Surely if the specification lists the data in a structured way, they don't need to be hard-coded. Can't you just stick them all in a database and do lookups? Can't the authority give that the requisite structure?
I'm not so sure of that - one of the big problems would be how do you integrate 9 and 10 digit data so historical records are accurate as well as what happens when systems expecting 9 digits now see 10? There's a huge set of 9 digit data that won't simply go away and systems need to be redone to account for two separate data types. Data entry also needs to still account for 9 digit codes as service delivery and data entry dates could be far apart.
I guess you could simply add a digit to the 9 digit codes to make them 10 digit but I bet that would result in code overlap as well - or simply make all the 9 digit data no longer recognizable by systems.
There are approximately 16 patents per $100 million spent in Australian publicly funded Research Institutions http://bit.ly/jROW2M. Other nations are not radically different. Therefore, France's concept may give a better return on investment whilst stimulating innovation. The danger is if they act as a Troll to intimidate other nations?
Actually, they can use this as a competitive advantage by favoring French or favored companies in licensing terms. They could give them generous (read cheap) licenses while charging others higher fees; thereby giving some companies an economic advantage.
Harvard Law has about 500 seats per year and thousands of applications, almost all of which are going to have better transcripts that Barry probably had. But Harvard not only wanted this guy they wanted him so bad they were willing to give a free ride?
because they found something compelling in his application that said "This guy has high potential."
again, unlike you, whose writings scream "internet kook" and are compelling only in your own mind.
Grep works when you know what you're looking for. Doing any sort of semantic knowledge discovery might require more effort in annotating and organizing the data.
Agreed - it'd be a way to first sift for keywords and then dig deeper.
We don't know how the hell a community organizer paid the freight to get a degree at Harvard, not exactly known for it's low low prices.
and you're not exactly know for your understanding of higher education pricing. If Harvard wants you, they'll find a way to make it affordable - with their endowment they can afford a few scholarships here and there. You only pay full freight if you can afford it and they really don't care if you attend.
obstruction of justice. that's what they'll get you on.
there used to be a custom on the road: when you saw a speed trap, you blinked your lights to the oncoming traffic to warn them. this, in many states, can you get cited;(
citizens having power SCARES those in charge. (story at 11)
True, but at least some state courts have a proper understanding of our constitution and traditional actions when faced with authority we find unreasonable:
In 1994, New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division held that flipping or flicking high beams at approaching vehicles is insufficient to cause the "dazzling lights" prohibited under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 375. In 2009, the New York Supreme Court held that the flashing of lights alone is not a violation of New York Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 375, that stopping a vehicle based upon that is illegal, and all evidence gather as a result of the illegal stop should be suppressed.
In Ohio, courts have held that the act of flashing one's headlights so as to alert oncoming drivers of a radar trap does not constitute the offense of obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duties, where there was no proof that the warned vehicles were speeding prior to the warning. In another case, where a driver received a citation under an ordinance prohibiting flashing lights on a vehicle, a court held that the ordinance referred to the noun of flashing lights and did not prohibit the verb of flashing the headlights on a vehicle. In a difference case, a court held that a momentary flick of the high beams is not a violation of Ohio R.C. 4513.15(which prohibits drivers from aiming glaring rays into the eyes of oncoming drivers).
In Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has ruled that flashing one's highbeams during the day to warn of speed traps is legal.
In Tennessee, flashing headlights to warn oncoming traffic of a police car ahead is protected free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In Virginia, headlight flashing to warn of police activity is not illegal, even though other evasion techniques like radar detectors are outlawed.
I sent several polite emails tongue school explaining there error when I got a reply that stated "the address was right, xxx.yyy at gmail is different from xxxyyy at gmail( it isn't as gmail ignores dots)
I'd add "xxx.yyy@gmail.com" as an alternate e-mail address and then reply from it saying "no it isn't".
Also - how the heck do you get "tongue" there? Auto-correct?
I could, but quite frankly it's to much of hassle and all I'd do is continue to argue with an idiot. Most people respond with a nice sorry about that or thanks I'll fix it. For some reason the administrator at the school couldn't take the time to simply verify the address (he insisted the person was getting his emails at my gmail address) and became petulant when I tried to explain why he wasn't. The best was when some attorney started emailing me stuff for a case he was working on. The risk is (for those that remember the old risks-digest) making public information you truly want to keep private; compounded by the ease which with most email programs add outgoing addresses.
