hammering your amp's low power input to save "wear" on the part thats been designed to actually do work
ROTFL. It makes sense to keep the input signal at the maximum non-distorting power level, because that's typically going to result in the highest SNR for the system as a whole. "Wear" isn't involved at all. It makes sense to do as much amplification as possible close to the source, which in this case is the iPod's DAC.
Maybe I'm missing something as an ignorant American, but how is Germany sliding back to its old ways? From my perspective over here, it seems like Germany is one of the freest, best-managed countries around, with one of the highest living standards in the world, and a very strong economy with very high exports of high-value goods.
Trying to claim you can or comparing it to the first amendment, is just nonsense.
Comparing the Fourth Amendment to the First Amendment is just nonsense?
Anyway, my argument here is not that anyone has the right to drive an automobile. My argument is that the government cannot require that you waive your Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of being licensed to drive. To accept some special pleading for any given form of transportation, on the grounds that you can use another, invites the government to use special pleading on every form of transportation separately. This has in fact already happened.
The question is, however, is the use of a privately owned vehicle on a public thoroughfare protected under the constitution? The answer is, only to a limited extent.
How else are you going to get there? Train? No, sorry, the government claims the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply there either; you can either be subject to search or not permitted on the train. Plane? Same thing. Bus? Same thing; the government even claims the right to stop the bus and browbeat passengers into consent, removing them from the bus if they do not. That means you can only preserve your Fourth Amendment rights while travelling if you walk. That's about equivalent to claiming the First Amendment only applies to a hand-cranked press.
There's also few statements in your driver's license EULA about not criticizing the government, allowing the state to quarter troops in your home, waiving your right to a jury trial in vehicular manslaughter cases, and permitting the police to scourge you at roadside for violating the speed limit.
Oh, wait, there aren't. But if there were, they'd have to be unconstitutional as well. Because if the state can force you to waive your fundamental rights as a condition of performing a common activity, your rights are pretty much null and void.
Besides, what if you're driving without a license? Can't be any implied consent there, and driving without a license carries a lesser penalty than drunk driving.
Florida has implied consent laws. By choosing to drive on the roads, you agree to perform a breath test when requested by a police officer.
Implied consent is bullshit, and already makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. There is no consent to a breath test (or any other test) implied by driving.
Doesn't it seem reasonable for a judge to determine that an individual refusing a non-invasive test, where the refusal has such significant repercussions, may indeed be over the limit and determine there is probable cause to test this rather than letting them off with a lighter penalty?
No. Refusal of a search can never be probable cause for a search, as that too makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. If there were a an equivalently simple test for having committed a murder recently, it would still be unreasonable to allow cops to ask that people take it, and unreasonable for their refusal to be used as probable cause for forcing them to take such a test.
An excerpt from the Fourth Amendment: "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Robed 9 need to re-read that one too. Also they should re-read their own decision in US v. Leon (1984), particularly the bit about "The exception we recognize today will also not apply in cases where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role..." -- rubber-stamped warrants don't count.
Most traditional (i.e. teen - early 20s) college students don't have the balls to stand up for themselves in a situation of public humiliation, so it is very much an effective means of stopping bad behavior.
It's not a matter of not having the balls to stand up for yourself. It's a matter of them holding all the cards. If you refuse to acknowledge the humiliation, they simply threaten to remove you from class, or do so. Why not start with that? Because they enjoy humiliating students.
At 10 years ago, it's probably on a ZIP disk, a floppy, or an old hard drive. In all cases the solution is the same: dig an old machine (all Macs) out of the attic, power it up and get it running (usually requires a boot CD as the PRAM battery is long dead), and copy the data off via an Ethernet network connection. This works up to 20 years, actually. Before that, the data might have been on a 5.25" floppy. However, I no longer have them so the problem is academic.
Data formats are generally not a problem; anything I've had to restore is all either text, Microsoft Word, or Microsoft Excel.
If all the healthy people have insurance, they the insurance pool gets larger. This spreads the risk, and can make insurance cheaper.
That's one theory. Another theory is that making insurance mandatory increases demand for it, thus causing prices to rise rather than fall. I know which theory I believe.
Sorry, dude, I agree with your thesis in general but in fact Bill Gates was born rich and Warren Buffett was the son of a Congressman (and hence born into a family with power if not extreme wealth)
Our understanding of genetics has moved well past Darwin's and Mendel's work:) IOW: It's more complex than that. Sunlight affects gene expression, and the probability that a trait will be passed on.
Past Darwin and Mendel... and straight back to Lamarck?
I thought both films were about the ideal of a free, flexible and open computer system versus the ideal of a totalitarian, inflexible and closed computer system.
Certainly the second one was; they even used the old "Information wants to be free" line. Of course there's an irony in Disney putting out such a film, but corporations don't mind being hypocritical if it makes them the money.
