eh, Austin isn't quite like the rest of Texas. I mean, it's consistently favored Democratic politicians, often by a 2:1 margin.
That's got more to do with the general American rural/urban divide than Austin's particular weirdness. Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and El Paso all went for Obama over Romney, as well.
In the USA in many instances titles like Engineer and Architect are required to be licensed. They can sign-off on certain designs where other "elitist accredited/certified" people cannot legally do so
Where do these exist in the USA for "Engineer"? If they exist, they're not common.
Now, in most jurisdictions the title of Professional Engineer is licensed, and only certified PEs can sign off on designs. But "engineer" is an English language word with a plain meaning that predates PEs by 500ish years, and AFAIK the majority of software engineers don't claim to be PEs any more than the majority of railroad engineers or audio engineers do.
Note that trash collectors call them selves sanitation engineers and stay-at-home parents are domestic engineers.
Which is exactly the point. This whole objection is dumb. Engineer is an English-language word and the attempts by professional societies to monopolize it and stop the general population from using it should be fought vigorously. If you want to require and imply a level of education and a set of standards, use a new trademarked term (like PE or Eur Ing or CEng).
"Doctor" is a reasonable comp: trying to remove that word from English and only let members of a certain cartel use it would be ludicrous, but the public interest is served by having a term that's reserved so that the public can have a baseline level of trust--hence MD (and DDS, RNA, DO, and all the rest).
There's no confusion here. Nobody thinks that a doctor of philosophy, a witch doctor, or Doctor John is a board-certified neurosurgeon any more than anyone thinks that an audio engineer, software engineer, or sanitation engineer is a certified civil engineer, and the word in English predates the narrow engineering-society sense by about 500 years.
See how he dances See how he loops from side to side See how he prances The way his hooves just seem to glide He's just a one trick pony (that's all he is) But he turns that trick with pride
He makes it look so easy He looks so clean He moves like God's Immaculate machine He makes me think about All of these extra movements I make And all of this herky-jerky motion And the bag of tricks it takes To get me through my working day One-trick pony
He's a one trick pony He either fails or he succeeds He gives his testimony Then he relaxes in the weeds He's got one trick to last a lifetime But that's all a pony needs
It's saying that the fantasy team's membership can't be based on the membership of a current team. The idea is to prevent people essentially from betting on the Red Sox to beat the Yankees by having a "fantasy" league where one team's members are the current Red Sox, and another's are the current Yankees, and so on.
Yes, placing one-game cash bets on individual players would violate (ix)(III)(bb):
(III) No winning outcome is based— (aa) on the score, point-spread, or any performance or performances of any single real-world team or any combination of such teams; or (bb) solely on any single performance of an individual athlete in any single real-world sporting or other event.
As far as I know, neither of these sites allows such bets (by design, to skirt the law).
Yes it does--the italicized above is a direct quote from the federal law that banned online gambling (the UIGEA). Fantasy sports are exempted per se, regardless of whether or not skill is involved.
When the online gambling sites first came out, they got shut down really quick. I am not sure why the same is not the case for the these online sports gambling sites.
They got shut down when Congress passed anti-online-gambling legislation in the form of UIGEA. It specifically says that fantasy sports of this sort are exempt:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... (1) Bet or wager.— The term “bet or wager”—... (E) does not include—... (ix) participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an actual team that is a member of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions:
(1) Bet or wager.— The term “bet or wager”—... (E) does not include—... (ix) participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an actual team that is a member of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions
It's a big planet and a small nuke. Although it would be a smoking gun, so to speak, either the sensors didn't find the fallout or the information is still classified.
As the article points out, pretty much every other bit of evidence points to a nuclear explosion.
No, it doesn't. In fact, almost no other piece of actual evidence points to a nuclear explosion with the exception of a disputed Australian sheep iodine measure that was unable to be replicated (including by New Zealand, who are nuclear-hostile and wouldn't assist in a cover-up).
In particular, there was no unusual seismic activity detected. There was no unusual hydro-acoustic activity. There was no fallout or radioactive debris detected. The New Zealand National Radiation Lab was unable to detect any radioactive anomalies despite being well within the fallout radius for a test in the area. Even the ratio of intensities of the two flashes differed from that in other recorded nuclear tests.
