Americans are taxed on citizenship, not residency. And, giving up citizenship for tax reasons is not as easy as you might think. However, there is the FEIE: Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, for monies earned outside the U.S. from non-U.S. sources, if you live outside the U.S. for a contiguous year or more. But, you don't have to go to Mars to take advantage of that.
Oh, I'd agree with this. I simply report studies that correlate intelligence with sexual restraint which directly contradicts the article in question. These studies are dubious not because of the correlation they report, but because of what they ascribe it to: namely race.
I know men who had good jobs, paid their share of child support, became unemployed and even when they managed to get reemployed, would up living almost under a bridge: child support is assessed on what you "can" earn, not on what you do, and, unlike the stock market, past performance IS indicative of future obligations.
Contraception is never perfect (even sterilization), having MORE kids can land one in jail (for neglecting the kids one has by taking on additional obligations, thus depriving them), and in the industrialized world, children are a HUGE financial liability and risk. Further, we already have WAY too many people for this planet to support.
Further, there is evidence that early sexual activity is inversely related to intelligence, though the initial study that alleges this is racially prejudiced, and statistically flawed: it placed asians at the top of the hierarchy, followed by whites, followed by blacks and everyone else. IIRC, the standard deviation of the error wiped out any statistical significance. Still, we all remember the "smart asian kid" in school who got straight A's and never any "action"/
In WA, the arresting officer submits their statement to the court if the ticket is challenged. One can request this as part of discovery, and respond to it, as well as call witnesses. It is up to the jurisdictional area (city, typically) to decide whether to appear and/or call witnesses of their own.
In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the officer's written testimony is taken as true (it is filed under penalty of perjury, as are most pleadings).
In fact, many civil cases are decided on the pleadings alone, in the interest of expediency, and a motion for leave to present oral or non-written evidence usually has to be approved by the judge.
Actually, telcos ramp their operator staff up and down in response to expected call volume based on historical time of day and day of week trends.
This was quite important when I worked on an automated 411 services that front-ended operators with computers doing speech recognition. Only if the system could not help the caller would it get routed to a human.
Regulatory requirements placed limits on the distribution of time to queue for an operator but not as stringent ones on returning a busy signal when staff was unavailable.
To avoid the scenario where some media announcement precipitated large numbers of 411 calls (usually for the phone number for information for some upcoming event that was missed in the radio ad), that would then queue for live operators, we adjusted the number of simultaneous calls our equipment would accept to follow the operator staffing levels.
During staffing ramp ups, I learned the hard way that the DMS100 was not too forgiving of a bunch of T1 trunks becoming active all at once: the digital trunk cards would mess up the wink start timing until things settled down. We actually had to bring the automated service lines up slowly so as not to overwhelm the trunk cards.
Indeed. I work for a firewall manufacturer where our product can be configured to do this. The idea is to block "objectionable" content and detect viruses in HTTPS traffic.
So, we intentionally set up a man in the middle, that your IT department has your browser trust. Checking the cert hierarchy will make this clear.
Of course, the better employers will tell you that they are doing this.
I've picked up $200 computers at Frys with mobo, RAM, HD, case, and PS for that little. They were "low end", for the time, of course (single core Athlon, 265 MB RAM, maybe 80 GB drive), but that was four years ago. They came bundled with Lindows at the time, which I immediately replaced with the Linux distro du jure.
The problem appears that no one bundles Lindows, or Linspire, or non-Winbloze anymore, and few want to pick up a system without an O/S. And, those that would probably don't mind building their own to save a few more shekels But, pre-built hardware at that price point is certainly possible. The size of the market probably makes it too small to be worthwhile.
Look, the ideas of OO inheritance and polymorphism just represent what coders of "abstract" interfaces have been doing for years. A handle? Sure! Every "member function" is called with a pointer to the object as an implied argument. Functions specific to the class? Sure! static member functions. Need to separate interface from (one of) several possible implementations? Sure! No need for a hand coded and initialized dispatch table. The "virtual" keyword is your friend. And so on.
Now, that doesn't cover ALL the useful design patterns out there, but they really are common enough to have native language support.
