Read the LEGO Mindstorm site for details. In short, there is a central computer to which you can attach motors and sensors. The kit comes with a visual programming language that you use to program the computer. You upload programs to the computer with USB. The basic kit comes with three motors, bump sensors, distance, and color detector. Other sensors are available as add-ons. You use standard LEGO bricks to assemble your creation. Search YouTube, you will get a ton of examples of the kit in action.
You usually have the right to bring a lawyer with you to court. Small claims courts exist to bundle smaller less complicated cases into one system. The rules are usually simpler, and judges are more tolerant of errors made by the litigants since they typically do act as their own lawyer.
The law will change pretty quick when they realize that they are not getting sales tax revenue on $100k cars.
I found it interesting that the article referenced a similar bill in Texas, which seems all but dead. One thing I have realized about bicameral legislatures is that frequently one house takes up an issue, members thumping their chest about how badly this legislation in needed. Deep down they know it is not great for their constituents, but it drives in the campaign dollars and they know it is DOA in the other house. It is a win-win for them.
I have not followed the case very close, but that is a good argument, and I am sure is in the briefs that went to the Court. I am interest in seeing where the court falls on this issue. I suspect there will be multiple concurring and dissenting opinions.
While marriage is not specifically mentioned, Article 4, section 1 states, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." This is what allows a couple to be married in Kansas, then move to Ohio, and not have to remarry, or otherwise register their marriage. Many are arguing that states that fail to recognize the marriage of a gay couple in another state, are in violation of this rule.
I am not sure I follow you. Article 3, section 2, gives the Supreme Court the power to review cases that involve the laws, and rights granted in the Constitution. This case is asking how much protection the 4th Amendment grants to an individual. I would think you would want one interpretation of a Federal law, rather than 50.
I suppose you can play games with the time frames to semantically twist the terms, but having debt and running a deficit are measuring different things. When you incur a debt to pay for something you cannot otherwise afford, you are indeed running a deficit, but that is different from having debt but otherwise paying your bills. Most household bills are debts for goods and services that have been delivered to you. The water company sends me a bill for the water I consumed in the last three months. It is a debt, but not a deficit, as long as I can pay the amount owed without having to borrow money from a third party.
I did not mean to ask for the raw data, although I see how it could appear that is what I was looking for. The graph appears to have been pulled from a published paper. A Google Scholar search did not reveal the source of the graph. A link, or reference to the paper would be helpful.
I find that graph a little hard to read, given its scale and lack of other documentation. I would love to see the source data and study if it is publicly available. I am a bit curious about why the data stops at 1990 (I assume that is the year of the study). Also, how can we be sure about temperature data going back 13k years to within hundredths of a degree of precision? Is it fair to get alarmed over a 0.6 degree rise in average temperatures over a 30 year period, but then compare them to historical estimates which may not have the same level of detail? I am not trolling; just trying to understand what this is telling us.
I am sure the UI is a factor, but another big obstacle to upgrade is the risk of breaking a tried and true enterprise infrastructure. Now there may not be many corporate applications that tie directly to a specific version of Office, but browsers and operating systems need to be upgraded with care to avoid problems with critical corporate systems. It is time to finally put XP and IE7 to rest, but I don't see any reason to rush an upgrade just because there has been a major release.
College does not have to cost a ton of money. I find that many students fail to look at the cost of their degree vs. the opportunities it unlocks. Why pay big money to a big name school just to earn a degree that lands you a $10/hr job. When they do look, many students don't look past the statics of placement and starting salaries for the whole school, rather than their program. It may well be a form of indentured service, but the student has to accept the consequences for his decisions.
I agree, in part. Students should be given tools only after they have been taught, and mastered, the underlying principals behind the tool. I don't understand why you would prohibit a student from using a tool, like a calculator once they understand basic math. For example, if an assignment or test calls for the student to average a list of number (as part of a larger operation). Why not permit them to use a calculator for that? Sure you could make them do the math on paper, but that can be slow, tedious, and introduce errors that further complicate the lesson. Consider that if they use a calculator, they can practice more problems in a shorter period of time, thus helping them to learn and understand the larger lesson.
This is the biggest benefit I see. I still keep a (non-graphing) calculator on my desk for quick problems. It is cheap and reliable. I could use my phone or computer, but then you need to unlock it then find the calculator app.
I am not sure I see a difference. During a presidential election you vote for electors pledged to a candidate. Since the electors and candidates are known, you could say that "a vote for the elector is effectively a direct vote for the president". If I understand correctly, you could get some surprises if a coalition government is required. Plus, the UK PM is appointed by the monarch, so technically, not even elected. I am not advocating for one system over another, but on this point they do share some similarity.
