Clauses in legally binding agreements that grant one party the ability to unilaterally change the terms of those agreements are illegal in most places where the rule of law has any meaning. That's one of the reasons almost every contractual agreement, of which EULAs are one kind, have a clause that says if any of the terms are illegal they are void.
If you give them enough money, they'll do whatever you want. The question is only of the relative cost. Getting something custom done in open source is sometimes a matter of asking and waiting, or of paying a developer to do it for you. Getting something done in closed source might be a matter of filing a request under your support agreement, or it might mean a very expensive contract.
His post was saying "don't trust a drug user, get some real data." Seems reasonable. Recreational drug users always espouse the benefits of their drugs. If they didn't believe, they wouldn't use them.
The situation is not the same. A bubble of air is a bubble of... air. It's something. A hole isn't something that's not an electron, it's nothing. Empty space. Vacuum.
Logic is a formal system where you make a set of assumptions, then see what implications those assumptions have. There are volumes upon volumes of theological works where the assumptions are some form of "god exists, and has these properties," all perfectly valid logic.
Science is a system where you use logic, observation and other tools to check whether your assumptions appear to be valid.
So presumably you think that writing stories about a supreme being and then insisting that they're true, to the extent that you judge everyone else based on them, is less arrogant?
People (perhaps engineers in particular?) have an odd habit of taking statistical tendencies and attempting to apply them as universal truths. Your being a liberal engineer doesn't have anything to do with the claim that engineers as a group have a higher (probably very slightly higher) chance of being religious than other groups.
It is a little odd that well educated people are still religious, but it happens, a lot. People are able to jump through a lot of mental hoops to reconcile their religious and non-religious beliefs.
I was being a smartass, but if you insist... your comment is incorrect throughout. The paper refers to "earthshine" which today is dominated by reflected sunlight. But the point of that paper is that right after the collision that created the moon, earthshine was dominated by radiated heat from the Earth, not reflected radiation from the sun, meaning that the earthshine was much more intense than today. The takeaway from the paper is literally the opposite of what your post said:
"The actual study [did] say RADIANT heat from the Earth, [in complete obeyance of the laws of physics], went through the vacuum of space." This radiant heat kept the Earth facing side of the moon molten longer than the far side.
IIRC the main piece of evidence is the similarity of isotope ratios in the moon and Earth, and the rarity of heavy elements in the moon. The moon appears to be enriched in silicates, which are the bits that would have been floating on top of a proto-Earth.
The rate won't be constant. The moon is gaining momentum by stealing it from Earth by raising tides. The closer the moon is, the larger tides is raises, which means it steals more momentum. The actual relationship is likely complex, but it's probably at least quadratic.
UTC IS the separate clock kept for those purposes. If you don't like leap seconds, set your clock to one of the half dozen time standards that don't have them.
Reducing a sight in modern celestial navigation usually involves calculating the expected altitude of a target celestial body at a particular time at a particular place on the surface, noting the actual altitude of the body, then using the difference to determine your distance from the reference location. To do that you need to use a time standard that stays in sync with the heavens, or correct for the drift in one that doesn't. UTC is convenient because it's accurate to about a tenth of a second, as close as you could hope to measure by hand, and doesn't need overly frequent adjustment like UT1.
An error of one second in reducing a sight translates to a positional error of around a quarter of a nautical mile, or about half a kilometre. As discussed here a while ago, celestial navigation is still an important backup for military and commercial shipping, as well as deep water private sailors who aren't idiots. A kilometre or two one way or another often doesn't matter, but sometimes it does. GPS, of course, also has to make the same corrections, although it uses finer grained ones than UTC does.
If you're the OP, in regards to your original post, something I don't understand: if you're an astronomer who is noting the timing of astronomical events, why are you using UTC instead of terrestrial time: "a modern astronomical time standard defined by the International Astronomical Union, primarily for time-measurements of astronomical observations made from the surface of Earth?"
How do you know about the difference between UT1 and UTC, and not know that your hypothetical non-leap second corrected time standard has existed for more than forty years and is called TAI?
GPS satellites report time that does not include leap seconds. But your GPS receiver has to make corrections to that time that are much more accurate than leap seconds to give you the correct position on the Earth's surface.
Why would a scientific calculation care about what time it is? Unless you're talking about astronomy, in which case astronomers have lots of time standards, and actually know how to use them.
