You can't consider the word on its own; English's indefinite article simply does not work like that. Do you say "a helicopter" or "an 'elicopter"? Both are actually correct, depending on how you pronounce the construction overall, and that's generally somewhat variable.
Islam is heading for a full on civil war between shia and sunni's. It is going to make the Spanish inquisition the protestant reformations look peaceful. Stay the fuck out of the area and let them kill each other.
While I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, I think you're underestimating how thoroughly nasty the European religious wars really were. The only think restraining them relative to now was a lower level of technology.
If I oppose the last part, how am I wanting the woman to suffer?
The principal reason for keeping abortion legal is that it allows it to be regulated, keeping it as safe as possible. Make it illegal and it will still happen (there's abundant evidence to substantiate this claim from both history and other places in the world) but more people will die from it because organised crime will be deeply involved. You cannot regulate things that you make illegal.
The problem with court in general is that the standard (at least in the UK) is the almost ephemeral 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If you are widely accepting of other possibilities then it is virtually impossible to reach that standard. Clearly based on some of the shoddy convictions we see the Jurors are willing to convict when there are considerable doubts.
Bullshit. The problem is programmers getting mixed up between the all possible doubt standard and reasonable doubt. The former is mathematically and logically nice, but is utterly impossible; a recipe for total stasis. Fortunately, it is the latter that is actually used. Think of it as if you're using a bayesian reasoner and are trying to establish whether the likelihood of guilt is over a sufficient threshold; reasonable doubt probably kicks in somewhere around the 99% level. (Civil cases are typically settled on balance of probabilities, which is the 50% level.)
So a private, for-profit company named "Coverity" has released a report that shows that their "Coverity Scan" software finds the fewest vaguely-defined "defects" in a programming language whose community has added the "Coverity platform" product to their development process?
Their stuff does work at detecting certain kinds of problem, but it doesn't detect all possible bugs (nor does anything else I've encountered). It's better to say that it's an independent tool that can be used as well as other tools, and they provide free access to quite a few of the larger OSS projects. They surely don't have to; nobody's forcing them. They've also been doing it for years.
For an example of the sort of thing they find, in a software package I know about their tool recently picked up that the maximum length of string to return passed in one location to readlink() was the same as the size of the buffer passed in, i.e., not leaving enough room for a terminating NUL. It's a trivial problem, easily fixed if actually tricky to spot in a large codebase, but it's the sort of thing that can cause all sorts of problems when encountered for real (get it wrong and you've got a potential problem with a stack smash).
The Oracle case has no precedent allowable in this case.
The court is not formally bound to follow the precedent set in the other case, but perhaps ought to be aware of the legal scholarship involved; that can carry over between jurisdictions, though only with persuasive power and only as one of the many aspects that ought to be considered.
If you want to learn to program you want to read tutorials not the API documentation...
And if you're wanting to maintain the system, you need the API documentation and the technical architecture overview. Occasionally that's put in the API docs, but it's very rare, and the tutorial hardly ever touches on the architecture (they serve different purposes). The purpose of the architecture docs are to tell you what the overall purpose of different APIs are, where you look for implementations of certain types of functionality, and how to fit the pieces together; such stuff is usually non-obvious even with quite a lot of expertise, as there are frequently many different ways to achieve the same thing. Moreover, the bigger the application, the more you need such high-level views to help you find your way around.
You'll probably be referring to the API more often though.
The blind leading the blind. People who can't tell good answers from bad upvote bad answers. Try searching for some topic that you know a lot about and see what I mean.
I've seen a lot of things said about Stack Overflow, but this has been something that's consistently said that I've never been able to substantiate. I've seen questions with no good answers where some of the poor ones have received some upvotes, but where there's an actual good answer — something that you can check for yourself because a good answer will be one that includes a description of what to do — it tends to attract upvotes over time. (Which answer is accepted is more variable, as that's the gift of the person asking the question.) While there's a bit of cult following going on (i.e., voting someone up because of who they are) it is relatively rare because most of the highly rated people are that because they tend to give good answers.
