I believe that the consent of the governed is irrelevant unless the governed have the ability to express their lack of consent by overthrowing the government.
States definately have the right to secede if their legislature authorizes it, and can convince Congress to do so. Without that authorization, the question is more foggy. I personally don't see any "right" to secede, only the right to resist, and the right to be punished for it if you fail to succeed when you do resist.
The king lied -- HIS ancestors gave up HIS rights in perpetuity in the form of the Magna Carta, and HIS ancestors came to power in the same way that the colonies removed it. Live by the sword, die by the sword, as they say.
You may think you have the right to do something, but it only matters if you can back it up with force of arms. Without the ability to back it up with force of arms, "rights" are an exercise in mental masturbation.
"Consent of the governed" is a good idea, imo, but there's no natural law providing for it. It's just a good concept that some rather smart people came up with, and that some rather determined people killed and died to implement.
Hate to dissapoint you, but the American revolution was illegal. Everyone knew it was illegal, nobody even tried to hide the fact that it was illegal. It was understood by every signer that the Declaration of Independence was a declaration of treason, and that should the colonies be defeated, a death warrant for its signers.
The whole point of the Declaration of Independence was to declare to the world, "We've tried to legally resolve our differences with the Crown. As British citizens under British law, we're entitled to certain rights, and the Crown has repeatedly, deliberately and wontonly violated those rights. Yes, we understand that what we're doing is treason, but we've done everything we can within the bounds of the law to resolve these violations, and they just keep coming! As such, we feel we have to protect them with force of arms."
There is a reason the declaration includes a rather lengthy list of the violations; it's nothing more of an indictment of the Crown, and a list of reasons why the colonists felt that they were forced into such drastic action.
Was the Revolution illegal? Absolutely. Should we still be a part of Great Britain? No, we won the war.
Might doesn't make right, but might often does decide national boundaries.;)
Point of argument: The states probably never had the power to unilaterally secede.
Article IV, Section 3:
"but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."
The very act of succession forms a new state.
Okay, so even if you don't buy that argument, you have to admit that the intent here is to prevent states OR Congress from unilaterally redrawing boundaries by requiring the consent of both. The wording isn't specific enough that it can't be interpreted as including national boundaries, and that's all Lincoln ended up doing. As we know, both the Supreme Courts and Congress have the ability to overturn the president with respect to executive orders, and both declined to do so. De facto, his interpretation was accepted as correct.
I can see your point of view, but like I said -- the section is not worded specifically enough to avoid a possibly broad interpretation such as was made by Lincoln.
Regarding point 0, duh. The point I was making is that it's not ALWAYS better as the parent stated. There are certain situations which it is preferable.
Regarding point 1 -- so? An L1 cache miss and an L2 cache hit is preferable to an L1 cache miss, an L2 cache miss, and a read from memory. WAY preferable, in fact.
Regarding points 2 and 3, yeah, I agree. However, if this becomes the prevalent model (as people seem to think), do you not suspect that operating system writers will optimize for it in fairly short order?
Regarding point 4, I tend to think that this problem is going to eventually be minimized. Eventually, the operating systems will be optimized to put threads using the same data together, and you KNOW Intel and AMD will do something (cram more memory into the cache, increase associativity, use better caching algorithms, etc) if it seriously impacts the performance.
In any case, the point I was trying to make was not that the dual core setup was infinately superior, nor was it that it was even _usually_ better. The point was that you cannot make a blanket statement that "dual processor setups are always better."
In point of fact, you're wrong. It's not always going to be better. It very much will depend on the work load and the system architecture.
Last I checked, Intel systems share a bus to memory. That means you do NOT get extra bandwidth to memory for each additional CPU. You do on AMD systems though.
That aside, however, there are loads in which dual core with shared cache would be TREMENDOUSLY better than a dual CPU setup would be.