"Well, Kirk was forced into it. He wasn't really into black chicks. Every other object in the universe with a hole at the bottom of it is in his gunsights. Including other crewmembers who directly reported to him.
I don't think Kirk ever went after a crewmember directly reporting to him without some sort of special circumstance. The only other case I recall is when he was split into wimp and wolf, the wolf went after Yeoman Rand.
Alien babes and officers from other ships were fair game, of course.
No irony here, Alanis. Just because I ignored the original AC's attempt to poison the well by suggesting that anyone who disagreed was a geek or a nerd doesn't constitute irony.
As for the nice guy with average skills, why shouldn't he keep his job? When layoffs come, he's going going to be in the category of "must keep", but he's not going to be top of the layoff list either.
I don't know how one would get a job at a place like that without having worn a suit and tie to the interview. If they're telling people how to tie a necktie after the fact, isn't it too late?
You could probably get through the interview with a tie tied incorrectly, but you'd better use one of the three accepted knots if you want to work there. I am surprised they don't specify a particular one.
It's amazing the number of people who cannot understand what kind of outfits a business person will take seriously. I've seen people with spiky hair, piercings and tatoos all over, and baggy/ripped/faded outfits unable to comprehend how someone could not take them seriously.
Hey, gotta play to the stereotype. If I'm claiming to be the guru who can build their entire new computer system in nothing flat, the hacker ponytail, sandals, and ripped jeans are an absolute necessity.
And if you're trying to get a contract as a black hat hacker, spiky hair, tatoos, and piercings are pretty much necessary, despite the fact that at no point will the client actually see you.
We call it Computer Science, but not one of my teachers or professors through the 8ish long years of highschool and college advocated for using anything that resembled the scientific method. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that boat.
I used it once. I hypothesized that, contrary to the teacher's claims, the output of the "PRINT RND(1)" command would be both predictable and the same for all the machines (which had just been turned on). We did the experiment. The hypothesis was not contradicted. The teacher was not particularly happy.
The study came to the conclusion that you make more money if you do not go to an university but instead join the workforce. You can come out on top if you only go for your bacc degree and forgo the master's, but only if you can pull it off in minimum time, and in a field that is in demand (the combination pretty much does not exist).
Maybe that combination does not exist now, but it _did_ -- and the field was software.
But I think the US is very different from your country. There are very few jobs in the US which provide significant upward mobility without at least a bachelor's degree. Lifetime earnings for those with bachelors' degrees are nearly twice that as those with only high school diplomas (and earnings for those professional degrees -- doctors and lawyers -- are twice those of bachelor's degrees). Even if you have experience, not having the diploma (and sometimes, not having the masters degree) will keep you from getting through the first filter at many employers.
The Harvard Longitudinal Study of Adult Development studied groups of men since the 1940s. The only correlation the study could find with anything was personal relationships.
You provide a link to the study, but not to any results supporting your claim. The only results I found with a bit of searching were in an Atlantic Monthly article -- and those indicated that personal relationships were most important, but only among the Harvard men studied, not the "Glueck men", for whom the most important predictor was industriousness in childhood. Further, there were other factors as well, for both groups.
No. But they say that hot chic down the street has the clap...and she's flirting with you. What could happen?
Goddamn it, I'm not getting fooled again. Last time I hooked up a hot chick with free antibiotics, her interest disappeared when the course of treatment was finished.
Slashdot Mirror
ROTFL. It makes sense to keep the input signal at the maximum non-distorting power level, because that's typically going to result in the highest SNR for the system as a whole. "Wear" isn't involved at all. It makes sense to do as much amplification as possible close to the source, which in this case is the iPod's DAC.
Fortunately for Germany, those ARE its old ways.
Comparing the Fourth Amendment to the First Amendment is just nonsense?
Anyway, my argument here is not that anyone has the right to drive an automobile. My argument is that the government cannot require that you waive your Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of being licensed to drive. To accept some special pleading for any given form of transportation, on the grounds that you can use another, invites the government to use special pleading on every form of transportation separately. This has in fact already happened.
How else are you going to get there? Train? No, sorry, the government claims the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply there either; you can either be subject to search or not permitted on the train. Plane? Same thing. Bus? Same thing; the government even claims the right to stop the bus and browbeat passengers into consent, removing them from the bus if they do not. That means you can only preserve your Fourth Amendment rights while travelling if you walk. That's about equivalent to claiming the First Amendment only applies to a hand-cranked press.
There's also few statements in your driver's license EULA about not criticizing the government, allowing the state to quarter troops in your home, waiving your right to a jury trial in vehicular manslaughter cases, and permitting the police to scourge you at roadside for violating the speed limit.
Oh, wait, there aren't. But if there were, they'd have to be unconstitutional as well. Because if the state can force you to waive your fundamental rights as a condition of performing a common activity, your rights are pretty much null and void.