Typically, where a question has what you think are bad answers receiving upvotes, that's either because you've misunderstood the question (duh!) or because the question itself was poorly asked. Which sucks a lot but happens. If you think you can provide a better answer than the ones that already exist, then write that answer and don't whine about it! (Bear in mind that good answers can pull in reputational increases over a number of years; one of my answers from 3 years ago pulled in a vote yesterday. It's a long-haul game.)
the Navier-Stokes equation (which is still unsolved, and is not even known if there is/isn't an algorithmic solution)
The Navier-Stokes equation is strongly non-linear, so it's entirely expected that there are going to be very few exact algorithmic solutions (and most of those that exist are for cases where the non-linear terms are zero). The general problems with determining exact solutions to non-linear equations have been known for a long time in mathematics.
On the other hand, it does mean that turbulent flow is not about to become a boring subject to study.
Every generation says to their children: "we were better mannered, we didn't have premarital sex, we didn't have teenage sex, people didn't do drugs, we worked harder...". Apparently, they also had shorter memories
The problem with the memories is probably due to all the drugs they were taking.
It's a note? So, not a box of chocolate or a flaming bag of dog poop contained digitally therein?
You correspond with some of the people I used to deal with I see.
And if it's cc'd to a whole department, that time loss and irritation multiplier gets . . . multiplied.
I don't mind those; being sent to everyone allows me to filter much more rapidly, as I can rely on someone else having read it.
And for the sake of disclosure, in case you hadn't already guessed it, the most frequent criticism of my communication style is "long-winded". Followed by "pompous jackass".
Try focusing on saying things only once rather than many times over (or only partially). Most communications benefit from not being over- or under-used.
However VimetX says that because FaceTime once infringed on one of their patents it is forever tainted and therefor ongoing royalties have to paid even when FaceTime is no longer infringing on their patent.
Hmm, that's an "interesting" legal theory they have there, though one that's at variance from the principles usually accepted by courts with respect to harm minimisation. I would be quite surprised if they get this particular claim upheld (and with the amount of money involved, I'd also be surprised if Apple didn't fight it).
I have a better solution: More regional hubs for lightrails.
Please expand on your argument. In what way is this cost effective? Where would those hubs be located? How would you propose to deal with the fallout from acquiring all that land?
In fact many crashes are caused by lack of speed, or significant differences in speed.
The key difference in speed being the difference between the speed immediately before and the speed immediately after. I think you'll find that's highly involved in virtually all crashes.
2. The school budget should focus solely on math, science, the english language (in the USA), history (not 'social studies'), and a life-skills program (minus the political correctness in current health classes). This program would cover things like: eating habits, sexual behavior, phys ed, and at least a basic program on managing money. If the kid plays sports in after-school camp, then he's exempt from phys ed.
Your plan is too small. An ideal curriculum ought to have a non-English language as well (it doesn't matter which; it's really about encouraging people to think in different ways), and also needs some sort of arts component; music, drama, painting, etc. There's also a reasonable case to be made for allowing a substitution of geography for history. The core of the budget would still be on English language, math and science, as they're the keys to being able to navigate the modern world, but schools need to produce more than just automatons.
Mind you, discussions about the proper content of a general curriculum have been a staple of education politics for... well, forever.
There's also companies dumb enough to ask for 10 years of HTML5+CSS3 experience.
The only sane way to read that is as special HR code for "expert in modern web technology". Which is a rather saner thing to ask for, and indicates a position that can be filled. If you're unable to figure out the code for how this sort of thing is written in job adverts, are you sure you're the right person for having that job? Or any real job?
The point is, if you're a reasonably knowledgable person with the tech and overall have enough expertise, make a pitch. You just have to be good enough to get to interview.
Presumably because the plaintiff believes that their patents are still being infringed. From the wording, I'd guess that whether that is actually true has not been decided yet; just asking for something doesn't mean they'll get it.
Commercial businesses need more than just "potential" profit, especially if they are going to be spending the insane amounts of money that space exploration will demand.
And yet lots of businesses do things for potential profit, and have done for centuries. It's about balancing risk and costs against what you can gain for it. (Now, if they can avoid sending people that'll keep costs down a lot in the early parts, at least until it is demonstrated that the profit can actually be realised.)
There's also the differences due to the change of the local gravity field; all that ice has a lot of mass and does currently attract plenty of seawater to it.
Extremely minimal, even if you have 2km sideways pull from the ice there's 6400km of downwards pull towards the center of the earth so water doesn't gather much Heavy mineral deposits or a thick crust directly under the water is different, that adds more compression without trying to counteract the sideways forces.
