Please try reading the whole thing, and responding to the whole thing. As I pointed out:
She interacted with an adult who had been pulled aside because the adult set off the metal detector. It's not unreasonable to say, "Okay, check her for metal objects, then."
Further, when the TSA agents refused to do that, the family was willing to have their child patted down, but not to have her patted down out of their sight.
So, it still appears to me that the family was being reasonable here. They made a suggestion for a search method that might not upset the child as much. When that was rejected by the TSA agents, they kept being reasonable, with a counter-proposal that the child be searched by the method the TSA agents desired, but with one off the adults who had already been screened with her.
Meanwhile, the TSA agents were yelling at a four-year-old, trying to take her away out of sight of her family, and otherwise behaving in ways that any reasonable adult should realize were going to upset the child even more.
Here's the thing: No one's saying small children should be excluded from screening. What they're saying is that a screaming, panicked child should be handled with care and gentleness. There's no reason for adult security officers to be yelling at a four-year-old child. It's not going to help the situation, whether the child is doing anything wrong or not.
Since you apparently didn't read the article in full: The adult *had* gone through security, and had set off the metal detector. The adult had been put aside for a pat-down screening. The child ran over and hugged the adult.
The family's suggestion was that since the attempts to pat down the child were distressing her, the agents have the child go through the metal detector again, or use a wand to check her for metal objects. The TSA agents insisted on a pat-down. Further, they wanted to take the distressed child to another room, away from and out of sight of all of the adults who were with her, and search her there. This distressed the child further.
From what we're given in the story, the adults with the child were behaving reasonably. They suggested alternatives to patting down the child, since that was distressing her. They were willing to have the child be patted down, but they were not willing to have the TSA agents take her out of their sight to search her.
A fair amount of the traveling public are children, and many children do get upset easily. The TSA should be training their staff on dealing properly with upset children.
Then Lua might be a good language to start with. It's what WoW addons are written in, and several other games use it as well. (Minecraft, RIFT, more.)
I'd say the main thing is that he needs something that he's interested in making the computer *do*. Working with a goal in mind makes it much easier to learn things beyond what you can learn from "toy" programs.
The blurb given here ends with "was abandoned for good in 1966 and it is anticipated that the Greenland icecap, in constant motion, will completely destroy all the tunnels over the course of the coming years" -- which makes it sound as if the tunnels still exist right now. The original article's text, though, says, "Camp Century was abandoned for good in 1966. The Greenland icecap, in constant motion, would completely destroy all the tunnels over the course of several years."
It then goes on in the next paragraph to talk about an expedition that went to look at the camp in 1969, and found that the camp was already extremely damaged, and notes that "Today, it is likely that most of Camp Century has been reclaimed by the ice."
I have to wonder if the submitter consciously altered this to make it sound as if it's still in good shape right now, thinking that a camp that someone could possibly occupy and use would generate more interest than one that's likely an unsalvageable mess now.
There's the thing: your property isn't defined in terms of pi. If your property is defined in terms of a circle, or some segment of a circle, then it's defined in terms of a center point and a radius. *You never need to know the value of pi at all in order to determine whether or not something is on your property.*
You only need to use pi if, for some reason, you need to know the perimeter or area or your property. It has nothing to do with defining what is and isn't part of your property. Thus, your neighbor can believe pi is equal to 673, and it won't affect his or her determination of where your property ends and his/hers begins, because that's a simple measurement from a point, and pi is never used in it.
Pi is only needed in calculating the area and circumference, though; if your property is circular, you can simply measure the distance from the defined center point to determine if something is included, and pi isn't needed there at all. Thus, legislating a different value for pi for that purpose would be useless.
I wouldn't go so far as "full of shit", but there's almost certainly more to the story. For the curious, I'd suggest looking at SJ Games Online Policy:
http://www.sjgames.com/general/online_policy.html
There, you'll find that SJ Games encourages free fan-created tools for their games, but if you want to charge, they require that you get a license from them.
The Palm platform had a C compiler and resource editor back in 2000, allowing native Palm apps to be created on Palms themselves. Look up "onboard c palm" on Google for full details. There's also Quartus, an onboard Forth development environment which could compile to native code, and could use the same resource editor as OnBoard C. I'm surprised that it's taken this long for anyone to release an onboard IDE for Android....
Actually, you can have a smart phone without a data plan. It's just that the data plan is how they get back the money they subsidized the phone with, so you have to keep a data plan on the phone for a certain amount of time if you got your phone at a discount from them.
Of course, the fact that they can use the data plan to recover the subsidy like that implies that, sans the subsidy recovery portion, the data plan generates large profits for them.
