If I am in charge of, and responsible for, another persons child - you can bet your fucking arse I am going to use every means possible to ensure that my own arse is not on the line for losing that child.
Children wander off - take your eye off them for a second and they are gone, they are worse than cats in that regard. And if they wander off, they can become vulnerable. Every child care place I know of have bars or very high walls around the play grounds, tightly securable windows, and double security doors on the entrances - not to mention all of the CCTV in place. Why do they have this? Because losing a child in your care is a serious issue, with potentially criminal consequences.
GPSing the kids? What are the actual downsides? Really, what are they? Tracking where the kid goes is an invasion of their privacy? Well you should be doing that anyway, GPS just helps you do that.
You would have to hire one teacher per child, and handcuff each pair together, to solve the issue - so, are you willing to pay the full rate of that teacher for your child?
Shit happens, kids get out of your sight when you take your attention from then for a second or two, belt and braces sometimes simply costs too much for there to still be a viable service, so make your decisions... GPS or quite a few grand more per year for your solution?
Its not really funny, the flap has nothing to do with cornea damage - and I never said there were no risks to the procedure itself (there are), I just heavily dispute the claim that it was possible for the flap to move after a significant amount of time (its not).
And after research, I would agree with their "absolutely no chance" of a correctly repositioned flap being moveable again after a week, let alone a year - and as my treatment involved five appointments during the first month (one later the same day, one the next day, one at the end of the first week, one at the end of the second week and one at the end of the first month), where the flap was checked for movement and bubbling, an incorrectly positioned flap would have been spotted well before a year had passed.
But "absolutely no chance" of any issues in the procedure? Well, I never said that, and it was never said to me - I was told the percentage rates of secondary treatment being required, and I was given a huge pamphlet with all of the possible side effects and problems (with likelihood of occurance), and both the consultant and the surgeon asked me prior to the procedure if I was aware that this was not a risk free procedure.
So you took that statement to mean a lot more than was intended or inferred.
As someone married to a doctor (check my posting history, I've made several medical orientated posts in the past month or two - mostly criticising the British NHS and its treatment of doctors), and who has as a result many medical friends including ophthalmologists, I have to say that with regard to laser eye surgery there seems to be a split in consensus of opinion on its safety, with that split generally being based on the age of the doctor concerned, with younger doctors being exposed to more recent papers and studies which have a different conclusion than older papers.
Go and ask your father-in-law what the actual issue rate is with the various laser eye surgeries - its actually extremely low, with most issues being corrective with a second treatment (regardless of what initial treatment you go for, one of the first things most laser eye surgeons do today is map your entire eye pattern, so if you go for the more expensive treatment they can treat each portion of the eye individually - this allows them leeway with treatments, so if something does happen they have a detailed 'before" picture with which to work toward corrections).
No, the flap completely reseals after a week or two, unless the surgery was botched and an air bubble was left under the flap - if the surgery is done correctly, there is no flap after several days, its completely connected with the underlying tissue. That is why you stop needing eye lubrication (fake tears) after several weeks - because the nerve endings reattach and grow back. They can't do that if the flap doesn't completely seal...
Multiple laser eye surgeons assured me that there was absolutely no chance of flap movement after 14 days when I researched it.
So your friend either had very badly botched surgery, or was simply invented as an argument point.
And yes, I really do fly aircraft - why do you feel you have to denigrate that, when pilots are something we are specifically talking about? I have both single engine and twin engine ratings, tail draggers and am about to finalise a DC-3 purchase. Its not exactly difficult to get a pilots license, so why the "I play aircraft simulator games" remark?
PRK has been allowed by the USAF for all aviation positions since 2001, and Lasik was allowed in 2004 for particular aviation positions, and in 2007 this restriction was removed completely.
Fighter pilots can certainly fly after having laser eye surgery.
Also, you can fly in the USAF without having perfect vision - according to the following Air Force Times, 41% of active USAF pilots require corrective lenses to carry out their duties.
Could this possibly be a mix of weightlessness affecting the eye muscles, and a lack of distance focal points to focus the eye on during the stay in space? Because you basically have "anything inside the ISS", "any external part of the ISS you can see", "the earth" and "infinity", while on earth you have a huge range between local and distance - perhaps its a lack of exercising the distance focusing?
Your comment about the Clarke story is interesting, because its largely true - WW2 saw over 38,000 of the top two allied aircraft produced (the P-51 and the Spitfire), with build times down to a couple of days per aircraft.
