He should have just marketed a real gun for kids. He'd probably still be in business, and some court would probably have ruled that neither he or his company could be sued for damages resulting from the use of his product.
That's true, for good reason. You see, the CPSC is explicitly denied jurisdiction over firearms and firearms ammunition. Know why? Because in 1975, Handgun Control Incorporated tried to get the CPSC to ban handgun ammunition; HCI went so far as to get the US District Court for the District of Columbia to order the CPSC to consider it. Then Congress stepped in (no doubt large bags of money were involved) and explicitly took the power to regulate firearms and ammunition away from the CPSC.
So they find that he sold a defective product (given that the judge and the persecuting agency are one and the same, that's a foregone conclusion), they find him personally liable, they take everything he owns and everything he'll make in the future... maybe he should hold the administrative judge and the particular CPSC bureaucrats involved personally responsible.
Write something that uses a regular expression library (RE2 would be ideal, if your expressions are actually regular), and keeps the compiled patterns resident. Most of your time is likely spent parsing the patterns.
Basically the government's position is they can restrict anyone from being able to take a commercial flight for any reason at all or no reason, with no process whatsoever, and that's OK because the restricted person could walk instead.
I am responsible for the things that *I* do. If others are irresponsible with the results of what I do, you're saying that I'm somehow responsible for their actions. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.
You're referring to the legal concept of "novus actus interveniens", breaking the chain of responsibility. The person answering the text has committed an intervening act (namely, answering the text) which relieves you of responsibility. This is obviously a dead letter nowadays, where the point is to find someone, anyone, to blame.
So you really believe that increasing the price on 30mpg cars is just going to cause people to buy fewer cars? What, they are suddenly going to decide to walk?
Some. But the main effect will be to cause them to hang on to their current 20mpg cars even longer than they would have otherwise. Oops.
I did some CS classes in the 1980s for soft credit (not a put down, nearly all first year courses look like soft credit to an engineering student beyond their first year). The ratio was close to even with a slight majority of women in the first year classes.
I started my CS degree at the University of Maryland in 1988, and it was a complete sausagefest. Hundreds of men, vanishingly few women. So either all those women disappeared in two years, or your or my experience was atypical. Or perhaps both were. Percentage of computer science degrees granted to women topped out under 40% in 1984,
Don't have a throwaway troll account handy for your attempt to paint all male geeks as woman-haters?
Guys, it's because programming as a field doesn't want women there.
Don't anthropomorphize programming, it doesn't like it.
See all those comments up there, where random guys say that the few female programmers they've met are really good?
I saw a few who said they'd seen mediocre and bad ones. Probably others who have just didn't want to seem gauche by saying so. I've seen one terrible, absolutely worse-than-useless female programmer myself. And some mediocre ones. And yes, some good ones as well.
Because you get treated differently, no matter what your co-workers say. You're an outsider because you don't have a dick. And having to feel like that every fucking day is exhausting and alienating, even when they're nice to you, because being a woman means you're kept at a distance, especially if you're not pig-ugly and the guys in question are in a relationship. You can never, ever get away from that slight feeling that you just don't belong and they'd be more comfortable if you were a guy.
Or maybe, just maybe, they're not doing anything but being their normal geeky selves. Since, you know, you haven't actually said anything concrete here.
You want to know why women just avoid programming as a career? It's because we're shoved away from it all the fucking time. When we're growing up and the whole culture of computer nerdity is presented as a thing for boys only. When we go to school and math and science are things for boys too.
Can't speak to the current culture of computer nerdity for children, as when I was growing up computer nerdity was unusual and likely to result in shunning for anyone -- though the computer nerds still tended to be male. But general discouragement of science and math doesn't explain the much greater disparity among computer programmers.
And even if you're there on your own merits, people will still wonder. You know the question in their heads, they don't even have to say it out loud. Did she get here because of favoritism, because she slept with someone?
Or perhaps the question is only in your own head.
And god help you if you become a public figure in any nerd related field, because the first sign of a controversial opinion will get you rape and death threats.
Somehow I think this has more with being a public figure than being in a nerd related field.
