Each of those phrases, and many others you run into, have real meaning. Others in this thread have already commented on the specific phrases you bring up.
The reality is that people speak in terms that are common to their field. If you read any of the literature that your business peers reads, run in the same circles that they run in, and even think about the same problems they think about, you'll find yourself adopting their terminology.
It will make sense to you to do so, for the terms they use are actually more precise in their intended meaning than the replacements you give. You are tending to describe the main action or effect of a particular phrase, but the phrase actually encompasses much more. A realignment is exactly that - it may have the effect of layoffs, hires, and other movement of people, but it doesn't necessarily involve all or any of those things.
When they speak to you about a realignment, and you say, "Oh, you mean layoffs?" they will simply tune you out.
If they were to come into your field and choose not embrace your language you would certainly feel as though they don't really understand, and you would subsequently marginalize them and their work.
Note that these require a lot of circuitry to run, and all prototypes currently only work in dark environments (the LEDs sense their own light, sure, but also room lights, sunlight, etc).
Currently a neat hack with perhaps some niche uses, but not a good general solution.
The reason ID is being brought up in the context of schooling is, I believe, to teach children that while evolution is the theory best supported by evidence, that other possibilities are available for them to look into.
The real issue, however, is the teaching of secular principles in schools today. Secularism isn't just teaching without religion - it is teaching that religion has no place in society outside of church. It is the idea that even if ID and evolution are compatible, they must never mention the one that is not demonstrable in class.
As such, many feel that secularism is as much a religion as Christianity, Islam, etc. The fact that it is taught in our schools is annoying to many.
Of course, schools can't mention that there are other theories for how humans evolved on this planet because someone would sue, claiming the teaching of non-secular principles. This means that no one is allowed to live their religion in their speech and in many other methods of expression while in school. Secularism is reinforced by the religious people who don't want their kids to hear about Islam, Athiests that don't wnat their kids to hear about God or ID, and many other groups who, for whatever reason, belive that a closed, controlled-discourse environment is the best learning environment for their (and society's) children.
So it's just another battleground for people to trumpet over. This is not unlike the debates over school prayer years ago (and still smoldering).
In short, it's about power. Who's got it, and who wants it.
Because most people would rather misdial once in every 100 phone calls than have to remember an extra digit for all 100 phone calls.
Besides, many people would skip remembering the extra digit and calculate it on the fly, which would lead to a correctly checksummed wrong number.
And we'd still be dialing an extra digit because some geek doesn't like the occasional misdial. What he doesn't know, however, is that there's a good chance the misdial is in his general area, and stands a good chance at being cuter or more available than what he is used to. Perhaps he has cut out an opportunity in the name of efficiency.
A misdial looks exactly like an intentional dial to the phone company. There is no way that you or the phone company can prevent someone from dialing your number.
Your phone already supports basic white list or blacklist functionality. If the same people keep misdialing your number, then you'll want to blacklist them using the method sugested in the editorial portion of this article.
If, however, you get misdials from different phone numbers then you'll need to add everyone to your phone book that you want to know about immediately, and set the general ring to silent. In this way you'll still get voicemail if the caller left a message (typically misdials won't leave voice mail if you set up your outgoing message well) so you won't be completely out of the loop with a real caller from an unfamiliar phone number.
I don't see how custom software will solve this any better than the phone book will. You have four different scenarios:
1) Someone who does want to talk to you dials correctly and reaches you
2) Someone who does NOT want to talk to you dials correctly and doesn't reach you
3) Someone who does want to talk to you misdials and doesn't reach you
4) Someone who does NOT want to talk to you misdials and reaches you
Only calls from #1 and #4 reach you. There are two further possibilities:
A) The person calls from a number in your phone book
B) The person calls from a number not in your phone book (or is blocked)
A person who does want to talk to you and is not in your phone book (payphone, friend's phone, etc) looks exactly like a person who does not want to talk to you and is not in your phone book. Therefore, as far as the phone company, your phone, and any possible software you could invent knows, 1B == 4B.
Therefore the problem cannot be solved any better than it is right now with the built in phone's whitelist and blacklist. Either you will only accept calls from those you've programmed, shoving everyone else to voice mail, or you will accept calls from anyone who does not match a set of frequent misdiallers.
In the old days before caller ID one could purchase an answering machine that would not allow the home phones to ring unless the caller pressed a sequence of touchtone keys. You may be able to make software do that, but generally those devices failed in the marketplace because it was too much hassle.
Of course, this doesn't answer your question. I suppose what I'm trying to accomplish here is to ask you a question:
What does your proposed software do that your phone and/or phone company cannot already do? Are you simply suggesting an easier to maintain or more explicit blacklist/whitelist, or do you have a novel method that actually does what I suggest is impossible given the information the phone is provided? If so, getting the software onto the phone is trivial once you've convinced a few key people that what you've invented actually works.
I worked full time and took 8-10 credits each semester at the University of Michigan for an engineering degree. I did poorly when I was taking paper notes, and I improved greatly after I started taking electronic notes.
I'm surprised that so many people here are commenting that laptops are universally worse than taking notes on paper.
It's just a tool.
Whether the tool is appropiate for the task at hand depends on the skills of the user and the flexibility of the tool.
Perhaps the professor believes that a laptop is an inappropiate choice for her classroom. Perhaps she even believes that no one in the entire world could possibly learn better with a laptop as their tool as they could with a pencil and paper.
