It's kind of what the traffic will bear... I mostly do websites for small businesses in a rural area. And it's just extra money--my day job pays the bills.
First off, a disclaimer: I'm actually not (much) of a Python programmer--I much prefer Ruby.
However, my Dad teaches Math & Physics at the high school level, and got tapped to teach an intro to programming class this year. On my advice, he bypassed C++ (which he kind of knew) and Java, and taught it in Python using this book:
He has been absolutely delighted with the book and with how well the students have done with Python as a first language. His comment has been that he wishes he had been exposed to Python instead of (many years ago) Fortran and (more recently) C++ -- he might have actually learned to program.;) It seems that Python's a good choice--it's an easy language to learn, supports procedural, object-oriented, and functional programming, and has all the usual advantages of a dynamic language for programmer usability.
Now if only they would do a version of that book in Ruby...:)
I do some websites on the side, and one thing I do that positively mints money is offer maintenance contracts. Basically, here's the deal. I offer two hosting plans:
One for $10/month, and I charge $50/hour for any updates.
One for $25/month, and I will do minor updates for free.
I carefull define what constitutes a "minor" update--basically, anything that doesn't involve a complete site redesign or a lot of graphics work is covered.
Here's the beauty of it: about half my customers go for maintenance and in the 4 years I've been doing websites on the side, I've gotten 12 customers that have maintenance contracts. I haven't done one update under maintenance. I just sit there, quietly collecting $25/month for doing absolutely nothing. And, even if I do have to do something, so long as it's not alot of graphics work, it only takes me a half hour or so anyway.
Also, as others have said, get a deposit before you start work on a site. I do sites on a flat-rate basis, and require 50% up front. Otherwise, you can spend a lot of time working on a site for someone and never get paid.
Also, remember that you will make as much money on hosting in general as you will on design--get a reseller account with a good hosting provider (I use hostgator, but if I had to do it again I'd probably get a dedicated server because hostgator's rails support sucks.) I suggest using paypal subscriptions to make sure you automatically get paid for hosting. They're cheap and easy to setup, and it all happens automatically.
Hate to agree with someone who puts it the way you do, but err... well... your right. I got into Ruby for Rails after many years as a die-hard perl user. Now, I use it for everything. I will say that I miss the wide variety of modules available for Perl, which Ruby hasn't caught up with quite yet.
Why is ruby better? For one, it's object orientation isn't an after-thought, and it's actually useful. For another, it makes it easy to produce readable code (in perl, readable code requires hard work.) Just wish we could catch up in the CPAN department.
The funny thing is that Apple probably puts more effort than any other major computer manufacturer into making sure it DOESN'T suffer from the OE. Yet they still get stuck with it (thanks to speculation.)
Steve,
Don't think I'll ever get a better chance to directly communicate with you--and I'm too disorganized to ever write a letter. But I thought you'd like to hear that after reading "iWoz" my 11-year-old son developed a massive interest in electronics. Since then we've been busily hacking away at building kits, and he's learning a lot. I bought him an Apple IIgs, and we're working on designing an interface card to let him control a robot from it.
This contrasted with school where "Computer Science" means learning Microsoft Word at his level, and one course in Visual Basic in the high school.
So here's to hero worship!
I actually got a job as a sysadmin and was making 6 figures without ever making a degree in any related field... however, it all depends on what you know and (pardon me for saying it) how good you are. I was able to pull it off because I grew up in a household where my father worked in the computer industry (as a Salesman) and literally brought minicomputers home for me to play with. I spent my whole childhood programming, fiddling, and hacking, and developed an incredible intuitive grasp for computers and what makes them tick. I followed that up by going to college and flunking out of everything by spending all my time in the computer lab learning everything I could about UNIX and Networking back in the early nineties, just before the Internet hit big.
However, even then it took a lucky break--I was working in the college computer center as an assistant to the chief systems engineer on campus when he got fired. Since I was the only hand on deck who could do his job, I got to do the job (for peanuts) while this state institution tried to hire someone. After three search committees failed to find someone qualified willing to work for what the university was willing to pay, they gave me the job officially.
For what it's worth, I did eventually get a degree... a B.A. in Philosophy concentrating in Religious Studies, followed up with a Masters in Theological Studies. But that was for me, and hasn't had any impact on my job prospects.