Besides, what if you're driving without a license? Can't be any implied consent there, and driving without a license carries a lesser penalty than drunk driving.
Implied consent is bullshit, and already makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. There is no consent to a breath test (or any other test) implied by driving.
No. Refusal of a search can never be probable cause for a search, as that too makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. If there were a an equivalently simple test for having committed a murder recently, it would still be unreasonable to allow cops to ask that people take it, and unreasonable for their refusal to be used as probable cause for forcing them to take such a test.
An excerpt from the Fourth Amendment: "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Robed 9 need to re-read that one too. Also they should re-read their own decision in US v. Leon (1984), particularly the bit about "The exception we recognize today will also not apply in cases where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role..." -- rubber-stamped warrants don't count.
100 25W light bulbs = 2500W
32256 Phillips Luxeon Rebel LEDs, 3V @ 350ma = approx 34kW, not counting the driver circuitry that the 25W bulbs didn't need.
Bring back the incandescent bulb!
The Great Oxygenation Event, circa 2.4 billion years ago.
If you _don't_ think that was a good thing, I suspect you of being a spy for our would-be methane-breathing overlords.
It's not a matter of not having the balls to stand up for yourself. It's a matter of them holding all the cards. If you refuse to acknowledge the humiliation, they simply threaten to remove you from class, or do so. Why not start with that? Because they enjoy humiliating students.
At 10 years ago, it's probably on a ZIP disk, a floppy, or an old hard drive. In all cases the solution is the same: dig an old machine (all Macs) out of the attic, power it up and get it running (usually requires a boot CD as the PRAM battery is long dead), and copy the data off via an Ethernet network connection. This works up to 20 years, actually. Before that, the data might have been on a 5.25" floppy. However, I no longer have them so the problem is academic.
Data formats are generally not a problem; anything I've had to restore is all either text, Microsoft Word, or Microsoft Excel.
That's one theory. Another theory is that making insurance mandatory increases demand for it, thus causing prices to rise rather than fall. I know which theory I believe.
Last time I was robbed, it was a cop who did it.
Sorry, dude, I agree with your thesis in general but in fact Bill Gates was born rich and Warren Buffett was the son of a Congressman (and hence born into a family with power if not extreme wealth)
Past Darwin and Mendel... and straight back to Lamarck?
Certainly the second one was; they even used the old "Information wants to be free" line. Of course there's an irony in Disney putting out such a film, but corporations don't mind being hypocritical if it makes them the money.
I don't think Kirk ever went after a crewmember directly reporting to him without some sort of special circumstance. The only other case I recall is when he was split into wimp and wolf, the wolf went after Yeoman Rand.
Alien babes and officers from other ships were fair game, of course.
Two different women with a chance to co-ordinate their stories.
No irony here, Alanis. Just because I ignored the original AC's attempt to poison the well by suggesting that anyone who disagreed was a geek or a nerd doesn't constitute irony.
As for the nice guy with average skills, why shouldn't he keep his job? When layoffs come, he's going going to be in the category of "must keep", but he's not going to be top of the layoff list either.
You could probably get through the interview with a tie tied incorrectly, but you'd better use one of the three accepted knots if you want to work there. I am surprised they don't specify a particular one.
Hey, gotta play to the stereotype. If I'm claiming to be the guru who can build their entire new computer system in nothing flat, the hacker ponytail, sandals, and ripped jeans are an absolute necessity.
And if you're trying to get a contract as a black hat hacker, spiky hair, tatoos, and piercings are pretty much necessary, despite the fact that at no point will the client actually see you.
I used it once. I hypothesized that, contrary to the teacher's claims, the output of the "PRINT RND(1)" command would be both predictable and the same for all the machines (which had just been turned on). We did the experiment. The hypothesis was not contradicted. The teacher was not particularly happy.
Maybe that combination does not exist now, but it _did_ -- and the field was software.
But I think the US is very different from your country. There are very few jobs in the US which provide significant upward mobility without at least a bachelor's degree. Lifetime earnings for those with bachelors' degrees are nearly twice that as those with only high school diplomas (and earnings for those professional degrees -- doctors and lawyers -- are twice those of bachelor's degrees). Even if you have experience, not having the diploma (and sometimes, not having the masters degree) will keep you from getting through the first filter at many employers.
You provide a link to the study, but not to any results supporting your claim. The only results I found with a bit of searching were in an Atlantic Monthly article -- and those indicated that personal relationships were most important, but only among the Harvard men studied, not the "Glueck men", for whom the most important predictor was industriousness in childhood. Further, there were other factors as well, for both groups.
Goddamn it, I'm not getting fooled again. Last time I hooked up a hot chick with free antibiotics, her interest disappeared when the course of treatment was finished.