One of the problems with "single-stream" waste management, which otherwise has a number of advantages, is the difficulty of automatically sorting out the recyclables from what results. Metals are relatively easy to pick out, using either magnetism (for ferrous metals) or induced magnetism via eddy currents (mainly for aluminum), but a good deal of sorting still has to be done in a somewhat manual fashion, which is difficult for humans to do, partly because there might be dangerous stuff amidst the waste stream. A robot using computer vision to do some additional sorting beyond what can be done using characteristics like magnetism and weight could be a nice addition.
StackExchange appears to have put the question back up, but remove from it the screenshots which the DMCA takedown demand claimed constituted copyright infringement.
The screenshots should be a pretty solid fair-use case, though, so even that part of the takedown demand is groundless.
In what sense is it unconstitutional? Congress expressly has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Here they are planning to add a requirement, to inter-state commercial transactions, that the seller collect whatever sales taxes are required at the destination of the sale.
It would be unconstitutional for states themselves to levy a tax on out-of-state retailers with no local presence, because 1) they lack jurisdiction over out-of-state retailers to regulate them as local retailers; and 2) they cannot avoid #1 by taxing the goods as imports to the state, because the commerce clause gives Congress sole authority to regulate interstate commerce. But Congress itself can Constitutionally add conditions to interstate commerce.
Sure, you can learn it, and probably should. But most large-lab workflows aren't set up for the same person doing the wetlab work to also be doing the data analysis, even if they want to. Their job is to stay in the lab and get more data.
I would say it's actually less likely today that you will be able to "rapidly alternate between experiment and quantitative analysis" even if you want to. Roles are much more specialized, and labs much larger, than they used to be.
Teams these days are really large, so much so that the data-collector is often not even the person designing the experiment. And that person is not the person doing the analysis of the data, who is not the person designing the mathematical model, who is in turn not the person implementing the simulation software. They all have to communicate in various ways, but they cannot each have all of those skills.
On smaller projects it may be the case that there's a more unified role of "experimental scientist", who does need to do all of understanding the model, designing the experiments, and carrying out the experiments. But on large teams the people actually collecting data need more technical skills, focused on operating various kinds of equipment properly. Someone else has drawn up exactly which experiments need to be run, but getting them run properly is not easy. Hence there are various scientific roles, like laboratory technician, that don't even require advanced degrees.
If we take the messages at face value, it must be someone who is: 1) in favor of the Syrian state against the rebellion there; yet 2) a gun-rights advocate who opposes attempts to "take away your guns".
I guess it's possible to argue both that widespread gun ownership is needed as a bulwark against tyranny, and yet that the Syrian government is not an example of a tyrannical government where it's justified to actually use those guns to rebel. But that's not a very common position.
I agree these are all differences for a regular pile of VMs in a server room, but if you look at some of the more developed server farms, they do have a lot of the mainframe-like features, at least on the software side. Google, for example, has pretty full-featured job control layered on top of their server farm.
This is the software that codes those records for storage. "Scoring" in baseball in this sense means compiling the records of what happened in the game, the kind of stuff you see printed in a newspaper box score and stored in game databases.
Sure, a non-TV-network producing original television shows for broadcast over the internet is going to have a different model than NBC or ABC do. But it's not like Amazon is the first company to do that. Netflix already produces original TV. I was hoping this article would compare to that, but it doesn't mention it at all. Is Amazon jumping in as a competitor of Netflix with roughly the same model? Or is their approach significantly different?
Two devices went off, police were looking for two suspects... there was no particularly strong evidence that there would be dozens of people out there or something. I suspect it comes down to just the word "terrorism" causing people to refuse to apply the kind of logic they normally apply.
I've lived in neighborhoods where people were shot, and the gunman was an fugitive. It was more likely in those cases that there could be wider involvement of a larger group, because often people who perpetrate shootings are gang members. While it's rare, occasionally these fugitive scenarios actually do end up in a shootout that involves a dozen people. Yet, the police don't lock down all of Atlanta every other week just in case.
I believe officially tazers are considered to be nonlethal force for situations where a person is dangerous enough that they need to be stopped by force, but not posing an imminent lethal danger that would justify shooting them. I.e. the gun/tazer decision isn't based on whether the police prefer the suspect alive or not, but on whether deadly force is justified by the circumstances.
You could see that pretty clearly in the completely unprofessional reaction to the Dorner incident in Los Angeles: not what you'd expect from a well-trained police force.
It also got more than a 2/3 majority, so it's not clear a veto would even matter. Though it's possible that some of the "yes" Dem votes here would change to "no" if Obama vetoed it, to avoid overriding a president from their party.
It depends on the kind of code for me. With machine-learning or statistics code, I generally prefer GPL, because I don't really think Mathematica, Matlab, or Excel should be able to use my work for free without giving something back. If they don't want to GPL their own software, they can purchase a proprietary license from me, just like I have to purchase one from them to use their products. But I ain't giving them a free one.