However, I doubt that either case is empiracally true. At best she may notice that some students will do better without a laptop. At worst she's taking away a good tool from many students because a few don't know how to use it properly in her environment.
For me the advantages outweigh the disadvantages:
Electronic notes are easier to write, update/modify, share, refer to, and search than paper notes.
Due to limited classroom space I cannot have many physical items open at once, but with a notebook I can easily switch between the textbook, my notes, the lecture slides/notes, previous sets of notes and slides, and utilities (calculator, for instance).
A light notebook computer is a vast improvement over carrying even one textbook and binder for class work, nevermind 2-4 books, classwork for several classes, and miscellanous materials (pens, pencils, highlighters, staplers, hole punch, etc) required for paper processing.
I didn't have time (full time job, 3/4 time school) to refer to audio or video lectures - that simply wouldn't have worked for me. I was able to use the laptop for both school and work during "down" time. I didn't have to keep searching for an open computer to perform assignments.
Disadvantages include battery performance, diagramming (I carried a small sheet fed scanner and used paer notes when I could find no easy laptop method. This was rare since most diagrams were available from the professor in an electronic format), distraction to other students, electronic wall (some professors are initimidated and don't ask questions of students using a laptop).
I had no problems with eye contact - the screen was never between me and the professor.
I respect the professor's desire to provide the best learning environment for her students. If I were in her class I would follow her instructions, though I would make my case for the use of laptops in the classroom. I would also endeaver to avoid taking classes from her in the future unless I determined that she has more to contribute to my learning than I could get from another professor who would allow me to learn in the manner I choose.
However, assuming she's a law professor going over case law, I imagine that the learning done in her classroom has less to do with sound engineering principles (as I was learning) and more to do with the relatively subjective nature of case interpretation. While one can take adequate notes to understand an algorithm, a single case could be studied perhaps forever with new insight. I doubt that I would have used the same study habits in her class that I developed for engineering classes. I do beleive that I would have wanted a laptop to be part of the process for me.
Does the use of a particular tool mean I would be, by default, a bad student or a bad lawyer?
Where did they originate? England. There is no "imperialand." (hey, no wisecracks).
For better or worse, they are units that the English came up with, used for quite some time, and we still use. If you don't like it, pour money into a metric USA campaign.
In the end, it's just a system of measurement. It's no better or worse than any other system. It's not good, it's not evil, it just is. One may be able to make the case that in some circumstances (or even most circumstances) another system is easier to use. For instance, those who can't deal with fractions may have some difficulty with the English system. Likewise, those that can't deal with decimal prefixes (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, etc) may find it easier to say "4 feet, 3 inche") even while acknowledging that they'd have difficulty multiplying that by 5 and expressing it correctly.
I believe that the more tools I have at my disposal, the better equiped I am at solving problems. Perhaps you feel more comfortable learning and using one system, and that's also a valid choice.
Complaining about the name of a system of measurement is petty, especially when everyone perfectly understands what is meant whether one calls it english or imperial.
I run a non-profit organization that is entirely web-based. [...] We are not an incorpoated 501(c)3 NPO.
You have GOT to be kidding me. You expect a company to donate cash or services to your organization, without proving to them that you follow the law regarding non profit organizations?
I could not donate to an organization that espouses even the purest of motives if that organization can't get its act together and file as a real non-profit, accountable to the law. I might as well be giving money to a con artist.
There are a vast pool of eligible non-profit organizations that ask for Google's money. By only donating to 501(c)3 organizations, Google is protecting itself and has a better chance that the money/services will not be ill-used. The tax-free status of donations is intended to encourage giving, so both Google and the organizations they donate to get something out of the transaction. Were you an eligible 501(c)3 organization, you would hardly call it slimy - you would hail it as a progressive tax code.
In giving money to non-profits, a company MUST look at the return on investment. If giving $1,000 worth of advertising to you helps 100 people, that's nice. If there's another organization that will help 500 people with that $1,000 investment, then that's better. You also need to look at whether the non-profit's goals are similar to your own. It could simply be that Google doesn't donate to any organizations regarding reproduction simply because they want to remain neutral. They don't have to publicize their policy, nor do they need to explain themselves. You are asking for money, and then suddenly you claim that you deserve it and they are such pigs for not donating to you? What rights, exactly, do you have to their money again?
As far as your implication that donations of advertising are "free" and move moeny from one pocket in google to the tax free pocket, consider what you are asking. You are asking Google to give away free advertising to any organization that claims to be non-profit. If google does that, they will have more "free" ads shown than paying ads. Suddenly it won't matter what tax break they get - they won't have money in the first pocket to move to the other pocket. They have to set a limit (for financial and legal reasons) on the amount of "free" advertising they can donate to true non-profit organizations. That limit, I imagine, is reached and therefore they don't have money left over to give to organizations that merely claim non-profit status without actually being non-profit. This is merely one of the consequences of what you are asking them to do - it's much more far-reaching and complex than this, of course.
If I were Google, I'd be wondering, "Is this an advertisement for Plan B? Should I be supporting an organization that claims to be non-profit, but will not take the legal steps necessary to demonstrate that commitment?" Actually, I'd probably not even get that far. "Oh, somone else wants money ear-marked for non-profits, but isn't a non-profit. Time for the round file."
If you're suggesting static routing (ie, put route information into the packets so they go the route you want them to) then I doubt it's going to help. IIRC many routers ignore that option. Further, it would simply add to the size of the packet and increase processing time at each juncture.