Here's an example:
Run the network stack on one core, run the consumer application on the other. Network stack loads the data to be worked on from the network -- it's now in the shared cache. It does its thing, and sends the data to the userspace consumer application. Because it's in the shared cache, the other core doesn't have to go to memory to get the data before working on it, saving a bunch of clock cycles. The consumer level application does its thing, and sends back a reply. The reply is already in the cache, so the other core doesn't have to read from memory, saving another load. It manipulates the data, and writes the result to the network device.
On a dual processor system? The stack loads the data, does its thing. It writes the data back to memory, and hands it off to the application. On the other CPU, the application loads the data, does its thing, and writes the response to memory. The stack on the other CPU now has to read the response from memory before working on it and writing it to the network device.
Tally it up:
Dual core: 1 read from main memory, 1 write to main memory. Dual processor: 3 reads from main memory, 3 writes.
This is a little simplified, but is a reasonable way to think about it.
For some loads, the dual processor will be better. But not for all of them, that's for sure.
That's now how it works. Taxes from capital gains are taxed separately and at different rates than salary.
For example, you can be in the 37% income tax bracket, but if these two were to go and sell $1m of Google stock, they'd be selling what amounts to an ultra-long term gain. Under rules of years past, that would have been about an 18% tax bracket, but I'm pretty sure that with the Bush tax changes, it's actually around 12% now.
Either way, this is not a tax-dodging thing. It's probably more of a PR stunt for the investors -- see, we're going to make money only if our stock price rises. As such, we are totally married to the improvement of our company, blah blah blah.
Actually, while I don't know the case law on this, many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights should apply to anyone that the United States wishes to act upon.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Congress simply CANNOT make a law respecting this, domestically or abroad.
"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
No mention of this being limited to domestic quartering.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
No person. Period.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
In ALL criminal prosecutions.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
No exceptions.
Those amendments that refer to "the people" specifically should probably be construed to include only people actually present in the United States.
Otherwise, these are restrictions on the behavior of the government, not restrictions on where it may or may not do these things.
If I'm mistaken, and you can show me where in the Constitution it suggests that these are limits on the behavior of the government within our territorial borders only, I'd like to see it.
Having lived in both places: No, it's not more humid in Florida.
Houston is an order of magnitude worse than anywhere I've ever lived, or ever been for that matter. Let's keep in mind Houston is called the "Bayou City" because it's got HUGE fracking drainage canals that basically make the whole frigging city a swamp. Of course, it needs them because the city WAS a swamp, before we drained it using the canals.
As far as the schools go, I'd buy that. The schools in Texas are decent as long as you avoid the deep inner-city schools. Even decent neighborhoods in Florida have prisons^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hschools in them.
Actually, you can't just sit the test. The requirements vary from state to state, but the common thread is that you have to have a certain amount of accountancy education -- about 30 hours in most of the states whose rules I've looked at -- and a certain amount of public accountancy experience on top of it.
If you've already got a degree, by the time you've taken the 30 hours in accountancy, you're probably already eligible to graduate with a degree in accountancy. You might as well.
As far as CPA with CS goes, there is demand for it. A lot of it has to do with application building that aids in accounting throughout a company. Think of it like a TurboTax or Quicken tailored for one specific enterprise. Automating the books not only saves you money on the quarterly and yearly reports, but makes information available to management much faster.
Usually, the theory behind EULAs not being legally binding has a lot to do with the contract being non-negotiable, and that there is no guarantee that the receiving party actually ever even read (or even really agreed) to the contract.
This argument is one way. The author of the EULA can hardly argue that the contract was non-negotiable on their part -- they freaking wrote the thing. Nor can they argue that they never agreed to the contract, because they sell the product with the understanding that the EULA is in fact agreed to.
IANAL, but AFAIK, the arguments for EULAs being non-binding can only be a defense for the end user.
I've gone back to school, and have noticed that I have something that makes me a much better programmer than my peers.
Over the years, I've developed a little voice at the back of my head that speaks up every time I am having problems with code I've written.
It asks me, "Is the problem you're having a result of a broken implementation, or is it the result of a design that lends itself to a broken implementation?"