GPS satellites report a time that is a strict offset of TAI, which is the standard that is designed for use by people who don't want leap seconds. GPS positioning depends on the precise position of points on the surface of the Earth underneath the GPS constellation, so although the satellites report a TAI-locked time, to actually determine your position you have to do a correction that's very similar to UTC, except with a granularity that's more like leap nanoseconds instead of seconds.
There are lots of things that depend on the position of the sun and stars to sub-second accuracy. Celestial navigation, pointing telescopes, pointing satellite dishes.
I don't buy the objections to using UTC. If you can't code a safety critical system for leap seconds, you probably shouldn't be coding safety critical systems. Note that it hasn't been a big problem for the last thirty years, why is it now?
If you REALLY can't deal with leap seconds, use TAI. That's why it exists.
If you're aiming a telescope, or a satellite dish, or computing an almanac, you care. The point of UTC is that it stays close to UT so that the people who need a time standard that's aligned with the actual rotation of the Earth have something to use. If you don't want to deal with leap seconds, there's already a standard for that. It's called International Atomic Time (TAI), and has been around since the early seventies.
Heaven forbid developers actually test edge cases....
Another solution would be to use TAI if you really can't be bothered to deal with an occasional leap second. The whole point of UTC is to have a time standard that's based on TAI but is numerically close to UT.
I don't understand why this is suddenly a problem. Perhaps because of all the bootcamp developers writing code now?
Sure. Except the IS doesn't have any cities. They occupy some territory in Iraq and Syria, where they're mostly bent on executing the majority of the populace. The Nazis would have laughed pretty hard if the allied strategy in WWII was extermination bombing of Jewish neighbourhoods in Paris.
You're absolutely right, the way to attack the islamic state is to attack it's ability to wage war. Stop converting moderate muslims into new recruits, stop littering the area with weapons and political instability, and work towards not giving any more money to oil rich middle eastern dictatorships.
Slashdot Mirror
Clauses in legally binding agreements that grant one party the ability to unilaterally change the terms of those agreements are illegal in most places where the rule of law has any meaning. That's one of the reasons almost every contractual agreement, of which EULAs are one kind, have a clause that says if any of the terms are illegal they are void.
If you give them enough money, they'll do whatever you want. The question is only of the relative cost. Getting something custom done in open source is sometimes a matter of asking and waiting, or of paying a developer to do it for you. Getting something done in closed source might be a matter of filing a request under your support agreement, or it might mean a very expensive contract.
SSRIs, the same drugs that a large fraction of the general US population is on.
His post was saying "don't trust a drug user, get some real data." Seems reasonable. Recreational drug users always espouse the benefits of their drugs. If they didn't believe, they wouldn't use them.
Because they require more overpriced service.
A better question. Just why is it so profitable to sell gas powered cars?
The situation is not the same. A bubble of air is a bubble of... air. It's something. A hole isn't something that's not an electron, it's nothing. Empty space. Vacuum.
Logic is a formal system where you make a set of assumptions, then see what implications those assumptions have. There are volumes upon volumes of theological works where the assumptions are some form of "god exists, and has these properties," all perfectly valid logic.
Science is a system where you use logic, observation and other tools to check whether your assumptions appear to be valid.
So presumably you think that writing stories about a supreme being and then insisting that they're true, to the extent that you judge everyone else based on them, is less arrogant?
People (perhaps engineers in particular?) have an odd habit of taking statistical tendencies and attempting to apply them as universal truths. Your being a liberal engineer doesn't have anything to do with the claim that engineers as a group have a higher (probably very slightly higher) chance of being religious than other groups.
It is a little odd that well educated people are still religious, but it happens, a lot. People are able to jump through a lot of mental hoops to reconcile their religious and non-religious beliefs.
I was being a smartass, but if you insist... your comment is incorrect throughout. The paper refers to "earthshine" which today is dominated by reflected sunlight. But the point of that paper is that right after the collision that created the moon, earthshine was dominated by radiated heat from the Earth, not reflected radiation from the sun, meaning that the earthshine was much more intense than today. The takeaway from the paper is literally the opposite of what your post said:
"The actual study [did] say RADIANT heat from the Earth, [in complete obeyance of the laws of physics], went through the vacuum of space." This radiant heat kept the Earth facing side of the moon molten longer than the far side.
