You're missing the point. Like I said, developers and programmers aren't particularly expensive, and that's fine.
However, people who've advanced degrees and expertise in highly specialized areas are expensive, and that is part of the reason why medicine gets so expensive. Where I work, nearly everyone has a Master's degree, and most have a PhD. Almost everyone who contributes to the GPL'd project I work on has a PhD. We're not amateur hobbyists working in our parents' basements, contrary to the popular stereotypes of open source developers.
You can't just hire a bunch of folks who spent 10 years going to school and ask them to produce something for "free". I make good money working on GPL'd software for a research lab. Why? Because we use a lot of GPL'd software, and when we need new features, we can add them ourselves. We're not trying to profit off of these tools, so there's no problem releasing the source back to the community, and it saves us the hassle of maintaining privately forked versions of the software.
The point is that people who work in classified environments can't bring camera phones/smartphones to work (even to leave in their car)
I've seen a lot of secure government facilities, and I've *never* seen a secure parking lot. Hell, you'd have to ban cars with GPS and Onstar (which pretty much rules out any rental cars that a DV might have). Also, having a cell phone available during trips is a safety issue. Cell phone lockers are sometimes available outside of secure areas.
and these classified environments are filled with public terminals with keyloggers installed?
hmmm... Did you even read the comment that you replied to?
...and nobody ever thought that the batteries could be sneaked in? Hell, some (if not all) phones can work powered by USB connection alone. Yes, batteries can be smuggled in, as can eavesdropping devices, cameras, etc. However, people entering and leaving these facilities must consent to a search of their belongings. These people also have security clearances (or are escorted by someone with a clearance), so they're expected (and trusted, to an extent) to follow the rules.
What kind of place doesn't allow phones and also has publicly available computers to use? The point is that people who work in classified environments can't bring camera phones/smartphones to work (even to leave in their car) and usually have to leave even basic cell phones outside the gates. If you can't carry an iPhone with you then it won't be very useful. Maybe you could bring it when traveling (provided you aren't leaving directly from work or traveling directly to a classified site), but then you're paying $400 for a phone and $50+/month for service on a phone you can rarely use.
What kind of place doesn't allow phones, even left in the car?
Pretty much every business and organization uses cel phones these days; what kind of company is paranoid enough to ban them that completely? Any site doing classified work will restrict cell phones. Camera phones are prohibited, and most privately owned phones without cameras still can't be taken into restricted areas (which sometimes will include the parking lot).
If DISH network has corrected the problem with a new software download, why do they need to pursue this to the US Supreme Court? It might have something to do with the $92M judgement.
I'm very happy with Site5 (see the link in my signature). They offer dirt cheap hosting with all of the features I need, and their domain registration prices are quite reasonable.
Marilyn vos Savant explained the problem in Parade magazine, and a whole bunch of math professors wrote in to tell her that she was wrong... turns out it's kind of a bad idea to play "gotcha" with someone who has an IQ of 228. You obviously haven't read her absolutely idiotic book about Fermat's Last Theorem. For anybody who is curious about this book, here's a good review:
Monty's choice *cannot* change your odds of winning; his removal of one of the two goats simply informs you that your odds have just changed from 1/3 to 1/2. Huh? Are you saying that his choice doesn't change the odds, but it does change the odds? You can't have it both ways.
You obviously haven't read her absolutely idiotic book about Fermat's Last Theorem. She got you to pay for it.
So who's the idiot? I found it at a library sale for 25 cents. The inadvertent humor was worth at least that much.
If the car is in #3, the _four_ possibilities are:
Pick #1, Monty opens #2 (switch = win)
Pick #2, Monty opens #1 (switch = win)
Pick #3, Monty opens #1 (switch = lose)
Pick #3, Monty opens #2 (switch = lose)
50/50 No, the four possibilities here are not equally likely. If the initial pick is random, then the probability that case 1 occurs is 1/3, the probability of case 2 is 1/3, and the probability that EITHER case 3 or case 4 occurs is 1/3.
You only ever had two options... one with a goat and one with a car.
Thus your chance of picking the door with the car are 1/2... This is analogous to observing that a lottery ticket can either be a winning ticket or a losing ticket, and then concluding that the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 2.
This one has been debated over and over, and is a classic example of lies, bloody lies and statistics.
The fallacy lies in stating that before Monty opens the door and shows the goat, your chance of picking the car is 1/3.
It is NOT, because as Monty will always pick a door with a goat behind it, your choices are always going to be two... one with a goat, and one with a car, because the one Monty opens is taken out of the equation - in fact it was never IN the equation in the first place. You only ever had two options... one with a goat and one with a car.
Thus your chance of picking the door with the car are 1/2, they were 1/2 at the start, and they are STILL 1/2 after Monty opened his door. The odds do not change "in your favour", because they simply do not change AT ALL. Ergo, there is no advantage or disadvantage in changing doors. A careful mathematical analysis of the problem proves that you're wrong. There are many computer simulations of the problem that show that you're wrong. The only thing you have going for you is your intuition, and your intuition is wrong.
Marilyn vos Savant explained the problem in Parade magazine, and a whole bunch of math professors wrote in to tell her that she was wrong... turns out it's kind of a bad idea to play "gotcha" with someone who has an IQ of 228. You obviously haven't read her absolutely idiotic book about Fermat's Last Theorem.
So does this mean that we can get our fancy cigars again?