Anyway, you've just recited the standard narrative -- that there are few women in software because those nasty misogynistic male geeks have driven them away at every opportunity. I've known some misogynistic male geeks; there's assholes in every field. But I don't think the field is dominated by them. Further, there's also the problem that fields that have in the past been dominated by openly sexist and misogynistic men now have a gender balance tilted towards women -- despite those men still being around. The canonical example here is advertising.
There have been several serious attempts to figure this out. Most notably at CMU. For more information read, "Unlocking the Clubhouse"
A serious attempt to figure out why there are so few women in software doesn't begin by assuming what the reason is. The title sort of gives away the game.
They don't now. You do realise that in the within recorded history the last 20 years of female dominaed teaching is a massive anomaly. The thing is you get this thing called "feminisation" where female domiated careers are seen as worth less, and that puts off men. That coupled with the "being the odd one out" syndrome puts off even more.
Oh, you're missing the far more significant reason: It's no longer seen as acceptable for men to be interested in working with young children, and any who try are sure to be accused of being a pedophile at some point. That's why you get more male teachers as the students get older.
This is where subtle pressures start to matter: who's going to go into a second choice field massively dominated by one gender and rampant sexism?
I don't know, why don't you ask all the women who have gone into fields like sales and advertising which were notorious for their rampant sexism?
Nitpick: Nearly all ciphers are symmetric ciphers (except for the asymmetric ones:-)), and many of them are very vulnerable to known plaintext attacks. But there are plenty of symmetric ciphers which are, as far as we know, resistant to known plaintext, chosen plaintext and even more sophisticated attacks. Such as AES-256, which seems to be the cipher used here.
Turns out the NSA has worked out a practical known plaintext break for AES (including -256), it's at offset 459139182 of the insurance file.
If the recording is "missing" for any reason, or if the cop stops recording or removes the recording device for any reason other than someone else breaking it (and visibly doing so), everything the cop says about the unrecorded events should be assumed to be a lie.
We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock.
We have never declared or paid any cash dividend on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain any future earnings and do not expect to pay any dividends in the foreseeable future.
World's slowest "high speed" rail which will cost a ridiculous amount of money to start and overrun that, and probably never get completely build due to lawsuits and politics and such. Or a total pie-in-the-sky science fiction idea which will never happen either.
There are hundreds of other examples that they have just declared that they have authority to charge fees, even when they do nothing for these sites.
If they actually try to enforce that interpretation, there will be a blizzard of lawsuits and more than one bill introduced in Congress (at least one for each side!)
My personal favorite is micro-hydro. I can generate about 25KW with something about the size of half a home washer and no fossil fuel inputs since it's just catching motion from falling water.
Too bad it will cost you about 10 billion dollars to get the required permits, if it's at all possible.
This is the rub. Ideally one should be able to comply with a court order and then get one's day in a public court, as most would guaranteed by the constitution, or refuse to comply and get one's day in court.
But here's how it really works: You can comply with the court order and never get your day in court because there's no longer any controversy. Or you can refuse to comply and get a day in court -- but the only issue will be your refusal to comply, not the validity of the order.
"We have no information on what type of soft drinks were consumed, particularly whether they were regular or diet, sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened, cola or noncola, and caffeinated or noncaffeinated,"
Seriously? You have a bunch of factors which might be relevant, and you don't even fscking MEASURE them?
(OK, "worst study ever" might be a bit of hyperbole, but it's pretty bad as studies that don't smack of Mengele go)
You give notice, your co-workers understand, your pointy-haired boss knows that you did the right thing according to the PHB rules, and either they send you home and pay you out for the time left (you win), they expect you to work it (no big deal), or they're dicks and they tell you to leave immediately and don't pay you (no worse than if you quit with no notice). What do you get if you don't give notice?
Any employer you might be going to that "needs you NOW" and doesn't respect your desire to give notice is going to screw you in the future.
