What does the intent of the law cover that is not covered by existing laws on this topic? Under what justification do you classify that as "Child Porn"-- a sex offense and very Serious Issue(tm) as opposed to something more mundane?
On that topic, is it somehow substantially different if someone modifies a picture of a 17 year old vs. a picture of a 18 year old or a 50 year old?
There is a company that, at the heart of their business, exists a 6000 line SQL statement that no one understands, no one can modify, and occasionally doesn't work without anyone knowing why but a restart of the program seems to take care of it.
It has lasted that way for a very very long time.
Is it good code simply as function of its survival and (sort of) working?
I tend to think of good code like good engineering or good architecture. Surely you wouldn't define good architecture as "a building that remains standing," would you? The layout of the rooms, how well that space is used, how well it fits the needs of the users, how difficult it is to make modifications, etc all factor in to "good design" and have nothing to do with whether the building "works."
I am not sure you can put a metric to it anymore than I could put a metric to measuring the quality of abstract expressionism or how well a circuit is laid out--there may be metrics to aid in the process, but in the end one can't necessarily assign a numerical rating to the final outcome for the purpose of rating.
That doesn't mean that there isn't such a thing as good quality and bad quality code.
What Randi does has absolutely zero bearing on actual scientific research. He is not a scientist, he is an entertainer, and what scientists look for is totally separate from what Randi is looking for.
Scientists are interested in questions such as probability of a Type I error across multiple experiments and meta-analysis, Randi is interested in something flashy.
Jessica Utts, one of the statisticians involved in the government projects, has said that:
I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look for proof. No one who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date. Resources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how this ability works. I am confident that the questions are no more elusive than any other questions in science dealing with small to medium sized effects, and that if appropriate resources are targeted to appropriate questions, we can have answers within the next decade.
I had a boss who worked for a company that referred to the owner of the company as "Lord Vader" because she was utterly insane. It had a turnover rate that was prettymuch total on a yearly basis.
I had to work once a week for a while in a warehouse in a metal chair with no one else around and an ancient piece of computer technology.
There is at least one game company that seems to have a vested interest in driving its employees into the ground and treating them like children.
I know another place that had computer technology that was so out of date it could barely run the software we were developing.
I am not sure if any of these constitute the "worst" places to work, or even how they rate to the companies listed in the article, but surely there are worse things out there than the horror of grey cubicles.
What we need are standardized tests that approximate real world usage--otherwise its just going to be anecdotal evidence. For the SSD drive: Using wifi to browse 20 pages in a loop, spending twenty seconds for each page, while playing mp3s in iTunes while at 50% brightness gave 4 hours and 59 minutes.
Playing a DVD image off of the internal drive in a loop it gave nearly 3 hours and 56 minutes.
Downloading a 10 GB file, playing two 480p XviD videos in a loop, plus the web browsing test from #1 came in at 2 hours and 42 minutes.
Now, which approximates the best "real world usage" scenario for those situations when you are not near a plug for the length of time that this actually matters?
Now, I admit, my normal behavior might look closer to (3)--perhaps with something compiling in the background--but that is exceedingly unlikely behavior if I am, say, sitting in an airport or flying on a plane. My current work laptop gets substantially worse battery life than that when I am working, and still I rarely find its lack of capacity annoying or limiting. I simply don't use it the same way in an airport lobby or on an airplane that I do while working.
The numbers have been all over the map depending on what is referred to as "common usage." The only standardized test run so far (Ars Technica's wasn't) showed that for web browsing and listening to music at 50% brightness, it gave 4.5 hours. Numbers went down from there depending on exactly what they were doing with it. Andandtech's recent run showed 5 hours on that aforementioned test if you used the SSD instead of the HDD.
First of all, the changes are mostly simplifications to the core language (e.g., how to catch exceptions is currently a bit of a mess if you want to catch more than one exception). So for example, range and xrange are now one, iterators become more prevalent, "old-style" classes are going away and so new-style ones will become the standard, a lot of the things that have been deprecated now are being removed, etc. It isn't really a "new language" in any sense. This is far superior to Java's "always backwards compatible" approach which has lead to a lot of cruft building up over the years.
Next, it needs to be understood that 2.6 will be backwards compatible and include a warnings mode to highlight things that won't work in Python 3.0 to ease in the transition. There should be no problem supporting both on one system.
Finally, they are providing a 2.5->3.0 translation tool that runs in 2.5 and does most of the mechanical translation between the two for you.
* Buy the accessory for $99, then just not carry it with you when you travel. * Use the built-in software to "borrow" the optical drive on another Mac or PC and use that for ripping. * Rip it on your other system and then transfer it over the network.
Erm. Wizards carrying swords completely destroys the game for you?
You could always, you know, disallow it as a house rule. There is absolutely no reason I can think of--within the bounds of the universe--to disallow it, someone might want to play it, it can be done without wrecking game balance, so why build it into the rules that they can't? It makes more sense that they would need to get training in it (which is the way 3.x works--you'd need the correct feat) than that it would be disallowable for all characters no matter what.