I can't find the article I was thinking of right now, but this one is not too far off.
I'd say humans need to ditch all the BS and start from scratch to create a language that's easy to OCR with syntax and grammar that's extensible and non ambiguous and thus interpretable by machines.
You want us all to switch to Marain to enable hyperintelligent starships and a left-wing intergalactic paradise? Sounds cool to me.
Greenland rebounding does absolutely nothing because the "extra" volume is not taken out of the ocean. The water doesn't suddenly jump back up on the land.
Not true. You can get shifting in the surrounding rock as things move around, though the effects are complex. There's also the differences due to the change of the local gravity field; all that ice has a lot of mass and does currently attract plenty of seawater to it.
I have no idea what the relative sizes of these effects are likely to be.
And you're not liable unless you have good reason to believe that the person you're texting isn't smart enough not to answer immediately. The harm has to be foreseeable, after all.
Or if you have done special inducements to cause the call recipient to take the call without stopping first, such as apparently happened in this case. If you go round seriously trying to get other people to break the law, you better believe that you get some liability from that. This is a substantial part of what "abetting a crime" is about (though it is more commonly referred to as being an accomplice to the crime in the US), and that liability arises from it has been part of US law since at least 1870.
When your hands barely leave the steering wheel no more than they would to activate a turning signal, I don't see the problem.
It has to do with attention levels. For some reason, texting is exceptionally distracting when driving; this has been measured. Being highly distracted mixes absolutely horribly with driving, especially when there's lots of other traffic about. Because of that, it's by far safer to just never ever mix the two; if you want to read and respond to a text message when driving, park the car first. The laws in question are just about making this especially clear, as it is an all-too-present problem, but the problem exists irrespective of whether the law explicitly bans texting.
Which isn't to say that taking a call when driving is great either. It definitely isn't (again, that's measured). It's just that texting (or the vast majority of using the internet) is even worse.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't say "elicopter"
You can't consider the word on its own; English's indefinite article simply does not work like that. Do you say "a helicopter" or "an 'elicopter"? Both are actually correct, depending on how you pronounce the construction overall, and that's generally somewhat variable.
Language. What a mess.
Carbon taxes will do nothing in the face of exponential population growth.
Which is why you want to be educating women, as that seems to be the most effective mechanism for reducing population growth rates.
Islam is heading for a full on civil war between shia and sunni's. It is going to make the Spanish inquisition the protestant reformations look peaceful. Stay the fuck out of the area and let them kill each other.
While I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, I think you're underestimating how thoroughly nasty the European religious wars really were. The only think restraining them relative to now was a lower level of technology.
If I oppose the last part, how am I wanting the woman to suffer?
The principal reason for keeping abortion legal is that it allows it to be regulated, keeping it as safe as possible. Make it illegal and it will still happen (there's abundant evidence to substantiate this claim from both history and other places in the world) but more people will die from it because organised crime will be deeply involved. You cannot regulate things that you make illegal.
The problem with court in general is that the standard (at least in the UK) is the almost ephemeral 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If you are widely accepting of other possibilities then it is virtually impossible to reach that standard. Clearly based on some of the shoddy convictions we see the Jurors are willing to convict when there are considerable doubts.
Bullshit. The problem is programmers getting mixed up between the all possible doubt standard and reasonable doubt. The former is mathematically and logically nice, but is utterly impossible; a recipe for total stasis. Fortunately, it is the latter that is actually used. Think of it as if you're using a bayesian reasoner and are trying to establish whether the likelihood of guilt is over a sufficient threshold; reasonable doubt probably kicks in somewhere around the 99% level. (Civil cases are typically settled on balance of probabilities, which is the 50% level.)
So a private, for-profit company named "Coverity" has released a report that shows that their "Coverity Scan" software finds the fewest vaguely-defined "defects" in a programming language whose community has added the "Coverity platform" product to their development process?
Their stuff does work at detecting certain kinds of problem, but it doesn't detect all possible bugs (nor does anything else I've encountered). It's better to say that it's an independent tool that can be used as well as other tools, and they provide free access to quite a few of the larger OSS projects. They surely don't have to; nobody's forcing them. They've also been doing it for years.