There are really only two places for lag: the PC itself, and the network. I can imagine a card that optimizes itself for gaming packets. Imagine, for instance, the card estimating the arrival of a new packet coming from the computer. It can start sending out the packet header even before the computer gives it the packet information and data. At minimum it can start sending out the packet as it's received from the system rather than waiting for the complete packet (and CRC check).
Still, we're looking at 1-5mS speed increase, and that increase is significantly less than, for instance, removing the router/firewall software/hardware.
I'm interested in what the hardware does, but I can't see it improving the experience enough that even a heavy online player will notice the difference.
We got a great deal on a house here in Michigan because the previous owners signed a contract with a relocation company. Among other services (actually moving your stuff, helping you find a new place to live, etc) they also help you sell your old home. The essential deal is that if you can't sell the house within a time frame, they buy it from you. This seems good except for two problems:
They buy it significantly below your asking price.
They do not accept offers with contingencies (ie, if someone wants to buy your house, they can't make an offer if they still need to sell their old house, don't have a pre-approved loan, etc)
Apparantly the previous offer was not valid, and they only had 2 weeks to get a valid offer before losing nearly 20% of their home's value. We still had a place to sell, but were able to get approved for a bridge loan (a high interest short term loan from the bank so we could buy the new house before completing the sale of the old house). We were able to sell our house in the time between having the offer accepted and closing on the new house, so we didn't need to use the bridge loan, but this sort of deal apparantly drove a lot of buyers away.
Relocation companies, I assume, are good in general, but be very careful about accepting their terms, read everything and don't be afraid to tell the company that you'll relocate yourself for the same money they'd be paying the relocation company.
Also, as other noted, the cost of living is *significantly* higher. A house or apartment can easily be twice as much as what you're currently spending. Gas is a little higher. Food and services are higher. Do your homework before you go.
Look up "electronics potting problems" in Google and you'll get all the fun info.
The short and sweet of it is that there are two basic issues: During casting/potting, the epoxy generates a LOT of heat. It can be surprising, and damaging. Check the type of epoxy/resin/casting compound you are using. For such a small amount it probably won't be a problem.
The second issue is the composition of the epoxy and suitability to its purpose. If it has a low resistivity or creates significant capacitance between conductors, then it'll cause problems. If it's not suitable for electronics (ie, degrades over time into other components, is corrosive, etc) then it will cause problems over time.
In short, chances are good you'll be fine for this particular application with hobby grade casting compound. But be prepared for possible data loss if you don't fully understand the subject and act accordingly.
Any satellite not inserted into orbit within a few degrees and a few hundred mph of it's intended trajectory is likely to burn up long before it's intended time.
Since the golf ball has no propulsion ability itself, and they hauled 6 of them up there, are they going to simply wail off 6 shots and hope one actually goes into a reasonable orbit?
One would assume that they are firing it behind the space station (ie, it will go dozens of mph slower than the space station) so it'll have a better chance of deorbiting, but this information isn't given in the article.
Going to be a very low power transmitter to last 5 or more years (just in case they miss and it orbits longer), and survive the impact of a golf club. I suppose amateur radio enthusiasts are going to have to look pretty hard to listen to it themselves.
This is the equivalent of either a dick-size or old-school engine displacement war.
Not necessarily. There is a glass door to one of the server rooms at the University of Michigan, and I like to look inside and see what they have. I don't feel jealousy, I don't hope that one day I'll have rows of racks of glowing lights, I'm just interested in the equipment and setup.
My primary hobby now is electronics. I like to look at other people's projects. Occasionally various forums, mailing lists, etc will have "show your workroom/workbench/nook/etc" threads, and you get to see a lot of generally interesting, mostly messy, occasionally funny, and usually illuminating pictures. One learns a lot by looking at what others do, and asking questions about it.
This does not have to be navel gazing, or one-upsmanship, though it can devolve to that if that's what people want it to be.
You seem to have nothing useful to contribute to this topic, yet you felt compelled to contribute anyway. Perhaps your comment has more to say about how you view the world, than about how others should view this activity.
I just feel that, if I accept the position, I won't be able to bargain my way up to the market rate for the position, given it's such a leap from what I currently make.
A feeling? You're basing business decisions on a fear?
Be honest. Decide for yourself whether you release information about a business relationship you had/have with another company. Then go into your interviews knowing what you will share and how you will share it.
Don't sit around and wonder what they'll do, or what they'll think.
You are developing business relationship. Be professional. Don't go in there hoping you do everything right, and in the process spend more time worrying about doing the right thing than about presenting yourself and your skills.
I have made a few largish jumps in the past (12%, 25%, 63%). Each time I went in and told them what I liked about their company, how I believed I fit in, and the range I expected to be paid for the position. Each time I was honest without telling them my current sallary. This last time several companies turned me down primarily, I assume, because I was asking for what I was worth. Eventually I found a position that was perfect for me, and apparently perfect for them.
But then, I don't bargain. I don't do counter-offers, and I let them know up front that I'm not interested in doing so. If they don't feel like paying what I'm worth, then I'll not waste any more of my time or their time.
Your mileage may vary, and unless you have the personality that I have these tips may not work for you. But I would suggest at minimum that you treat this as a two way business relationship. They are trying to sell you on the position as much as you are trying to sell them on your skills. Don't make yourself out to be the party with less power.
"We have hundreds of applicants, what makes you so special?"
"There are hundreds of campanies I could work for. I want to work for yours. Can you say that of your other applicants?"