No, it isn't. As of Q1 2015 there was no country worldwide with an average connection speed of over 26 Mbps, and there wasn't even a country with an average PEAK connection speed of over 99 Mbps. For average connection speed, South Korea tops the list at 23.6 Mbps; Ireland is second at 17.4. For average peak speed, Singapore is at 98.5 Mbps; Hong Kong is second at 92.6 (South Korea is third at 79.0). Your purported "standard" is faster than the average PEAK speed in the best-connected countries in the world, though it's almost credible to say that in a handful of nations a pipe that's advertised at 100Mbps is standard.
But that's certainly not the case in general. The global average is 5 Mbps and peak average is ~30Mbps.
You need to work big to small here, and your focus seems almost backward.
The things you mention as concerns are relatively data-light: Avoiding checking facebook through the app, or turning off image loading in the browser aren't really going to save you much unless you're hitting very image-heavy pages often*. You can spend a ton of time working to minimize these and in the end you won't save much--as a hint, if you were doing it on a 56k modem (even if it was "bandwidth-heavy" then), then it's probably not a significant bandwidth user in this day and age.
Meanwhile the things you're dismissive of are exactly the sort of things that can suck bandwidth: Google Drive can be using arbitrarily huge amounts of data depending on how you use it. Instagram is the definition of "very image-heavy", unless you're pretty selective about its use.
*Blocking videos in the browser can be a big win, but IME autoplay videos are extremely rare on mobile
I always thought of Linus as a guy who managed the Stone Soup well. It wasn't specially good in.01 version. But he made people want to add to it. The GPL helped some. Linus chose that license, not as a "hey Im a zealot and you need to give me everything you write" but he thought "if people do cool things they need to let me see their cool things"
Linux wasn't GPL'd (or open sourced) at in the.01 version--it was free for noncommercial use only.
Linus announced the intent to switch to the GPL at the time of the.12 release, but it was a bit later before he got consent of all the contributors to change the license.
There's nothing imitation about Mac OS X. It's actual UNIX.
Only in a legalistic sense (they can use the trademark), not in a technical sense.
The OS X kernel name XNU literally stands for "X is not Unix". There's a lot of BSD code layered on top of it, but the core is a non-Unix Mach-based system.
Flash still exist, is still in use by an awful lot of websites, and Chrome is the only way to get this content under Linux.
Quite the opposite in my experience--running Flash is pretty much the only reason I launch Firefox these days.
Most Flash sites are so terrible at detecting Chrome's built-in Flash on Linux that they refuse to run at all--I get the "Hey, this site requires Flash! Download it now!" message all the time in Chrome even though it already has the latest Flash support.
Thankfully HTML5 is making this much less of an issue.
Whoops, is that legal? In the U.S. you cannot decline payment made in cash (if you normally take cash). But it's also illegal to deface money.
My understanding is that it is not illegal to deface money in the US. It's illegal to deface coins or bills with intent to defraud, or to deface bills with the intent of making them unfit for reissue/circulation.
There are sites like Where's George that are designed to deface currency for the purpose of tracking it, which is clearly not intended to make it unfit for circulation since the whole point is to track it in circulation.
IMO it's highly unlikely that spocking US currency would result in prosecution, for logistical reasons alone. And there's a reasonable argument that the reason to spock a bill is to make a joke that will not have an audience if the bill is removed from circulation, and therefore the intent is not to render it unfit for circulation.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
How do you know how useful it is if you've never thought about how many people use it?
It's still potentially useful even if nobody else uses it; you can at least show later on that you or someone with access to your private key signed something.
Why use gpg instead of s/mime, which has native support in most e-mail programs, with no need for plugins?
S/MIME relies on centralized key servers or opens itself to man-in-the-middle attacks. You can hand-authenticate individual CAs with some effort, but there's no equivalent to PGP's web of trust. And CAs are single points of failure, making them extremely desirable points of attack.
Marlinspike, of course, has developed his own proposed solution to the CA problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... It's up to the reader whether this contributes to his credibility on the issue because he knows what he's talking about and has taken the time to contribute code to help fix the problem, or whether he's someone with his own personal dog in the fight and hence has an ulterior motive in denigrating PGP's trust model.