If you've ever compared the kind of macro hackery that goes on to try to have some semblance of type-safety in C with a shared implementation (compare the various "STACK"s of different kinds of objects in openssl 0.9.8 and 1.0.0: lots of casting in the former, and attempts to hide it with macro hackery in the latter), you'd see what a blessing templates are.
And so on.
Have a problem with private, protected, and public members? Got something against information hiding? Really though, sometimes I wish I could friend all derived classes of some base class, though IIRC C++ won't let me. Would virtual protected friend be such a bad adornment to have? How about insisting that constructors of derived classes have the same signature (e.g. something like a virtual constructor)? That would save one from having a separate virtual "Init()" function? Why is it necessary? So I can pass the same arguments safely to the particular instance of an object I get from a factory when I ask the factory for an instance based on some run-time parameter WITHOUT needing to separate "construction" and "virtual initialization" when the distinction is artificial.
The whole point of the increasing subtlety and integration of common design patterns is to grant greater power to the programmer while also ensuring uniformity of implementation of the very most common and useful design patterns (though I can see arguments for overriding the implementation of virtual member dispatch tables to make them dynamic instead of being stuck with static ones in all instances).
Of course, with greater power comes greater responsibility. It's oft-said that while C lets you shoot yourself in the foot, C++ lets you chose among a dozen different ways of doing so.
I think what we really need is a mechanism to allow for the secure specification of language features that can not be used in certain circumstances. Smart pointers, and their benefits, are largely useless if any code-dufus can get their hands on a bald pointer to something and cache it away somewhere: '&' should be restricted as a member operator in some cases, to achieve this.
To put it bluntly: compilers for powerful languages should come with "training wheels" for (a) newbies, and (b) when one intentionally wants to restrict what one can express. In embedded systems, for example, it is usually desirable to preallocate all expected resources (including memory) at one phase of operational initialization, so that one knows one can't run out during later execution. Gimme a way to specify "thow shall not dynamically allocate memory here". Not because I want to shackle some other programmer because I think they are incompetent (though there is that benefit), but rather because I want the compiler to catch me coding something I didn't want to, for design reasons.
There is precedent for this: many early embedded C++ compilers intentionally did not support multiple inheritance, exceptions, or dynamic casting, arguably for performance reasons.
I have often been either asked to use pirate copies of software (Borland Turbo C in the 1980s), or accept license agreements personally, where a corporate license would have been more fitting. Neither of these have occurred at my present place of employment, thankfully.
In other areas, I was once asked by a low-level manager at a client company of our contracting firm for my SSN for a "background check". I was told this person had a reputation of committing identity theft in the name of contractors, obtaining credit in their name, and threatening to insist they be removed from the assignment if they complained. I don't know if that was true, but did insist that any "background check" would be done by a recognized neutral party. I was requested removed from the assignment, and let go for lack of other work.
On the pirate software issue, I simply licensed my own copies, and took them with me when I left (well, wiped them off my work computer). Borland's license would let me use their compiler on any machine, even let someone else use it, one at a time.
The bottom line is that if your employer asks you to break the law, find another job... fast.
I like cynical music (Pink Floyd with the Roger Waters influence), synth pop (Yaz. featuring Alf Moyet at her best IMHO (which she thought was her worst), and some classical (Vivaldi, and, depending on mood, sometimes Wagner).
That said, I can appreciate Glen Miller, Scott Joplin, and others even if that isn't my personal favorite style. Heck, I've even heard some Rap that I liked.
I think that music that can transcend people's personal tastes and still be regarded as "good" has the timeless quality that makes it worthy of timeless recognition.
Not likely. Nothing can escape the inner event horizon, thought he boundary is believed to be "fuzzy", so real/virtual particle creation out of the vacuum near it can have the virtual particle captured and the real one escape, with a loss of mass of the black hole.
I want about 1/2 to 2/3 of the world's population to be eliminated, and this is one good way to do it.
Present human population levels are unsustainable, nevermind growth. Producing more people, particularly when one does not want to is horribly irresponsible, and taken to its logical conclusion, genocidal.
Killing those who can't restrain themselves, and can't afford their "mistakes", is an unbiased means of achieving this.