It's GPS and covered in glue. Carry a small square of tinfoil with you and slap it on when yo get tagged - if you notice the tagging, anyway. It will negatively effect both the GPS reception and the transmission back to police.
If you forcibly deprive someone of sleep, they end up with physical brain damage and then die.
Can you provide the relevant studies? The animal studies where mice and rats died are not indicative of human reaction, though one can gain some insight into the basic biology of sleep with animals. As far as I've read, the animals die fairly quickly, but humans under similar conditions live at least as long as the animals. Ethical restrictions prevent researchers from depriving humans of sleep until death, so I'm very interested in the research that proves your statement.
Get a professional electrician in that knows about peak charges.
Older installations used to use giant flywheels, but not to limit peaks. They were used for power conditioning and limited power backup.
I'd do an extensive survey before trying anything else. Buy or rent a power meter that does logging and graphing. Check everything out for a month - each phase and the current draw on each phase, and current draw on each rack (each computer if possible).
Proper sequencing of cooling can drastically affect your power consumption. Never start your cooling motors when you're drawing a lot of power - motor startup is a huge peak. After doing a survey of your power needs you may be able to identify times when you can avoid turning the cooling system on which will lower your peak. For instance, before the daily peak, cool the data center down a few degrees more than usual. Then shut off one or more cooling system until after the daily peak. This can be tricky to correctly manage and implement, especially since it has to be automatic and failsafe.
Alternately, shop around for your power. check with a few competitive companies and see if they offer a better deal.
Blizzard encourages players to report harrasment of any form. There aren't enough GMs to police every single chat message. They rely on player reporting.
And yes, using that type of language is against their terms of service.
So I don't believe your point is valid. If players aren't receiveing punishment it is not necessarily because Blizzard is actively deciding to let them slip by, it's because they don't have the resources to do it, and the players themselves are apathetic towards it.
This one chat message happened to have been caught. Do you think that this is the first advertisement for a GLBT group? This was a routine wrong place, wrong time, got caught language issue that has been blown out of control because so many people feel so strongly about the subject, one way or the other.
This is less about Blizzard's policy than it is about the media and militant people using this event to control their message and how it's portrayed by the media. How else are they going to get their message onto the front page of Slashdot?
I suspect that the politicians would not be pursuing these laws unless their constituents were supporting them. Further, the politicians themselves are often parents. What's causing this is a combination of the media, the few parents who are or were directly affected by some violent videogame or another (or felt they were), the various groups that support those parents, and the politicians who like to be seen doing something about a highly publicized issue. They are putting forth ideas that the public finds current and may bolster their reputation at the next vote.
As far as this particular attempt, they are not equating violent games with pornography, though the two share many striking similarities. What they are saying is:
We want to restrict violent game access to a portion of the population. There exists a law for this which defines penalties for a different crime. Let's define this as a crime with the same penalties. This is an efficient use of the law - rather than having a dozen laws, one covering each restriction, they'll define a few laws and put each item under an appropiate penalty.
As far as the actual law is concerned, I'm a parent of four boys all under the age of ten. My wife and I are one of the small percentage of families who are able and choose to have one of us stay home and care for the children full time. Yet we can't limit access to things we don't want our children to partake in 24/7. I know many familes which see their kids for perhaps a few hours a day.
I do not want my children watching pornography. I don't want them playing violent games. You can have an opinion on whether a 5 year old is ready for girl-on-girl action all you want, or whether you think they should be playing resident evil. I don't care what you believe. However, if my child is in your home with your child I expect you to respect my choices and not share material with my child that I do not wish them to have.
Unfortunately in the world we live in if there's no established law then I have little to no recourse to actions against my child of this nature. I may not have the money to initiate a suit against you, and law enforcement can't enforce a law that doesn't exist.
And so with only a little vocal support, and a lot of behind the scenes support (there are a lot of letters going to politicians concerning this issue) such laws are hashed out.
The politicians only have to enact a fuzzy law, and then let the courts hash out what "violent videogame" means, at which point they may modify the law when it doesn't work.
So - what else would you like to hear from a parent who doesn't want his 5-year old playing GTA at a friend's house?
Again, keep in mind that while my wife and I have the time and inclination to more closely monitor our children, many parents want the same amount of safety but have to work outside the home more than we. Such laws are more for the common two-working-parent familes than us one-breadwinner families. Feel free to lambast me for supporting a law which I likely will never avail myself of.
Lastly, there is a compelling interest for a society to set some basic morality level. To take an extreme example, there are people who feel that a 10-year old is ready for rape porn. It is unlikely, I imagine you'll agree, that a child who watches that material is going to have a healthy understanding of women, love, and sex. Where the line is drawn is the only thing then that we need to come together and decide on. That's the job of the politicians. If you feel extremists have the upper hand then you should have no problem finding people who, like yourself, oppose the current direction. If you can't find people who support you, then you've proven that the politicians are following the majority of their constituents. Who, apparently, feel that there is a compelling societal need for such a law.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really really want to ... have a kilometer of ice on Toronto?
That depends. Do you want more sports like hockey and curling?
-Adam
Each of those phrases, and many others you run into, have real meaning. Others in this thread have already commented on the specific phrases you bring up.
The reality is that people speak in terms that are common to their field. If you read any of the literature that your business peers reads, run in the same circles that they run in, and even think about the same problems they think about, you'll find yourself adopting their terminology.