But then your password, the thing you know, is there to back you up. I know that some users might have their password saved in their phone's browser, but that is a fault of the user, not the system.
I think you are correct. Human history has been through many cycles of rapid invention and innovation, followed by periods of "calm" while people adjust to all the new technology, or just wait for something to spark the next cycle. This can be influenced by economic and social trends. The fall of Rome had a great economic impact on the world. There was little time to invent, because people we just trying to survive. The Renaissance was a period enlightenment, where people felt free to try new things and explore different concepts. The inventions of 1940's and 50's were heavily influenced by WWII and the Cold War.
We may not be in a period of great invention (using a narrow definition of the term) but inventors (using a broad definition) are certainly hard at work, building on the work of others. You could argue that there is nothing being invented right now because society is still busy exploring some of the greater inventions and ideas of the last 60 years.
I see a strong social safety net as a great benefit to our society. However, a parent post discussed people receiving a benefit equal to almost 100% of their earned income. Assuming this is a long term (near permanent) benefit, this can be detrimental to the individual as well as the community. This is not a solution, any more than saying "get a job you bum."
This is an argument that can just keep going in circles then. I for one would prefer the simpler system of just taking home what you earn, rather then listening to politicians argue over which group is "poorer" and how much they need to be given, so as to compensate them for what they don't have because they world is not always "fair".
One could argue that the extra benefits are artificially raising the cost of living for everyone. I don't mind programs that temporarily help people "down on their luck", but to give such benefits, year over year is irresponsible.
It is challenging to manage the schedule and requirements for even a small code release. While it can be satisfying to fix that ugly ball of code, it can be a real time sink, and introduce some risk to the schedule and functionality of the system. I can't speak to the culture of the office in your example, but I personally prefer that my developers stick to their assigned requirements. Developers should be free to make suggestions to improve the system, but unless there is a compelling reason, it would prefer to defer even simple changes to a future release, when we can devote time a resources to realize the full impact of the change.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the LEGO Mindstorm site for details. In short, there is a central computer to which you can attach motors and sensors. The kit comes with a visual programming language that you use to program the computer. You upload programs to the computer with USB. The basic kit comes with three motors, bump sensors, distance, and color detector. Other sensors are available as add-ons. You use standard LEGO bricks to assemble your creation. Search YouTube, you will get a ton of examples of the kit in action.
Second this. Not too expensive, and lots of examples and help are available on the web.
You usually have the right to bring a lawyer with you to court. Small claims courts exist to bundle smaller less complicated cases into one system. The rules are usually simpler, and judges are more tolerant of errors made by the litigants since they typically do act as their own lawyer.
The law will change pretty quick when they realize that they are not getting sales tax revenue on $100k cars.
I found it interesting that the article referenced a similar bill in Texas, which seems all but dead. One thing I have realized about bicameral legislatures is that frequently one house takes up an issue, members thumping their chest about how badly this legislation in needed. Deep down they know it is not great for their constituents, but it drives in the campaign dollars and they know it is DOA in the other house. It is a win-win for them.
I have not followed the case very close, but that is a good argument, and I am sure is in the briefs that went to the Court. I am interest in seeing where the court falls on this issue. I suspect there will be multiple concurring and dissenting opinions.
While marriage is not specifically mentioned, Article 4, section 1 states, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." This is what allows a couple to be married in Kansas, then move to Ohio, and not have to remarry, or otherwise register their marriage. Many are arguing that states that fail to recognize the marriage of a gay couple in another state, are in violation of this rule.
I am not sure I follow you. Article 3, section 2, gives the Supreme Court the power to review cases that involve the laws, and rights granted in the Constitution. This case is asking how much protection the 4th Amendment grants to an individual. I would think you would want one interpretation of a Federal law, rather than 50.
I bet SyFy divides it into 3 seasons, with a 6 month mid-season hiatus.
I suppose you can play games with the time frames to semantically twist the terms, but having debt and running a deficit are measuring different things. When you incur a debt to pay for something you cannot otherwise afford, you are indeed running a deficit, but that is different from having debt but otherwise paying your bills. Most household bills are debts for goods and services that have been delivered to you. The water company sends me a bill for the water I consumed in the last three months. It is a debt, but not a deficit, as long as I can pay the amount owed without having to borrow money from a third party.