Yea, the iPhone's autocorrect gets funny sometimes, I generally catch it but sometimes...
I had that problem with a local school (odd that a student's parent had the same name as mine). I sent several polite emails tongue school explaining there error when I got a reply that stated "the address was right, xxx.yyy at gmail is different from xxxyyy at gmail( it isn't as gmail ignores dots), and I need to change my email, I said FU. And dump all school mail to junk. I figured once a " your kids not in class" email got missed and a parent was pissed they'd fix the errors. I did stop getting them so I guess it works. Usually my first oops this is not the one you want email usually get a thanks reply, but som dholes can't seem to figure it. Not my problem.
Remember, AA was the first airline who wanted to be more "equitable" about distributing the fees and started charging fees to check bags.
Ostensibly they did this to be more fair to the people who didn't check bags.
Of course the other major carriers quickly followed suit.
Actually, the various fees are a good way to shift costs to an airline's least important customers - the infrequent fliers. By charging them more, especially since they are more likely to check a bag, the ticket price can be kept lower. That benefits frequent fliers, who also don't pay to check a bag.
My experience has been that the whole flying experience was heavily degraded by this misguided decision. Even when I pay the fee to check my bags, I'm forced to wait while people who were too cheap to do so try to shove their bags into overhead compartments they just won't fit in. Thus, the checked bag fee slaps me twice - once when I pay it, and again when I have to deal with people who should have, but didn't.
American Airlines came up with that idea, and I don't think I will ever set foot on one of their planes again as a result.
Fortunately, the airlines seem to be getting a bit better at catching oversize bags before ether go on. While it has had the side effect of requiring more gate checking; I've never experienced any significant delay as a result. Agin, the infrequent flier bears the brunt of it, since they are the last to board and most frequent fliers have grabbed the much of the overhead space.
I think we'll see more and more al la carte pricing as it allows airlines to increase revenue while keeping base ticket prices lower and effectively discriminate between frequent and infrequent fliers.
Redhat doesn't charge for the software. They charge for the services and hardware they provide surrounding the software.
Not exactly true. They charge for commercial Cygwin usage
From what I could see, you can license it so that software developed from it does have a gpl license. Assuming they are the sole copyright holder or have any other copyright holders permission to re-license the code there is nothing wrong with that.
Having various licenses for copyrighted material is not uncommon, for example you can license a Dilbert cartoon for use in a presentation, for use in a presentation and any handouts, and at various licensed size tiers. The BBC licenses some programs for educational and training use as well.
Of course you can change the law to that end. Limit litigation fees, slap a ceiling on lawyer fees and there you go. Outrageous litigation costs that allow big business to bully the small players due to their inability to pay for trial is pretty much an American specialty. Works way better in other countries.
If you think the ability for larger companies to bully smaller ones is limited to the US because of its legal structure you are living in a dream world.
That said, I'd like a loser pays system so at least the smaller company has a chance to recoup its legal fees; or at worst if it loses and bankrupts itself the big guy is still out legal fees.
It's called protection money, no matter how you spin it.
Not by a long shot. Under the current system, MS has the right to control the use of its patents - and HTC can develop products that don't infringe. It's just easier to license than create non-infringing software or hardware.
It removes the threat of litigation from Microsoft only. As seen by the Apple vs HTC suit. And in general, I bet they did it to have easy access to WinMo and WP7.
Depending on the specific patents licensed, and Apple and MS licensing agreements, HTC may be in a better position to defend itself and broker a settlement.
Assuming this is correct, it's because HTC chose to sign the deal. That sounds to me as a spectator like a dumb business decision, but it was HTC's to make. I understand some companies paid $699 for a Linux license not long ago - does that mean we can't write a free desktop OS?
Several points:
With current patent law, free has nothing to do with weather or not you infringe on a software patent. Until the law is changed, a free OS could still be open to an infringement claim.
It may not be a bad deal for HTC - it removes the threat of litigation which may make their phones more popular amongst carrier since they don't have to worry about being caught in a lawsuit, and if MS agreed to defend claims, based on MS' patents, against HTC arising from possible infringement it further protects HTC.