With a good design, the code is not only easy to bang out, but the good design will tend to prevent you from making errors in the implementation. With a poor design, the code is hard to bang out, and it actually tends to cause you to make errors.
Develop this programming conscience. Constantly ask yourself, "Is my bone-headedness in the code itself, or the design?".
Heh, I remember my father telling me about how the Soviets set up their rifle specification to accept bullets only marginally larger than NATO's spec -- this meant NATO bullets could be used in the Soviet rifles in a pinch, but the Soviet bullets wouldn't fit in the NATO rifles at all.
The poster above CAN NOT overemphasize the rule: TAKE YOUR MEDS!
Schitzophrenics especially have a BAD habit of going off of their meds -- they'll take their meds, and because they feel better, they'll think they're cured. Then they'll stop taking their meds. Then they'll go batshit insane.
YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WILL HAVE TO HELP MONITOR THE MEDS. You will almost certainly not be able to trust your sister to stay on them, not for at least TEN years of her taking them, with the associated slides of her going off the meds.
I have an acquaintance who could not be trusted not to go off of the meds for literally 20 years after starting them.
Let me repeat: TAKE THE MEDS. DO NOT LET HER SELF-MONITOR. CHECK UP ON HER. TAKE THE MEDS. TAKE THE MEDS. TAKE THE MEDS.
I do not usually use caps this much, but it is that important. TAKE THE MEDS. MONITOR. TAKE THE MEDS TAKE THE MEDS TAKE THE MEDS.
Besides that, often times, the illness combined with the medication make it impossible to work. DO NOT EVER MAKE THE MISTAKE OF ASSUMING THIS CAN BE CURED. I know a couple who spent literally millions of dollars trying to avoid their kid having the stigma of having "schitzophrenic" on the record, and they refused to have her put on social security disability, etc. DO NOT PERMIT YOUR PARENTS TO MAKE THAT MISTAKE. If it looks like she's not going to be able to work, IMMEDIATELY start working on getting her on social security disability. It will pay a stipend and medical, which is one less thing your family will have to cover.
Da boss, he just said you have to pay more for protection this week. Apparently, da coppers are asking questions they shouldn't be, and our costs have gone up as a result.
If you don't like it, tell the coppers not to do their job.
node -- a point where two or more circuit elements join branch -- a path that connects two nodes
Looking at the various examples of a "branch", it's _anything_ between two nodes, including a resistor, for example.
And as far as the "algebraic sum of currents in a branch" goes, I suppose it's just a matter of how you look at it. If you take an infintesmal peice of wire, and you pump current into it (+I), that current has to go somewhere. It exits that infintesmal segment of wire somewhere in a current amount of -I. Sum them, you get zero. *shrug*
Heh, well, I'm currently looking in my electrical science book, and the definition of a "branch" has nothing to do with a circuit element. It is a "path that connects two nodes." ie, a wire.
You are technically corerct in that the definition really is node (instead of branch), but while I'm no EE in practice, I've never seen a circuit that I've analyzed where this makes a difference; you have current in = current out in either case. Maybe it does make a difference; I've just never seen a case where it does. Can you give an example? I am curious.:)
As far as VARs not running motors go, that's true. But if you slap the appropriate element into the device consuming the power (capacitor in an inductive circuit; inductor in a capacitive circuit), it gets converted to real power. So ultimately, the power in _still_ equals power out. It's just in different forms at different times; if you take the magnitude of reactive and real power (sqrt(Preal^2+Preactive^2)), both in and out, they will always equal each other.
Not quite right -- in an AC circuit, if you take ALL power into account, you'll always get equal power in and out. The key is that when the current and voltage are out of phase (as in an inductive or capacitive circuit), some of the power is "real" and some of it is "reactive". The real is measured in watts and the reactive is measured in "VAR"s. You can't use the VARs directly because they're the power that gets stored in the inductance and/or capacitance in the operation of the circuit.
