The C and C++ languages aren't "open" either. This hasn't stopped open implementations of those languages, nor has it stopped those implementations being distributed in Linux.
Congratulations, you experienced life on a real project. God knows I've been on projects where there were incompetents you had to carry to get over the line.
What you should have done, having realised the problem, was take it to the professor immediately. If you couldn't get him to transfer you to a different group, then tell him you're dropping the unit for this semester and pick up another one. Oh, and complain to the faculty dean; the course obviously needed better prerequisites.
Alternatively, you could focus on a software engineering course. This has as much relationship to computer science as mechanical engineering has to physics... that is, the former is the practical application of the latter.
You won't come out with the ability to design new algorithims or protocols, but you should come out with the ability to build decent programs.
Part of the problem is that too many people are taking the Computer Science route when they want to take the engineering option.
The "roundness" is a symptom, not a distinguishing feature. The feature is the gravitational attraction.
If a planetoid has a chunk blown off, but the remainder is still massy enough, then over enough time, it will become round again due to gravitationl attraction. So it would still be a planet. If it can't do that, then it's not a planet anymore. QED.
This is modded as interesting? RTFA: the size requirement is key. The object has to be big enough for the gravitational forces to overcome structural integrity. In other words: it has to be rounded.
Yes, but your naval power was designed initially to secure the Atlantic to make sure that supply convoys to Europe can get through. The carrier was never designed to be the sole base of support for staging strikes against a major power, and wouldn't succeed.
Naval aircraft cannot compete against land-based aircraft of similar capability; they don't have the fuel and they are not as maneuverable. That's why finding airbases is so important for US activities; that's why the US put so much effort into getting Turkey to agree to allow the use of bases against Iraq.
Carriers are very powerful, but they don't win. That's why the US spends so much money on bases in Guam and Diego Garcia (sp?). If a carrier group were to tangle with a large land-based modern airforce like the British or the French, you'd see a lot of sailors swimming shortly afterwards. Your own USAF proves this against the Navy on a regular basis.
Don't be so cocky about your nukes, either. France and Britain both have nuclear capability, and the Germans sure as hell know how. Both France and Britain have ICBMs also, and Britain helped you develop your Trident program.
Finally: your special forces? They're good, but they're not the "most elite units". That title almost certainly goes to the British SAS or the French special forces (it used to go to the Russian Spetnaz, but times have changed). The British and Australian SAS both have better service records in Iraq at the moment than the US forces, as well (on a per-capita basis).
Sure, the US is the biggest baddest military in the entire world. But it's not geared up to take on a major power, not anymore. And even when it was, during the cold war, it required the use of forward bases in Europe to be of any help.
If the Saudis and the Turks had said "No" to the US, then Saddam would still be in power in Iraq, and no amount of US posturing would have changed that. This is why the US has been so easy on the Saudis, despite their support for terrorism.
Personally, I'd be surprised if the US could "win" a war with the EU.
Assuming such a war didn't go nuclear, such a war would consist almost entirely of air and cruise-missile exchanges. Neither side has the naval capability to launch an invasion in strength without a friendly nearby base country to assemble in. The US carrier strength would be very quickly wiped out if they tried to use that as a strike platform, and the EU wouldn't have any reason to go out and engage them on the ocean.
What would happen, however, is that the rather pathetic US air defense network would be easily broken apart allowing EU cruise missiles to penetrate and smash major infrastructure at will. By contrast, the extremely good air defense in Europe (a legacy of the cold war) would put up a good job at stopping air raids, and even deter the stealth aircraft.
Remember: Iraq, in the second Gulf War, had better air defences than the US. The US has never needed air defences, and only has them around point locations.
The fact that this satellite is the 50th is obviously just a temporary aberration. After all, it's replacing an existing one, right? As soon as they decommision the old one, then this becomes the 49th one again.
A) That would be a violation of copyright (not that that would stop anyone on Slashdot)
B) "Watch" the frigging day-pass commercial, fer crying out load. By "watch", I mean open it in a separate tab and come back to it every now and then. Doesn't take very long.
If you want to read content that a site provides, play nice with whatever rules they put in place. Don't like the rules? Don't read the content. How simple can that be?
Questions like the parent post's is what I hate about Slashdot. That and all the stupid trolls.
Lots of things, actually. Of course, I wasn't the one saying that outsourcing was bad...
Personally, I believe in globalisation and the free market. Unfortunately, I don't think Americans do (and no, I'm not American). Certainly the average Slashdot AC doesn't.
