Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that Death Valley gets clouds, they just don't get a lot of rain because the clouds have already dumped most of their moisture on the Sierra Nevada.
Even if the claim is true, it just means someone needs to come up with an algorithm for ensuring that cloud-bits set to 0 end up over death valley at the appropriate times.
Based on the links in the article, there's an easy way to make sure it doesn't apply to most software. The critical point is 'self-replicating'. Most software is not self-replicating.
Every time Blizzard's response to an account being hacked is "get an authenticator", the only thing they are admitting that the user hasn't sufficiently secured data (the account password) that blizzard has no control over.
One paragraph says "Web-based e-mail users can continue to access their e-mail at the Verizon Web site until Feb. 6. After that date, Fastiggi said users will need to log on to www.MyFairPoint.net. Customers then click on Web mail and type in their existing user name@myfairpoint.net and existing password."
That says, if your webmail was at Verizon, it's going to be at MyFairPoint.net
Now we have the next paragraph
"AOL, Yahoo! and MSN subscribers will continue to have access to content but will no longer be able to access their e-mail through the third party Web site. Instead, Yahoo! and other third party e-mail will be accessed directly at the MyFairPoint.net portal."
Why would the 'third-party website' be a back reference to the preceding paragraph, rather than to "AOL, Yahoo! and MSN" in the same sentence, when they are indeed third parties?
It may be that they're talking about 'we're moving whatever integrated AOL, Yahoo! and MSN stuff from the Verizon portal to our new one', but they certainly don't make it clear.
The employer can place whatever requirements for employment they like.
Sorry, but if the employment requirements break the law, the fact that those requirements are laid out in a contract doesn't matter at all.
In California, which is where Diskeeper is based, state law says the following:
(a) For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
Forcing you to go to CoS classes as part of your terms of employment certainly seems at first glance to run afoul of California's FEHA at the very least, if not Federal law as well.
"shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress,
and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner." [emphasis added]
Reading that literally means that no matter how bad the harassment is, you still have to feel distressed in order to have them prosecuted, and the more distressed you "act," the more likely you are to succeed!
A couple of points here ->
To some extent, distress is an effect of harassment. In that a specific kind of behavior may or may not be harassment depending on the circumstances. E.G., if I'm chasing my wife around the house, and she's giggling and laughing (this actually happens - we get silly), that is quite different that if I were chasing her around the house and she was screaming for me to stop (this has never happened). So if there's actually harassment, you would expect to see distress.
The second point is, the law here talks about "would cause a reasonable person". Under this law, if I'm walking down the street, and someone happens to be walking a block in front of me, I am not harassing that person even if they feel completely and horrendously violated by the fact that I'm walking a block behind them... because no reasonable person would feel such just because a stranger happened to be walking a block behind them down the street in a fairly well populated area.
And I don't think people harming themselves would meet a 'reasonable person' standard, either. Although, it may be hard to show motive on the side of the self-harming person.
Start, say, around the time of the American revolution, replace all United States citizens (every single one) with a completely uneducated people. Further posit that no educated people can be gained, and ponder the probable effect on history. (Hint: The United States would probably not be any sort of an economic power, for starters)
Benefiting everyone is not necessarily as cut and dried as 'There's an X dollar difference for you as an individual'.
I'm going to have to reread Genesis. [virginia.edu] I don't recall seeing anywhere where it says the earth is the center of anything, let alone the universe.
Genesis doesn't. However, there are verses in other books of the Bible that state things like (paraphrased) "God established the Earth such that it cannot move".
Such verses used to be interpreted to mean the Earth did not, in fact, move, which would mean that everything that looked like it was circling the Earth actually was - which logically means the Earth would be the center of the Universe.
'us vs. them' goes back as long as recorded human history. I'm not sure that assigning credit for being the first to apply it on a national scale (as we define nations today) actually means very much overall.:)
[i]Second, do you honestly believe that in the past people didn't use the government to enforce morality[/i]
Of course the government has done so in the past. The critical point here is not that the government should never say that anything is wrong - that's absurd. The critical point is [i]religious rules should not necessarily become law[/i]. It has been done, of course - prohibition was certainly not initiated by secular organizations - but that does not mean it [i]should[/i] be done.