If you get a higher output power than input or a higher input power than output, it means that you forgot to check the reactive power:)
Four laws of electrical science; there are no exceptions to these, ever: 1. Voltage is equal to current times impedance 2. The algebraic sum of all voltages in a loop is zero. 3. The algebraic sum of all currents in a branch is zero. 4. The algebraic sum of powers in a circuit is zero. (aka, power in = power out).
If your measurements ever violate any of these laws, you either f*cked up, or you need to file a patent because you just found a way to violate a _law_ of electrical science. That's a big deal, like violating gravity:)
I took basic algebra in fifth grade. Then in sixth grade. Then in seventh grade. And this was in Shaker Heights, one of the best school districts in the nation. In the seventh grade, on the first day, the teacher gave us a pre-test which covered every topic we would be covering for the whole year. I got every problem right. It took an ENTIRE semester of my complaining, my parents complaining, and my TEACHER complaining about how I already knew everything they were going to teach me before they would put me in the next level up -- by which time I had MISSED THE ENTIRE FIRST BLOODY SEMESTER, AND WAS HOSED. I still got a C, but that was a low grade for me at the time.
Then I moved to the Cy-Fair district right outside of Houston, and I took Algebra again in the 8th grade. And again in the 9th grade. I finally got out of Algebra I after that.
BUT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, WHO THE FUCK NEEDS TO TAKE ALGEBRA I FIVE YEARS IN A ROW?
Other posters are correct: College is the new high school. But they're not really the "new" high school. When my father graduated from college (in the 1970's), some old fogey who only had graduated from high school laughed at him, saying that the only reason employers were starting to require college degrees was because what my father learned in college is what they USED to teach in high school. This was 30 bloody years ago, and it's only gotten worse. Bah, the US school system blows.
I agree that a failure to be polite doesn't excuse an abuse of power, but I'm not yet convinced that what they've done is an abuse of power. When law enforcement has a search warrant, that same warrant generally authorizes the seizure of anything that resembles evidence of the named crime(s).
When the FBI is on a raid, they're under absolutely no obligation to make your life easier by duplicating the evidence before leaving with it. Whether they do so or not is at the discretion of the agents involved. Either way, there's no abuse involved, because whichever way the agents leave with the evidence, THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO DO SO.
So if they choose to leave with the whole bloody server, it's hardly abuse. It may suck, but they're within their legal rights to do it.
There's almost certainly more to the story. I've had some experience with FBI "raids" where I used to work. It was a semi-large hosting provider in south Florida. I worked there from about 1999-2002. In that time, we had FBI "visits" at least 5 times in that time period because of nasty stuff our customers were doing.
Not ONCE did the FBI leave the property with our machines. The key was cooperation. The FBI agents knew what would happen if they left with our equipment, and knew that we would do everything in our power to help them get the job done without having to resort to that.
Heck, I even showed them better ways to get data off of the machine. We had a good working relationship. They'd show up with the warrant/subpoena, we'd go pull the machine that had the data they wanted. We'd assign one of our technicians (usually me) to help them copy everything over. They'd be out the door with whatever data it was they needed by the end of the day on hard disks they brought onsite with them.
The fact that the FBI left with their machines indicates to me that the provider did something stupid to piss off the agents. They probably made everything as difficult as they possibly could, and the FBI agents got sick of it, and said, "Screw this, I can get this done in the lab without all of this bullshit."... and then they did it.
In my experience, most law enforcement (especially FBI) consider themselves professionals. Usually, they're not out to get you personally, they're just out to do their job. If you don't make their day any harder than necessary, they're not going to make YOUR day any harder than necessary.
So to the extent that you feel you can, MAKE THEIR DAY EASIER. They'll tend to do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that the consent of the governed is irrelevant unless the governed have the ability to express their lack of consent by overthrowing the government.
States definately have the right to secede if their legislature authorizes it, and can convince Congress to do so. Without that authorization, the question is more foggy. I personally don't see any "right" to secede, only the right to resist, and the right to be punished for it if you fail to succeed when you do resist.