Today, the USAFs top air superiority aircraft is the F-22, which costs a whopping $180M per unit, and takes over two years to build. It costs that much, and it takes that long, because it is an aircraft with significant technological advances in it - and it also shows in its operational performance, with significant maintenance hours per flight hour (the last figure I heard was it took 100 maintenance hours per flight hour to keep the F-22 flying).
And the USAF only has 190 or so of them. With no more coming.
What do you think would happen if we pitted a modern equivalent of the P-51 against the F-22? Take a cheap-and-quick-to-build airframe, put 10,000 of them in the air, and keep the replacements coming. What would the outcome be?
Eventually, through sheer numbers, the F-22 would fail in its task - there are only so many missiles it can carry, which means there are only so many enemy it can remove from the equation per sortie - and the operational tempo would have to be kept high enough that the enemy doesn't enjoy air superiority over your bases and supply chain while you re-arm and re-fuel, which means a high availability rate for the aircraft would need to be kept.
You are going to lose F-22s on a steady, but maybe very low, rate - perhaps 5 or 6 a sortie, against 300 or 400 enemy destroyed. But that enemy can afford to sustain those losses, because it can replace them while you cannot, every F-22 lost is an F-22 you cannot replace. Every F-22 that cannot complete a mission due to mechanical failure is another aircraft that needs to take up valuable maintenance time.
As the saying goes, quantity has a quality all of its own. Its how the Soviets defeated the tank battalions of the German army - the German tanks were technologically advanced (power steering, active suspension systems etc etc - a leap ahead of other tanks of their days) but the Soviets produced their T-34s in vastly superior numbers, alongside the massive output of the US Sherman tanks...
Judges hate smart arse "work arounds" to problems such as these, your "solution" would certainly get thrown out as in breach of the TOS because your approach is nothing more than acting as a convoluted gateway for network communications for other devices - just the same as using tethering without paying for the tethering plan.
Apple maintain the position that it is end users that are being compromised, and not their servers - so why should they need to report anything if there is no evidence to the contrary?
I'm not actually seeing a decrease in usage on the desktop of Flash tho - HTML5 uptake seems to be great on mobile platforms (generally because there is no alternative with IOS), but Youtube et al still serve me Flash even when I'm on a HTML5 capable browser... (and no, the opt-in trial does not count).
Plus of course there is still things in the video arena that Flash still does better than HTML5.
Its amusing to see that a preference for Linux is fine, you can make any comment you like and no one bats an eyelid - but a preference for Microsoft is absolutely verboten, there is no one who could have a positive preference for Microsoft without them having to be paid by Microsoft for their efforts.
Thats the point - four years is plenty of time to migrate to one of the forks, or off of the MySQL platform altogether.
If it takes a fork more than 4 years to become viable, chances are its never going to become viable - so start supporting the forks now if you absolutely need to remain on the MySQL platform.
This whole rigmarole has amused me from the start - there has never, ever been any guarantees that Sun would have kept MySQL going as a commercially supported project (lots of periods with very low rates of activity while Sun was in charge), so why should Oracle really be burdened with offering more of a guarantee than Sun (or even the original MySQL company) ever was?
MySQL is open source, and the whole point of open source was to protect against being left out in the cold when the product is withdrawn - and yet here we are seeing that entire premise failing badly.
What should they do, magically produce money out of thin air to pay the taxes, entirely separate to their revenue stream...? Of course the money for taxes come from the price of their goods.
That was the same argument made against the iPhone, when it was first revealed - who wants finger prints all over their movie player? Sure turned out to be a huge issue in the end...
Why would the USPTO issue any patents under his system, more like. A much better situation!
Make the USPTO pay for any mistakes they make in issuing that later costs either the receiving company money (in litigation costs they incur thinking they have a valid patent) or any company involved in litigation defence or licensing.
I have yet to find an author giving their works away who is in the class of Neal Asher, Alastair Reynolds, Peter F Hamilton, Heinlein, Azimov and my other favourite authors.
And yes, I've trawled through the Baen free library - most of it I didn't finish reading due to the low quality of writing.
"Ability to publish" does not equate to "ability to actually write". Remember that.
Slashdot Mirror
If I am in charge of, and responsible for, another persons child - you can bet your fucking arse I am going to use every means possible to ensure that my own arse is not on the line for losing that child.
Children wander off - take your eye off them for a second and they are gone, they are worse than cats in that regard. And if they wander off, they can become vulnerable. Every child care place I know of have bars or very high walls around the play grounds, tightly securable windows, and double security doors on the entrances - not to mention all of the CCTV in place. Why do they have this? Because losing a child in your care is a serious issue, with potentially criminal consequences.