We should stop giving all of (most) states electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote in that state, and give one electoral vote for the winner in each congressional district, with the remaining two being allocated to the popular vote winner in each state.
This would lessen the gap between the electoral vote and the popular vote, while protecting the reason we have an electoral vote in the first place (preventing populous areas from ignoring the interests of less populous areas).
Are we in an unusual zone so we get unusual results?
This sort of presumes that a region of less density is 'unusual' - and since we can't see what might be outside, we really have no way of determining whether it's usual or unusual.
For all we know (and, afaik there would be no way to test this, other than waiting for our light horizon to get big enough - by which time humanity might no longer exist to be looking), the universe is very, very, very many times the size of our light horizon, and there are plenty of 'less dense' regions inside it. In such a big space, you might have, when picking a random point, pretty good odds that point would land in a 'matter is pretty sparse' region.
We're not necessarily in the exact center of any region other than the region defined by our light horizon.
AFAICT, our light horizon would have to either intersect with or be very, very close to a boundary of the bubble for us to be able to see different properties in some direction. If the bubble is sufficiently larger than our visible universe, and our light horizon is entirely contained within the bubble, we could be randomly off-center inside the bubble (compared to the geometry of the bubble) and still not be able to currently see space with different properties.
Your point 1 is, imho, exactly how casino gambling should be played, if you're going to play.
If you're there for money, and not fun, you shouldn't be there. If you're walking in with money that it would bother you to not walk out with, then you shouldn't be there.
I grew up in an area with a fair number of casinos - when I go back to visit, sometimes I'll take a set, small amount of cash (under $100), and my buddies and I will go play $5 blackjack for a few hours.
Money runs out? No worries - I walked in the door expecting that money to run out. Take some extra money home? That's bonus. It's really no different from spending money on any other form of entertainment. As long as you enjoy it, and you're not hurting yourself financially doing it, then go for it.
Some people wreck themselves gambling - but then again, those people are breaking the rule I outlined above - don't walk in with money it would bother you to not walk out with.
I believe DMCA takedown notices will eventually be determined to be a classic case of unbridled "prior restraint"
Of course, I think they should be done away with, because they are far too easily abusable - but I don't think the courts will ever consider them as "prior restraint" - because the content has to already be somewhere for a DMCA notice to be issued.
Say, hypothetically, that I took a paper you wrote and posted it on my blog. You issue a DMCA takedown notice - but I've already posted it, otherwise you wouldn't have even known I had it.
If you could send me a DMCA to prevent me from putting anything up in the first place, that would be prior restraint. As I understand it, though, that's not how they work.
Either Sarah Palin needs to admit she used her Yahoo account for government business, in which case she has illegally withheld emails from FOIA requests
Not necessarily. The emails we're talking about were in her inbox - she could have had them cc'd or bcc'd to her, or otherwise have things set up so that the mails were going to both an account that the state government would archive and the yahoo account (for convenience reasons).
If I were a governor, I certainly wouldn't let emails with state business in them hit a yahoo account, but the assumption of avoidance is a bit of a stretch, at least until it can be verified whether or not any government business emails made it into the state archives.
It depends on the complexity of the application program. It would be pretty hard to write a kernel with modern features that used less resources than, say, a "Hello, World!" user program.
However, even given that, we should not find it surprising that an application program takes up more resources than the kernel - it shouldn't take a lot of resource requirements at the app level for an application to exceed kernel resource usage. Kernels logically need to use as few resources as possible to get the job done.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that Death Valley gets clouds, they just don't get a lot of rain because the clouds have already dumped most of their moisture on the Sierra Nevada.
Even if the claim is true, it just means someone needs to come up with an algorithm for ensuring that cloud-bits set to 0 end up over death valley at the appropriate times.
Based on the links in the article, there's an easy way to make sure it doesn't apply to most software. The critical point is 'self-replicating'. Most software is not self-replicating.
Of course, that's assuming you don't die first. ;)
Someday, you'll be responding to someone with a UID that's greater than times higher than yours ...