For an example of the sort of thing they find, in a software package I know about their tool recently picked up that the maximum length of string to return passed in one location to readlink() was the same as the size of the buffer passed in, i.e., not leaving enough room for a terminating NUL. It's a trivial problem, easily fixed if actually tricky to spot in a large codebase, but it's the sort of thing that can cause all sorts of problems when encountered for real (get it wrong and you've got a potential problem with a stack smash).
The Oracle case has no precedent allowable in this case.
The court is not formally bound to follow the precedent set in the other case, but perhaps ought to be aware of the legal scholarship involved; that can carry over between jurisdictions, though only with persuasive power and only as one of the many aspects that ought to be considered.
If you want to learn to program you want to read tutorials not the API documentation...
And if you're wanting to maintain the system, you need the API documentation and the technical architecture overview. Occasionally that's put in the API docs, but it's very rare, and the tutorial hardly ever touches on the architecture (they serve different purposes). The purpose of the architecture docs are to tell you what the overall purpose of different APIs are, where you look for implementations of certain types of functionality, and how to fit the pieces together; such stuff is usually non-obvious even with quite a lot of expertise, as there are frequently many different ways to achieve the same thing. Moreover, the bigger the application, the more you need such high-level views to help you find your way around.
You'll probably be referring to the API more often though.
The blind leading the blind. People who can't tell good answers from bad upvote bad answers. Try searching for some topic that you know a lot about and see what I mean.
I've seen a lot of things said about Stack Overflow, but this has been something that's consistently said that I've never been able to substantiate. I've seen questions with no good answers where some of the poor ones have received some upvotes, but where there's an actual good answer — something that you can check for yourself because a good answer will be one that includes a description of what to do — it tends to attract upvotes over time. (Which answer is accepted is more variable, as that's the gift of the person asking the question.) While there's a bit of cult following going on (i.e., voting someone up because of who they are) it is relatively rare because most of the highly rated people are that because they tend to give good answers.
Typically, where a question has what you think are bad answers receiving upvotes, that's either because you've misunderstood the question (duh!) or because the question itself was poorly asked. Which sucks a lot but happens. If you think you can provide a better answer than the ones that already exist, then write that answer and don't whine about it! (Bear in mind that good answers can pull in reputational increases over a number of years; one of my answers from 3 years ago pulled in a vote yesterday. It's a long-haul game.)
the Navier-Stokes equation (which is still unsolved, and is not even known if there is/isn't an algorithmic solution)
The Navier-Stokes equation is strongly non-linear, so it's entirely expected that there are going to be very few exact algorithmic solutions (and most of those that exist are for cases where the non-linear terms are zero). The general problems with determining exact solutions to non-linear equations have been known for a long time in mathematics.
On the other hand, it does mean that turbulent flow is not about to become a boring subject to study.
Every generation says to their children: "we were better mannered, we didn't have premarital sex, we didn't have teenage sex, people didn't do drugs, we worked harder...". Apparently, they also had shorter memories
The problem with the memories is probably due to all the drugs they were taking.
It's a note? So, not a box of chocolate or a flaming bag of dog poop contained digitally therein?
You correspond with some of the people I used to deal with I see.
And if it's cc'd to a whole department, that time loss and irritation multiplier gets . . . multiplied.
I don't mind those; being sent to everyone allows me to filter much more rapidly, as I can rely on someone else having read it.
And for the sake of disclosure, in case you hadn't already guessed it, the most frequent criticism of my communication style is "long-winded". Followed by "pompous jackass".
Try focusing on saying things only once rather than many times over (or only partially). Most communications benefit from not being over- or under-used.
However VimetX says that because FaceTime once infringed on one of their patents it is forever tainted and therefor ongoing royalties have to paid even when FaceTime is no longer infringing on their patent.
Hmm, that's an "interesting" legal theory they have there, though one that's at variance from the principles usually accepted by courts with respect to harm minimisation. I would be quite surprised if they get this particular claim upheld (and with the amount of money involved, I'd also be surprised if Apple didn't fight it).
I have a better solution: More regional hubs for lightrails.
Please expand on your argument. In what way is this cost effective? Where would those hubs be located? How would you propose to deal with the fallout from acquiring all that land?
In fact many crashes are caused by lack of speed, or significant differences in speed.