The king lied -- HIS ancestors gave up HIS rights in perpetuity in the form of the Magna Carta, and HIS ancestors came to power in the same way that the colonies removed it. Live by the sword, die by the sword, as they say.
You may think you have the right to do something, but it only matters if you can back it up with force of arms. Without the ability to back it up with force of arms, "rights" are an exercise in mental masturbation.
"Consent of the governed" is a good idea, imo, but there's no natural law providing for it. It's just a good concept that some rather smart people came up with, and that some rather determined people killed and died to implement.
Hate to dissapoint you, but the American revolution was illegal. Everyone knew it was illegal, nobody even tried to hide the fact that it was illegal. It was understood by every signer that the Declaration of Independence was a declaration of treason, and that should the colonies be defeated, a death warrant for its signers.
;)
The whole point of the Declaration of Independence was to declare to the world, "We've tried to legally resolve our differences with the Crown. As British citizens under British law, we're entitled to certain rights, and the Crown has repeatedly, deliberately and wontonly violated those rights. Yes, we understand that what we're doing is treason, but we've done everything we can within the bounds of the law to resolve these violations, and they just keep coming! As such, we feel we have to protect them with force of arms."
There is a reason the declaration includes a rather lengthy list of the violations; it's nothing more of an indictment of the Crown, and a list of reasons why the colonists felt that they were forced into such drastic action.
Was the Revolution illegal? Absolutely. Should we still be a part of Great Britain? No, we won the war.
Might doesn't make right, but might often does decide national boundaries.
Point of argument: The states probably never had the power to unilaterally secede.
Article IV, Section 3:
"but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."
The very act of succession forms a new state.
Okay, so even if you don't buy that argument, you have to admit that the intent here is to prevent states OR Congress from unilaterally redrawing boundaries by requiring the consent of both. The wording isn't specific enough that it can't be interpreted as including national boundaries, and that's all Lincoln ended up doing. As we know, both the Supreme Courts and Congress have the ability to overturn the president with respect to executive orders, and both declined to do so. De facto, his interpretation was accepted as correct.
I can see your point of view, but like I said -- the section is not worded specifically enough to avoid a possibly broad interpretation such as was made by Lincoln.
Regarding point 0, duh. The point I was making is that it's not ALWAYS better as the parent stated. There are certain situations which it is preferable.
Regarding point 1 -- so? An L1 cache miss and an L2 cache hit is preferable to an L1 cache miss, an L2 cache miss, and a read from memory. WAY preferable, in fact.
Regarding points 2 and 3, yeah, I agree. However, if this becomes the prevalent model (as people seem to think), do you not suspect that operating system writers will optimize for it in fairly short order?
Regarding point 4, I tend to think that this problem is going to eventually be minimized. Eventually, the operating systems will be optimized to put threads using the same data together, and you KNOW Intel and AMD will do something (cram more memory into the cache, increase associativity, use better caching algorithms, etc) if it seriously impacts the performance.
In any case, the point I was trying to make was not that the dual core setup was infinately superior, nor was it that it was even _usually_ better. The point was that you cannot make a blanket statement that "dual processor setups are always better."
In point of fact, you're wrong. It's not always going to be better. It very much will depend on the work load and the system architecture.
Last I checked, Intel systems share a bus to memory. That means you do NOT get extra bandwidth to memory for each additional CPU. You do on AMD systems though.
That aside, however, there are loads in which dual core with shared cache would be TREMENDOUSLY better than a dual CPU setup would be.
Here's an example:
Run the network stack on one core, run the consumer application on the other. Network stack loads the data to be worked on from the network -- it's now in the shared cache. It does its thing, and sends the data to the userspace consumer application. Because it's in the shared cache, the other core doesn't have to go to memory to get the data before working on it, saving a bunch of clock cycles. The consumer level application does its thing, and sends back a reply. The reply is already in the cache, so the other core doesn't have to read from memory, saving another load. It manipulates the data, and writes the result to the network device.