Every time Blizzard's response to an account being hacked is "get an authenticator", the only thing they are admitting that the user hasn't sufficiently secured data (the account password) that blizzard has no control over.
Sending a DMCA take down doesn't require having access to the video.
In the cases where it's a crime of passion with little or no planning, the police won't need a microstamp on the primer to tell who did it anyway.
Repeat forever
do
turn left
if wall ahead
then turn right
else move forward
if wall ahead
then turn right
else move forward
We have two paragraphs.
One paragraph says "Web-based e-mail users can continue to access their e-mail at the Verizon Web site until Feb. 6. After that date, Fastiggi said users will need to log on to www.MyFairPoint.net. Customers then click on Web mail and type in their existing user name@myfairpoint.net and existing password."
That says, if your webmail was at Verizon, it's going to be at MyFairPoint.net
Now we have the next paragraph
"AOL, Yahoo! and MSN subscribers will continue to have access to content but will no longer be able to access their e-mail through the third party Web site. Instead, Yahoo! and other third party e-mail will be accessed directly at the MyFairPoint.net portal."
Why would the 'third-party website' be a back reference to the preceding paragraph, rather than to "AOL, Yahoo! and MSN" in the same sentence, when they are indeed third parties?
It may be that they're talking about 'we're moving whatever integrated AOL, Yahoo! and MSN stuff from the Verizon portal to our new one', but they certainly don't make it clear.
The employer can place whatever requirements for employment they like.
Sorry, but if the employment requirements break the law, the fact that those requirements are laid out in a contract doesn't matter at all.
In California, which is where Diskeeper is based, state law says the following:
(a) For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color,
national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability,
medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation of
any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to
select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to
bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training
program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person
in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
Forcing you to go to CoS classes as part of your terms of employment certainly seems at first glance to run afoul of California's FEHA at the very least, if not Federal law as well.
"shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress,
and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner." [emphasis added]
Reading that literally means that no matter how bad the harassment is, you still have to feel distressed in order to have them prosecuted, and the more distressed you "act," the more likely you are to succeed!
A couple of points here ->
To some extent, distress is an effect of harassment. In that a specific kind of behavior may or may not be harassment depending on the circumstances. E.G., if I'm chasing my wife around the house, and she's giggling and laughing (this actually happens - we get silly), that is quite different that if I were chasing her around the house and she was screaming for me to stop (this has never happened). So if there's actually harassment, you would expect to see distress.
The second point is, the law here talks about "would cause a reasonable person". Under this law, if I'm walking down the street, and someone happens to be walking a block in front of me, I am not harassing that person even if they feel completely and horrendously violated by the fact that I'm walking a block behind them ... because no reasonable person would feel such just because a stranger happened to be walking a block behind them down the street in a fairly well populated area.
And I don't think people harming themselves would meet a 'reasonable person' standard, either. Although, it may be hard to show motive on the side of the self-harming person.
Start, say, around the time of the American revolution, replace all United States citizens (every single one) with a completely uneducated people. Further posit that no educated people can be gained, and ponder the probable effect on history. (Hint: The United States would probably not be any sort of an economic power, for starters)
Benefiting everyone is not necessarily as cut and dried as 'There's an X dollar difference for you as an individual'.
I'm going to have to reread Genesis. [virginia.edu] I don't recall seeing anywhere where it says the earth is the center of anything, let alone the universe.
Genesis doesn't. However, there are verses in other books of the Bible that state things like (paraphrased) "God established the Earth such that it cannot move".
Such verses used to be interpreted to mean the Earth did not, in fact, move, which would mean that everything that looked like it was circling the Earth actually was - which logically means the Earth would be the center of the Universe.
Those verses are now interpreted differently.
'us vs. them' goes back as long as recorded human history. I'm not sure that assigning credit for being the first to apply it on a national scale (as we define nations today) actually means very much overall. :)
[i]Second, do you honestly believe that in the past people didn't use the government to enforce morality[/i]
Of course the government has done so in the past. The critical point here is not that the government should never say that anything is wrong - that's absurd. The critical point is [i]religious rules should not necessarily become law[/i]. It has been done, of course - prohibition was certainly not initiated by secular organizations - but that does not mean it [i]should[/i] be done.
