Who determines intent? Is it what I say my intent was, or is it what they say my intent was?
Always them. Because, at least in the US, they can't put you on the stand and ask what your intent was. All they typically have to do is assert it, because, again, without putting yourself on the stand, its hard to refute what your intent was.
imho, its not so weird that jurors can't ask questions (on trial juries at least; grand juries are different beasts altogether). in a criminal trial the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. if i as a juror had questions by the time deliberations came around, that's a huge red flag to me that the prosecutor didn't prove his case, and instilled reasonable doubt in me.
Depends on where you're at. In some states, the crime has reverted back to DWI from DUI, with the I changed to impaired. Impairment could come from a wide variety of sources, not the least of which is fatigue. However, having a BAC gretater than 0.08 is prima facie evidence that you're impaired. Impairments such as fatigue are harder to prove.
minnesota is actually involved in a similar case with the same company: http://wcco.com/crime/breathalyzer.lawsuit.minnesota.2.669505.html. the only difference is that in our case, the state dept of public safety claims that its part of the contract that the source code be made available to the state and cmi is still refusing to provide source.
up here in minnesota (yes, the land of dueling senatorial candidate asshatery, which is mildly better than dueling banjos) its a constitutional requirement that a bill passed by the legislature be about one subject and one subject only. if they attached it as a rider on another bill it would get struck down on a constitutional basis because of that. its how the conceal-carry law was originally struck down by the anti-gun lobby right before the pro-gun lobby got it passed the right way. being totally ignorant of the sc constitution, i can only hope that similar provisions exist in it to prevent that kind of bullshit from being passed. howver, given its vintage, i doubt that's the case. its a shame a similar provision doesn't exist in the federal constitution. washington might actually be more productive if it were.
even in the now frozen tundra of minnesota, we used 2950kwh in august (and that was with a brand new high efficiency hvac system; we keep the house at about 71 all year aroundlargely due to my wife's heart condition) on a 3600sq ft house. even with that our spring (no furnace, no ac) baseline is about 1800kwh/month. now, admittedly, between 600 and 700 of that is computers, according to the ups's (by choice, and not bitching about the cost of powering them either). but at the same time, our hvac system has exactly 1 return vent in the basement so the naturally cooler air never circulates through, and the amount of insulation in the attic could use a lot of improvement, both of which are on my to-do list to do something about in the not so distant future.
it was fun watching the electric utility compute budget amounts when we moved in 5 years ago. evidently the previous owners didn't use their AC and certainly didn't have computers; their budget billing amount was $85/month; ours is $210.
I really don't think it has as much to do with the amount of money, than it does the amount of desire the student has to learn.
If I only had a mod point! Far too many critics of the public school system seem to think that education is a one-way process; that its the teacher's job to teach the students, whilst forgetting that there is effort required on the part of the students (and their parents) to learn. My wife and I have a sixth grade daughter with a processing disability, and with a lot of effort on our part at home, and the special education department at her school, and the drive on her part to succeed, she's managing to pull down b's across the board in middle school.
Interestingly enough, we live in a district that almost always passes the levies come election day. Of course every levy I've seen on the ballot since we've been in the district is extremely targeted (new computer labs in the schools (not each individual classroom), funding for academic staff to keep student:teacher ratios down, etc.), and I'm confident that with the turnout we get for them and the overwhelming margins that they've passed by that if it came out that the funding was used for things other than what it was voted for, there'd be some accountability for the school board members come the next election day.
however, if hypothetically you had 50% of your graph as these outliers, they start to become statistically significant. at that point, the data can't simply be ignored. well it could, but then rather than having one or two worthless pieces of data you have thousands that you're carrying around. when you're trying to sell that data to marketers, saying "we believe that half of our data is invalid" is a good way to have them shopping elsewhere.
Or why a college or university needs to put every last workstation, printer, AP, and toaster on a public IP address?
For network management purposes. While each and every printer, access point, and toaster needn't necessarily be on a public IP address, the workstations do, simply for the purposes of remote access to those workstations. CS departments tend to have lots of unixy systems around their labs, and not all students live/work/study on campus. having those systems available across the internet allows for access without the expense of maintaining a vpn setup and appropriate access controls, since the powers that manage the vpn and overall network may not be the powers that manage the workstations.
with the workstations justified, printers, ap's and toasters receiving public addresses becomes a matter of network management, since they (at least printers anyway) tend to be physically clustered with clusters of publicly accessible workstations, and even though we have the concept of vlan's nowadays, again, the powers that control the network and the routers are often not the powers that control the printers.