So... I guess the short answer is, it's possible, but you'll need a lucky break at some point. And I wouldn't recommend trying it unless you've got the skills to make everybody ignore your lack of degree.
Look dude, Christianity has got enough false accusations to deal with without utter fiction streaming out of the mind of people who clearly know nothing. Get a grip, get a life, learn some history.
I know this works for the BlackBerry Pearl (8130), but I suspect it work work to some degree for all models. This trick will get you:
Access to thousands of cool apps
Better reliability
A better user interface
A usable web-browser
A usable media player
A bigger screen that you might actually WANT to watch movie on
Games that don't look like something out of 1979.
Get rid of the crappy trackball that's always sticking and never works right.
Actual WORKING GPS.
It's not all upsides though. You won't be able to sync with nearly the flexibility, and it's kind of expensive.
Here's what I did.
Go to http://www.apple.com/iphone. Buy an iphone.
Sell the BlackBerry on eBay.
Enjoy, and be so damn glad you got rid of the crap-berry.
Sorry if this is a troll, but I simply couldn't stand the BlackBerry platform anymore. It was buggy, unreliable, and completely fricking useless. It wasn't as good as my Palm Treo was 10 years ago--my iPhone is 10 times the "smart phone" as either of them.
I wrote the following for the blog I recently started... I come at Politics from an Anabaptist (radical Christian from the 16th century) perspective, so I spend more time justifying the decision to vote in the first place than justifying who I vote for. The blog's at <a href="http://digitalscriptorium.info/">http://digitalscriptorium.info/</a> if you're interested.
--
So, here we are two days short of the election, and I suppose it's finally time for me to make up my mind. I often waver between three choices rather than the usual two:
1. I can not vote at all.
2. I can vote for Obama.
3. I can vote for McCain.
Let me state at the outset that my natural predisposition is not to vote at all. That is the choice that I've taken in the last 3 elections, and a goodly part of me wants to continue the tradition.
Now that I've offended all right-minded and morally straight Christians, in Ameirca and beyond, I hope you'll stick with me long enough to hear why, because my reasoning on this subject will inform my ultimate decision in this election. I believe that, as a Christian, I owe my primary allegiance to the Kingdom of God, and that that allegiance is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of secular government. As Philippians 3.20 says: "our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." I believe that it is no accident that here (as elsewhere) Paul borrows political imagery to describe the church--the church is, in fact, an alternative power structure that should fundamentally subvert traditional power relationships.
Now, I can already see some who will read this jumping up and down, raising their hands, and dying to say, "but we can be citizens of the kingdom of God and citizens of the United States!" Any second now, someone will bring up Romans 13 and think that they've proved me wrong. The problem with this sort of interpretation is that it reads back the political situation of the 4th century into the first, by assuming that Christian participation in government was a real possibility that Paul envisioned in the first century. Let's be clear here: first century Christians were not the rulers, they were the ruled. The issue at hand in the first century was whether Christians should submit to secular government, not whether they should join it. Paul's admonition to make prayers for kings (1Timothy 2.2) is not given so that they may be successful in their secular purposes, but so that the church may live at peace.
There is a reason to suppose that this sharp division between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of God is necessary, which is scripturally attested both in secular political science and in scripture. Scripture first:
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." (John 18.36)
Notice the contrast: there are two sorts of kingdoms. One comes from this world, and (we might say by extension) depends on worldly methods, that is, violence. The other comes from somewhere else, and seems to render violence not so much unnecessary as irrelevant. That is scripture's description of the kingdom of God. Contrariwise, scripture describes the politics (or kingdom) of this world in Romans 13, where world rulers are described as the servants of God "to execute wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13.4b) But these wrongdoers are, to Paul, outside the church. Paul elsewhere envisions the church as having its own judicial function, whose sole sanction is expulsion from the church--see 1Corinthians 5.9-6.8. The division in scripture between the kingdom of this world and the earthly kingdoms is wide, deep, and complete. Our sole relation to them is to "render unto Caesar" by paying taxes, which is the real "take-home point" of Roma
I'm probably best known on Slashdot as being a rabid conservative (at least from the point of view of the typical Slasdotterati--check out my history), but in this case, I agree with the Slashdot consensus. Civil rights are only meaningful if they apply to the worst of our society. I have no sympathy with this man's crime, but it is evident to me that the police should have gotten a warrant before "hashing" his hard drive. That they failed to do so is inexcusable, and the recognized remedy in these cases is for the tainted evidence to be excluded.