Well, in defence of the IT worker... the manufacturing worker of the 18th century caused huge economic displacement as well. The influx of cheap mass-produced goods virtually killed the entire crafts sector overnight, and now quality crafted goods (such as fully tailored suits) are very much a niche market.
Every new technology wave has an economic displacement effect. The Industrial Revolution turned Europe on its head (literally; look at all the other revolutions going on at the same time). The IT Revolution swamped a lot of "paper-pushing" jobs out, and the "Automation Revolution" knocked out a lot of blue-collar jobs. The "Communications Revolution" is now pushing work that can be done remotely to the cheapest place to do it.
Guess what? Society settles down. Despite the "economic chaos" that these revolutions occur, the resulting standard of living has always increased. I doubt that this will be any different, though of course the people living through the effects will feel pain.
Of course you can compete with them. Just provide a better level of service for the same (or slightly more) buck.
The problem, of course, is that the cost of living is so low in India due to the lower standard of living. But hey, that's India's competetive advantage. You need to find your own.
Protectionism, however, doesn't work in the long run.
And I'm sure that there's nothing imported in your house... oh, it's okay when you benefited from it, of course.
Did you get out and picket when they started closing factories because of foreign importers? Do you practise an exclusive policy of "Buy American"? Heck, do you even make sure that the petrol you put in your car was pumped out of Texas, and not the Gulf of Arabia?
*sigh* It wasn't tech-related jobs first. It was manufacturing and textiles, way back before you were born. This is just part of an ongoing trend that's been in place for 30 years.
Capitalism 101: it makes economic sense for a buyer to buy cheap if they can. That's why jobs get outsourced overseas. Wether it's IT to India or cars and sneakers to Thailand, that's the way the world works.
Don't like it? Well, don't be a capitalist. Start advocating something like socialism; you know, the belief that people owe something to society and vice-versa.
And if you don't want to compete with remote workers, then you better do something that can't be outsourced. Maybe you should consider becoming a chef... it's a little hard to outsource the production of gourmet food.
The ancient Athenians used to vote by casting stones into a basket or urn. Black stones meant "no", white stones meant "yes".
Now, imagine that you had two urns, for people who lived on the east side, and another for the people on the west side. People still put the stones in the urn, it's just that some people will use one urn, and other people will use the second urn. Such a system could be used to elect representatives or committee members, for example, with a member from each district. (If there are more than two candidates, use different coloured rocks).
Now, imagine that the volunteers telling people which urn to go to screw up, and direct people at the wrong urns.
This is pretty much what happened here. Note the complete and utter absence of a paper trail.
The only relevant thing is whether it is reasonable that I might find the data in the place I'm searching, and that the place is covered by the warrant.
The catch to that is that if the cops don't find the evidence that the warrant was issued for, they will almost certainly be challenged on the reasonableness of the warrant in the first place.
AFAIK, if they lose that battle, the resulting evidence is deemed inadmissable for any trial (though, in the case of data, they could presumably get another warrant; you couldn't do that with a meth lab)
Of course, their chances of losing the reasonableness battle aren't particularly high.
There have been scanner devices found on such "suck-the-card-in" ATMs, at least in Australia.
And you're right: a given type of scanner tends to only work with a given type of ATM. But there are varieties of scanners for most common types of ATMs.
It is compensated for, but it's not treated as theft.
It is treated as what it is: compensation for the expected violation of one's rights. That compensation is dished at on the assumption (in this case) that the vast majority of blank CDs are used for piracy.
While I personally believe that this assumption is flawed, if it's valid, it's a reasonable line of thinking. Of course, this should immediately result in the legalisation of copying music to CDs: you've already compensated the injured party by buying the media.:)
A far more interesting question in this scenario, though, is how do you distribute money back to the artists. The labels own the copyright (transferred from the artist), but the contractual agreements behind that require compensation to the artist. How do you fairly distribute money in this environment? I mean, you can't do it based on the number of albums sold; an exercise in simple logic will show that the more copies of an album are sold, the less likely it is that the album is being extensively file shared...
Slashdot Mirror
You've never had to write code that compiles under multiple compilers for multiple platforms, have you?
One of the driving forces behind Java's evolution was the fragmentation of the C++ camp.
The C and C++ languages aren't "open" either. This hasn't stopped open implementations of those languages, nor has it stopped those implementations being distributed in Linux.
Congratulations, you experienced life on a real project. God knows I've been on projects where there were incompetents you had to carry to get over the line.
What you should have done, having realised the problem, was take it to the professor immediately. If you couldn't get him to transfer you to a different group, then tell him you're dropping the unit for this semester and pick up another one. Oh, and complain to the faculty dean; the course obviously needed better prerequisites.