It looks like the important part here is paragraphs 0115 - 0116:
[0115] In conclusion, a method, computer program product and system are described for assessing the habits and understanding a developer's coding style and general day to day cycle that automates the process of estimating the relevant role of development this developer would suit. This contributes to any assessment of a member of a coding team's suitability to a project and the current efforts of team members already in place. For instance, a determination can be made as to whether a developer is suited to a specific development style and role in a specific project. This could lead to teams becoming more efficient, productive and delivering faster with better code. It could also lead to happier developers working on more appropriate projects.
[0116] The approaches described more fully herein, avoid wasted time with ineffective developers, thus increasing productivity and efficiency of processes. The approaches described more fully herein, may also result in building a balanced, accurate understanding of developer(s). The approaches set out more fully herein also avoid the problems of having to rely upon assessing a person for their suitability to a development methodology solely by interview, appraisal or study of their previous work, which is a very time consuming process for management to undertake. For instance, there may be many candidates to evaluate and such manual processes can result in a heavy burden on time, accuracy of results and money.
[0117] The described method and system provide a number of advantages over existing assessment techniques. As an example, a small agile development team may require frequent synchronization between developers and the central repository, and not require change commentary for code submissions. The user profile for a possible addition to the team could be studied and very quickly a conclusion could be drawn about the specific persons coding style and whether it suits the current team and the team's requirements. This conclusion is based upon the described algorithms and study of the appropriate data.
So, in other words, the idea is not to say "There Is One Ideal Way to Do Commits!" but rather to use the metrics this algorithm generates to see if a developer's way of working will integrate well with an already-established group. If IBM actually uses the system this way, it might actually make some sense.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Allowing someone to patent an invention and then prevent anyone else from using it, while at the same time not using it themselves, does nothing to "promote the progress" of science and useful arts.
As for freedom of speech, your freedom of speech does not include the right to force others not to say something.
Yeah... because when I re-recorded tapes for people, I sat there and carefully babied them through the process for the entire time that the transfer took.
Not.
When I transferred things on tape, I put the tape I was copying from in one drive, put the other tape in the other drive, hit the button(s), and walked away and did other things. Later, I'd come back after the dubbing was done, and watch / listen to a minute or two of the new copy to make sure the recorder didn't do anything stupid. There was nothing "more personal" about it -- sure, it took longer, but time does not equal personal involvement.
How's it "impossible to create?" Leaving out the fact that they didn't purchase rights to the content they distributed, what they did was no different technologically than Netflix sending out those CDs that let you access their service from a Wii. They just used USB sticks and had it work on a PC instead.
There's plenty of people providing legal versions of this -- Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc. They don't put their program on a USB stick, but that's because a "clientless" setup through a web browser is cheaper for them. If they needed to, they could distribute the program on media, as Netflix did with their Wii program before they were able to get Nintendo to offer it through their "Wii Channels".
The reason that these require a subscription instead of a one-time purchase is so the company can afford to keep providing the service with new content. In point of fact, if you're willing to just stream free content from various sources, you can get much the same thing (one-time payment to buy a device to stream video from the Internet) perfectly legally with a Roku.
Amazingly enough, words and phrases in natural languages often have more than one use. The fact that the modern phrase "begs the question" (see "Modern Usage" in the same article you linked) doesn't have the same meaning as the classical fallacy doesn't mean that the modern usage is "wrong", any more than the fact that the term "rocket" has been used for centuries in British English to mean the herb eruca sativa means that someone using it to describe a rocket engine is wrong.
Further, it should be noted that calling the logical fallacy "begging the question" stems from a poor translation of the original Latin petitio principii. From post-Classical Latin, from which the phrase originates, a much better English translation would be "assuming the premise". It would be much more logical to use this much more easily-understood translation for the logical fallacy (or to simply use the Latin phrase, as is often done with, for example, non sequitur and post hoc, ergo propter hoc), and quit confusing people with a "translation" that is regularly misunderstood by native speakers of the intended language.
If you watch the video, only the undercarriage folds -- the passenger compartment does not. Instead, it tilts as the carriage folds. Indeed, it's mentioned that they're designed to be easier to get into and out of when folded, so it's expected that people will be inside it when it folds and unfolds.
If you read the article, it's meant to be a rental vehicle, used by city dwellers who don't have their own car. They'd be parked at "stations" specially designed for them. Since the cars are also electric, most likely those stations would be designed to also recharge them.