I couldn't find an answer in the article, or on the Wikipedia page... are the "reduced reaction mass" requirements for this engine such that constant boost becomes a possibility for longish missions? If so, then this effectively puts the Solar System within reach.
Abortion as a means of birth control is not done by "stock" OB-Gyn's. It's done in abortion clinics. And, for what it's worth, the statistics I've been able to find place abortions due to "fetal health" as little as 1% of abortions, while abortions due to "personal choice" (i.e. abortion as a means of birth control) weigh in at between 78-98%.
Simply put, as usual, the "pro-choice" crowd wants to make policy on the basis the marginal cases. You want to focus on fetal health, when all statistics show that to represent on only a vanishingly small fraction of the abortions done. Others want to focus on rape & incest, which represent and even smaller fraction. The fact is, no matter where you look, over 90% of abortions are done as a form of birth control.
As for the fetus being a parasite... if you truly believe that, I can only say that that is sick and disgusting. I would also observe that people could (and have!) say much the same thing about a girl infant, for whom the father would be obligated to come up with a dowry. I propose a simple principle: parents have a choice whether or not conceive a child. If they choose to conceive a child, either by intent or by negligence, then they bear responsibility for that child from the moment of their choice until that child reaches it's majority.
Another reason the "fetus as parasite" notion is philosophically absurd... Let's suppose a man impregnates a woman. As the law currently stands, he has absolutely no rights or responsibility with regard to said fetus until it is born. Then, suddenly, he is held legally responsible for 50% of that childs support for the next 18 years. How can a man be responsible for his sperm, then NOT be responsible for the fetus, then be responsible for the infant that results? This is simply absurd, because it breaks continuity.
I remember some years ago seeing a made-for-tv movie about the original host of "Romper Room", who had a Thalidomide Baby and a pre-Roe v. Wade abortion. The abortion apparently became something of a cause celebre, and a doctor on the ethics board o the hospital where the abortion was to be performed made a comment (in the movie) that I will always remember: "What kind of moral cause is abortion!?"
I ask you this same question... what kind of moral cause is a "choice" that ends a human life? In a world where desperate people are chasing all over the world to find babies to adopt, what sort of moral crusade is it to ensure the right to kill America's so that a careless woman will be saved from the fairly minor consequences of her own negligence? Are 3-7 months of pregnancy for the mother really worth less than a human life?
Man, I still can't get over that parasite line. Dude, you disgust me.
I really think that this is a pretty cowardly dodging of the issue. Imagine for a moment someone saying: "I don't and never would suggest exposing of an infant to any parent, and I would counsel them against it, but ultimately, it is the woman's (and her partner's) personal decision and always should be."
This is exactly what I'm railing against here--you are dodging the key issue, and in fact are begging the question! If a fetus is an infant, then it is absurd to claim that ending it's life is just a "choice". If a fetus is an infant, abortion is no choice, it's murder. And we should no more leave that up to the individual parent than we would allow individual parents to neglect, abuse, or murder any other infant. By leaving this decision up to the individual mother (and, for the record, Roe v. Wade gives the father no voice at all, which is also wrong) you are in effect saying that there is some unexplained and inexplicable difference between a fetus and a baby, because you are treating the two cases differently. And this is absurd under any moral philosophy worthy of the name--that is, any moral philosophy capable of giving actual moral guidance. (N.B. I do not consider the currently popular utilitarian ethics to be a worthy moral philosophy. I can get along with deontological ethics of any sort, but consequentialism gives me gas.)
The bottom line is this: until someone can offer me some reasoned argument for calling the same 5 lbs. of protoplasm "infant" 5 minutes after a delivery (or, more chillingly, a failed abortion) and "fetus" 5 minutes before, here I stand. God help me, I can do no other.