It will make sense to you to do so, for the terms they use are actually more precise in their intended meaning than the replacements you give. You are tending to describe the main action or effect of a particular phrase, but the phrase actually encompasses much more. A realignment is exactly that - it may have the effect of layoffs, hires, and other movement of people, but it doesn't necessarily involve all or any of those things.
When they speak to you about a realignment, and you say, "Oh, you mean layoffs?" they will simply tune you out.
If they were to come into your field and choose not embrace your language you would certainly feel as though they don't really understand, and you would subsequently marginalize them and their work.
-Adam
Note that these require a lot of circuitry to run, and all prototypes currently only work in dark environments (the LEDs sense their own light, sure, but also room lights, sunlight, etc).
Currently a neat hack with perhaps some niche uses, but not a good general solution.
-Adam
The reason ID is being brought up in the context of schooling is, I believe, to teach children that while evolution is the theory best supported by evidence, that other possibilities are available for them to look into.
The real issue, however, is the teaching of secular principles in schools today. Secularism isn't just teaching without religion - it is teaching that religion has no place in society outside of church. It is the idea that even if ID and evolution are compatible, they must never mention the one that is not demonstrable in class.
As such, many feel that secularism is as much a religion as Christianity, Islam, etc. The fact that it is taught in our schools is annoying to many.
Of course, schools can't mention that there are other theories for how humans evolved on this planet because someone would sue, claiming the teaching of non-secular principles. This means that no one is allowed to live their religion in their speech and in many other methods of expression while in school. Secularism is reinforced by the religious people who don't want their kids to hear about Islam, Athiests that don't wnat their kids to hear about God or ID, and many other groups who, for whatever reason, belive that a closed, controlled-discourse environment is the best learning environment for their (and society's) children.
So it's just another battleground for people to trumpet over. This is not unlike the debates over school prayer years ago (and still smoldering).
In short, it's about power. Who's got it, and who wants it.
-Adam
Because most people would rather misdial once in every 100 phone calls than have to remember an extra digit for all 100 phone calls.
Besides, many people would skip remembering the extra digit and calculate it on the fly, which would lead to a correctly checksummed wrong number.
And we'd still be dialing an extra digit because some geek doesn't like the occasional misdial. What he doesn't know, however, is that there's a good chance the misdial is in his general area, and stands a good chance at being cuter or more available than what he is used to. Perhaps he has cut out an opportunity in the name of efficiency.
Perhaps...
-Adam
A misdial looks exactly like an intentional dial to the phone company. There is no way that you or the phone company can prevent someone from dialing your number.
Your phone already supports basic white list or blacklist functionality. If the same people keep misdialing your number, then you'll want to blacklist them using the method sugested in the editorial portion of this article.
If, however, you get misdials from different phone numbers then you'll need to add everyone to your phone book that you want to know about immediately, and set the general ring to silent. In this way you'll still get voicemail if the caller left a message (typically misdials won't leave voice mail if you set up your outgoing message well) so you won't be completely out of the loop with a real caller from an unfamiliar phone number.
I don't see how custom software will solve this any better than the phone book will. You have four different scenarios:
1) Someone who does want to talk to you dials correctly and reaches you
2) Someone who does NOT want to talk to you dials correctly and doesn't reach you
3) Someone who does want to talk to you misdials and doesn't reach you
4) Someone who does NOT want to talk to you misdials and reaches you
Only calls from #1 and #4 reach you. There are two further possibilities:
A) The person calls from a number in your phone book
B) The person calls from a number not in your phone book (or is blocked)
A person who does want to talk to you and is not in your phone book (payphone, friend's phone, etc) looks exactly like a person who does not want to talk to you and is not in your phone book. Therefore, as far as the phone company, your phone, and any possible software you could invent knows, 1B == 4B.
Therefore the problem cannot be solved any better than it is right now with the built in phone's whitelist and blacklist. Either you will only accept calls from those you've programmed, shoving everyone else to voice mail, or you will accept calls from anyone who does not match a set of frequent misdiallers.
In the old days before caller ID one could purchase an answering machine that would not allow the home phones to ring unless the caller pressed a sequence of touchtone keys. You may be able to make software do that, but generally those devices failed in the marketplace because it was too much hassle.
Of course, this doesn't answer your question. I suppose what I'm trying to accomplish here is to ask you a question:
What does your proposed software do that your phone and/or phone company cannot already do? Are you simply suggesting an easier to maintain or more explicit blacklist/whitelist, or do you have a novel method that actually does what I suggest is impossible given the information the phone is provided? If so, getting the software onto the phone is trivial once you've convinced a few key people that what you've invented actually works.
-Adam
I worked full time and took 8-10 credits each semester at the University of Michigan for an engineering degree. I did poorly when I was taking paper notes, and I improved greatly after I started taking electronic notes.
I'm surprised that so many people here are commenting that laptops are universally worse than taking notes on paper.
It's just a tool.
Whether the tool is appropiate for the task at hand depends on the skills of the user and the flexibility of the tool.
Perhaps the professor believes that a laptop is an inappropiate choice for her classroom. Perhaps she even believes that no one in the entire world could possibly learn better with a laptop as their tool as they could with a pencil and paper.
However, I doubt that either case is empiracally true. At best she may notice that some students will do better without a laptop. At worst she's taking away a good tool from many students because a few don't know how to use it properly in her environment.
For me the advantages outweigh the disadvantages:
Electronic notes are easier to write, update/modify, share, refer to, and search than paper notes.