I did not mean to ask for the raw data, although I see how it could appear that is what I was looking for. The graph appears to have been pulled from a published paper. A Google Scholar search did not reveal the source of the graph. A link, or reference to the paper would be helpful.
I find that graph a little hard to read, given its scale and lack of other documentation. I would love to see the source data and study if it is publicly available. I am a bit curious about why the data stops at 1990 (I assume that is the year of the study). Also, how can we be sure about temperature data going back 13k years to within hundredths of a degree of precision? Is it fair to get alarmed over a 0.6 degree rise in average temperatures over a 30 year period, but then compare them to historical estimates which may not have the same level of detail? I am not trolling; just trying to understand what this is telling us.
I am sure the UI is a factor, but another big obstacle to upgrade is the risk of breaking a tried and true enterprise infrastructure. Now there may not be many corporate applications that tie directly to a specific version of Office, but browsers and operating systems need to be upgraded with care to avoid problems with critical corporate systems. It is time to finally put XP and IE7 to rest, but I don't see any reason to rush an upgrade just because there has been a major release.
It would be worth more if it wasn't personalized.
College does not have to cost a ton of money. I find that many students fail to look at the cost of their degree vs. the opportunities it unlocks. Why pay big money to a big name school just to earn a degree that lands you a $10/hr job. When they do look, many students don't look past the statics of placement and starting salaries for the whole school, rather than their program. It may well be a form of indentured service, but the student has to accept the consequences for his decisions.
I agree, in part. Students should be given tools only after they have been taught, and mastered, the underlying principals behind the tool. I don't understand why you would prohibit a student from using a tool, like a calculator once they understand basic math. For example, if an assignment or test calls for the student to average a list of number (as part of a larger operation). Why not permit them to use a calculator for that? Sure you could make them do the math on paper, but that can be slow, tedious, and introduce errors that further complicate the lesson. Consider that if they use a calculator, they can practice more problems in a shorter period of time, thus helping them to learn and understand the larger lesson.
This is the biggest benefit I see. I still keep a (non-graphing) calculator on my desk for quick problems. It is cheap and reliable. I could use my phone or computer, but then you need to unlock it then find the calculator app.
I am not sure I see a difference. During a presidential election you vote for electors pledged to a candidate. Since the electors and candidates are known, you could say that "a vote for the elector is effectively a direct vote for the president". If I understand correctly, you could get some surprises if a coalition government is required. Plus, the UK PM is appointed by the monarch, so technically, not even elected. I am not advocating for one system over another, but on this point they do share some similarity.
But then your password, the thing you know, is there to back you up. I know that some users might have their password saved in their phone's browser, but that is a fault of the user, not the system.
I think you are correct. Human history has been through many cycles of rapid invention and innovation, followed by periods of "calm" while people adjust to all the new technology, or just wait for something to spark the next cycle. This can be influenced by economic and social trends. The fall of Rome had a great economic impact on the world. There was little time to invent, because people we just trying to survive. The Renaissance was a period enlightenment, where people felt free to try new things and explore different concepts. The inventions of 1940's and 50's were heavily influenced by WWII and the Cold War.
We may not be in a period of great invention (using a narrow definition of the term) but inventors (using a broad definition) are certainly hard at work, building on the work of others. You could argue that there is nothing being invented right now because society is still busy exploring some of the greater inventions and ideas of the last 60 years.
I see a strong social safety net as a great benefit to our society. However, a parent post discussed people receiving a benefit equal to almost 100% of their earned income. Assuming this is a long term (near permanent) benefit, this can be detrimental to the individual as well as the community. This is not a solution, any more than saying "get a job you bum."
This is an argument that can just keep going in circles then. I for one would prefer the simpler system of just taking home what you earn, rather then listening to politicians argue over which group is "poorer" and how much they need to be given, so as to compensate them for what they don't have because they world is not always "fair".
One could argue that the extra benefits are artificially raising the cost of living for everyone. I don't mind programs that temporarily help people "down on their luck", but to give such benefits, year over year is irresponsible.
Only if TLC gets to plant stuff in them first.
It is challenging to manage the schedule and requirements for even a small code release. While it can be satisfying to fix that ugly ball of code, it can be a real time sink, and introduce some risk to the schedule and functionality of the system. I can't speak to the culture of the office in your example, but I personally prefer that my developers stick to their assigned requirements. Developers should be free to make suggestions to improve the system, but unless there is a compelling reason, it would prefer to defer even simple changes to a future release, when we can devote time a resources to realize the full impact of the change.
Wow, Godwin's law in only 9 minutes!