Incidentally, you seem to assume I'm a Republican. Actually, I'm holding my nose and voting for Obama. But what should have been an easy decision has been made hard by the failure of either party to be consistently "pro-Life" (i.e. anti-abortion, anti-capital punishment, and anti-military-adventurism.)
Disclaimer... I am a Christian. So, go ahead and take me with a grain of salt if you need to. Just for the record, I neither approve nor agree with the OP's characterization of atheists. Sadly, religious belief (or the lack thereof) seems to have little impact on a persons morals, at least in this day and age.
It seems to me that this sort of discussion of abortion evades the issue. Either a fetus is a human life, entitled to rights (human rights even) or it's not. It's not a question of whether abortion is a method of birth control, it's not a question of "privacy rights", it's not even a question of "rape and incest." It's a question of: "when *exactly* does a fertilized egg become a human being, entitled to full protection of the law?" Think about it for a second: would you (or anyone) seriously complain that infanticide was a sloppy and expensive method of birth control, were it legal? This isn't a hypothetical example: infanticide, especially of girl children, has been widely practiced in human history and is not uncommon in some parts of the world even today (e.g. China.)
For a long time, I was pretty wishy-washy on the subject of abortion, and played around with everything from viability on down to implantation as the point at which a fetus becomes human. Then my wife had identical twins. Even when they were in the womb, my daughters (who have virtually identical genetic codes) showed different personalities--one would react to Jazz and Rock (by kicking), the other would react most strongly to Classical. Now they're 7, and they're near-opposites in everything but appearance. To me, the simplest explanation for this is that these 2 infants had a soul and this "soul" was present from the first moment it could possibly be detected.
So, I'm categorically opposed to legal abortion, just as I would be categorically opposed to legal infanticide. This isn't because I'm squicked by the sexual aspects of abortion--I'm not opposed, for example, to the widespread availability of birth control--but because I am honestly convinced by reason and observation (not religious dogma) that every abortion kills a baby. And I truly wish that those who call themselves "pro-choice" would give a lot more sober consideration to exactly what the choice they advocate entails.
Wasn't this the experiment that was determined to apply to conditions that never really obtained, leading to the current leading theory that life molecules came to earth from comets?
Amazing how much of the stuff in high school biology texts turns out to be not-quite-as-advertised.
You wont get much gain from any investment in alternative energy for years to come... and if they allow the economy to go down the tubes now, nobody will be able to afford any form of energy in 2 years or so. Hell, if you let the banking sector lockup, tax revenues may well tank to the point that the government won't be able to get anyone to buy $700 billion in bonds.
A lockup of credit markets is a bad thing, and so far I haven't seen any of the naysayers offer any way to prevent it other than the bailout.
I'm surprised that the summary makes no mention of EMDR. Speaking from personal experience, I've found that to be a very effective treatment for PTSD, and far less time-consuming than traditional approaches.
A reasonably fast boat can do maybe 25 mph... so just anchor the thing 12 miles from a major city (say San Francisco) in half an hour, then ferry people out in shifts. Have some minimal facilities aboard for when weather doesn't allow the boat to get through, and you're set.
This is no big deal, really.
Okay... I truly appreciate the desire to get access to source code for this sort of device. However, if I were on a jury, I would be much less interested in seeing the source code (or hearing testimony from an expert who had) and much more interested in hearing testimony on the testing process for the particular binary image installed on the device in question.
The bottom line is that, particularly in an embedded device working with sensors, many problems will simply not be apparent from the source code, no matter how good you are. The only way to know that this device gives good data is to give it the same sort of rigorous testing we give (for example) new drugs and electronics that go into airplanes and military hardware.
I would want to see this device subjected to adverse environments, radio interference, being operated on the side of the road, etc. etc., and still reliably producing results that closely correlated with those produced by reference tests (i.e. blood alcohol tests). If this sort of testing is done for each and every revision of the device's firmware then the company is right, source code is irrelevant. This isn't like a voting machine... it has a discrete, limited number of inputs, no operating system, and a small memory pool--the only way to tamper with it would be to alter the firmware, and that can be checked with a simple checksum. And if this sort of testing isn't being done, then these devices are worthless and shouldn't be used to send someone to jail, because anyone who knows anything about programming knows that any project of any complexity will have bugs, and this sort of testing is the only way to catch them.