On a dual processor system? The stack loads the data, does its thing. It writes the data back to memory, and hands it off to the application. On the other CPU, the application loads the data, does its thing, and writes the response to memory. The stack on the other CPU now has to read the response from memory before working on it and writing it to the network device.
Tally it up:
Dual core: 1 read from main memory, 1 write to main memory.
Dual processor: 3 reads from main memory, 3 writes.
This is a little simplified, but is a reasonable way to think about it.
For some loads, the dual processor will be better. But not for all of them, that's for sure.
That's now how it works. Taxes from capital gains are taxed separately and at different rates than salary.
For example, you can be in the 37% income tax bracket, but if these two were to go and sell $1m of Google stock, they'd be selling what amounts to an ultra-long term gain. Under rules of years past, that would have been about an 18% tax bracket, but I'm pretty sure that with the Bush tax changes, it's actually around 12% now.
Either way, this is not a tax-dodging thing. It's probably more of a PR stunt for the investors -- see, we're going to make money only if our stock price rises. As such, we are totally married to the improvement of our company, blah blah blah.
Nobody expects the Canadian Inquisition! ... er, wait.
Actually, while I don't know the case law on this, many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights should apply to anyone that the United States wishes to act upon.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Congress simply CANNOT make a law respecting this, domestically or abroad.
"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
No mention of this being limited to domestic quartering.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
No person. Period.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
In ALL criminal prosecutions.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
No exceptions.
Those amendments that refer to "the people" specifically should probably be construed to include only people actually present in the United States.
Otherwise, these are restrictions on the behavior of the government, not restrictions on where it may or may not do these things.
If I'm mistaken, and you can show me where in the Constitution it suggests that these are limits on the behavior of the government within our territorial borders only, I'd like to see it.
I had a rebate on a TiVo from best buy literally "bounce" in the mail. The address they gave me to send the rebate was bogus.
In my mind, rebate == fraud. I don't even look at rebates as part of the price anymore; "$99 after $50 rebate" == "$149" to me.
Having lived in both places: No, it's not more humid in Florida.
Houston is an order of magnitude worse than anywhere I've ever lived, or ever been for that matter. Let's keep in mind Houston is called the "Bayou City" because it's got HUGE fracking drainage canals that basically make the whole frigging city a swamp. Of course, it needs them because the city WAS a swamp, before we drained it using the canals.
As far as the schools go, I'd buy that. The schools in Texas are decent as long as you avoid the deep inner-city schools. Even decent neighborhoods in Florida have prisons^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hschools in them.
Corps that incorporate in Delaware get the use of the state's favorable incorporation laws.
Actually, you can't just sit the test. The requirements vary from state to state, but the common thread is that you have to have a certain amount of accountancy education -- about 30 hours in most of the states whose rules I've looked at -- and a certain amount of public accountancy experience on top of it.
If you've already got a degree, by the time you've taken the 30 hours in accountancy, you're probably already eligible to graduate with a degree in accountancy. You might as well.
As far as CPA with CS goes, there is demand for it. A lot of it has to do with application building that aids in accounting throughout a company. Think of it like a TurboTax or Quicken tailored for one specific enterprise. Automating the books not only saves you money on the quarterly and yearly reports, but makes information available to management much faster.
Usually, the theory behind EULAs not being legally binding has a lot to do with the contract being non-negotiable, and that there is no guarantee that the receiving party actually ever even read (or even really agreed) to the contract.
This argument is one way. The author of the EULA can hardly argue that the contract was non-negotiable on their part -- they freaking wrote the thing. Nor can they argue that they never agreed to the contract, because they sell the product with the understanding that the EULA is in fact agreed to.
IANAL, but AFAIK, the arguments for EULAs being non-binding can only be a defense for the end user.
Or you will be scolded rather vigorously.
It doesn't actually sound like anything, in this case, it's more like getting messaged by write or talk.
How odd is that?
I've gone back to school, and have noticed that I have something that makes me a much better programmer than my peers.
Over the years, I've developed a little voice at the back of my head that speaks up every time I am having problems with code I've written.