Just a note here - that $87,600 is for streaming video for 24 hours each month. If they actually streamed it 24/7, they'd be paying around $2.5 million on the lowest-tier plan. On the 3 GB plan, they'd be paying $1,080 a year.
They do prompt you - in fact they do it before your data allowance expires, with one notification when you reach 50% used, and another when you reach 90% used.
Further, you can switch to the 3 GB / month plan at any point in a month. If you do, the additional charge will be pro-rated -- so, if there's 3 days left in your 30 day billing cycle, you'll be charged $1. After the billing cycle ends, you can then switch back to the lower plan. If you do, the higher plan will be pro-rated for that month as well, and you'll either get a credit on your next month's bill (if you changed to the lower plan after the bill for this month went out), or your bill will be lowered (if you manage to do it before the bill goes out).
I had AT&T's lowest-tier data plan for a couple of years, and the two times that I went over, I did exactly that, so that instead of getting charged an extra $15 (or more), I was charged only a few extra dollars (thanks to the pro-rating).
A few notes here from a long-time AT&T user who used to have the bottom-of-the-barrel plan:
- AT&T sends you a notification when you've used more than 50% of your bandwidth for the month. I used to get these all the time, usually about two days before the month was over, since they apparently just do it via high-water mark, and aren't building any kind of prediction of "will they go over".
- In that notification, it lets you know that you'll get another notification when you hit 90%, which they do send. Again, like the other one, it doesn't look at how close you are to the end of the month -- it can be the last day of your billing cycle, and you'll get the notification if you hit 90%.
- In both notifications, you're directed to go to AT&T's web site if you think you need to adjust your plan.
- If you do adjust your plan, your cap is immediately raised. A couple of times, I got the 90% notification (because I was using my phone for Internet more than usual due to traveling). Both times, I went to the web site (on my phone one of the times, in fact) and switched to a higher plan.
- When you switch to a higher plan, AT&T pro-rates it. Thus, if you're three days from the end of the month and you switch from the $20/month plan to the $30/month, you don't get charged $10 right then. Instead, you get charged an additional $1 on the next month's bill. Of course, that bill will now be at the higher rate plan, but....
- Once the new billing cycle has started, you can switch back to the lower plan at anytime. If you do, the higher plan will be pro-rated down, and the adjustment will go on your next month's bill.
Now, I'm not sure how often AT&T actually runs the job that sends the notifications, or if it's a trigger of some sort in their databases -- I never used enough in less than one day to push myself over. I do know that I got the 50% notification at several different times of day, so it's not just a once-a-day thing.
So, if you're bored in an airport and find yourself watching a ton of Netflix on your AT&T phone, just take a minute to go to their site and adjust your plan. Once your billing cycle ends, adjust it back. And AT&T will give you two notifications that you're approaching your limit.
Granted, the price per megabyte may be ridiculous on the lowest tier... but it basically exists so those who want a smartphone, but don't use a lot of data, can have a lower-priced plan. And AT&T isn't trying to entrap anyone -- they give plenty of warning that you're approaching your limit, and make it easy to avoid actually hitting that limit and getting upcharged at the high rate.
Actually, a 3 GB plan would result in no overage fees in the scenario given, since the user was using 2.81 GB / month. So he'd be paying... exactly the same as he would with the old unlimited plan.
Slashdot Mirror
She interacted with an adult who had been pulled aside because the adult set off the metal detector. It's not unreasonable to say, "Okay, check her for metal objects, then."
Further, when the TSA agents refused to do that, the family was willing to have their child patted down, but not to have her patted down out of their sight.
So, it still appears to me that the family was being reasonable here. They made a suggestion for a search method that might not upset the child as much. When that was rejected by the TSA agents, they kept being reasonable, with a counter-proposal that the child be searched by the method the TSA agents desired, but with one off the adults who had already been screened with her.
Meanwhile, the TSA agents were yelling at a four-year-old, trying to take her away out of sight of her family, and otherwise behaving in ways that any reasonable adult should realize were going to upset the child even more.
"Screening is unnecessary" is not the same as "small children should be excluded".
Here's the thing: No one's saying small children should be excluded from screening. What they're saying is that a screaming, panicked child should be handled with care and gentleness. There's no reason for adult security officers to be yelling at a four-year-old child. It's not going to help the situation, whether the child is doing anything wrong or not. Since you apparently didn't read the article in full: The adult *had* gone through security, and had set off the metal detector. The adult had been put aside for a pat-down screening. The child ran over and hugged the adult. The family's suggestion was that since the attempts to pat down the child were distressing her, the agents have the child go through the metal detector again, or use a wand to check her for metal objects. The TSA agents insisted on a pat-down. Further, they wanted to take the distressed child to another room, away from and out of sight of all of the adults who were with her, and search her there. This distressed the child further. From what we're given in the story, the adults with the child were behaving reasonably. They suggested alternatives to patting down the child, since that was distressing her. They were willing to have the child be patted down, but they were not willing to have the TSA agents take her out of their sight to search her. A fair amount of the traveling public are children, and many children do get upset easily. The TSA should be training their staff on dealing properly with upset children.