Due to limited classroom space I cannot have many physical items open at once, but with a notebook I can easily switch between the textbook, my notes, the lecture slides/notes, previous sets of notes and slides, and utilities (calculator, for instance).
A light notebook computer is a vast improvement over carrying even one textbook and binder for class work, nevermind 2-4 books, classwork for several classes, and miscellanous materials (pens, pencils, highlighters, staplers, hole punch, etc) required for paper processing.
I didn't have time (full time job, 3/4 time school) to refer to audio or video lectures - that simply wouldn't have worked for me. I was able to use the laptop for both school and work during "down" time. I didn't have to keep searching for an open computer to perform assignments.
Disadvantages include battery performance, diagramming (I carried a small sheet fed scanner and used paer notes when I could find no easy laptop method. This was rare since most diagrams were available from the professor in an electronic format), distraction to other students, electronic wall (some professors are initimidated and don't ask questions of students using a laptop).
I had no problems with eye contact - the screen was never between me and the professor.
I respect the professor's desire to provide the best learning environment for her students. If I were in her class I would follow her instructions, though I would make my case for the use of laptops in the classroom. I would also endeaver to avoid taking classes from her in the future unless I determined that she has more to contribute to my learning than I could get from another professor who would allow me to learn in the manner I choose.
However, assuming she's a law professor going over case law, I imagine that the learning done in her classroom has less to do with sound engineering principles (as I was learning) and more to do with the relatively subjective nature of case interpretation. While one can take adequate notes to understand an algorithm, a single case could be studied perhaps forever with new insight. I doubt that I would have used the same study habits in her class that I developed for engineering classes. I do beleive that I would have wanted a laptop to be part of the process for me.
Does the use of a particular tool mean I would be, by default, a bad student or a bad lawyer?
-Adam
As soon as you start referring to so-called metric units as "SI" units, we'll start calling english units "imperial".
-Adam
Where did they originate? England. There is no "imperialand." (hey, no wisecracks).
For better or worse, they are units that the English came up with, used for quite some time, and we still use. If you don't like it, pour money into a metric USA campaign.
In the end, it's just a system of measurement. It's no better or worse than any other system. It's not good, it's not evil, it just is. One may be able to make the case that in some circumstances (or even most circumstances) another system is easier to use. For instance, those who can't deal with fractions may have some difficulty with the English system. Likewise, those that can't deal with decimal prefixes (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, etc) may find it easier to say "4 feet, 3 inche") even while acknowledging that they'd have difficulty multiplying that by 5 and expressing it correctly.
I believe that the more tools I have at my disposal, the better equiped I am at solving problems. Perhaps you feel more comfortable learning and using one system, and that's also a valid choice.
Complaining about the name of a system of measurement is petty, especially when everyone perfectly understands what is meant whether one calls it english or imperial.
-Adam
I run a non-profit organization that is entirely web-based. [...] We are not an incorpoated 501(c)3 NPO.
You have GOT to be kidding me. You expect a company to donate cash or services to your organization, without proving to them that you follow the law regarding non profit organizations?
I could not donate to an organization that espouses even the purest of motives if that organization can't get its act together and file as a real non-profit, accountable to the law. I might as well be giving money to a con artist.
There are a vast pool of eligible non-profit organizations that ask for Google's money. By only donating to 501(c)3 organizations, Google is protecting itself and has a better chance that the money/services will not be ill-used. The tax-free status of donations is intended to encourage giving, so both Google and the organizations they donate to get something out of the transaction. Were you an eligible 501(c)3 organization, you would hardly call it slimy - you would hail it as a progressive tax code.
In giving money to non-profits, a company MUST look at the return on investment. If giving $1,000 worth of advertising to you helps 100 people, that's nice. If there's another organization that will help 500 people with that $1,000 investment, then that's better. You also need to look at whether the non-profit's goals are similar to your own. It could simply be that Google doesn't donate to any organizations regarding reproduction simply because they want to remain neutral. They don't have to publicize their policy, nor do they need to explain themselves. You are asking for money, and then suddenly you claim that you deserve it and they are such pigs for not donating to you? What rights, exactly, do you have to their money again?
As far as your implication that donations of advertising are "free" and move moeny from one pocket in google to the tax free pocket, consider what you are asking. You are asking Google to give away free advertising to any organization that claims to be non-profit. If google does that, they will have more "free" ads shown than paying ads. Suddenly it won't matter what tax break they get - they won't have money in the first pocket to move to the other pocket. They have to set a limit (for financial and legal reasons) on the amount of "free" advertising they can donate to true non-profit organizations. That limit, I imagine, is reached and therefore they don't have money left over to give to organizations that merely claim non-profit status without actually being non-profit. This is merely one of the consequences of what you are asking them to do - it's much more far-reaching and complex than this, of course.
If I were Google, I'd be wondering, "Is this an advertisement for Plan B? Should I be supporting an organization that claims to be non-profit, but will not take the legal steps necessary to demonstrate that commitment?" Actually, I'd probably not even get that far. "Oh, somone else wants money ear-marked for non-profits, but isn't a non-profit. Time for the round file."
-Adam
If you're suggesting static routing (ie, put route information into the packets so they go the route you want them to) then I doubt it's going to help. IIRC many routers ignore that option. Further, it would simply add to the size of the packet and increase processing time at each juncture.