There are certainly cases you might want to quit "right now" -- e.g. your boss calls you up on a Sunday and wants you to come in. You say "This is the third Sunday in a row, and my wife's water just broke and we're on the way to the hospital." The boss says it's absolutely required you come in anyway. THEN you should quit on the spot. But just an ordinary job change? It's not worth it. Your boss and your co-workers that you left in the lurch will remember, and it might bite you in the ass in the future.
Really? So suppose a Congress passes and the President signs a nasty law forbidding criticism of the government. Unconstitutional on its face. And they start using it to persecute and silence their political enemies. And in the fullness of time an election comes around, and the tactics backfire -- the party in power is soundly defeated. What should the new president do?
1) Continue to enforce the act until it is repealed or found unconstitutional or 2) Pardon everyone convicted so far, and refuse to continue to enforce the act?
Of course this is not a hypothetical situation; Thomas Jefferson chose option #2 w.r.t. the Sedition Act. (Wikipedia claims he continued to enforce it against his own enemies afterwards; this seems likely to be false, as the Federalists, being no dummies, set it to expire before the new President's term started)
Again, I'm not saying any one of these laws is a wise law, but they are (or were in the case of DOMA until overturned) duly legislated, therefore the executive had a constitutional duty to enforce them until such time the laws are repealed by the legislature or overturned by the courts.
The executive has no duty to enforce an unconstitutional law; laws are unconstitutional from the time they are passed, not the time they are ruled so.
Calories In Calories Out has one major flaw, and that's the inability to actually measure calories out, which is in part a function of calories in. It also has the usual flaws of dieting, which is that few dieters accurately and honestly measure food intake.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, for good reason. You see, the CPSC is explicitly denied jurisdiction over firearms and firearms ammunition. Know why? Because in 1975, Handgun Control Incorporated tried to get the CPSC to ban handgun ammunition; HCI went so far as to get the US District Court for the District of Columbia to order the CPSC to consider it. Then Congress stepped in (no doubt large bags of money were involved) and explicitly took the power to regulate firearms and ammunition away from the CPSC.
So they find that he sold a defective product (given that the judge and the persecuting agency are one and the same, that's a foregone conclusion), they find him personally liable, they take everything he owns and everything he'll make in the future... maybe he should hold the administrative judge and the particular CPSC bureaucrats involved personally responsible.
Write something that uses a regular expression library (RE2 would be ideal, if your expressions are actually regular), and keeps the compiled patterns resident. Most of your time is likely spent parsing the patterns.
Basically the government's position is they can restrict anyone from being able to take a commercial flight for any reason at all or no reason, with no process whatsoever, and that's OK because the restricted person could walk instead.
Yes./a?
You're referring to the legal concept of "novus actus interveniens", breaking the chain of responsibility. The person answering the text has committed an intervening act (namely, answering the text) which relieves you of responsibility. This is obviously a dead letter nowadays, where the point is to find someone, anyone, to blame.
So you have a ~2 hour bike commute each way? Ugh. Sounds like hell.
Guess I won't be doing that, because if I lose 100 pounds I'll be dead.
Some. But the main effect will be to cause them to hang on to their current 20mpg cars even longer than they would have otherwise. Oops.
I started my CS degree at the University of Maryland in 1988, and it was a complete sausagefest. Hundreds of men, vanishingly few women. So either all those women disappeared in two years, or your or my experience was atypical. Or perhaps both were. Percentage of computer science degrees granted to women topped out under 40% in 1984,
Don't have a throwaway troll account handy for your attempt to paint all male geeks as woman-haters?
Don't anthropomorphize programming, it doesn't like it.
I saw a few who said they'd seen mediocre and bad ones. Probably others who have just didn't want to seem gauche by saying so. I've seen one terrible, absolutely worse-than-useless female programmer myself. And some mediocre ones. And yes, some good ones as well.
Or maybe, just maybe, they're not doing anything but being their normal geeky selves. Since, you know, you haven't actually said anything concrete here.
Can't speak to the current culture of computer nerdity for children, as when I was growing up computer nerdity was unusual and likely to result in shunning for anyone -- though the computer nerds still tended to be male. But general discouragement of science and math doesn't explain the much greater disparity among computer programmers.