I mean, are we supposed to sit there and be dependent on daddy government for every single thing?
It would appear that at least some people believe the answer to that question is 'Yes'.
It's good to get a chance to wave at someone who, like me, thinks the answer is 'No', though. So, :wave:. :)
We shouldn't be electing by popular vote.
We should stop giving all of (most) states electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote in that state, and give one electoral vote for the winner in each congressional district, with the remaining two being allocated to the popular vote winner in each state.
This would lessen the gap between the electoral vote and the popular vote, while protecting the reason we have an electoral vote in the first place (preventing populous areas from ignoring the interests of less populous areas).
A physically fit and smart student is going to realize that the odds are against him/her as far as actually obtaining an athletic career goes.
(That doesn't preclude the attempt - but the smart athletic student is going to have a very good backup plan)
Are we in an unusual zone so we get unusual results?
This sort of presumes that a region of less density is 'unusual' - and since we can't see what might be outside, we really have no way of determining whether it's usual or unusual.
For all we know (and, afaik there would be no way to test this, other than waiting for our light horizon to get big enough - by which time humanity might no longer exist to be looking), the universe is very, very, very many times the size of our light horizon, and there are plenty of 'less dense' regions inside it. In such a big space, you might have, when picking a random point, pretty good odds that point would land in a 'matter is pretty sparse' region.
We're not necessarily in the exact center of any region other than the region defined by our light horizon.
AFAICT, our light horizon would have to either intersect with or be very, very close to a boundary of the bubble for us to be able to see different properties in some direction. If the bubble is sufficiently larger than our visible universe, and our light horizon is entirely contained within the bubble, we could be randomly off-center inside the bubble (compared to the geometry of the bubble) and still not be able to currently see space with different properties.
Your point 1 is, imho, exactly how casino gambling should be played, if you're going to play.
If you're there for money, and not fun, you shouldn't be there. If you're walking in with money that it would bother you to not walk out with, then you shouldn't be there.
I grew up in an area with a fair number of casinos - when I go back to visit, sometimes I'll take a set, small amount of cash (under $100), and my buddies and I will go play $5 blackjack for a few hours.
Money runs out? No worries - I walked in the door expecting that money to run out. Take some extra money home? That's bonus. It's really no different from spending money on any other form of entertainment. As long as you enjoy it, and you're not hurting yourself financially doing it, then go for it.
Some people wreck themselves gambling - but then again, those people are breaking the rule I outlined above - don't walk in with money it would bother you to not walk out with.
Hookers and Booze is a gamble - the Hookers could steal your Booze, or the Booze could steal your ability to perform.
I believe DMCA takedown notices will eventually be determined to be a classic case of unbridled "prior restraint"
Of course, I think they should be done away with, because they are far too easily abusable - but I don't think the courts will ever consider them as "prior restraint" - because the content has to already be somewhere for a DMCA notice to be issued.
Say, hypothetically, that I took a paper you wrote and posted it on my blog. You issue a DMCA takedown notice - but I've already posted it, otherwise you wouldn't have even known I had it.
If you could send me a DMCA to prevent me from putting anything up in the first place, that would be prior restraint. As I understand it, though, that's not how they work.
Either Sarah Palin needs to admit she used her Yahoo account for government business, in which case she has illegally withheld emails from FOIA requests
Not necessarily. The emails we're talking about were in her inbox - she could have had them cc'd or bcc'd to her, or otherwise have things set up so that the mails were going to both an account that the state government would archive and the yahoo account (for convenience reasons).
If I were a governor, I certainly wouldn't let emails with state business in them hit a yahoo account, but the assumption of avoidance is a bit of a stretch, at least until it can be verified whether or not any government business emails made it into the state archives.
It depends on the complexity of the application program. It would be pretty hard to write a kernel with modern features that used less resources than, say, a "Hello, World!" user program.
However, even given that, we should not find it surprising that an application program takes up more resources than the kernel - it shouldn't take a lot of resource requirements at the app level for an application to exceed kernel resource usage. Kernels logically need to use as few resources as possible to get the job done.