GPSing the kids? What are the actual downsides? Really, what are they? Tracking where the kid goes is an invasion of their privacy? Well you should be doing that anyway, GPS just helps you do that.
You would have to hire one teacher per child, and handcuff each pair together, to solve the issue - so, are you willing to pay the full rate of that teacher for your child?
Shit happens, kids get out of your sight when you take your attention from then for a second or two, belt and braces sometimes simply costs too much for there to still be a viable service, so make your decisions... GPS or quite a few grand more per year for your solution?
Try making that argument when talking about online agreements for credit cards, loans or mobile phone contacts, and let us know how it goes...
Its not really funny, the flap has nothing to do with cornea damage - and I never said there were no risks to the procedure itself (there are), I just heavily dispute the claim that it was possible for the flap to move after a significant amount of time (its not).
And after research, I would agree with their "absolutely no chance" of a correctly repositioned flap being moveable again after a week, let alone a year - and as my treatment involved five appointments during the first month (one later the same day, one the next day, one at the end of the first week, one at the end of the second week and one at the end of the first month), where the flap was checked for movement and bubbling, an incorrectly positioned flap would have been spotted well before a year had passed.
But "absolutely no chance" of any issues in the procedure? Well, I never said that, and it was never said to me - I was told the percentage rates of secondary treatment being required, and I was given a huge pamphlet with all of the possible side effects and problems (with likelihood of occurance), and both the consultant and the surgeon asked me prior to the procedure if I was aware that this was not a risk free procedure.
So you took that statement to mean a lot more than was intended or inferred.
As someone married to a doctor (check my posting history, I've made several medical orientated posts in the past month or two - mostly criticising the British NHS and its treatment of doctors), and who has as a result many medical friends including ophthalmologists, I have to say that with regard to laser eye surgery there seems to be a split in consensus of opinion on its safety, with that split generally being based on the age of the doctor concerned, with younger doctors being exposed to more recent papers and studies which have a different conclusion than older papers.
Go and ask your father-in-law what the actual issue rate is with the various laser eye surgeries - its actually extremely low, with most issues being corrective with a second treatment (regardless of what initial treatment you go for, one of the first things most laser eye surgeons do today is map your entire eye pattern, so if you go for the more expensive treatment they can treat each portion of the eye individually - this allows them leeway with treatments, so if something does happen they have a detailed 'before" picture with which to work toward corrections).
No, the flap completely reseals after a week or two, unless the surgery was botched and an air bubble was left under the flap - if the surgery is done correctly, there is no flap after several days, its completely connected with the underlying tissue. That is why you stop needing eye lubrication (fake tears) after several weeks - because the nerve endings reattach and grow back. They can't do that if the flap doesn't completely seal...
Multiple laser eye surgeons assured me that there was absolutely no chance of flap movement after 14 days when I researched it.
So your friend either had very badly botched surgery, or was simply invented as an argument point.
And yes, I really do fly aircraft - why do you feel you have to denigrate that, when pilots are something we are specifically talking about? I have both single engine and twin engine ratings, tail draggers and am about to finalise a DC-3 purchase. Its not exactly difficult to get a pilots license, so why the "I play aircraft simulator games" remark?
PRK has been allowed by the USAF for all aviation positions since 2001, and Lasik was allowed in 2004 for particular aviation positions, and in 2007 this restriction was removed completely.
Fighter pilots can certainly fly after having laser eye surgery.
Also, you can fly in the USAF without having perfect vision - according to the following Air Force Times, 41% of active USAF pilots require corrective lenses to carry out their duties.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/02/air-force-eye-surgery-widens-pilot-pool-022811w/
No, the flap completely reseals permanently afterward - after a week or so there is no chance of the flap reoccuring because it no longer exists.
Yes, I have had laser eye surgery. Yes, I investigated such things thoroughly beforehand.
And yes, I fly aircraft.
Why would it be? Its a permanent ablation of the cornea, changing its shape - if it were ruined by high g-force, then so would normal sight.
Could this possibly be a mix of weightlessness affecting the eye muscles, and a lack of distance focal points to focus the eye on during the stay in space? Because you basically have "anything inside the ISS", "any external part of the ISS you can see", "the earth" and "infinity", while on earth you have a huge range between local and distance - perhaps its a lack of exercising the distance focusing?
Your comment about the Clarke story is interesting, because its largely true - WW2 saw over 38,000 of the top two allied aircraft produced (the P-51 and the Spitfire), with build times down to a couple of days per aircraft.