So... does anyone know how these devices are tested? How rigorous is the testing? Is it serious, covering all conditions, and all revisions no matter how minor, or is it the usual "get the bad guys, screw civil liberties" sort of half-assed stuff that we've come to expect from American law enforcement?
I have no sympathy for drunk drivers... but I don't want anyone sent to jail on evidence that even MIGHT be false.
Re:Is anybody else having problems installing?
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Is anybody else having problems installing?
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
I've now tried on two separate windows boxes, innumerable different ways, and in both cases the installer simply dies and does nothing. Anybody else had this experience? Any suggestions?
Slashdot Mirror
It's kind of what the traffic will bear... I mostly do websites for small businesses in a rural area. And it's just extra money--my day job pays the bills.
First off, a disclaimer: I'm actually not (much) of a Python programmer--I much prefer Ruby.
However, my Dad teaches Math & Physics at the high school level, and got tapped to teach an intro to programming class this year. On my advice, he bypassed C++ (which he kind of knew) and Java, and taught it in Python using this book:
He has been absolutely delighted with the book and with how well the students have done with Python as a first language. His comment has been that he wishes he had been exposed to Python instead of (many years ago) Fortran and (more recently) C++ -- he might have actually learned to program. ;) It seems that Python's a good choice--it's an easy language to learn, supports procedural, object-oriented, and functional programming, and has all the usual advantages of a dynamic language for programmer usability.
Now if only they would do a version of that book in Ruby... :)
People dumb enough to buy website maintenance and not use it don't read "News for Nerds." Dumbass. :)
I carefull define what constitutes a "minor" update--basically, anything that doesn't involve a complete site redesign or a lot of graphics work is covered.
Here's the beauty of it: about half my customers go for maintenance and in the 4 years I've been doing websites on the side, I've gotten 12 customers that have maintenance contracts. I haven't done one update under maintenance. I just sit there, quietly collecting $25/month for doing absolutely nothing. And, even if I do have to do something, so long as it's not alot of graphics work, it only takes me a half hour or so anyway.
Also, as others have said, get a deposit before you start work on a site. I do sites on a flat-rate basis, and require 50% up front. Otherwise, you can spend a lot of time working on a site for someone and never get paid.
Also, remember that you will make as much money on hosting in general as you will on design--get a reseller account with a good hosting provider (I use hostgator, but if I had to do it again I'd probably get a dedicated server because hostgator's rails support sucks.) I suggest using paypal subscriptions to make sure you automatically get paid for hosting. They're cheap and easy to setup, and it all happens automatically.
Why is ruby better? For one, it's object orientation isn't an after-thought, and it's actually useful. For another, it makes it easy to produce readable code (in perl, readable code requires hard work.) Just wish we could catch up in the CPAN department.
It's called the "Osborne Effect":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect
The funny thing is that Apple probably puts more effort than any other major computer manufacturer into making sure it DOESN'T suffer from the OE. Yet they still get stuck with it (thanks to speculation.)
Steve, Don't think I'll ever get a better chance to directly communicate with you--and I'm too disorganized to ever write a letter. But I thought you'd like to hear that after reading "iWoz" my 11-year-old son developed a massive interest in electronics. Since then we've been busily hacking away at building kits, and he's learning a lot. I bought him an Apple IIgs, and we're working on designing an interface card to let him control a robot from it. This contrasted with school where "Computer Science" means learning Microsoft Word at his level, and one course in Visual Basic in the high school. So here's to hero worship!
I actually got a job as a sysadmin and was making 6 figures without ever making a degree in any related field... however, it all depends on what you know and (pardon me for saying it) how good you are. I was able to pull it off because I grew up in a household where my father worked in the computer industry (as a Salesman) and literally brought minicomputers home for me to play with. I spent my whole childhood programming, fiddling, and hacking, and developed an incredible intuitive grasp for computers and what makes them tick. I followed that up by going to college and flunking out of everything by spending all my time in the computer lab learning everything I could about UNIX and Networking back in the early nineties, just before the Internet hit big.