IIRC the main piece of evidence is the similarity of isotope ratios in the moon and Earth, and the rarity of heavy elements in the moon. The moon appears to be enriched in silicates, which are the bits that would have been floating on top of a proto-Earth.
The rate won't be constant. The moon is gaining momentum by stealing it from Earth by raising tides. The closer the moon is, the larger tides is raises, which means it steals more momentum. The actual relationship is likely complex, but it's probably at least quadratic.
"The actual study didn't say RADIANT heat from the Earth somehow magically went through the vacuum of space."
That's kind of what radiant heat does.
UTC IS the separate clock kept for those purposes. If you don't like leap seconds, set your clock to one of the half dozen time standards that don't have them.
Reducing a sight in modern celestial navigation usually involves calculating the expected altitude of a target celestial body at a particular time at a particular place on the surface, noting the actual altitude of the body, then using the difference to determine your distance from the reference location. To do that you need to use a time standard that stays in sync with the heavens, or correct for the drift in one that doesn't. UTC is convenient because it's accurate to about a tenth of a second, as close as you could hope to measure by hand, and doesn't need overly frequent adjustment like UT1.
An error of one second in reducing a sight translates to a positional error of around a quarter of a nautical mile, or about half a kilometre. As discussed here a while ago, celestial navigation is still an important backup for military and commercial shipping, as well as deep water private sailors who aren't idiots. A kilometre or two one way or another often doesn't matter, but sometimes it does. GPS, of course, also has to make the same corrections, although it uses finer grained ones than UTC does.
If you're the OP, in regards to your original post, something I don't understand: if you're an astronomer who is noting the timing of astronomical events, why are you using UTC instead of terrestrial time: "a modern astronomical time standard defined by the International Astronomical Union, primarily for time-measurements of astronomical observations made from the surface of Earth?"
How do you know about the difference between UT1 and UTC, and not know that your hypothetical non-leap second corrected time standard has existed for more than forty years and is called TAI?
GPS satellites report time that does not include leap seconds. But your GPS receiver has to make corrections to that time that are much more accurate than leap seconds to give you the correct position on the Earth's surface.
Why would a scientific calculation care about what time it is? Unless you're talking about astronomy, in which case astronomers have lots of time standards, and actually know how to use them.
GPS satellites report a time that is a strict offset of TAI, which is the standard that is designed for use by people who don't want leap seconds. GPS positioning depends on the precise position of points on the surface of the Earth underneath the GPS constellation, so although the satellites report a TAI-locked time, to actually determine your position you have to do a correction that's very similar to UTC, except with a granularity that's more like leap nanoseconds instead of seconds.
I'll agree with you on the rest of the list, but I personally have navigated using the stars, requiring to-the-second accuracy.
There are lots of things that depend on the position of the sun and stars to sub-second accuracy. Celestial navigation, pointing telescopes, pointing satellite dishes.
I don't buy the objections to using UTC. If you can't code a safety critical system for leap seconds, you probably shouldn't be coding safety critical systems. Note that it hasn't been a big problem for the last thirty years, why is it now?
If you REALLY can't deal with leap seconds, use TAI. That's why it exists.
If you're aiming a telescope, or a satellite dish, or computing an almanac, you care. The point of UTC is that it stays close to UT so that the people who need a time standard that's aligned with the actual rotation of the Earth have something to use. If you don't want to deal with leap seconds, there's already a standard for that. It's called International Atomic Time (TAI), and has been around since the early seventies.
Heaven forbid developers actually test edge cases....
Another solution would be to use TAI if you really can't be bothered to deal with an occasional leap second. The whole point of UTC is to have a time standard that's based on TAI but is numerically close to UT.
I don't understand why this is suddenly a problem. Perhaps because of all the bootcamp developers writing code now?
Sure. Except the IS doesn't have any cities. They occupy some territory in Iraq and Syria, where they're mostly bent on executing the majority of the populace. The Nazis would have laughed pretty hard if the allied strategy in WWII was extermination bombing of Jewish neighbourhoods in Paris.
You're absolutely right, the way to attack the islamic state is to attack it's ability to wage war. Stop converting moderate muslims into new recruits, stop littering the area with weapons and political instability, and work towards not giving any more money to oil rich middle eastern dictatorships.