I presume "real computer" was snark for "not Microsoft Windows".
Selections and the clipboard both have their uses.
Selections are faster and leaner--you can just highlight some text, then center-click wherever to copy it there. It's faster than having to highlight, then explicitly copy with Ctrl-C or whatever, then click somewhere, then paste with Ctrl-V or whatever. It's also guaranteed to give you plain text, rather than bringing along formatting and images and stuff.
The clipboard is more featureful, it's useful when you want to bring along formatting or images or other non-text stuff. It also allows you to highlight another area and paste over it, as you mention. It's also more persistent, so if you are working on code or something and have a string you're going to paste repeatedly, you might put that on the clipboard with Ctrl-C and have it until you explicitly cut something else; you can still do selection copy/paste for quick little stuff in the interim, but still have your main item saved on the clipboard so you don't have to go re-copy it.
Having both is useful. Selections are a lot faster, I use them the majority of the time but still use the clipboard sometimes.
Here are some cases it should know how to deal with:
Between numbers (note that slashdot eats some of these characters; the numbers below all have different dashes or related symbols between "555" and "1000"): "Pages 555–1000 discuss this matter" (this should be an internumeral dash, which is typically an en dash, U+2013). "Her phone number is 5551000" (this should be a figure dash, U+2012). "There were actually a lot more of them than the estimated 555—1000, to be precise" (this should be an em dash, U+2014). "The teacher asked me to solve 5551000. I told him negative 455 was the answer." (this should be a minus sign, U+2212)
Between letters/words you have a similar problem: even if you know it shouldn't be a minus sign (which symbolic algebra makes tough to know for sure, but suppose you could surmount that), you generally have no idea what kind of dash or hyphen it should be turned into.
Slashdot Mirror
eh, Austin isn't quite like the rest of Texas. I mean, it's consistently favored Democratic politicians, often by a 2:1 margin.
That's got more to do with the general American rural/urban divide than Austin's particular weirdness. Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and El Paso all went for Obama over Romney, as well.
Where do these exist in the USA for "Engineer"? If they exist, they're not common.
Now, in most jurisdictions the title of Professional Engineer is licensed, and only certified PEs can sign off on designs. But "engineer" is an English language word with a plain meaning that predates PEs by 500ish years, and AFAIK the majority of software engineers don't claim to be PEs any more than the majority of railroad engineers or audio engineers do.
Note that trash collectors call them selves sanitation engineers and stay-at-home parents are domestic engineers.
Which is exactly the point. This whole objection is dumb. Engineer is an English-language word and the attempts by professional societies to monopolize it and stop the general population from using it should be fought vigorously. If you want to require and imply a level of education and a set of standards, use a new trademarked term (like PE or Eur Ing or CEng).
"Doctor" is a reasonable comp: trying to remove that word from English and only let members of a certain cartel use it would be ludicrous, but the public interest is served by having a term that's reserved so that the public can have a baseline level of trust--hence MD (and DDS, RNA, DO, and all the rest).
There's no confusion here. Nobody thinks that a doctor of philosophy, a witch doctor, or Doctor John is a board-certified neurosurgeon any more than anyone thinks that an audio engineer, software engineer, or sanitation engineer is a certified civil engineer, and the word in English predates the narrow engineering-society sense by about 500 years.
See how he dances
See how he loops from side to side
See how he prances
The way his hooves just seem to glide
He's just a one trick pony (that's all he is)
But he turns that trick with pride
He makes it look so easy
He looks so clean
He moves like God's
Immaculate machine
He makes me think about
All of these extra movements I make
And all of this herky-jerky motion
And the bag of tricks it takes
To get me through my working day
One-trick pony
He's a one trick pony
He either fails or he succeeds
He gives his testimony
Then he relaxes in the weeds
He's got one trick to last a lifetime
But that's all a pony needs
It's saying that the fantasy team's membership can't be based on the membership of a current team. The idea is to prevent people essentially from betting on the Red Sox to beat the Yankees by having a "fantasy" league where one team's members are the current Red Sox, and another's are the current Yankees, and so on.