They support WAV, they support ALAC. Transcoding between these doesn't result in a loss of quality. So why would they support FLAC unless it was just to decode from FLAC into something else?
Your original claim was that "You do know that MOST crimes are committed by repeat offenders right?" Then you cite statistics to back yourself up on what percentage reoffend. These are different issues entirely: What percentage of crimes are committed by repeat offenders vs. what percentage of previous offenders commit crimes.
You also provided no evidence for your second point that, "for sexual predators, [reform] is almost-never possible." This flies directly in the face of the report that everyone is throwing around on the topic, which in the conclusions says that "the analysis also revealed that most of those judged to be 'dangerous' or 'high risks' were not reconvicted of a sexual offence or imprisoned for a violent crime, even after lengthy follow-up periods."
It doesn't necessarily come from that article--which thankfully does make the distinction--it could have just been a guess based on knowledge of how these things are set up.
I've had a few applications not work, but always it was simply that the applications were significantly out of date and just needed an upgraded. After upgrading they all worked fine.
Most of vaccine research seems to have very little to do with how pathogens evolve (barring the research on antibiotic resistant mutations, but that is only peripherally related to MET as opposed to a subset of the theory). It does have to do with how they enter the host and invade the immune system, but one can observe *that* and *how* that happens without talking about how it came to be. It doesn't matter whether the researcher believes the world came about through a slow process that took billions of years or was created last thursday (Last Thursdayism), nor does it matter if they think that the predecessors acted in thus and so way vs. their modern equivalents.
What matters is the *now* of the response. You don't need to understand how army ants evolved to model their behavior *now*, nor do you need to understand how influenza's hosts evolved relative to it in order to model the traveling waves of its propagation.
So rather than throwing insults around, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain exactly how this connection is made.
I used to work in a microbiology lab which worked on vaccine research. I can't think of anything I did there on a day-to-day basis there, or really anything anyone did there, required anything that vaguely resembled an understanding of modern evolutionary theory.
I also did some research with mathematical biology (which would be a manifestation of biology on some level), again none of that required (and only some of it related to) evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
What does the intent of the law cover that is not covered by existing laws on this topic? Under what justification do you classify that as "Child Porn"-- a sex offense and very Serious Issue(tm) as opposed to something more mundane?
On that topic, is it somehow substantially different if someone modifies a picture of a 17 year old vs. a picture of a 18 year old or a 50 year old?
There is a company that, at the heart of their business, exists a 6000 line SQL statement that no one understands, no one can modify, and occasionally doesn't work without anyone knowing why but a restart of the program seems to take care of it.
It has lasted that way for a very very long time.
Is it good code simply as function of its survival and (sort of) working?
I tend to think of good code like good engineering or good architecture. Surely you wouldn't define good architecture as "a building that remains standing," would you? The layout of the rooms, how well that space is used, how well it fits the needs of the users, how difficult it is to make modifications, etc all factor in to "good design" and have nothing to do with whether the building "works."
I am not sure you can put a metric to it anymore than I could put a metric to measuring the quality of abstract expressionism or how well a circuit is laid out--there may be metrics to aid in the process, but in the end one can't necessarily assign a numerical rating to the final outcome for the purpose of rating.
That doesn't mean that there isn't such a thing as good quality and bad quality code.
What Randi does has absolutely zero bearing on actual scientific research. He is not a scientist, he is an entertainer, and what scientists look for is totally separate from what Randi is looking for.
Scientists are interested in questions such as probability of a Type I error across multiple experiments and meta-analysis, Randi is interested in something flashy.
Yes, just remotely in some cases.
I'm not sure I'd say that about ESP.
Jessica Utts, one of the statisticians involved in the government projects, has said that:
Grey cubicles at Google, seriously?
I had a boss who worked for a company that referred to the owner of the company as "Lord Vader" because she was utterly insane. It had a turnover rate that was prettymuch total on a yearly basis.
I had to work once a week for a while in a warehouse in a metal chair with no one else around and an ancient piece of computer technology.
There is at least one game company that seems to have a vested interest in driving its employees into the ground and treating them like children.
I know another place that had computer technology that was so out of date it could barely run the software we were developing.
I am not sure if any of these constitute the "worst" places to work, or even how they rate to the companies listed in the article, but surely there are worse things out there than the horror of grey cubicles.
At one point I got so sick of the "Star Wars derived" claims that I used similar methods to show how Star Wars derived from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
Abstract something sufficiently and pick-and-choose from both sources, and its not hard to turn one work into another.
I think you misspelled "BSD" or "MIT"...
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
What we need are standardized tests that approximate real world usage--otherwise its just going to be anecdotal evidence. For the SSD drive: Using wifi to browse 20 pages in a loop, spending twenty seconds for each page, while playing mp3s in iTunes while at 50% brightness gave 4 hours and 59 minutes.
Playing a DVD image off of the internal drive in a loop it gave nearly 3 hours and 56 minutes.
Downloading a 10 GB file, playing two 480p XviD videos in a loop, plus the web browsing test from #1 came in at 2 hours and 42 minutes.