Then Lua might be a good language to start with. It's what WoW addons are written in, and several other games use it as well. (Minecraft, RIFT, more.) I'd say the main thing is that he needs something that he's interested in making the computer *do*. Working with a goal in mind makes it much easier to learn things beyond what you can learn from "toy" programs.
It then goes on in the next paragraph to talk about an expedition that went to look at the camp in 1969, and found that the camp was already extremely damaged, and notes that "Today, it is likely that most of Camp Century has been reclaimed by the ice."
I have to wonder if the submitter consciously altered this to make it sound as if it's still in good shape right now, thinking that a camp that someone could possibly occupy and use would generate more interest than one that's likely an unsalvageable mess now.
There's the thing: your property isn't defined in terms of pi. If your property is defined in terms of a circle, or some segment of a circle, then it's defined in terms of a center point and a radius. *You never need to know the value of pi at all in order to determine whether or not something is on your property.* You only need to use pi if, for some reason, you need to know the perimeter or area or your property. It has nothing to do with defining what is and isn't part of your property. Thus, your neighbor can believe pi is equal to 673, and it won't affect his or her determination of where your property ends and his/hers begins, because that's a simple measurement from a point, and pi is never used in it.
Because, just like people, companies can be short-sighted and prefer saving a little money now over saving a lot of money in the long term?
Pi is only needed in calculating the area and circumference, though; if your property is circular, you can simply measure the distance from the defined center point to determine if something is included, and pi isn't needed there at all. Thus, legislating a different value for pi for that purpose would be useless.
I wouldn't go so far as "full of shit", but there's almost certainly more to the story. For the curious, I'd suggest looking at SJ Games Online Policy: http://www.sjgames.com/general/online_policy.html There, you'll find that SJ Games encourages free fan-created tools for their games, but if you want to charge, they require that you get a license from them.
The Palm platform had a C compiler and resource editor back in 2000, allowing native Palm apps to be created on Palms themselves. Look up "onboard c palm" on Google for full details. There's also Quartus, an onboard Forth development environment which could compile to native code, and could use the same resource editor as OnBoard C. I'm surprised that it's taken this long for anyone to release an onboard IDE for Android....
Of course, the fact that they can use the data plan to recover the subsidy like that implies that, sans the subsidy recovery portion, the data plan generates large profits for them.
So, in other words, the idea is not to say "There Is One Ideal Way to Do Commits!" but rather to use the metrics this algorithm generates to see if a developer's way of working will integrate well with an already-established group. If IBM actually uses the system this way, it might actually make some sense.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Allowing someone to patent an invention and then prevent anyone else from using it, while at the same time not using it themselves, does nothing to "promote the progress" of science and useful arts.
As for freedom of speech, your freedom of speech does not include the right to force others not to say something.
Not.
When I transferred things on tape, I put the tape I was copying from in one drive, put the other tape in the other drive, hit the button(s), and walked away and did other things. Later, I'd come back after the dubbing was done, and watch / listen to a minute or two of the new copy to make sure the recorder didn't do anything stupid. There was nothing "more personal" about it -- sure, it took longer, but time does not equal personal involvement.
Maybe your cellphone is. Mine is actually capable of being left on my dresser at home when I don't want to receive calls or be tracked.
How's it "impossible to create?" Leaving out the fact that they didn't purchase rights to the content they distributed, what they did was no different technologically than Netflix sending out those CDs that let you access their service from a Wii. They just used USB sticks and had it work on a PC instead. There's plenty of people providing legal versions of this -- Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc. They don't put their program on a USB stick, but that's because a "clientless" setup through a web browser is cheaper for them. If they needed to, they could distribute the program on media, as Netflix did with their Wii program before they were able to get Nintendo to offer it through their "Wii Channels". The reason that these require a subscription instead of a one-time purchase is so the company can afford to keep providing the service with new content. In point of fact, if you're willing to just stream free content from various sources, you can get much the same thing (one-time payment to buy a device to stream video from the Internet) perfectly legally with a Roku.
I have to wonder if a desire to suck US cock is a requirement to get into politics in this country?..