I can understand the desire to recoup development costs of the service, but I think this is the cell phone carriers way of tapping in to the elusive younger crowd's wallets to spread their income across a larger spread of services.
except that the development of the sms system started in 1985. if they're raising rates now to recoup development costs, it was a project that failed miserably from the get-go.
Then the correct terminology is "Apple-branded". Now, I haven't read the OS X EULA to know what exactly it says, but if indeed it does say labelled, Apple should be SOL since anyone can label a computer, only one entity can brand it.
every so often i see a quote in someone's sig around here saying something along the lines of "a man with a gun is a citizen. a man without a gun is a subject." sad, but very applicable here.
Ahh but therein lies the difference. There's actually something being physically manipulated when it comes to gene patents: the DNA sequence itself. Of course, that's the result, and the specific process to create that gene is the patentable piece if I'm understanding this correctly, not the gene itself. IOW, if John Q. Researcher files a patent for building the gene "top-down", its legitimate, and if Jane P. Researcher files a patent for the same gene building it from the bottom up, that too is legitimate, despite having the exact same result. *
* This of course assumes that John didn't patent building it either way in the first place.
Somehow I've got the feeling that if this goes through, there will be a lot of patent attorneys making a lot of money writing clauses into software patent applications along the lines of:
"whereby said process causes an electron to move from transistor a to transistor b"
since way down at a quantum level, the bit state of a block of memory is a physical process.
Alternatively, I'm sure there will be a lot of "software appliance" patents showing up under the argument that once its an "appliance", its no longer a general purpose computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Who determines intent? Is it what I say my intent was, or is it what they say my intent was?
Always them. Because, at least in the US, they can't put you on the stand and ask what your intent was. All they typically have to do is assert it, because, again, without putting yourself on the stand, its hard to refute what your intent was.
imho, its not so weird that jurors can't ask questions (on trial juries at least; grand juries are different beasts altogether). in a criminal trial the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. if i as a juror had questions by the time deliberations came around, that's a huge red flag to me that the prosecutor didn't prove his case, and instilled reasonable doubt in me.
Depends on where you're at. In some states, the crime has reverted back to DWI from DUI, with the I changed to impaired. Impairment could come from a wide variety of sources, not the least of which is fatigue. However, having a BAC gretater than 0.08 is prima facie evidence that you're impaired. Impairments such as fatigue are harder to prove.
You're essentially selling lame music videos with closed captions.
except that with music videos you at least get, ya know, video.
there are married people here?
:: ducks as his wife reads over his shoulder ::
great! where do i sign up to cancel my subscription?
minnesota is actually involved in a similar case with the same company: http://wcco.com/crime/breathalyzer.lawsuit.minnesota.2.669505.html. the only difference is that in our case, the state dept of public safety claims that its part of the contract that the source code be made available to the state and cmi is still refusing to provide source.
up here in minnesota (yes, the land of dueling senatorial candidate asshatery, which is mildly better than dueling banjos) its a constitutional requirement that a bill passed by the legislature be about one subject and one subject only. if they attached it as a rider on another bill it would get struck down on a constitutional basis because of that. its how the conceal-carry law was originally struck down by the anti-gun lobby right before the pro-gun lobby got it passed the right way. being totally ignorant of the sc constitution, i can only hope that similar provisions exist in it to prevent that kind of bullshit from being passed. howver, given its vintage, i doubt that's the case. its a shame a similar provision doesn't exist in the federal constitution. washington might actually be more productive if it were.
even in the now frozen tundra of minnesota, we used 2950kwh in august (and that was with a brand new high efficiency hvac system; we keep the house at about 71 all year aroundlargely due to my wife's heart condition) on a 3600sq ft house. even with that our spring (no furnace, no ac) baseline is about 1800kwh/month. now, admittedly, between 600 and 700 of that is computers, according to the ups's (by choice, and not bitching about the cost of powering them either). but at the same time, our hvac system has exactly 1 return vent in the basement so the naturally cooler air never circulates through, and the amount of insulation in the attic could use a lot of improvement, both of which are on my to-do list to do something about in the not so distant future.
it was fun watching the electric utility compute budget amounts when we moved in 5 years ago. evidently the previous owners didn't use their AC and certainly didn't have computers; their budget billing amount was $85/month; ours is $210.