That's in fact the key difference, and interestingly each side more or less agrees. The "free software" side's key interest is the freedom of users to modify their hardware and software, and distribute those modifications: the freedom-to-hack. The "open source" side's key interest is the freedom of developers to reuse software in a distributed, "bazaar" manner. Sometimes the goals overlap, and sometimes not.
For cultural reasons, Americans aren't willing to sanction unlimited immigration. So there is going to be some limit. How to allocate it? Currently it's first-come, first-serve. But why not allocate it by economic benefit? And how better to measure economic benefit than wages?
If one company claims there is a shortage of domestic workers, and offers $60k to hire a foreign worker; a 2nd company claims the same and offers $90k; and a third claims the same and offers $120k; which should get the slot? I would argue clearly the third company: if the shortage of domestic labor is worth $120k to them, it's clearly a more economically important shortage than the one where the company is only willing to offer $60k to fill the position. So why not allocate by highest-salary first, in order to distribute the immigration slots to the part of the economy where they are most in demand?
Of course, the bill does not seem to be proposing precisely that, because they are using a stupid "relative to prevailing wages" calculation instead of just a simple absolute number.
True. A bigger problem is probably that it's 50 years of accumulated cruft that may or may not work together in any kind of maintainable way (probably "may not"). Stable legacy systems that are just maintained with minor bugfixes now and then can be perfectly reasonable, but systems that accrete code over decades tend not to be.
The software they run is Sabre, which was co-founded by American Airlines some decades ago. I have no particular knowledge of which software has undergone rewrites and which hasn't, but if you scan their own timeline, it's not hard to suspect that there are huge piles of ancient code still in there.
I haven't tried it with FreeRDP, but Microsoft's version of RDP supports something called "RemoteApp" which lets you run individual programs with network transparency. Some googling turns up what looks to be a FreeRDP version of that.
Current U.S. law doesn't have a specific altitude, but instead a more subjective requirement that the flight must be high enough to be safe and not unreasonably interfere with the owner's use of the property. What height that would be depends in part on how high the owner has built up: flying over a suburban house at 2000 ft might be legal, but buzzing the observation deck of a 1900-ft skyscraper by passing it at 2000 ft probably isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the problems with "single-stream" waste management, which otherwise has a number of advantages, is the difficulty of automatically sorting out the recyclables from what results. Metals are relatively easy to pick out, using either magnetism (for ferrous metals) or induced magnetism via eddy currents (mainly for aluminum), but a good deal of sorting still has to be done in a somewhat manual fashion, which is difficult for humans to do, partly because there might be dangerous stuff amidst the waste stream. A robot using computer vision to do some additional sorting beyond what can be done using characteristics like magnetism and weight could be a nice addition.
StackExchange appears to have put the question back up, but remove from it the screenshots which the DMCA takedown demand claimed constituted copyright infringement.
The screenshots should be a pretty solid fair-use case, though, so even that part of the takedown demand is groundless.
In what sense is it unconstitutional? Congress expressly has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Here they are planning to add a requirement, to inter-state commercial transactions, that the seller collect whatever sales taxes are required at the destination of the sale.
It would be unconstitutional for states themselves to levy a tax on out-of-state retailers with no local presence, because 1) they lack jurisdiction over out-of-state retailers to regulate them as local retailers; and 2) they cannot avoid #1 by taxing the goods as imports to the state, because the commerce clause gives Congress sole authority to regulate interstate commerce. But Congress itself can Constitutionally add conditions to interstate commerce.
Sure, you can learn it, and probably should. But most large-lab workflows aren't set up for the same person doing the wetlab work to also be doing the data analysis, even if they want to. Their job is to stay in the lab and get more data.
I would say it's actually less likely today that you will be able to "rapidly alternate between experiment and quantitative analysis" even if you want to. Roles are much more specialized, and labs much larger, than they used to be.
Teams these days are really large, so much so that the data-collector is often not even the person designing the experiment. And that person is not the person doing the analysis of the data, who is not the person designing the mathematical model, who is in turn not the person implementing the simulation software. They all have to communicate in various ways, but they cannot each have all of those skills.
On smaller projects it may be the case that there's a more unified role of "experimental scientist", who does need to do all of understanding the model, designing the experiments, and carrying out the experiments. But on large teams the people actually collecting data need more technical skills, focused on operating various kinds of equipment properly. Someone else has drawn up exactly which experiments need to be run, but getting them run properly is not easy. Hence there are various scientific roles, like laboratory technician, that don't even require advanced degrees.
See also: Noam Chomsky on language
If we take the messages at face value, it must be someone who is: 1) in favor of the Syrian state against the rebellion there; yet 2) a gun-rights advocate who opposes attempts to "take away your guns".