Now, which approximates the best "real world usage" scenario for those situations when you are not near a plug for the length of time that this actually matters?
Now, I admit, my normal behavior might look closer to (3)--perhaps with something compiling in the background--but that is exceedingly unlikely behavior if I am, say, sitting in an airport or flying on a plane. My current work laptop gets substantially worse battery life than that when I am working, and still I rarely find its lack of capacity annoying or limiting. I simply don't use it the same way in an airport lobby or on an airplane that I do while working.
The numbers have been all over the map depending on what is referred to as "common usage." The only standardized test run so far (Ars Technica's wasn't) showed that for web browsing and listening to music at 50% brightness, it gave 4.5 hours. Numbers went down from there depending on exactly what they were doing with it. Andandtech's recent run showed 5 hours on that aforementioned test if you used the SSD instead of the HDD.
Relax.
First of all, the changes are mostly simplifications to the core language (e.g., how to catch exceptions is currently a bit of a mess if you want to catch more than one exception). So for example, range and xrange are now one, iterators become more prevalent, "old-style" classes are going away and so new-style ones will become the standard, a lot of the things that have been deprecated now are being removed, etc. It isn't really a "new language" in any sense. This is far superior to Java's "always backwards compatible" approach which has lead to a lot of cruft building up over the years.
Next, it needs to be understood that 2.6 will be backwards compatible and include a warnings mode to highlight things that won't work in Python 3.0 to ease in the transition. There should be no problem supporting both on one system.
Finally, they are providing a 2.5->3.0 translation tool that runs in 2.5 and does most of the mechanical translation between the two for you.
United and Delta, from what I hear, have been expanding it to all of their classes of service.
You could:
* Buy the accessory for $99, then just not carry it with you when you travel.
* Use the built-in software to "borrow" the optical drive on another Mac or PC and use that for ripping.
* Rip it on your other system and then transfer it over the network.
Basically there are several good options.
If you are not willing to accept those tradeoffs then you are not the target market for the MacBook Air. Might I suggest a MacBook or a MacBook Pro?
Or you can buy them from Apple, download them from other sources, or rip them from your own DVDs.
How is this related to lock-in again?
Erm. Wizards carrying swords completely destroys the game for you?
You could always, you know, disallow it as a house rule. There is absolutely no reason I can think of--within the bounds of the universe--to disallow it, someone might want to play it, it can be done without wrecking game balance, so why build it into the rules that they can't? It makes more sense that they would need to get training in it (which is the way 3.x works--you'd need the correct feat) than that it would be disallowable for all characters no matter what.
Why would they adopt FLAC?
They support WAV, they support ALAC. Transcoding between these doesn't result in a loss of quality. So why would they support FLAC unless it was just to decode from FLAC into something else?
Your original claim was that "You do know that MOST crimes are committed by repeat offenders right?" Then you cite statistics to back yourself up on what percentage reoffend. These are different issues entirely: What percentage of crimes are committed by repeat offenders vs. what percentage of previous offenders commit crimes.
You also provided no evidence for your second point that, "for sexual predators, [reform] is almost-never possible." This flies directly in the face of the report that everyone is throwing around on the topic, which in the conclusions says that "the analysis also revealed that most of those judged to be 'dangerous' or 'high risks' were not reconvicted of a sexual offence or imprisoned for a violent crime, even after lengthy follow-up periods."
It doesn't necessarily come from that article--which thankfully does make the distinction--it could have just been a guess based on knowledge of how these things are set up.
I've had a few applications not work, but always it was simply that the applications were significantly out of date and just needed an upgraded. After upgrading they all worked fine.
Other than that... completely smooth upgrade.
Most of vaccine research seems to have very little to do with how pathogens evolve (barring the research on antibiotic resistant mutations, but that is only peripherally related to MET as opposed to a subset of the theory). It does have to do with how they enter the host and invade the immune system, but one can observe *that* and *how* that happens without talking about how it came to be. It doesn't matter whether the researcher believes the world came about through a slow process that took billions of years or was created last thursday (Last Thursdayism), nor does it matter if they think that the predecessors acted in thus and so way vs. their modern equivalents.
What matters is the *now* of the response. You don't need to understand how army ants evolved to model their behavior *now*, nor do you need to understand how influenza's hosts evolved relative to it in order to model the traveling waves of its propagation.
So rather than throwing insults around, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain exactly how this connection is made.
I used to work in a microbiology lab which worked on vaccine research. I can't think of anything I did there on a day-to-day basis there, or really anything anyone did there, required anything that vaguely resembled an understanding of modern evolutionary theory.
I also did some research with mathematical biology (which would be a manifestation of biology on some level), again none of that required (and only some of it related to) evolution.
SIPRnet != The Internet, but still requires a web browser.
I think I agree with what you are saying, but I didn't make it past the first paragraph so I don't know for sure...
That hasn't been my experience at all. Switching between input modes on both systems is very fast.
I've also got to say, having a built-in J-J and J-E dictionary in Leopard is very nice.