However, even then it took a lucky break--I was working in the college computer center as an assistant to the chief systems engineer on campus when he got fired. Since I was the only hand on deck who could do his job, I got to do the job (for peanuts) while this state institution tried to hire someone. After three search committees failed to find someone qualified willing to work for what the university was willing to pay, they gave me the job officially.
For what it's worth, I did eventually get a degree... a B.A. in Philosophy concentrating in Religious Studies, followed up with a Masters in Theological Studies. But that was for me, and hasn't had any impact on my job prospects.
So... I guess the short answer is, it's possible, but you'll need a lucky break at some point. And I wouldn't recommend trying it unless you've got the skills to make everybody ignore your lack of degree.
Look dude, Christianity has got enough false accusations to deal with without utter fiction streaming out of the mind of people who clearly know nothing. Get a grip, get a life, learn some history.
I know this works for the BlackBerry Pearl (8130), but I suspect it work work to some degree for all models. This trick will get you:
It's not all upsides though. You won't be able to sync with nearly the flexibility, and it's kind of expensive.
Here's what I did.
Sorry if this is a troll, but I simply couldn't stand the BlackBerry platform anymore. It was buggy, unreliable, and completely fricking useless. It wasn't as good as my Palm Treo was 10 years ago--my iPhone is 10 times the "smart phone" as either of them.
Arg. The link should be http://digitalscriptorium.info/.
I wrote the following for the blog I recently started ... I come at Politics from an Anabaptist (radical Christian from the 16th century) perspective, so I spend more time justifying the decision to vote in the first place than justifying who I vote for. The blog's at <a href="http://digitalscriptorium.info/">http://digitalscriptorium.info/</a> if you're interested.
--
So, here we are two days short of the election, and I suppose it's finally time for me to make up my mind. I often waver between three choices rather than the usual two:
1. I can not vote at all.
2. I can vote for Obama.
3. I can vote for McCain.
Let me state at the outset that my natural predisposition is not to vote at all. That is the choice that I've taken in the last 3 elections, and a goodly part of me wants to continue the tradition.
Now that I've offended all right-minded and morally straight Christians, in Ameirca and beyond, I hope you'll stick with me long enough to hear why, because my reasoning on this subject will inform my ultimate decision in this election. I believe that, as a Christian, I owe my primary allegiance to the Kingdom of God, and that that allegiance is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of secular government. As Philippians 3.20 says: "our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." I believe that it is no accident that here (as elsewhere) Paul borrows political imagery to describe the church--the church is, in fact, an alternative power structure that should fundamentally subvert traditional power relationships.
Now, I can already see some who will read this jumping up and down, raising their hands, and dying to say, "but we can be citizens of the kingdom of God and citizens of the United States!" Any second now, someone will bring up Romans 13 and think that they've proved me wrong. The problem with this sort of interpretation is that it reads back the political situation of the 4th century into the first, by assuming that Christian participation in government was a real possibility that Paul envisioned in the first century. Let's be clear here: first century Christians were not the rulers, they were the ruled. The issue at hand in the first century was whether Christians should submit to secular government, not whether they should join it. Paul's admonition to make prayers for kings (1Timothy 2.2) is not given so that they may be successful in their secular purposes, but so that the church may live at peace.
There is a reason to suppose that this sharp division between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of God is necessary, which is scripturally attested both in secular political science and in scripture. Scripture first:
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." (John 18.36)
Notice the contrast: there are two sorts of kingdoms. One comes from this world, and (we might say by extension) depends on worldly methods, that is, violence. The other comes from somewhere else, and seems to render violence not so much unnecessary as irrelevant. That is scripture's description of the kingdom of God. Contrariwise, scripture describes the politics (or kingdom) of this world in Romans 13, where world rulers are described as the servants of God "to execute wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13.4b) But these wrongdoers are, to Paul, outside the church. Paul elsewhere envisions the church as having its own judicial function, whose sole sanction is expulsion from the church--see 1Corinthians 5.9-6.8. The division in scripture between the kingdom of this world and the earthly kingdoms is wide, deep, and complete. Our sole relation to them is to "render unto Caesar" by paying taxes, which is the real "take-home point" of Roma
I'm probably best known on Slashdot as being a rabid conservative (at least from the point of view of the typical Slasdotterati--check out my history), but in this case, I agree with the Slashdot consensus. Civil rights are only meaningful if they apply to the worst of our society. I have no sympathy with this man's crime, but it is evident to me that the police should have gotten a warrant before "hashing" his hard drive. That they failed to do so is inexcusable, and the recognized remedy in these cases is for the tainted evidence to be excluded.