Kindly send me the names and addresses of your best-looking female ministers, and I'll immediately launch an investigation.
Amazingly enough, words and phrases in natural languages often have more than one use. The fact that the modern phrase "begs the question" (see "Modern Usage" in the same article you linked) doesn't have the same meaning as the classical fallacy doesn't mean that the modern usage is "wrong", any more than the fact that the term "rocket" has been used for centuries in British English to mean the herb eruca sativa means that someone using it to describe a rocket engine is wrong.
Further, it should be noted that calling the logical fallacy "begging the question" stems from a poor translation of the original Latin petitio principii. From post-Classical Latin, from which the phrase originates, a much better English translation would be "assuming the premise". It would be much more logical to use this much more easily-understood translation for the logical fallacy (or to simply use the Latin phrase, as is often done with, for example, non sequitur and post hoc, ergo propter hoc), and quit confusing people with a "translation" that is regularly misunderstood by native speakers of the intended language.
If you watch the video, only the undercarriage folds -- the passenger compartment does not. Instead, it tilts as the carriage folds. Indeed, it's mentioned that they're designed to be easier to get into and out of when folded, so it's expected that people will be inside it when it folds and unfolds.
If you read the article, it's meant to be a rental vehicle, used by city dwellers who don't have their own car. They'd be parked at "stations" specially designed for them. Since the cars are also electric, most likely those stations would be designed to also recharge them.
Sounds to me suspiciously like: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/crushedbug.asp
Just a note here - that $87,600 is for streaming video for 24 hours each month. If they actually streamed it 24/7, they'd be paying around $2.5 million on the lowest-tier plan. On the 3 GB plan, they'd be paying $1,080 a year.
Further, you can switch to the 3 GB / month plan at any point in a month. If you do, the additional charge will be pro-rated -- so, if there's 3 days left in your 30 day billing cycle, you'll be charged $1. After the billing cycle ends, you can then switch back to the lower plan. If you do, the higher plan will be pro-rated for that month as well, and you'll either get a credit on your next month's bill (if you changed to the lower plan after the bill for this month went out), or your bill will be lowered (if you manage to do it before the bill goes out).
I had AT&T's lowest-tier data plan for a couple of years, and the two times that I went over, I did exactly that, so that instead of getting charged an extra $15 (or more), I was charged only a few extra dollars (thanks to the pro-rating).
- AT&T sends you a notification when you've used more than 50% of your bandwidth for the month. I used to get these all the time, usually about two days before the month was over, since they apparently just do it via high-water mark, and aren't building any kind of prediction of "will they go over".
- In that notification, it lets you know that you'll get another notification when you hit 90%, which they do send. Again, like the other one, it doesn't look at how close you are to the end of the month -- it can be the last day of your billing cycle, and you'll get the notification if you hit 90%.
- In both notifications, you're directed to go to AT&T's web site if you think you need to adjust your plan.
- If you do adjust your plan, your cap is immediately raised. A couple of times, I got the 90% notification (because I was using my phone for Internet more than usual due to traveling). Both times, I went to the web site (on my phone one of the times, in fact) and switched to a higher plan.
- When you switch to a higher plan, AT&T pro-rates it. Thus, if you're three days from the end of the month and you switch from the $20/month plan to the $30/month, you don't get charged $10 right then. Instead, you get charged an additional $1 on the next month's bill. Of course, that bill will now be at the higher rate plan, but....
- Once the new billing cycle has started, you can switch back to the lower plan at anytime. If you do, the higher plan will be pro-rated down, and the adjustment will go on your next month's bill.
Now, I'm not sure how often AT&T actually runs the job that sends the notifications, or if it's a trigger of some sort in their databases -- I never used enough in less than one day to push myself over. I do know that I got the 50% notification at several different times of day, so it's not just a once-a-day thing.
So, if you're bored in an airport and find yourself watching a ton of Netflix on your AT&T phone, just take a minute to go to their site and adjust your plan. Once your billing cycle ends, adjust it back. And AT&T will give you two notifications that you're approaching your limit.
Granted, the price per megabyte may be ridiculous on the lowest tier... but it basically exists so those who want a smartphone, but don't use a lot of data, can have a lower-priced plan. And AT&T isn't trying to entrap anyone -- they give plenty of warning that you're approaching your limit, and make it easy to avoid actually hitting that limit and getting upcharged at the high rate.
Actually, a 3 GB plan would result in no overage fees in the scenario given, since the user was using 2.81 GB / month. So he'd be paying... exactly the same as he would with the old unlimited plan.