Ironically, the end of the embargo will probably make it harder for Americans to get genuine Habanos, at least for a while. As of now, it isn't difficult to have Cubans cigars delivered to the USA from an authorized Habanos SA retailer. However, the demand for Cuban cigars already exceeds the supply (unless you're interested in the infamous Glass Top Cohibas), so the influx of Americans interested in trying these forbidden cigars will result in shortages around the world. The newly-legal cigars will also be met by large numbers of fakes, making it even more difficult to get the real thing.
Ya, for families that could afford it. Maybe this is less relevant now, but I didn't have a computer back in the day (nor did my high school, unless you count a paper terminal and connection via dial-up) and had to wait until university to start programming in ernest.
I taught an introductory programming class for a couple of semesters when I was a CS grad student, and a few of the students each semester were hobbyist programmers. Most of them turned out to be mediocre programmers, but their braggadocio intimidated the students who didn't have any prior programming experience. The myth that you have to start well before college to be a good programmer often discourages talented students who weren't previously exposed to programming from going on to studying computer science.
In the book, we humans then go on to set up systems to track asteroids that may be a danger to earth, and set up defense systems against them. I know that we currently track some, but how well funded are these organizations that do this? This is really something that is quite important, as it is almost certainly just a matter of when, not if. Do we have systems in place that will allow us to destroy or divert any large asteroids that are determined to be on a path to impact with earth?
There are some plans, but there's a debate about how to do it. Here's a presentation on the subject by an LLNL scientist who has studied the details about using nuclear warheads to divert an asteroid:
A while back, Small Dog Electronics shipped one of their customers an iPod box with only a bar of Irish Spring soap inside. Here's how their Customer Service department handled it:
Slashdot Mirror
However, people who've advanced degrees and expertise in highly specialized areas are expensive, and that is part of the reason why medicine gets so expensive. Where I work, nearly everyone has a Master's degree, and most have a PhD. Almost everyone who contributes to the GPL'd project I work on has a PhD. We're not amateur hobbyists working in our parents' basements, contrary to the popular stereotypes of open source developers.
I've seen a lot of secure government facilities, and I've *never* seen a secure parking lot. Hell, you'd have to ban cars with GPS and Onstar (which pretty much rules out any rental cars that a DV might have). Also, having a cell phone available during trips is a safety issue. Cell phone lockers are sometimes available outside of secure areas.
...and nobody ever thought that the batteries could be sneaked in? Hell, some (if not all) phones can work powered by USB connection alone. Yes, batteries can be smuggled in, as can eavesdropping devices, cameras, etc. However, people entering and leaving these facilities must consent to a search of their belongings. These people also have security clearances (or are escorted by someone with a clearance), so they're expected (and trusted, to an extent) to follow the rules.I'm very happy with Site5 (see the link in my signature). They offer dirt cheap hosting with all of the features I need, and their domain registration prices are quite reasonable.
http://www.dms.umontreal.ca/~andrew/PDF/VS.pdf
Pick #1, Monty opens #2 (switch = win)
Pick #2, Monty opens #1 (switch = win)
Pick #3, Monty opens #1 (switch = lose)
Pick #3, Monty opens #2 (switch = lose)
50/50 No, the four possibilities here are not equally likely. If the initial pick is random, then the probability that case 1 occurs is 1/3, the probability of case 2 is 1/3, and the probability that EITHER case 3 or case 4 occurs is 1/3.
Go commit a felony and you'll see.
Felons lose a lot of rights. Or do you think that freedom (i.e. not being incarcerated) is merely a "privilege"?Ironically, the end of the embargo will probably make it harder for Americans to get genuine Habanos, at least for a while. As of now, it isn't difficult to have Cubans cigars delivered to the USA from an authorized Habanos SA retailer. However, the demand for Cuban cigars already exceeds the supply (unless you're interested in the infamous Glass Top Cohibas), so the influx of Americans interested in trying these forbidden cigars will result in shortages around the world. The newly-legal cigars will also be met by large numbers of fakes, making it even more difficult to get the real thing.
I taught an introductory programming class for a couple of semesters when I was a CS grad student, and a few of the students each semester were hobbyist programmers. Most of them turned out to be mediocre programmers, but their braggadocio intimidated the students who didn't have any prior programming experience. The myth that you have to start well before college to be a good programmer often discourages talented students who weren't previously exposed to programming from going on to studying computer science.
Obviously not.
Actually, titanium rings can be cut off fairly easily, at least according to the guy who made my wedding band:
http://boonerings.com/faq.htm#4
Tungsten carbide rings are difficult to cut, but they can safely be cracked with vise grips:
http://www.trewtungsten.com/remove.php
Do you really believe that? Parts of this hoax were believable, but the EFF part was obviously a joke.
There are some plans, but there's a debate about how to do it. Here's a presentation on the subject by an LLNL scientist who has studied the details about using nuclear warheads to divert an asteroid:
http://www.cnrt.scsu.edu/content/faculty/2005/dearborn/Asteroid.pdf
I hate to defend Best Buy, but they've already admitted their mistake and apologized for the C&D letter sent to laughingsquid.com:
http://laughingsquid.com/best-buy-apologies-for-sending-cease-desist-letter/
A while back, Small Dog Electronics shipped one of their customers an iPod box with only a bar of Irish Spring soap inside. Here's how their Customer Service department handled it:
http://consumerist.com/consumer/customer-service/no-ipod-soap-210348.php