Today, the USAFs top air superiority aircraft is the F-22, which costs a whopping $180M per unit, and takes over two years to build. It costs that much, and it takes that long, because it is an aircraft with significant technological advances in it - and it also shows in its operational performance, with significant maintenance hours per flight hour (the last figure I heard was it took 100 maintenance hours per flight hour to keep the F-22 flying).
And the USAF only has 190 or so of them. With no more coming.
What do you think would happen if we pitted a modern equivalent of the P-51 against the F-22? Take a cheap-and-quick-to-build airframe, put 10,000 of them in the air, and keep the replacements coming. What would the outcome be?
Eventually, through sheer numbers, the F-22 would fail in its task - there are only so many missiles it can carry, which means there are only so many enemy it can remove from the equation per sortie - and the operational tempo would have to be kept high enough that the enemy doesn't enjoy air superiority over your bases and supply chain while you re-arm and re-fuel, which means a high availability rate for the aircraft would need to be kept.
You are going to lose F-22s on a steady, but maybe very low, rate - perhaps 5 or 6 a sortie, against 300 or 400 enemy destroyed. But that enemy can afford to sustain those losses, because it can replace them while you cannot, every F-22 lost is an F-22 you cannot replace. Every F-22 that cannot complete a mission due to mechanical failure is another aircraft that needs to take up valuable maintenance time.
As the saying goes, quantity has a quality all of its own. Its how the Soviets defeated the tank battalions of the German army - the German tanks were technologically advanced (power steering, active suspension systems etc etc - a leap ahead of other tanks of their days) but the Soviets produced their T-34s in vastly superior numbers, alongside the massive output of the US Sherman tanks...
Judges hate smart arse "work arounds" to problems such as these, your "solution" would certainly get thrown out as in breach of the TOS because your approach is nothing more than acting as a convoluted gateway for network communications for other devices - just the same as using tethering without paying for the tethering plan.
Does the change to the terms to an additional bolt on to your contract affect your contract? Probably not.
Nice to see the mod tards out in force today - how the fuck is my post "redundant"?
Apple maintain the position that it is end users that are being compromised, and not their servers - so why should they need to report anything if there is no evidence to the contrary?
IE has had plugin support for a decade, how do you think the Google Toolbar works on IE?
I'm not actually seeing a decrease in usage on the desktop of Flash tho - HTML5 uptake seems to be great on mobile platforms (generally because there is no alternative with IOS), but Youtube et al still serve me Flash even when I'm on a HTML5 capable browser... (and no, the opt-in trial does not count).
Plus of course there is still things in the video arena that Flash still does better than HTML5.
Its amusing to see that a preference for Linux is fine, you can make any comment you like and no one bats an eyelid - but a preference for Microsoft is absolutely verboten, there is no one who could have a positive preference for Microsoft without them having to be paid by Microsoft for their efforts.
Thats the point - four years is plenty of time to migrate to one of the forks, or off of the MySQL platform altogether.
If it takes a fork more than 4 years to become viable, chances are its never going to become viable - so start supporting the forks now if you absolutely need to remain on the MySQL platform.
This whole rigmarole has amused me from the start - there has never, ever been any guarantees that Sun would have kept MySQL going as a commercially supported project (lots of periods with very low rates of activity while Sun was in charge), so why should Oracle really be burdened with offering more of a guarantee than Sun (or even the original MySQL company) ever was?
MySQL is open source, and the whole point of open source was to protect against being left out in the cold when the product is withdrawn - and yet here we are seeing that entire premise failing badly.
Nothing. They will do nothing.
So stop with the FUD.
What should they do, magically produce money out of thin air to pay the taxes, entirely separate to their revenue stream...? Of course the money for taxes come from the price of their goods.
And yet amazingly they do happen all the time in high energy aircraft crashes - see the links I posted above (and I can post a lot more).
Movie? Depends on what you call an explosion...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-sp2k68T2I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4mCvUfpsk&feature=related
Both of those videos depict what most people would expect an aircraft crash to be like, basically a big ball of flame.
That was the same argument made against the iPhone, when it was first revealed - who wants finger prints all over their movie player? Sure turned out to be a huge issue in the end...
Why would the USPTO issue any patents under his system, more like. A much better situation!
Make the USPTO pay for any mistakes they make in issuing that later costs either the receiving company money (in litigation costs they incur thinking they have a valid patent) or any company involved in litigation defence or licensing.
I have yet to find an author giving their works away who is in the class of Neal Asher, Alastair Reynolds, Peter F Hamilton, Heinlein, Azimov and my other favourite authors.
And yes, I've trawled through the Baen free library - most of it I didn't finish reading due to the low quality of writing.
"Ability to publish" does not equate to "ability to actually write". Remember that.