Does this discriminate against the poor? Only to the extent of punishing them for living beyond their means through irresponsibility: there is no right to "have" what someone else does.
Hitler convinced a nation to eliminate the "Jewish problem". Surely a nation can be convinced that those who breed unsustainably are a threat to national security.
No, but the combination of gravity and magnetism means they can whip up a lot of stuff outside the event horizon and direct it outward along the poles.
Further, stuff that does fall in adds it's angular momentum to that of the hole, and a spinning black hole has both an inner and outer event horizon. Stuff can fall through one and still escape the other, IIRC, removing angular momentum from the hole.
Look. Either kill the brats that people produce and can't afford, or punish the people that produce the brats. But, certainly stop forcing other people to pay for the bastards.
Otherwise, with HIV treatments and possible cures improving, you will have more people blase about unprotected sex and unwanted kids demanding that the rest of us support them. Their kids will grow up to do the same, and their sheer numbers in a democratic society will result in enslavement of the responsible to support the lifestyle of the irresponsible.
Producing children you can't support should be one of the most heinous crimes there is, and punished accordingly.
What's with the Hitler reference, anyway? In my call to punish sexual irresponsibility with death, I do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, or national origin.
If this is somehow unfair, because it has become so expensive to actually raise children, perhaps resources have been spread too thin, and the human species needs some serious culling to return to sustainable numbers for a larger fraction of the population. This achieves that too.
Slashdot Mirror
Americans are taxed on citizenship, not residency. And, giving up citizenship for tax reasons is not as easy as you might think. However, there is the FEIE: Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, for monies earned outside the U.S. from non-U.S. sources, if you live outside the U.S. for a contiguous year or more. But, you don't have to go to Mars to take advantage of that.
Oh, I'd agree with this. I simply report studies that correlate intelligence with sexual restraint which directly contradicts the article in question. These studies are dubious not because of the correlation they report, but because of what they ascribe it to: namely race.
I know men who had good jobs, paid their share of child support, became unemployed and even when they managed to get reemployed, would up living almost under a bridge: child support is assessed on what you "can" earn, not on what you do, and, unlike the stock market, past performance IS indicative of future obligations.
Contraception is never perfect (even sterilization), having MORE kids can land one in jail (for neglecting the kids one has by taking on additional obligations, thus depriving them), and in the industrialized world, children are a HUGE financial liability and risk. Further, we already have WAY too many people for this planet to support.
Further, there is evidence that early sexual activity is inversely related to intelligence, though the initial study that alleges this is racially prejudiced, and statistically flawed: it placed asians at the top of the hierarchy, followed by whites, followed by blacks and everyone else. IIRC, the standard deviation of the error wiped out any statistical significance. Still, we all remember the "smart asian kid" in school who got straight A's and never any "action"/
No, we have to work to pay the damn taxes to feed the freeloaders, to the point where both primary adults in a family have to work.
You clearly don't know how cheap grad students are.
In WA, the arresting officer submits their statement to the court if the ticket is challenged. One can request this as part of discovery, and respond to it, as well as call witnesses. It is up to the jurisdictional area (city, typically) to decide whether to appear and/or call witnesses of their own.
In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the officer's written testimony is taken as true (it is filed under penalty of perjury, as are most pleadings).
In fact, many civil cases are decided on the pleadings alone, in the interest of expediency, and a motion for leave to present oral or non-written evidence usually has to be approved by the judge.
Actually, telcos ramp their operator staff up and down in response to expected call volume based on historical time of day and day of week trends.
This was quite important when I worked on an automated 411 services that front-ended operators with computers doing speech recognition. Only if the system could not help the caller would it get routed to a human.
Regulatory requirements placed limits on the distribution of time to queue for an operator but not as stringent ones on returning a busy signal when staff was unavailable.
To avoid the scenario where some media announcement precipitated large numbers of 411 calls (usually for the phone number for information for some upcoming event that was missed in the radio ad), that would then queue for live operators, we adjusted the number of simultaneous calls our equipment would accept to follow the operator staffing levels.