Alternatively, you could focus on a software engineering course. This has as much relationship to computer science as mechanical engineering has to physics... that is, the former is the practical application of the latter.
You won't come out with the ability to design new algorithims or protocols, but you should come out with the ability to build decent programs.
Part of the problem is that too many people are taking the Computer Science route when they want to take the engineering option.
The "roundness" is a symptom, not a distinguishing feature. The feature is the gravitational attraction.
If a planetoid has a chunk blown off, but the remainder is still massy enough, then over enough time, it will become round again due to gravitationl attraction. So it would still be a planet. If it can't do that, then it's not a planet anymore. QED.
This is modded as interesting? RTFA: the size requirement is key. The object has to be big enough for the gravitational forces to overcome structural integrity. In other words: it has to be rounded.
Yes, but your naval power was designed initially to secure the Atlantic to make sure that supply convoys to Europe can get through. The carrier was never designed to be the sole base of support for staging strikes against a major power, and wouldn't succeed.
Naval aircraft cannot compete against land-based aircraft of similar capability; they don't have the fuel and they are not as maneuverable. That's why finding airbases is so important for US activities; that's why the US put so much effort into getting Turkey to agree to allow the use of bases against Iraq.
Carriers are very powerful, but they don't win. That's why the US spends so much money on bases in Guam and Diego Garcia (sp?). If a carrier group were to tangle with a large land-based modern airforce like the British or the French, you'd see a lot of sailors swimming shortly afterwards. Your own USAF proves this against the Navy on a regular basis.
Don't be so cocky about your nukes, either. France and Britain both have nuclear capability, and the Germans sure as hell know how. Both France and Britain have ICBMs also, and Britain helped you develop your Trident program.
Finally: your special forces? They're good, but they're not the "most elite units". That title almost certainly goes to the British SAS or the French special forces (it used to go to the Russian Spetnaz, but times have changed). The British and Australian SAS both have better service records in Iraq at the moment than the US forces, as well (on a per-capita basis).
Sure, the US is the biggest baddest military in the entire world. But it's not geared up to take on a major power, not anymore. And even when it was, during the cold war, it required the use of forward bases in Europe to be of any help.
If the Saudis and the Turks had said "No" to the US, then Saddam would still be in power in Iraq, and no amount of US posturing would have changed that. This is why the US has been so easy on the Saudis, despite their support for terrorism.
Personally, I'd be surprised if the US could "win" a war with the EU.
Assuming such a war didn't go nuclear, such a war would consist almost entirely of air and cruise-missile exchanges. Neither side has the naval capability to launch an invasion in strength without a friendly nearby base country to assemble in. The US carrier strength would be very quickly wiped out if they tried to use that as a strike platform, and the EU wouldn't have any reason to go out and engage them on the ocean.
What would happen, however, is that the rather pathetic US air defense network would be easily broken apart allowing EU cruise missiles to penetrate and smash major infrastructure at will. By contrast, the extremely good air defense in Europe (a legacy of the cold war) would put up a good job at stopping air raids, and even deter the stealth aircraft.
Remember: Iraq, in the second Gulf War, had better air defences than the US. The US has never needed air defences, and only has them around point locations.
Failure to pay up would result in the confiscation of assets as well. The one big asset up for grabs: copyright of MS products.
Thus, a failure to pay up could see the copyright over MS products in Europe revoked, making it open-season for pirates.
Note that this would still be an option for the EU even if Microsoft packed its bags and went home. In fact, it would be even more desirable then.
It's not ambiguous though: this is the 50th GPS satellite, and it's being launched.
Actually, it's not even the 50th GPS satellite up there; prior to this launch, there were only 28 operational satellites. None of the original 11 are still in service, and one of the other 38 blew up on the launchpad.
So, while this is the 50th GPS satellite, it's only the 49th launch.
The fact that this satellite is the 50th is obviously just a temporary aberration. After all, it's replacing an existing one, right? As soon as they decommision the old one, then this becomes the 49th one again.
A) That would be a violation of copyright (not that that would stop anyone on Slashdot)
B) "Watch" the frigging day-pass commercial, fer crying out load. By "watch", I mean open it in a separate tab and come back to it every now and then. Doesn't take very long.
If you want to read content that a site provides, play nice with whatever rules they put in place. Don't like the rules? Don't read the content. How simple can that be?
Questions like the parent post's is what I hate about Slashdot. That and all the stupid trolls.
You can't freeze gourmet food, you gourmand. The result would be three-star at best.
Lots of things, actually. Of course, I wasn't the one saying that outsourcing was bad...
