I can easily say that there is intellectual laziness aplenty. There are a few C. S. Lewises out there, and many more who merely ponder, but for the most part religious belief is a cultural matter, like being a Republican or a Democrat.
Consider the number of people who, at 35, differ in belief or in political affiliation from their parents - not many.
Atheists are often so because they are rejecting the culture of Christianity (for which you can hardly blame them, having seen some shining examples), or because they consider the religion to be implausible, as you say.
Christians, on the other hand, are often so because they feel more comfortable in the culture of Christianity (having little to do with beliefs, honestly), or because they have "felt the call of the supernatural" - which I believe requires about as much thought as the plausibility test.
Personally, I believe it is equally possible for a man or woman of reason to believe or to reject. I just wish there were more men and women of reason.
Hmm...having read quite a bit of code in modern common lisp packages, I'm going to have to disagree. For the most part, the code was quite readable and understandable. Some of it took a while to get the hang of (Aranaeda, for instance), but this was because what it was doing was large.
That's the average. On the other side of it I've seen code of blinding clarity that expressed its intentions so straightforwardly that it was amazing. This was done using a system of macros to create the way to describe these things.
On the lower end I've seen some lisp code that would make you puke, yes, but it's been by far the exception.
I find that the ability to express things in an ideal way in common lisp and the fact that programming by that method is the easiest one (if you're experienced in it) leads to very clear code.
Scheme, on the other hand, has been a bit more nasty to me. I have found scheme programs to be a lot larger and quite a bit more complex than their equivalents in common lisp. I think it's mostly because scheme is like talking using small words: it doesn't affect the brilliance of the ideas, it just takes more words to say them - though no one will require a dictionary to understand it, whereas they might with common lisp.
Oh, and apologies for the misspelling. I saw it in the preview right as I hit submit.
Britain is much, much further down the road of fighting internal terrorists than we are. This means they've been playing the "if we only had this power, you would be safe" game for longer.
The powers they have now are far greater than those in the PATRIOT act, and they cannot provide the level of safety that we are willing to trade our freedom for.
So the next time the US gov't says "if we only had this power, you would be safe" game, remember that Brittan can't do it with that power and a lot more.
The amazing part was how the tofight managed to rack up such amazing credit card bills. If they'd just kept their pet on a cash basis, they'd be okay by now.
How sad that a group of students could be led into bankruptcy court - before the age of majority! - by a pet they picked up in Mexico.
Remember kids: it may follow you home, but you don't have to keep it.