There are really only two places for lag: the PC itself, and the network. I can imagine a card that optimizes itself for gaming packets. Imagine, for instance, the card estimating the arrival of a new packet coming from the computer. It can start sending out the packet header even before the computer gives it the packet information and data. At minimum it can start sending out the packet as it's received from the system rather than waiting for the complete packet (and CRC check).
Still, we're looking at 1-5mS speed increase, and that increase is significantly less than, for instance, removing the router/firewall software/hardware.
I'm interested in what the hardware does, but I can't see it improving the experience enough that even a heavy online player will notice the difference.
-Adam
We got a great deal on a house here in Michigan because the previous owners signed a contract with a relocation company. Among other services (actually moving your stuff, helping you find a new place to live, etc) they also help you sell your old home. The essential deal is that if you can't sell the house within a time frame, they buy it from you. This seems good except for two problems:
They buy it significantly below your asking price.
They do not accept offers with contingencies (ie, if someone wants to buy your house, they can't make an offer if they still need to sell their old house, don't have a pre-approved loan, etc)
Apparantly the previous offer was not valid, and they only had 2 weeks to get a valid offer before losing nearly 20% of their home's value. We still had a place to sell, but were able to get approved for a bridge loan (a high interest short term loan from the bank so we could buy the new house before completing the sale of the old house). We were able to sell our house in the time between having the offer accepted and closing on the new house, so we didn't need to use the bridge loan, but this sort of deal apparantly drove a lot of buyers away.
Relocation companies, I assume, are good in general, but be very careful about accepting their terms, read everything and don't be afraid to tell the company that you'll relocate yourself for the same money they'd be paying the relocation company.
Also, as other noted, the cost of living is *significantly* higher. A house or apartment can easily be twice as much as what you're currently spending. Gas is a little higher. Food and services are higher. Do your homework before you go.
-Adam
Look up "electronics potting problems" in Google and you'll get all the fun info.
The short and sweet of it is that there are two basic issues: During casting/potting, the epoxy generates a LOT of heat. It can be surprising, and damaging. Check the type of epoxy/resin/casting compound you are using. For such a small amount it probably won't be a problem.
The second issue is the composition of the epoxy and suitability to its purpose. If it has a low resistivity or creates significant capacitance between conductors, then it'll cause problems. If it's not suitable for electronics (ie, degrades over time into other components, is corrosive, etc) then it will cause problems over time.
In short, chances are good you'll be fine for this particular application with hobby grade casting compound. But be prepared for possible data loss if you don't fully understand the subject and act accordingly.
-Adam
Any satellite not inserted into orbit within a few degrees and a few hundred mph of it's intended trajectory is likely to burn up long before it's intended time.
Since the golf ball has no propulsion ability itself, and they hauled 6 of them up there, are they going to simply wail off 6 shots and hope one actually goes into a reasonable orbit?
One would assume that they are firing it behind the space station (ie, it will go dozens of mph slower than the space station) so it'll have a better chance of deorbiting, but this information isn't given in the article.
Going to be a very low power transmitter to last 5 or more years (just in case they miss and it orbits longer), and survive the impact of a golf club. I suppose amateur radio enthusiasts are going to have to look pretty hard to listen to it themselves.
-Adam
This is the equivalent of either a dick-size or old-school engine displacement war.
Not necessarily. There is a glass door to one of the server rooms at the University of Michigan, and I like to look inside and see what they have. I don't feel jealousy, I don't hope that one day I'll have rows of racks of glowing lights, I'm just interested in the equipment and setup.
My primary hobby now is electronics. I like to look at other people's projects. Occasionally various forums, mailing lists, etc will have "show your workroom/workbench/nook/etc" threads, and you get to see a lot of generally interesting, mostly messy, occasionally funny, and usually illuminating pictures. One learns a lot by looking at what others do, and asking questions about it.
This does not have to be navel gazing, or one-upsmanship, though it can devolve to that if that's what people want it to be.
You seem to have nothing useful to contribute to this topic, yet you felt compelled to contribute anyway. Perhaps your comment has more to say about how you view the world, than about how others should view this activity.
-Adam
I just feel that, if I accept the position, I won't be able to bargain my way up to the market rate for the position, given it's such a leap from what I currently make.
A feeling? You're basing business decisions on a fear?
Be honest. Decide for yourself whether you release information about a business relationship you had/have with another company. Then go into your interviews knowing what you will share and how you will share it.
Don't sit around and wonder what they'll do, or what they'll think.
You are developing business relationship. Be professional. Don't go in there hoping you do everything right, and in the process spend more time worrying about doing the right thing than about presenting yourself and your skills.
I have made a few largish jumps in the past (12%, 25%, 63%). Each time I went in and told them what I liked about their company, how I believed I fit in, and the range I expected to be paid for the position. Each time I was honest without telling them my current sallary. This last time several companies turned me down primarily, I assume, because I was asking for what I was worth. Eventually I found a position that was perfect for me, and apparently perfect for them.
But then, I don't bargain. I don't do counter-offers, and I let them know up front that I'm not interested in doing so. If they don't feel like paying what I'm worth, then I'll not waste any more of my time or their time.
Your mileage may vary, and unless you have the personality that I have these tips may not work for you. But I would suggest at minimum that you treat this as a two way business relationship. They are trying to sell you on the position as much as you are trying to sell them on your skills. Don't make yourself out to be the party with less power.
"We have hundreds of applicants, what makes you so special?"
"There are hundreds of campanies I could work for. I want to work for yours. Can you say that of your other applicants?"
-Adam
This place is starting to have the editorial standards of the National Enquirer.