I really don't think it has as much to do with the amount of money, than it does the amount of desire the student has to learn.
If I only had a mod point! Far too many critics of the public school system seem to think that education is a one-way process; that its the teacher's job to teach the students, whilst forgetting that there is effort required on the part of the students (and their parents) to learn. My wife and I have a sixth grade daughter with a processing disability, and with a lot of effort on our part at home, and the special education department at her school, and the drive on her part to succeed, she's managing to pull down b's across the board in middle school.
Interestingly enough, we live in a district that almost always passes the levies come election day. Of course every levy I've seen on the ballot since we've been in the district is extremely targeted (new computer labs in the schools (not each individual classroom), funding for academic staff to keep student:teacher ratios down, etc.), and I'm confident that with the turnout we get for them and the overwhelming margins that they've passed by that if it came out that the funding was used for things other than what it was voted for, there'd be some accountability for the school board members come the next election day.
however, if hypothetically you had 50% of your graph as these outliers, they start to become statistically significant. at that point, the data can't simply be ignored. well it could, but then rather than having one or two worthless pieces of data you have thousands that you're carrying around. when you're trying to sell that data to marketers, saying "we believe that half of our data is invalid" is a good way to have them shopping elsewhere.
6. Profit!
i knew i got screwed somewhere!
but someone has to make the frozen margaritas and daiquiris.
Oh but I do. I mean, come on. The protocol is a standard for a reason right?
but i have 2 fridge's that i want to access from the internet using FAP. how can i do that without using a nonstandard port for one of them.
Or why a college or university needs to put every last workstation, printer, AP, and toaster on a public IP address?
For network management purposes. While each and every printer, access point, and toaster needn't necessarily be on a public IP address, the workstations do, simply for the purposes of remote access to those workstations. CS departments tend to have lots of unixy systems around their labs, and not all students live/work/study on campus. having those systems available across the internet allows for access without the expense of maintaining a vpn setup and appropriate access controls, since the powers that manage the vpn and overall network may not be the powers that manage the workstations.
with the workstations justified, printers, ap's and toasters receiving public addresses becomes a matter of network management, since they (at least printers anyway) tend to be physically clustered with clusters of publicly accessible workstations, and even though we have the concept of vlan's nowadays, again, the powers that control the network and the routers are often not the powers that control the printers.
I can understand the desire to recoup development costs of the service, but I think this is the cell phone carriers way of tapping in to the elusive younger crowd's wallets to spread their income across a larger spread of services.
except that the development of the sms system started in 1985. if they're raising rates now to recoup development costs, it was a project that failed miserably from the get-go.
If someone calls you and you choose to answer it, you pay. If someone texts you, you pay.
fixed that for you.
but if you can only legally install the software on a machine blessed by apple, it already has the logo on it, and the sticker is kind of redundant.
Then the correct terminology is "Apple-branded". Now, I haven't read the OS X EULA to know what exactly it says, but if indeed it does say labelled, Apple should be SOL since anyone can label a computer, only one entity can brand it.
every so often i see a quote in someone's sig around here saying something along the lines of "a man with a gun is a citizen. a man without a gun is a subject." sad, but very applicable here.
and a leap in their collective IQ
a process for increasing the collective IQ of a group?? now that would be something patentable!
Ahh but therein lies the difference. There's actually something being physically manipulated when it comes to gene patents: the DNA sequence itself. Of course, that's the result, and the specific process to create that gene is the patentable piece if I'm understanding this correctly, not the gene itself. IOW, if John Q. Researcher files a patent for building the gene "top-down", its legitimate, and if Jane P. Researcher files a patent for the same gene building it from the bottom up, that too is legitimate, despite having the exact same result. *
* This of course assumes that John didn't patent building it either way in the first place.
Somehow I've got the feeling that if this goes through, there will be a lot of patent attorneys making a lot of money writing clauses into software patent applications along the lines of:
"whereby said process causes an electron to move from transistor a to transistor b"
since way down at a quantum level, the bit state of a block of memory is a physical process.
Alternatively, I'm sure there will be a lot of "software appliance" patents showing up under the argument that once its an "appliance", its no longer a general purpose computer.