It's a dumb law, but it's the law.
Yes, placing one-game cash bets on individual players would violate (ix)(III)(bb):
(III) No winning outcome is based—
(aa) on the score, point-spread, or any performance or performances of any single real-world team or any combination of such teams; or
(bb) solely on any single performance of an individual athlete in any single real-world sporting or other event.
As far as I know, neither of these sites allows such bets (by design, to skirt the law).
Yes it does--the italicized above is a direct quote from the federal law that banned online gambling (the UIGEA). Fantasy sports are exempted per se, regardless of whether or not skill is involved.
Because the law banning online gambling specifically exempts fantasy sports. See (1)(E)(ix) here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
They got shut down when Congress passed anti-online-gambling legislation in the form of UIGEA. It specifically says that fantasy sports of this sort are exempt:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... ... ...
(1) Bet or wager.— The term “bet or wager”—
(E) does not include—
(ix) participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an actual team that is a member of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions:
It's not illegal gambling because UIGEA (the federal anti-online gambling law) specifically exempts it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
(1) Bet or wager.— The term “bet or wager”— ... ...
(E) does not include—
(ix) participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an actual team that is a member of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions
It's a big planet and a small nuke. Although it would be a smoking gun, so to speak, either the sensors didn't find the fallout or the information is still classified.
As the article points out, pretty much every other bit of evidence points to a nuclear explosion.
No, it doesn't. In fact, almost no other piece of actual evidence points to a nuclear explosion with the exception of a disputed Australian sheep iodine measure that was unable to be replicated (including by New Zealand, who are nuclear-hostile and wouldn't assist in a cover-up).
In particular, there was no unusual seismic activity detected. There was no unusual hydro-acoustic activity. There was no fallout or radioactive debris detected. The New Zealand National Radiation Lab was unable to detect any radioactive anomalies despite being well within the fallout radius for a test in the area. Even the ratio of intensities of the two flashes differed from that in other recorded nuclear tests.
Today 100 Mbps is a standard pipe.
No, it isn't. As of Q1 2015 there was no country worldwide with an average connection speed of over 26 Mbps, and there wasn't even a country with an average PEAK connection speed of over 99 Mbps. For average connection speed, South Korea tops the list at 23.6 Mbps; Ireland is second at 17.4. For average peak speed, Singapore is at 98.5 Mbps; Hong Kong is second at 92.6 (South Korea is third at 79.0). Your purported "standard" is faster than the average PEAK speed in the best-connected countries in the world, though it's almost credible to say that in a handful of nations a pipe that's advertised at 100Mbps is standard.
But that's certainly not the case in general. The global average is 5 Mbps and peak average is ~30Mbps.
https://www.akamai.com/us/en/m...
You need to work big to small here, and your focus seems almost backward.
The things you mention as concerns are relatively data-light: Avoiding checking facebook through the app, or turning off image loading in the browser aren't really going to save you much unless you're hitting very image-heavy pages often*. You can spend a ton of time working to minimize these and in the end you won't save much--as a hint, if you were doing it on a 56k modem (even if it was "bandwidth-heavy" then), then it's probably not a significant bandwidth user in this day and age.
Meanwhile the things you're dismissive of are exactly the sort of things that can suck bandwidth: Google Drive can be using arbitrarily huge amounts of data depending on how you use it. Instagram is the definition of "very image-heavy", unless you're pretty selective about its use.
*Blocking videos in the browser can be a big win, but IME autoplay videos are extremely rare on mobile
I always thought of Linus as a guy who managed the Stone Soup well. It wasn't specially good in .01 version. But he made people want to add to it. The GPL helped some. Linus chose that license, not as a "hey Im a zealot and you need to give me everything you write" but he thought "if people do cool things they need to let me see their cool things"
Linux wasn't GPL'd (or open sourced) at in the .01 version--it was free for noncommercial use only.
Linus announced the intent to switch to the GPL at the time of the .12 release, but it was a bit later before he got consent of all the contributors to change the license.
Push technology was one of the hottest buzzwords going c. 1997-1998.
http://news.cnet.com/Marimba-s...