No one knows if HTC cross licensed patents - it's possible HTC is also getting money from MS for HTC patens so the deal has a revenue impact but in reality no cost.
in the future, seismologists will be unwilling to say people aren't in danger, and causation them to take precautions. When people leave, disrupting routine activity, and nothing happens they will yell at the seismologists and eventually ignore warnings. then, when it really happens, the seismologists can say "we warned you." Of course, some legal wiz will decide it's the seismologists fault that the event didn't happen and hold them responsible for the losses caused by people leaving or panicking.
Despite their huffing and puffing it is not economically feasible or wise to shut down Texas air traffic. Houston is a major hub for several shipping companies and there are other large companies based in Texas. If they were to prevent air travel that would undermine the economic recovery they Feds have been chasing. Maybe not a lot, but a simple act like that would have rippling impacts and cost this country millions if not billions of dollars.
Texas should play their game and call their bluff.
Texas would fold and walk away in less than a day; in fact they already seem to have tossed in their cards. No surprise there.
"The Department of Justice has sent a letter to Texas legislative leaders warning that the rule would run counter to federal laws."
What ever happened to the 4th amendment? Isn't that federal law?
Trumped by the commerce clause and general welfare clause. You could also argue it is not an unreasonable search; or even it is not an unreasonable searh and seizure since nothing is seized.
is not collusion, but a desire to force the issue with content providers over who pays for high bandwidth services. As services, such as video streaming, become more common networks will become more heavily loaded and the cell phone companies will need to invest things that can keep data flowing. They, off course, don't want to make that investment just to keep money flowing to content providers. So, they need to find a way to shift the costs to the content providers and eventually the users.
By capping data, they can lessen the uptake of these services since people won't what to pay overages. By lessoning the uptake, they slow the growth of the content companies which means they are worth less, giving them a vested interest in figuring out a way to share revenue to pay for the pipe. They'll charge the consumer more, pay an access fee and the cell phone companies are happy. You might think the content providers would be mad - but that also creates a barrier to entry since new companies would need to pony up cash before they have subscribers, making it hard to offer free or low cost services since they customer would find them to use bandwidth were the big players are "free from usage charges."
In the end, it comes down to money. The cell phone companies don't what to be freeway on which content providers gore rich - they want a slice of the pie and by controlling the last mile, they have some leverage.
This information is great for overwhelming business owners with unsolicited consultant proposals!
A advertising/marketing/efficiency/etc. consultant can use all those useless measurements, make assertions about their implications, write a fancy lingo-ridden cold-call proposal (synergize your cost potentials!), and get a contract. It's great for (their) business.
Well, the actual value is in aggregating the data with other information to identify trends that can be applied other within the same socio-econoic demography to extract value from them by offering targeted offerings that trigger desirable pre-defined responses which result beneficial economic transactions to the offerer. By identifying such markers you can maximize the synergies inherent in the cross-functional sharing of data designed to optimize the customer experience and increase the value to the enterprise.
As long as the use is limited to investigate accidents ONLY, and they retain only about 15-30 minutes of data, it would be OK.
They shouldnt be used for general law enforcement like speeding,etc..
to paraphrase Murphy, anything that can be used, will be used. The upside is if courts accept the data they could also be used to show you are innocent.
The time to do it was before ether started to grow - when their future was more uncertain. Now, they are beginning to have a good story to tell - so it's harder to convince them to give up some of what they risked earlier. That said, I'd go with a "I think you are going to be very successful and would like to trade some of my current compensation for a stake in the future." Then work out a pay reduction in exchange for equity. Also, get a good lawyer that understands startups so whatever deal you cut, if any, is fair to both sides. They could give you equity with the right to buy it back a a low price, if for example, the company is sold. Or fire you before it vests.
Once you get the counts, wait a while and retest to get the half life and try to see what the source may be.
Often the isotope in question can be determined by the emission spectrum using gamma spectroscopy - no need to wait a half life. If that were true, we'd still be waiting to verify the discovery of most of the isotopes of Uranium and Plutonium.
True, but I was primarily referring to the various short lived isotopes, often natural occurring, so that you can distinguish a release form naturally occurring activity. It's a quick way to verify background sources and get out of masks.
1. Set the scale on as low as possible and watch people freak when the needle pegs...
2. When responding to a reported incident, set the scale as high as possible so people feel safe and don't panic since all they hear is a slow tick...tick...
Slashdot Mirror
Surely if the specification lists the data in a structured way, they don't need to be hard-coded. Can't you just stick them all in a database and do lookups? Can't the authority give that the requisite structure?