During staffing ramp ups, I learned the hard way that the DMS100 was not too forgiving of a bunch of T1 trunks becoming active all at once: the digital trunk cards would mess up the wink start timing until things settled down. We actually had to bring the automated service lines up slowly so as not to overwhelm the trunk cards.
There is no question of guilt or innocence in civil cases because the purported action is not criminal.
The reason many states are making traffic violations civil and not criminal offenses is precisely because the standard of evidence is lower.
This only applies in criminal cases in U.S., and a number of other jurisdictions.
A lot of states have made traffic offenses civil offenses, where a preponderance of evidence is the standard.
Its got electrolytes! Its got what plants crave!!
Hello? IBM? Anyone?
I figured around the 2k mark.
Now, get off my lawn!
Indeed. I work for a firewall manufacturer where our product can be configured to do this. The idea is to block "objectionable" content and detect viruses in HTTPS traffic.
So, we intentionally set up a man in the middle, that your IT department has your browser trust. Checking the cert hierarchy will make this clear.
Of course, the better employers will tell you that they are doing this.
I've picked up $200 computers at Frys with mobo, RAM, HD, case, and PS for that little. They were "low end", for the time, of course (single core Athlon, 265 MB RAM, maybe 80 GB drive), but that was four years ago. They came bundled with Lindows at the time, which I immediately replaced with the Linux distro du jure.
The problem appears that no one bundles Lindows, or Linspire, or non-Winbloze anymore, and few want to pick up a system without an O/S. And, those that would probably don't mind building their own to save a few more shekels But, pre-built hardware at that price point is certainly possible. The size of the market probably makes it too small to be worthwhile.
No. They don't. They merely have to be able to construct their base components using only the arguments passed to their constructors.
In particular, B and C, derived from A, can have different constructor signatures and don't need to have any in common.
Look, the ideas of OO inheritance and polymorphism just represent what coders of "abstract" interfaces have been doing for years. A handle? Sure! Every "member function" is called with a pointer to the object as an implied argument. Functions specific to the class? Sure! static member functions. Need to separate interface from (one of) several possible implementations? Sure! No need for a hand coded and initialized dispatch table. The "virtual" keyword is your friend. And so on.
Now, that doesn't cover ALL the useful design patterns out there, but they really are common enough to have native language support.
If you've ever compared the kind of macro hackery that goes on to try to have some semblance of type-safety in C with a shared implementation (compare the various "STACK"s of different kinds of objects in openssl 0.9.8 and 1.0.0: lots of casting in the former, and attempts to hide it with macro hackery in the latter), you'd see what a blessing templates are.
And so on.
Have a problem with private, protected, and public members? Got something against information hiding? Really though, sometimes I wish I could friend all derived classes of some base class, though IIRC C++ won't let me. Would virtual protected friend be such a bad adornment to have? How about insisting that constructors of derived classes have the same signature (e.g. something like a virtual constructor)? That would save one from having a separate virtual "Init()" function? Why is it necessary? So I can pass the same arguments safely to the particular instance of an object I get from a factory when I ask the factory for an instance based on some run-time parameter WITHOUT needing to separate "construction" and "virtual initialization" when the distinction is artificial.
The whole point of the increasing subtlety and integration of common design patterns is to grant greater power to the programmer while also ensuring uniformity of implementation of the very most common and useful design patterns (though I can see arguments for overriding the implementation of virtual member dispatch tables to make them dynamic instead of being stuck with static ones in all instances).
Of course, with greater power comes greater responsibility. It's oft-said that while C lets you shoot yourself in the foot, C++ lets you chose among a dozen different ways of doing so.
I think what we really need is a mechanism to allow for the secure specification of language features that can not be used in certain circumstances. Smart pointers, and their benefits, are largely useless if any code-dufus can get their hands on a bald pointer to something and cache it away somewhere: '&' should be restricted as a member operator in some cases, to achieve this.
To put it bluntly: compilers for powerful languages should come with "training wheels" for (a) newbies, and (b) when one intentionally wants to restrict what one can express. In embedded systems, for example, it is usually desirable to preallocate all expected resources (including memory) at one phase of operational initialization, so that one knows one can't run out during later execution. Gimme a way to specify "thow shall not dynamically allocate memory here". Not because I want to shackle some other programmer because I think they are incompetent (though there is that benefit), but rather because I want the compiler to catch me coding something I didn't want to, for design reasons.