The key difference in speed being the difference between the speed immediately before and the speed immediately after. I think you'll find that's highly involved in virtually all crashes.
So if you believe that's true, you're still going to do nothing about it? What a cop out.
2. The school budget should focus solely on math, science, the english language (in the USA), history (not 'social studies'), and a life-skills program (minus the political correctness in current health classes). This program would cover things like: eating habits, sexual behavior, phys ed, and at least a basic program on managing money. If the kid plays sports in after-school camp, then he's exempt from phys ed.
Your plan is too small. An ideal curriculum ought to have a non-English language as well (it doesn't matter which; it's really about encouraging people to think in different ways), and also needs some sort of arts component; music, drama, painting, etc. There's also a reasonable case to be made for allowing a substitution of geography for history. The core of the budget would still be on English language, math and science, as they're the keys to being able to navigate the modern world, but schools need to produce more than just automatons.
Mind you, discussions about the proper content of a general curriculum have been a staple of education politics for... well, forever.
There's also companies dumb enough to ask for 10 years of HTML5+CSS3 experience.
The only sane way to read that is as special HR code for "expert in modern web technology". Which is a rather saner thing to ask for, and indicates a position that can be filled. If you're unable to figure out the code for how this sort of thing is written in job adverts, are you sure you're the right person for having that job? Or any real job?
The point is, if you're a reasonably knowledgable person with the tech and overall have enough expertise, make a pitch. You just have to be good enough to get to interview.
... so why would there be ongoing royalties?
Presumably because the plaintiff believes that their patents are still being infringed. From the wording, I'd guess that whether that is actually true has not been decided yet; just asking for something doesn't mean they'll get it.
("Chocolate ice cream, please." Nope. Doesn't work.)
Commercial businesses need more than just "potential" profit, especially if they are going to be spending the insane amounts of money that space exploration will demand.
And yet lots of businesses do things for potential profit, and have done for centuries. It's about balancing risk and costs against what you can gain for it. (Now, if they can avoid sending people that'll keep costs down a lot in the early parts, at least until it is demonstrated that the profit can actually be realised.)
There's also the differences due to the change of the local gravity field; all that ice has a lot of mass and does currently attract plenty of seawater to it.
Extremely minimal, even if you have 2km sideways pull from the ice there's 6400km of downwards pull towards the center of the earth so water doesn't gather much Heavy mineral deposits or a thick crust directly under the water is different, that adds more compression without trying to counteract the sideways forces.
I can't find the article I was thinking of right now, but this one is not too far off.
I'd say humans need to ditch all the BS and start from scratch to create a language that's easy to OCR with syntax and grammar that's extensible and non ambiguous and thus interpretable by machines.
You want us all to switch to Marain to enable hyperintelligent starships and a left-wing intergalactic paradise? Sounds cool to me.
Greenland rebounding does absolutely nothing because the "extra" volume is not taken out of the ocean. The water doesn't suddenly jump back up on the land.
Not true. You can get shifting in the surrounding rock as things move around, though the effects are complex. There's also the differences due to the change of the local gravity field; all that ice has a lot of mass and does currently attract plenty of seawater to it.
I have no idea what the relative sizes of these effects are likely to be.
And you're not liable unless you have good reason to believe that the person you're texting isn't smart enough not to answer immediately. The harm has to be foreseeable, after all.
Or if you have done special inducements to cause the call recipient to take the call without stopping first, such as apparently happened in this case. If you go round seriously trying to get other people to break the law, you better believe that you get some liability from that. This is a substantial part of what "abetting a crime" is about (though it is more commonly referred to as being an accomplice to the crime in the US), and that liability arises from it has been part of US law since at least 1870.
When your hands barely leave the steering wheel no more than they would to activate a turning signal, I don't see the problem.
It has to do with attention levels. For some reason, texting is exceptionally distracting when driving; this has been measured. Being highly distracted mixes absolutely horribly with driving, especially when there's lots of other traffic about. Because of that, it's by far safer to just never ever mix the two; if you want to read and respond to a text message when driving, park the car first. The laws in question are just about making this especially clear, as it is an all-too-present problem, but the problem exists irrespective of whether the law explicitly bans texting.
Which isn't to say that taking a call when driving is great either. It definitely isn't (again, that's measured). It's just that texting (or the vast majority of using the internet) is even worse.