I'm not so sure of that - one of the big problems would be how do you integrate 9 and 10 digit data so historical records are accurate as well as what happens when systems expecting 9 digits now see 10? There's a huge set of 9 digit data that won't simply go away and systems need to be redone to account for two separate data types. Data entry also needs to still account for 9 digit codes as service delivery and data entry dates could be far apart.
I guess you could simply add a digit to the 9 digit codes to make them 10 digit but I bet that would result in code overlap as well - or simply make all the 9 digit data no longer recognizable by systems.
There are approximately 16 patents per $100 million spent in Australian publicly funded Research Institutions http://bit.ly/jROW2M. Other nations are not radically different. Therefore, France's concept may give a better return on investment whilst stimulating innovation. The danger is if they act as a Troll to intimidate other nations?
Actually, they can use this as a competitive advantage by favoring French or favored companies in licensing terms. They could give them generous (read cheap) licenses while charging others higher fees; thereby giving some companies an economic advantage.
Harvard Law has about 500 seats per year and thousands of applications, almost all of which are going to have better transcripts that Barry probably had. But Harvard not only wanted this guy they wanted him so bad they were willing to give a free ride?
because they found something compelling in his application that said "This guy has high potential."
again, unlike you, whose writings scream "internet kook" and are compelling only in your own mind.
Grep works when you know what you're looking for. Doing any sort of semantic knowledge discovery might require more effort in annotating and organizing the data.
Agreed - it'd be a way to first sift for keywords and then dig deeper.
where is Kibo when you need him?
We don't know how the hell a community organizer paid the freight to get a degree at Harvard, not exactly known for it's low low prices.
and you're not exactly know for your understanding of higher education pricing. If Harvard wants you, they'll find a way to make it affordable - with their endowment they can afford a few scholarships here and there. You only pay full freight if you can afford it and they really don't care if you attend.
Need I say more?
obstruction of justice. that's what they'll get you on.
there used to be a custom on the road: when you saw a speed trap, you blinked your lights to the oncoming traffic to warn them. this, in many states, can you get cited ;(
citizens having power SCARES those in charge. (story at 11)
True, but at least some state courts have a proper understanding of our constitution and traditional actions when faced with authority we find unreasonable:
In 1994, New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division held that flipping or flicking high beams at approaching vehicles is insufficient to cause the "dazzling lights" prohibited under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 375. In 2009, the New York Supreme Court held that the flashing of lights alone is not a violation of New York Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 375, that stopping a vehicle based upon that is illegal, and all evidence gather as a result of the illegal stop should be suppressed.
In Ohio, courts have held that the act of flashing one's headlights so as to alert oncoming drivers of a radar trap does not constitute the offense of obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duties, where there was no proof that the warned vehicles were speeding prior to the warning. In another case, where a driver received a citation under an ordinance prohibiting flashing lights on a vehicle, a court held that the ordinance referred to the noun of flashing lights and did not prohibit the verb of flashing the headlights on a vehicle. In a difference case, a court held that a momentary flick of the high beams is not a violation of Ohio R.C. 4513.15(which prohibits drivers from aiming glaring rays into the eyes of oncoming drivers).
In Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has ruled that flashing one's highbeams during the day to warn of speed traps is legal.
In Tennessee, flashing headlights to warn oncoming traffic of a police car ahead is protected free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In Virginia, headlight flashing to warn of police activity is not illegal, even though other evasion techniques like radar detectors are outlawed.
Source: Wikipedia
I sent several polite emails tongue school explaining there error when I got a reply that stated "the address was right, xxx.yyy at gmail is different from xxxyyy at gmail( it isn't as gmail ignores dots)
I'd add "xxx.yyy@gmail.com" as an alternate e-mail address and then reply from it saying "no it isn't".
Also - how the heck do you get "tongue" there? Auto-correct?
I could, but quite frankly it's to much of hassle and all I'd do is continue to argue with an idiot. Most people respond with a nice sorry about that or thanks I'll fix it. For some reason the administrator at the school couldn't take the time to simply verify the address (he insisted the person was getting his emails at my gmail address) and became petulant when I tried to explain why he wasn't. The best was when some attorney started emailing me stuff for a case he was working on. The risk is (for those that remember the old risks-digest) making public information you truly want to keep private; compounded by the ease which with most email programs add outgoing addresses.