Which has a significantly higher revenue. Sounds like a winning plan to me...
-Adam
He just needs to master the phrase, "It's not for you."
-Adam
Have all these companies gone fee crazy? Next thing you know there will be a fee for posting on Slashdot to reduce the spam.
That'll be $0.25[USD] for unecessary commenting.
-Adam
Would someone please explain to me what this is doing on Slashdot?
Hey! You! Get back in line!
-Adam
It's GPS and covered in glue. Carry a small square of tinfoil with you and slap it on when yo get tagged - if you notice the tagging, anyway. It will negatively effect both the GPS reception and the transmission back to police.
-Adam
If you forcibly deprive someone of sleep, they end up with physical brain damage and then die.
Can you provide the relevant studies? The animal studies where mice and rats died are not indicative of human reaction, though one can gain some insight into the basic biology of sleep with animals. As far as I've read, the animals die fairly quickly, but humans under similar conditions live at least as long as the animals. Ethical restrictions prevent researchers from depriving humans of sleep until death, so I'm very interested in the research that proves your statement.
-Adam
Get a professional electrician in that knows about peak charges.
Older installations used to use giant flywheels, but not to limit peaks. They were used for power conditioning and limited power backup.
I'd do an extensive survey before trying anything else. Buy or rent a power meter that does logging and graphing. Check everything out for a month - each phase and the current draw on each phase, and current draw on each rack (each computer if possible).
Proper sequencing of cooling can drastically affect your power consumption. Never start your cooling motors when you're drawing a lot of power - motor startup is a huge peak. After doing a survey of your power needs you may be able to identify times when you can avoid turning the cooling system on which will lower your peak. For instance, before the daily peak, cool the data center down a few degrees more than usual. Then shut off one or more cooling system until after the daily peak. This can be tricky to correctly manage and implement, especially since it has to be automatic and failsafe.
Alternately, shop around for your power. check with a few competitive companies and see if they offer a better deal.
-Adam
Blizzard encourages players to report harrasment of any form. There aren't enough GMs to police every single chat message. They rely on player reporting.
And yes, using that type of language is against their terms of service.
So I don't believe your point is valid. If players aren't receiveing punishment it is not necessarily because Blizzard is actively deciding to let them slip by, it's because they don't have the resources to do it, and the players themselves are apathetic towards it.
This one chat message happened to have been caught. Do you think that this is the first advertisement for a GLBT group? This was a routine wrong place, wrong time, got caught language issue that has been blown out of control because so many people feel so strongly about the subject, one way or the other.
This is less about Blizzard's policy than it is about the media and militant people using this event to control their message and how it's portrayed by the media. How else are they going to get their message onto the front page of Slashdot?
-Adam
I suspect that the politicians would not be pursuing these laws unless their constituents were supporting them. Further, the politicians themselves are often parents. What's causing this is a combination of the media, the few parents who are or were directly affected by some violent videogame or another (or felt they were), the various groups that support those parents, and the politicians who like to be seen doing something about a highly publicized issue. They are putting forth ideas that the public finds current and may bolster their reputation at the next vote.
As far as this particular attempt, they are not equating violent games with pornography, though the two share many striking similarities. What they are saying is:
We want to restrict violent game access to a portion of the population. There exists a law for this which defines penalties for a different crime. Let's define this as a crime with the same penalties. This is an efficient use of the law - rather than having a dozen laws, one covering each restriction, they'll define a few laws and put each item under an appropiate penalty.
As far as the actual law is concerned, I'm a parent of four boys all under the age of ten. My wife and I are one of the small percentage of families who are able and choose to have one of us stay home and care for the children full time. Yet we can't limit access to things we don't want our children to partake in 24/7. I know many familes which see their kids for perhaps a few hours a day.
I do not want my children watching pornography. I don't want them playing violent games. You can have an opinion on whether a 5 year old is ready for girl-on-girl action all you want, or whether you think they should be playing resident evil. I don't care what you believe. However, if my child is in your home with your child I expect you to respect my choices and not share material with my child that I do not wish them to have.
Unfortunately in the world we live in if there's no established law then I have little to no recourse to actions against my child of this nature. I may not have the money to initiate a suit against you, and law enforcement can't enforce a law that doesn't exist.
And so with only a little vocal support, and a lot of behind the scenes support (there are a lot of letters going to politicians concerning this issue) such laws are hashed out.
The politicians only have to enact a fuzzy law, and then let the courts hash out what "violent videogame" means, at which point they may modify the law when it doesn't work.
So - what else would you like to hear from a parent who doesn't want his 5-year old playing GTA at a friend's house?
Again, keep in mind that while my wife and I have the time and inclination to more closely monitor our children, many parents want the same amount of safety but have to work outside the home more than we. Such laws are more for the common two-working-parent familes than us one-breadwinner families. Feel free to lambast me for supporting a law which I likely will never avail myself of.
Lastly, there is a compelling interest for a society to set some basic morality level. To take an extreme example, there are people who feel that a 10-year old is ready for rape porn. It is unlikely, I imagine you'll agree, that a child who watches that material is going to have a healthy understanding of women, love, and sex. Where the line is drawn is the only thing then that we need to come together and decide on. That's the job of the politicians. If you feel extremists have the upper hand then you should have no problem finding people who, like yourself, oppose the current direction. If you can't find people who support you, then you've proven that the politicians are following the majority of their constituents. Who, apparently, feel that there is a compelling societal need for such a law.
-Adam