Personally, I believe in globalisation and the free market. Unfortunately, I don't think Americans do (and no, I'm not American). Certainly the average Slashdot AC doesn't.
Well, in defence of the IT worker... the manufacturing worker of the 18th century caused huge economic displacement as well. The influx of cheap mass-produced goods virtually killed the entire crafts sector overnight, and now quality crafted goods (such as fully tailored suits) are very much a niche market.
Every new technology wave has an economic displacement effect. The Industrial Revolution turned Europe on its head (literally; look at all the other revolutions going on at the same time). The IT Revolution swamped a lot of "paper-pushing" jobs out, and the "Automation Revolution" knocked out a lot of blue-collar jobs. The "Communications Revolution" is now pushing work that can be done remotely to the cheapest place to do it.
Guess what? Society settles down. Despite the "economic chaos" that these revolutions occur, the resulting standard of living has always increased. I doubt that this will be any different, though of course the people living through the effects will feel pain.
Of course you can compete with them. Just provide a better level of service for the same (or slightly more) buck.
The problem, of course, is that the cost of living is so low in India due to the lower standard of living. But hey, that's India's competetive advantage. You need to find your own.
Protectionism, however, doesn't work in the long run.
And I'm sure that there's nothing imported in your house... oh, it's okay when you benefited from it, of course.
Did you get out and picket when they started closing factories because of foreign importers? Do you practise an exclusive policy of "Buy American"? Heck, do you even make sure that the petrol you put in your car was pumped out of Texas, and not the Gulf of Arabia?
Didn't think so...
Well, look at it this way: it won't be any worse than the work produced by American authors, the inventors of Political Correctness and Corp Speak.
And at least they spell correctly (colour vs color and so forth).
(Moderator hint: THIS IS A JOKE!)
*sigh* It wasn't tech-related jobs first. It was manufacturing and textiles, way back before you were born. This is just part of an ongoing trend that's been in place for 30 years.
Capitalism 101: it makes economic sense for a buyer to buy cheap if they can. That's why jobs get outsourced overseas. Wether it's IT to India or cars and sneakers to Thailand, that's the way the world works.
Don't like it? Well, don't be a capitalist. Start advocating something like socialism; you know, the belief that people owe something to society and vice-versa.
And if you don't want to compete with remote workers, then you better do something that can't be outsourced. Maybe you should consider becoming a chef... it's a little hard to outsource the production of gourmet food.
The ancient Athenians used to vote by casting stones into a basket or urn. Black stones meant "no", white stones meant "yes".
Now, imagine that you had two urns, for people who lived on the east side, and another for the people on the west side. People still put the stones in the urn, it's just that some people will use one urn, and other people will use the second urn. Such a system could be used to elect representatives or committee members, for example, with a member from each district. (If there are more than two candidates, use different coloured rocks).
Now, imagine that the volunteers telling people which urn to go to screw up, and direct people at the wrong urns.
This is pretty much what happened here. Note the complete and utter absence of a paper trail.
The catch to that is that if the cops don't find the evidence that the warrant was issued for, they will almost certainly be challenged on the reasonableness of the warrant in the first place.
AFAIK, if they lose that battle, the resulting evidence is deemed inadmissable for any trial (though, in the case of data, they could presumably get another warrant; you couldn't do that with a meth lab)
Of course, their chances of losing the reasonableness battle aren't particularly high.
I think you misread the statement. It's not using your iPod that makes you feel safe, it's the presence of people.
However, the presence of people has downsides. Using your iPod lets you escape those downsides, while still retaining the safe feeling.
There have been scanner devices found on such "suck-the-card-in" ATMs, at least in Australia.
And you're right: a given type of scanner tends to only work with a given type of ATM. But there are varieties of scanners for most common types of ATMs.
And you're an idiot who didn't read the message I was replying to. The message I replied to was talking about the actual mechanism of identification.
It is compensated for, but it's not treated as theft.
:)
It is treated as what it is: compensation for the expected violation of one's rights. That compensation is dished at on the assumption (in this case) that the vast majority of blank CDs are used for piracy.
While I personally believe that this assumption is flawed, if it's valid, it's a reasonable line of thinking. Of course, this should immediately result in the legalisation of copying music to CDs: you've already compensated the injured party by buying the media.
A far more interesting question in this scenario, though, is how do you distribute money back to the artists. The labels own the copyright (transferred from the artist), but the contractual agreements behind that require compensation to the artist. How do you fairly distribute money in this environment? I mean, you can't do it based on the number of albums sold; an exercise in simple logic will show that the more copies of an album are sold, the less likely it is that the album is being extensively file shared...