Yea, the iPhone's autocorrect gets funny sometimes, I generally catch it but sometimes...
I had that problem with a local school (odd that a student's parent had the same name as mine). I sent several polite emails tongue school explaining there error when I got a reply that stated "the address was right, xxx.yyy at gmail is different from xxxyyy at gmail( it isn't as gmail ignores dots), and I need to change my email, I said FU. And dump all school mail to junk. I figured once a " your kids not in class" email got missed and a parent was pissed they'd fix the errors. I did stop getting them so I guess it works. Usually my first oops this is not the one you want email usually get a thanks reply, but som dholes can't seem to figure it. Not my problem.
Remember, AA was the first airline who wanted to be more "equitable" about distributing the fees and started charging fees to check bags.
Ostensibly they did this to be more fair to the people who didn't check bags.
Of course the other major carriers quickly followed suit.
Actually, the various fees are a good way to shift costs to an airline's least important customers - the infrequent fliers. By charging them more, especially since they are more likely to check a bag, the ticket price can be kept lower. That benefits frequent fliers, who also don't pay to check a bag.
My experience has been that the whole flying experience was heavily degraded by this misguided decision. Even when I pay the fee to check my bags, I'm forced to wait while people who were too cheap to do so try to shove their bags into overhead compartments they just won't fit in. Thus, the checked bag fee slaps me twice - once when I pay it, and again when I have to deal with people who should have, but didn't.
American Airlines came up with that idea, and I don't think I will ever set foot on one of their planes again as a result.
Fortunately, the airlines seem to be getting a bit better at catching oversize bags before ether go on. While it has had the side effect of requiring more gate checking; I've never experienced any significant delay as a result. Agin, the infrequent flier bears the brunt of it, since they are the last to board and most frequent fliers have grabbed the much of the overhead space.
I think we'll see more and more al la carte pricing as it allows airlines to increase revenue while keeping base ticket prices lower and effectively discriminate between frequent and infrequent fliers.
Redhat doesn't charge for the software. They charge for the services and hardware they provide surrounding the software.
Not exactly true. They charge for commercial Cygwin usage
From what I could see, you can license it so that software developed from it does have a gpl license. Assuming they are the sole copyright holder or have any other copyright holders permission to re-license the code there is nothing wrong with that.
Having various licenses for copyrighted material is not uncommon, for example you can license a Dilbert cartoon for use in a presentation, for use in a presentation and any handouts, and at various licensed size tiers. The BBC licenses some programs for educational and training use as well.
Of course you can change the law to that end. Limit litigation fees, slap a ceiling on lawyer fees and there you go. Outrageous litigation costs that allow big business to bully the small players due to their inability to pay for trial is pretty much an American specialty. Works way better in other countries.
If you think the ability for larger companies to bully smaller ones is limited to the US because of its legal structure you are living in a dream world.
That said, I'd like a loser pays system so at least the smaller company has a chance to recoup its legal fees; or at worst if it loses and bankrupts itself the big guy is still out legal fees.
It's called protection money, no matter how you spin it.
Not by a long shot. Under the current system, MS has the right to control the use of its patents - and HTC can develop products that don't infringe. It's just easier to license than create non-infringing software or hardware.
It removes the threat of litigation from Microsoft only. As seen by the Apple vs HTC suit. And in general, I bet they did it to have easy access to WinMo and WP7.
Depending on the specific patents licensed, and Apple and MS licensing agreements, HTC may be in a better position to defend itself and broker a settlement.
Assuming this is correct, it's because HTC chose to sign the deal. That sounds to me as a spectator like a dumb business decision, but it was HTC's to make. I understand some companies paid $699 for a Linux license not long ago - does that mean we can't write a free desktop OS?
Several points:
With current patent law, free has nothing to do with weather or not you infringe on a software patent. Until the law is changed, a free OS could still be open to an infringement claim.
It may not be a bad deal for HTC - it removes the threat of litigation which may make their phones more popular amongst carrier since they don't have to worry about being caught in a lawsuit, and if MS agreed to defend claims, based on MS' patents, against HTC arising from possible infringement it further protects HTC.