I couldn't find an answer in the article, or on the Wikipedia page... are the "reduced reaction mass" requirements for this engine such that constant boost becomes a possibility for longish missions? If so, then this effectively puts the Solar System within reach.
Abortion as a means of birth control is not done by "stock" OB-Gyn's. It's done in abortion clinics. And, for what it's worth, the statistics I've been able to find place abortions due to "fetal health" as little as 1% of abortions, while abortions due to "personal choice" (i.e. abortion as a means of birth control) weigh in at between 78-98%.
Simply put, as usual, the "pro-choice" crowd wants to make policy on the basis the marginal cases. You want to focus on fetal health, when all statistics show that to represent on only a vanishingly small fraction of the abortions done. Others want to focus on rape & incest, which represent and even smaller fraction. The fact is, no matter where you look, over 90% of abortions are done as a form of birth control.
As for the fetus being a parasite... if you truly believe that, I can only say that that is sick and disgusting. I would also observe that people could (and have!) say much the same thing about a girl infant, for whom the father would be obligated to come up with a dowry. I propose a simple principle: parents have a choice whether or not conceive a child. If they choose to conceive a child, either by intent or by negligence, then they bear responsibility for that child from the moment of their choice until that child reaches it's majority.
Another reason the "fetus as parasite" notion is philosophically absurd... Let's suppose a man impregnates a woman. As the law currently stands, he has absolutely no rights or responsibility with regard to said fetus until it is born. Then, suddenly, he is held legally responsible for 50% of that childs support for the next 18 years. How can a man be responsible for his sperm, then NOT be responsible for the fetus, then be responsible for the infant that results? This is simply absurd, because it breaks continuity.
I remember some years ago seeing a made-for-tv movie about the original host of "Romper Room", who had a Thalidomide Baby and a pre-Roe v. Wade abortion. The abortion apparently became something of a cause celebre, and a doctor on the ethics board o the hospital where the abortion was to be performed made a comment (in the movie) that I will always remember: "What kind of moral cause is abortion!?"
I ask you this same question... what kind of moral cause is a "choice" that ends a human life? In a world where desperate people are chasing all over the world to find babies to adopt, what sort of moral crusade is it to ensure the right to kill America's so that a careless woman will be saved from the fairly minor consequences of her own negligence? Are 3-7 months of pregnancy for the mother really worth less than a human life?
Man, I still can't get over that parasite line. Dude, you disgust me.
I really think that this is a pretty cowardly dodging of the issue. Imagine for a moment someone saying: "I don't and never would suggest exposing of an infant to any parent, and I would counsel them against it, but ultimately, it is the woman's (and her partner's) personal decision and always should be."
This is exactly what I'm railing against here--you are dodging the key issue, and in fact are begging the question! If a fetus is an infant, then it is absurd to claim that ending it's life is just a "choice". If a fetus is an infant, abortion is no choice, it's murder. And we should no more leave that up to the individual parent than we would allow individual parents to neglect, abuse, or murder any other infant. By leaving this decision up to the individual mother (and, for the record, Roe v. Wade gives the father no voice at all, which is also wrong) you are in effect saying that there is some unexplained and inexplicable difference between a fetus and a baby, because you are treating the two cases differently. And this is absurd under any moral philosophy worthy of the name--that is, any moral philosophy capable of giving actual moral guidance. (N.B. I do not consider the currently popular utilitarian ethics to be a worthy moral philosophy. I can get along with deontological ethics of any sort, but consequentialism gives me gas.)
The bottom line is this: until someone can offer me some reasoned argument for calling the same 5 lbs. of protoplasm "infant" 5 minutes after a delivery (or, more chillingly, a failed abortion) and "fetus" 5 minutes before, here I stand. God help me, I can do no other.
Incidentally, you seem to assume I'm a Republican. Actually, I'm holding my nose and voting for Obama. But what should have been an easy decision has been made hard by the failure of either party to be consistently "pro-Life" (i.e. anti-abortion, anti-capital punishment, and anti-military-adventurism.)