It asks me, "Is the problem you're having a result of a broken implementation, or is it the result of a design that lends itself to a broken implementation?"
With a good design, the code is not only easy to bang out, but the good design will tend to prevent you from making errors in the implementation. With a poor design, the code is hard to bang out, and it actually tends to cause you to make errors.
Develop this programming conscience. Constantly ask yourself, "Is my bone-headedness in the code itself, or the design?".
This will make your life easier.
Heh, I remember my father telling me about how the Soviets set up their rifle specification to accept bullets only marginally larger than NATO's spec -- this meant NATO bullets could be used in the Soviet rifles in a pinch, but the Soviet bullets wouldn't fit in the NATO rifles at all.
:)
Damn clever.
The poster above CAN NOT overemphasize the rule: TAKE YOUR MEDS!
Schitzophrenics especially have a BAD habit of going off of their meds -- they'll take their meds, and because they feel better, they'll think they're cured. Then they'll stop taking their meds. Then they'll go batshit insane.
YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WILL HAVE TO HELP MONITOR THE MEDS. You will almost certainly not be able to trust your sister to stay on them, not for at least TEN years of her taking them, with the associated slides of her going off the meds.
I have an acquaintance who could not be trusted not to go off of the meds for literally 20 years after starting them.
Let me repeat: TAKE THE MEDS. DO NOT LET HER SELF-MONITOR. CHECK UP ON HER. TAKE THE MEDS. TAKE THE MEDS. TAKE THE MEDS.
I do not usually use caps this much, but it is that important. TAKE THE MEDS. MONITOR. TAKE THE MEDS TAKE THE MEDS TAKE THE MEDS.
Besides that, often times, the illness combined with the medication make it impossible to work. DO NOT EVER MAKE THE MISTAKE OF ASSUMING THIS CAN BE CURED. I know a couple who spent literally millions of dollars trying to avoid their kid having the stigma of having "schitzophrenic" on the record, and they refused to have her put on social security disability, etc. DO NOT PERMIT YOUR PARENTS TO MAKE THAT MISTAKE. If it looks like she's not going to be able to work, IMMEDIATELY start working on getting her on social security disability. It will pay a stipend and medical, which is one less thing your family will have to cover.
But most important, TAKE THE MEDS.
*italian mofioso voice*
Heya buddy,
Da boss, he just said you have to pay more for protection this week. Apparently, da coppers are asking questions they shouldn't be, and our costs have gone up as a result.
If you don't like it, tell the coppers not to do their job.
Per "Electric Circuits", Nilsson & Reidel:
node -- a point where two or more circuit elements join
branch -- a path that connects two nodes
Looking at the various examples of a "branch", it's _anything_ between two nodes, including a resistor, for example.
And as far as the "algebraic sum of currents in a branch" goes, I suppose it's just a matter of how you look at it. If you take an infintesmal peice of wire, and you pump current into it (+I), that current has to go somewhere. It exits that infintesmal segment of wire somewhere in a current amount of -I. Sum them, you get zero. *shrug*
Heh, well, I'm currently looking in my electrical science book, and the definition of a "branch" has nothing to do with a circuit element. It is a "path that connects two nodes." ie, a wire.
:)
You are technically corerct in that the definition really is node (instead of branch), but while I'm no EE in practice, I've never seen a circuit that I've analyzed where this makes a difference; you have current in = current out in either case. Maybe it does make a difference; I've just never seen a case where it does. Can you give an example? I am curious.
As far as VARs not running motors go, that's true. But if you slap the appropriate element into the device consuming the power (capacitor in an inductive circuit; inductor in a capacitive circuit), it gets converted to real power. So ultimately, the power in _still_ equals power out. It's just in different forms at different times; if you take the magnitude of reactive and real power (sqrt(Preal^2+Preactive^2)), both in and out, they will always equal each other.