Or perhaps the question is only in your own head.
Somehow I think this has more with being a public figure than being in a nerd related field.
Anyway, you've just recited the standard narrative -- that there are few women in software because those nasty misogynistic male geeks have driven them away at every opportunity. I've known some misogynistic male geeks; there's assholes in every field. But I don't think the field is dominated by them. Further, there's also the problem that fields that have in the past been dominated by openly sexist and misogynistic men now have a gender balance tilted towards women -- despite those men still being around. The canonical example here is advertising.
A serious attempt to figure out why there are so few women in software doesn't begin by assuming what the reason is. The title sort of gives away the game.
Oh, you're missing the far more significant reason: It's no longer seen as acceptable for men to be interested in working with young children, and any who try are sure to be accused of being a pedophile at some point. That's why you get more male teachers as the students get older.
I don't know, why don't you ask all the women who have gone into fields like sales and advertising which were notorious for their rampant sexism?
Liar. I tried that last night and it didn't work at all.
Turns out the NSA has worked out a practical known plaintext break for AES (including -256), it's at offset 459139182 of the insurance file.
If the recording is "missing" for any reason, or if the cop stops recording or removes the recording device for any reason other than someone else breaking it (and visibly doing so), everything the cop says about the unrecorded events should be assumed to be a lie.
From Google's initial prospectus:
From Google's investor FAQ:
So, if you buy GOOG expecting a dividend, you simply haven't done your homework.
World's slowest "high speed" rail which will cost a ridiculous amount of money to start and overrun that, and probably never get completely build due to lawsuits and politics and such. Or a total pie-in-the-sky science fiction idea which will never happen either.
If they actually try to enforce that interpretation, there will be a blizzard of lawsuits and more than one bill introduced in Congress (at least one for each side!)
Too bad it will cost you about 10 billion dollars to get the required permits, if it's at all possible.
But here's how it really works: You can comply with the court order and never get your day in court because there's no longer any controversy. Or you can refuse to comply and get a day in court -- but the only issue will be your refusal to comply, not the validity of the order.
Seriously? You have a bunch of factors which might be relevant, and you don't even fscking MEASURE them?
(OK, "worst study ever" might be a bit of hyperbole, but it's pretty bad as studies that don't smack of Mengele go)
You give notice, your co-workers understand, your pointy-haired boss knows that you did the right thing according to the PHB rules, and either they send you home and pay you out for the time left (you win), they expect you to work it (no big deal), or they're dicks and they tell you to leave immediately and don't pay you (no worse than if you quit with no notice). What do you get if you don't give notice?
Any employer you might be going to that "needs you NOW" and doesn't respect your desire to give notice is going to screw you in the future.
There are certainly cases you might want to quit "right now" -- e.g. your boss calls you up on a Sunday and wants you to come in. You say "This is the third Sunday in a row, and my wife's water just broke and we're on the way to the hospital." The boss says it's absolutely required you come in anyway. THEN you should quit on the spot. But just an ordinary job change? It's not worth it. Your boss and your co-workers that you left in the lurch will remember, and it might bite you in the ass in the future.
Really? So suppose a Congress passes and the President signs a nasty law forbidding criticism of the government. Unconstitutional on its face. And they start using it to persecute and silence their political enemies. And in the fullness of time an election comes around, and the tactics backfire -- the party in power is soundly defeated. What should the new president do?
1) Continue to enforce the act until it is repealed or found unconstitutional or
2) Pardon everyone convicted so far, and refuse to continue to enforce the act?
Of course this is not a hypothetical situation; Thomas Jefferson chose option #2 w.r.t. the Sedition Act. (Wikipedia claims he continued to enforce it against his own enemies afterwards; this seems likely to be false, as the Federalists, being no dummies, set it to expire before the new President's term started)
The executive has no duty to enforce an unconstitutional law; laws are unconstitutional from the time they are passed, not the time they are ruled so.
Calories In Calories Out has one major flaw, and that's the inability to actually measure calories out, which is in part a function of calories in. It also has the usual flaws of dieting, which is that few dieters accurately and honestly measure food intake.