No one knows if HTC cross licensed patents - it's possible HTC is also getting money from MS for HTC patens so the deal has a revenue impact but in reality no cost.
in the future, seismologists will be unwilling to say people aren't in danger, and causation them to take precautions. When people leave, disrupting routine activity, and nothing happens they will yell at the seismologists and eventually ignore warnings. then, when it really happens, the seismologists can say "we warned you." Of course, some legal wiz will decide it's the seismologists fault that the event didn't happen and hold them responsible for the losses caused by people leaving or panicking.
So can someone translate "homeland security police" into German for me?
Literally: Heimat Sicherheits Polizei; although Vaterland Schutz Polizei has a better ring to it.
Despite their huffing and puffing it is not economically feasible or wise to shut down Texas air traffic. Houston is a major hub for several shipping companies and there are other large companies based in Texas. If they were to prevent air travel that would undermine the economic recovery they Feds have been chasing. Maybe not a lot, but a simple act like that would have rippling impacts and cost this country millions if not billions of dollars.
Texas should play their game and call their bluff.
Texas would fold and walk away in less than a day; in fact they already seem to have tossed in their cards. No surprise there.
"The Department of Justice has sent a letter to Texas legislative leaders warning that the rule would run counter to federal laws."
What ever happened to the 4th amendment? Isn't that federal law?
Trumped by the commerce clause and general welfare clause. You could also argue it is not an unreasonable search; or even it is not an unreasonable searh and seizure since nothing is seized.
is not collusion, but a desire to force the issue with content providers over who pays for high bandwidth services. As services, such as video streaming, become more common networks will become more heavily loaded and the cell phone companies will need to invest things that can keep data flowing. They, off course, don't want to make that investment just to keep money flowing to content providers. So, they need to find a way to shift the costs to the content providers and eventually the users.
By capping data, they can lessen the uptake of these services since people won't what to pay overages. By lessoning the uptake, they slow the growth of the content companies which means they are worth less, giving them a vested interest in figuring out a way to share revenue to pay for the pipe. They'll charge the consumer more, pay an access fee and the cell phone companies are happy. You might think the content providers would be mad - but that also creates a barrier to entry since new companies would need to pony up cash before they have subscribers, making it hard to offer free or low cost services since they customer would find them to use bandwidth were the big players are "free from usage charges."
In the end, it comes down to money. The cell phone companies don't what to be freeway on which content providers gore rich - they want a slice of the pie and by controlling the last mile, they have some leverage.
This information is great for overwhelming business owners with unsolicited consultant proposals!
A advertising/marketing/efficiency/etc. consultant can use all those useless measurements, make assertions about their implications, write a fancy lingo-ridden cold-call proposal (synergize your cost potentials!), and get a contract. It's great for (their) business.
Well, the actual value is in aggregating the data with other information to identify trends that can be applied other within the same socio-econoic demography to extract value from them by offering targeted offerings that trigger desirable pre-defined responses which result beneficial economic transactions to the offerer. By identifying such markers you can maximize the synergies inherent in the cross-functional sharing of data designed to optimize the customer experience and increase the value to the enterprise.
As long as the use is limited to investigate accidents ONLY, and they retain only about 15-30 minutes of data, it would be OK.
They shouldnt be used for general law enforcement like speeding,etc..
to paraphrase Murphy, anything that can be used, will be used. The upside is if courts accept the data they could also be used to show you are innocent.
The time to do it was before ether started to grow - when their future was more uncertain. Now, they are beginning to have a good story to tell - so it's harder to convince them to give up some of what they risked earlier. That said, I'd go with a "I think you are going to be very successful and would like to trade some of my current compensation for a stake in the future." Then work out a pay reduction in exchange for equity. Also, get a good lawyer that understands startups so whatever deal you cut, if any, is fair to both sides. They could give you equity with the right to buy it back a a low price, if for example, the company is sold. Or fire you before it vests.
Once you get the counts, wait a while and retest to get the half life and try to see what the source may be.
Often the isotope in question can be determined by the emission spectrum using gamma spectroscopy - no need to wait a half life. If that were true, we'd still be waiting to verify the discovery of most of the isotopes of Uranium and Plutonium.
True, but I was primarily referring to the various short lived isotopes, often natural occurring, so that you can distinguish a release form naturally occurring activity. It's a quick way to verify background sources and get out of masks.
1. Set the scale on as low as possible and watch people freak when the needle pegs ...
2. When responding to a reported incident, set the scale as high as possible so people feel safe and don't panic since all they hear is a slow tick...tick...