Not quite right -- in an AC circuit, if you take ALL power into account, you'll always get equal power in and out. The key is that when the current and voltage are out of phase (as in an inductive or capacitive circuit), some of the power is "real" and some of it is "reactive". The real is measured in watts and the reactive is measured in "VAR"s. You can't use the VARs directly because they're the power that gets stored in the inductance and/or capacitance in the operation of the circuit.
:)
:)
If you get a higher output power than input or a higher input power than output, it means that you forgot to check the reactive power
Four laws of electrical science; there are no exceptions to these, ever:
1. Voltage is equal to current times impedance
2. The algebraic sum of all voltages in a loop is zero.
3. The algebraic sum of all currents in a branch is zero.
4. The algebraic sum of powers in a circuit is zero. (aka, power in = power out).
If your measurements ever violate any of these laws, you either f*cked up, or you need to file a patent because you just found a way to violate a _law_ of electrical science. That's a big deal, like violating gravity
HEAR HEAR!
I took basic algebra in fifth grade. Then in sixth grade. Then in seventh grade. And this was in Shaker Heights, one of the best school districts in the nation. In the seventh grade, on the first day, the teacher gave us a pre-test which covered every topic we would be covering for the whole year. I got every problem right. It took an ENTIRE semester of my complaining, my parents complaining, and my TEACHER complaining about how I already knew everything they were going to teach me before they would put me in the next level up -- by which time I had MISSED THE ENTIRE FIRST BLOODY SEMESTER, AND WAS HOSED. I still got a C, but that was a low grade for me at the time.
Then I moved to the Cy-Fair district right outside of Houston, and I took Algebra again in the 8th grade. And again in the 9th grade. I finally got out of Algebra I after that.
BUT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, WHO THE FUCK NEEDS TO TAKE ALGEBRA I FIVE YEARS IN A ROW?
Other posters are correct: College is the new high school. But they're not really the "new" high school. When my father graduated from college (in the 1970's), some old fogey who only had graduated from high school laughed at him, saying that the only reason employers were starting to require college degrees was because what my father learned in college is what they USED to teach in high school. This was 30 bloody years ago, and it's only gotten worse. Bah, the US school system blows.
I agree that a failure to be polite doesn't excuse an abuse of power, but I'm not yet convinced that what they've done is an abuse of power. When law enforcement has a search warrant, that same warrant generally authorizes the seizure of anything that resembles evidence of the named crime(s).
When the FBI is on a raid, they're under absolutely no obligation to make your life easier by duplicating the evidence before leaving with it. Whether they do so or not is at the discretion of the agents involved. Either way, there's no abuse involved, because whichever way the agents leave with the evidence, THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO DO SO.
So if they choose to leave with the whole bloody server, it's hardly abuse. It may suck, but they're within their legal rights to do it.
There's almost certainly more to the story. I've had some experience with FBI "raids" where I used to work. It was a semi-large hosting provider in south Florida. I worked there from about 1999-2002. In that time, we had FBI "visits" at least 5 times in that time period because of nasty stuff our customers were doing.
Not ONCE did the FBI leave the property with our machines. The key was cooperation. The FBI agents knew what would happen if they left with our equipment, and knew that we would do everything in our power to help them get the job done without having to resort to that.
Heck, I even showed them better ways to get data off of the machine. We had a good working relationship. They'd show up with the warrant/subpoena, we'd go pull the machine that had the data they wanted. We'd assign one of our technicians (usually me) to help them copy everything over. They'd be out the door with whatever data it was they needed by the end of the day on hard disks they brought onsite with them.
The fact that the FBI left with their machines indicates to me that the provider did something stupid to piss off the agents. They probably made everything as difficult as they possibly could, and the FBI agents got sick of it, and said, "Screw this, I can get this done in the lab without all of this bullshit."... and then they did it.
In my experience, most law enforcement (especially FBI) consider themselves professionals. Usually, they're not out to get you personally, they're just out to do their job. If you don't make their day any harder than necessary, they're not going to make YOUR day any harder than necessary.
So to the extent that you feel you can, MAKE THEIR DAY EASIER. They'll tend to do the same.