Indeed, I thought modern humans evolved in Olduvai Gorge
The Omo River site in Ethiopia is the current frontrunner, I believe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Only in a legalistic sense (they can use the trademark), not in a technical sense.
The OS X kernel name XNU literally stands for "X is not Unix". There's a lot of BSD code layered on top of it, but the core is a non-Unix Mach-based system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X...
This varies based on the distribution. Linux-FT was POSIX.1 certified. http://www.ukuug.org/newslette...
Quite the opposite in my experience--running Flash is pretty much the only reason I launch Firefox these days.
Most Flash sites are so terrible at detecting Chrome's built-in Flash on Linux that they refuse to run at all--I get the "Hey, this site requires Flash! Download it now!" message all the time in Chrome even though it already has the latest Flash support.
Thankfully HTML5 is making this much less of an issue.
Whoops, is that legal? In the U.S. you cannot decline payment made in cash (if you normally take cash). But it's also illegal to deface money. My understanding is that it is not illegal to deface money in the US. It's illegal to deface coins or bills with intent to defraud, or to deface bills with the intent of making them unfit for reissue/circulation. There are sites like Where's George that are designed to deface currency for the purpose of tracking it, which is clearly not intended to make it unfit for circulation since the whole point is to track it in circulation. IMO it's highly unlikely that spocking US currency would result in prosecution, for logistical reasons alone. And there's a reasonable argument that the reason to spock a bill is to make a joke that will not have an audience if the bill is removed from circulation, and therefore the intent is not to render it unfit for circulation. I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
How do you know how useful it is if you've never thought about how many people use it?
It's still potentially useful even if nobody else uses it; you can at least show later on that you or someone with access to your private key signed something.
Why use gpg instead of s/mime, which has native support in most e-mail programs, with no need for plugins? S/MIME relies on centralized key servers or opens itself to man-in-the-middle attacks. You can hand-authenticate individual CAs with some effort, but there's no equivalent to PGP's web of trust. And CAs are single points of failure, making them extremely desirable points of attack. Marlinspike, of course, has developed his own proposed solution to the CA problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... It's up to the reader whether this contributes to his credibility on the issue because he knows what he's talking about and has taken the time to contribute code to help fix the problem, or whether he's someone with his own personal dog in the fight and hence has an ulterior motive in denigrating PGP's trust model.
I presume "real computer" was snark for "not Microsoft Windows".
Selections and the clipboard both have their uses.
Selections are faster and leaner--you can just highlight some text, then center-click wherever to copy it there. It's faster than having to highlight, then explicitly copy with Ctrl-C or whatever, then click somewhere, then paste with Ctrl-V or whatever. It's also guaranteed to give you plain text, rather than bringing along formatting and images and stuff.
The clipboard is more featureful, it's useful when you want to bring along formatting or images or other non-text stuff. It also allows you to highlight another area and paste over it, as you mention. It's also more persistent, so if you are working on code or something and have a string you're going to paste repeatedly, you might put that on the clipboard with Ctrl-C and have it until you explicitly cut something else; you can still do selection copy/paste for quick little stuff in the interim, but still have your main item saved on the clipboard so you don't have to go re-copy it.
Having both is useful. Selections are a lot faster, I use them the majority of the time but still use the clipboard sometimes.
Propose such a "simple" perl script.
Here are some cases it should know how to deal with:
Between numbers (note that slashdot eats some of these characters; the numbers below all have different dashes or related symbols between "555" and "1000"):
"Pages 555–1000 discuss this matter" (this should be an internumeral dash, which is typically an en dash, U+2013).
"Her phone number is 5551000" (this should be a figure dash, U+2012).
"There were actually a lot more of them than the estimated 555—1000, to be precise" (this should be an em dash, U+2014).
"The teacher asked me to solve 5551000. I told him negative 455 was the answer." (this should be a minus sign, U+2212)
Between letters/words you have a similar problem: even if you know it shouldn't be a minus sign (which symbolic algebra makes tough to know for sure, but suppose you could surmount that), you generally have no idea what kind of dash or hyphen it should be turned into.
My guess is that "continuously living" is meant to exclude spores and the like, but it's unclear.