There is precedent for this: many early embedded C++ compilers intentionally did not support multiple inheritance, exceptions, or dynamic casting, arguably for performance reasons.
I have often been either asked to use pirate copies of software (Borland Turbo C in the 1980s), or accept license agreements personally, where a corporate license would have been more fitting. Neither of these have occurred at my present place of employment, thankfully.
In other areas, I was once asked by a low-level manager at a client company of our contracting firm for my SSN for a "background check". I was told this person had a reputation of committing identity theft in the name of contractors, obtaining credit in their name, and threatening to insist they be removed from the assignment if they complained. I don't know if that was true, but did insist that any "background check" would be done by a recognized neutral party. I was requested removed from the assignment, and let go for lack of other work.
On the pirate software issue, I simply licensed my own copies, and took them with me when I left (well, wiped them off my work computer). Borland's license would let me use their compiler on any machine, even let someone else use it, one at a time.
The bottom line is that if your employer asks you to break the law, find another job... fast.
I dunno.
I like cynical music (Pink Floyd with the Roger Waters influence), synth pop (Yaz. featuring Alf Moyet at her best IMHO (which she thought was her worst), and some classical (Vivaldi, and, depending on mood, sometimes Wagner).
That said, I can appreciate Glen Miller, Scott Joplin, and others even if that isn't my personal favorite style. Heck, I've even heard some Rap that I liked.
I think that music that can transcend people's personal tastes and still be regarded as "good" has the timeless quality that makes it worthy of timeless recognition.
Not likely. Nothing can escape the inner event horizon, thought he boundary is believed to be "fuzzy", so real/virtual particle creation out of the vacuum near it can have the virtual particle captured and the real one escape, with a loss of mass of the black hole.
At least, so believes Stephen Hawking.
Yes, I've heard the outer ergosphere boundary referred to as an apparent event horizon. I was not referring to ordinary gravitational slingshots.
Hmm. So you respond to the expression of an opinion with a call for violence?
I'd rather have someone tell me I am going to hell than try to send me there.
Troll?
I am dead serious.
I want about 1/2 to 2/3 of the world's population to be eliminated, and this is one good way to do it.
Present human population levels are unsustainable, nevermind growth. Producing more people, particularly when one does not want to is horribly irresponsible, and taken to its logical conclusion, genocidal.
Killing those who can't restrain themselves, and can't afford their "mistakes", is an unbiased means of achieving this.
Does this discriminate against the poor? Only to the extent of punishing them for living beyond their means through irresponsibility: there is no right to "have" what someone else does.
Hitler convinced a nation to eliminate the "Jewish problem". Surely a nation can be convinced that those who breed unsustainably are a threat to national security.
No, but the combination of gravity and magnetism means they can whip up a lot of stuff outside the event horizon and direct it outward along the poles.
Further, stuff that does fall in adds it's angular momentum to that of the hole, and a spinning black hole has both an inner and outer event horizon. Stuff can fall through one and still escape the other, IIRC, removing angular momentum from the hole.
Look. Either kill the brats that people produce and can't afford, or punish the people that produce the brats. But, certainly stop forcing other people to pay for the bastards.
Otherwise, with HIV treatments and possible cures improving, you will have more people blase about unprotected sex and unwanted kids demanding that the rest of us support them. Their kids will grow up to do the same, and their sheer numbers in a democratic society will result in enslavement of the responsible to support the lifestyle of the irresponsible.
Producing children you can't support should be one of the most heinous crimes there is, and punished accordingly.
What's with the Hitler reference, anyway? In my call to punish sexual irresponsibility with death, I do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, or national origin.
If this is somehow unfair, because it has become so expensive to actually raise children, perhaps resources have been spread too thin, and the human species needs some serious culling to return to sustainable numbers for a larger fraction of the population. This achieves that too.
Working quite well on my iRedMail server at home, pushing mail to my Android K-9 mail client, thank you very much!