I guess it's possible to argue both that widespread gun ownership is needed as a bulwark against tyranny, and yet that the Syrian government is not an example of a tyrannical government where it's justified to actually use those guns to rebel. But that's not a very common position.
I agree these are all differences for a regular pile of VMs in a server room, but if you look at some of the more developed server farms, they do have a lot of the mainframe-like features, at least on the software side. Google, for example, has pretty full-featured job control layered on top of their server farm.
This is the software that codes those records for storage. "Scoring" in baseball in this sense means compiling the records of what happened in the game, the kind of stuff you see printed in a newspaper box score and stored in game databases.
The linked post is just a low-information reblog of this article and its embedded video.
Sure, a non-TV-network producing original television shows for broadcast over the internet is going to have a different model than NBC or ABC do. But it's not like Amazon is the first company to do that. Netflix already produces original TV. I was hoping this article would compare to that, but it doesn't mention it at all. Is Amazon jumping in as a competitor of Netflix with roughly the same model? Or is their approach significantly different?
Two devices went off, police were looking for two suspects... there was no particularly strong evidence that there would be dozens of people out there or something. I suspect it comes down to just the word "terrorism" causing people to refuse to apply the kind of logic they normally apply.
I've lived in neighborhoods where people were shot, and the gunman was an fugitive. It was more likely in those cases that there could be wider involvement of a larger group, because often people who perpetrate shootings are gang members. While it's rare, occasionally these fugitive scenarios actually do end up in a shootout that involves a dozen people. Yet, the police don't lock down all of Atlanta every other week just in case.
I believe officially tazers are considered to be nonlethal force for situations where a person is dangerous enough that they need to be stopped by force, but not posing an imminent lethal danger that would justify shooting them. I.e. the gun/tazer decision isn't based on whether the police prefer the suspect alive or not, but on whether deadly force is justified by the circumstances.
You could see that pretty clearly in the completely unprofessional reaction to the Dorner incident in Los Angeles: not what you'd expect from a well-trained police force.
It also got more than a 2/3 majority, so it's not clear a veto would even matter. Though it's possible that some of the "yes" Dem votes here would change to "no" if Obama vetoed it, to avoid overriding a president from their party.
It depends on the kind of code for me. With machine-learning or statistics code, I generally prefer GPL, because I don't really think Mathematica, Matlab, or Excel should be able to use my work for free without giving something back. If they don't want to GPL their own software, they can purchase a proprietary license from me, just like I have to purchase one from them to use their products. But I ain't giving them a free one.
That's in fact the key difference, and interestingly each side more or less agrees. The "free software" side's key interest is the freedom of users to modify their hardware and software, and distribute those modifications: the freedom-to-hack. The "open source" side's key interest is the freedom of developers to reuse software in a distributed, "bazaar" manner. Sometimes the goals overlap, and sometimes not.
For cultural reasons, Americans aren't willing to sanction unlimited immigration. So there is going to be some limit. How to allocate it? Currently it's first-come, first-serve. But why not allocate it by economic benefit? And how better to measure economic benefit than wages?
If one company claims there is a shortage of domestic workers, and offers $60k to hire a foreign worker; a 2nd company claims the same and offers $90k; and a third claims the same and offers $120k; which should get the slot? I would argue clearly the third company: if the shortage of domestic labor is worth $120k to them, it's clearly a more economically important shortage than the one where the company is only willing to offer $60k to fill the position. So why not allocate by highest-salary first, in order to distribute the immigration slots to the part of the economy where they are most in demand?
Of course, the bill does not seem to be proposing precisely that, because they are using a stupid "relative to prevailing wages" calculation instead of just a simple absolute number.
True. A bigger problem is probably that it's 50 years of accumulated cruft that may or may not work together in any kind of maintainable way (probably "may not"). Stable legacy systems that are just maintained with minor bugfixes now and then can be perfectly reasonable, but systems that accrete code over decades tend not to be.
The software they run is Sabre, which was co-founded by American Airlines some decades ago. I have no particular knowledge of which software has undergone rewrites and which hasn't, but if you scan their own timeline, it's not hard to suspect that there are huge piles of ancient code still in there.
From various airlines: 2004 #1, 2004 #2, 2011 #1, 2011 #2, and probably others I missed.
I haven't tried it with FreeRDP, but Microsoft's version of RDP supports something called "RemoteApp" which lets you run individual programs with network transparency. Some googling turns up what looks to be a FreeRDP version of that.
Yes, as of a few weeks ago, support for FreeRDP is included.
Current U.S. law doesn't have a specific altitude, but instead a more subjective requirement that the flight must be high enough to be safe and not unreasonably interfere with the owner's use of the property. What height that would be depends in part on how high the owner has built up: flying over a suburban house at 2000 ft might be legal, but buzzing the observation deck of a 1900-ft skyscraper by passing it at 2000 ft probably isn't.
A bit more here.