Disclaimer... I am a Christian. So, go ahead and take me with a grain of salt if you need to. Just for the record, I neither approve nor agree with the OP's characterization of atheists. Sadly, religious belief (or the lack thereof) seems to have little impact on a persons morals, at least in this day and age.
It seems to me that this sort of discussion of abortion evades the issue. Either a fetus is a human life, entitled to rights (human rights even) or it's not. It's not a question of whether abortion is a method of birth control, it's not a question of "privacy rights", it's not even a question of "rape and incest." It's a question of: "when *exactly* does a fertilized egg become a human being, entitled to full protection of the law?" Think about it for a second: would you (or anyone) seriously complain that infanticide was a sloppy and expensive method of birth control, were it legal? This isn't a hypothetical example: infanticide, especially of girl children, has been widely practiced in human history and is not uncommon in some parts of the world even today (e.g. China.)
For a long time, I was pretty wishy-washy on the subject of abortion, and played around with everything from viability on down to implantation as the point at which a fetus becomes human. Then my wife had identical twins. Even when they were in the womb, my daughters (who have virtually identical genetic codes) showed different personalities--one would react to Jazz and Rock (by kicking), the other would react most strongly to Classical. Now they're 7, and they're near-opposites in everything but appearance. To me, the simplest explanation for this is that these 2 infants had a soul and this "soul" was present from the first moment it could possibly be detected.
So, I'm categorically opposed to legal abortion, just as I would be categorically opposed to legal infanticide. This isn't because I'm squicked by the sexual aspects of abortion--I'm not opposed, for example, to the widespread availability of birth control--but because I am honestly convinced by reason and observation (not religious dogma) that every abortion kills a baby. And I truly wish that those who call themselves "pro-choice" would give a lot more sober consideration to exactly what the choice they advocate entails.
Amazing how much of the stuff in high school biology texts turns out to be not-quite-as-advertised.
At last, Bill Gates has gone farther than anyone down the road that leads to immortality!
A lockup of credit markets is a bad thing, and so far I haven't seen any of the naysayers offer any way to prevent it other than the bailout.
I'm surprised that the summary makes no mention of EMDR. Speaking from personal experience, I've found that to be a very effective treatment for PTSD, and far less time-consuming than traditional approaches.
A reasonably fast boat can do maybe 25 mph... so just anchor the thing 12 miles from a major city (say San Francisco) in half an hour, then ferry people out in shifts. Have some minimal facilities aboard for when weather doesn't allow the boat to get through, and you're set. This is no big deal, really.
The bottom line is that, particularly in an embedded device working with sensors, many problems will simply not be apparent from the source code, no matter how good you are. The only way to know that this device gives good data is to give it the same sort of rigorous testing we give (for example) new drugs and electronics that go into airplanes and military hardware.
I would want to see this device subjected to adverse environments, radio interference, being operated on the side of the road, etc. etc., and still reliably producing results that closely correlated with those produced by reference tests (i.e. blood alcohol tests). If this sort of testing is done for each and every revision of the device's firmware then the company is right, source code is irrelevant. This isn't like a voting machine... it has a discrete, limited number of inputs, no operating system, and a small memory pool--the only way to tamper with it would be to alter the firmware, and that can be checked with a simple checksum. And if this sort of testing isn't being done, then these devices are worthless and shouldn't be used to send someone to jail, because anyone who knows anything about programming knows that any project of any complexity will have bugs, and this sort of testing is the only way to catch them.
So... does anyone know how these devices are tested? How rigorous is the testing? Is it serious, covering all conditions, and all revisions no matter how minor, or is it the usual "get the bad guys, screw civil liberties" sort of half-assed stuff that we've come to expect from American law enforcement?
I have no sympathy for drunk drivers... but I don't want anyone sent to jail on evidence that even MIGHT be false.
To answer my own question... it turns out that the installer you can download from http://gears.google.com/chrome DOES NOT WORK. Go to http://www.google.com/chrome instead.
I've now tried on two separate windows boxes, innumerable different ways, and in both cases the installer simply dies and does nothing. Anybody else had this experience? Any suggestions?