Well, you see, the other comments around it sucked, because they were stupid, so if we reverse the math we can describe stupid posts as the norm and ones that lack stupidity as expanding or something.
In some cases, you can reformulate the math in a model so it's easier to work with at the cost of becoming non-intuitive. I don't know if this is one of those cases, but it's possible that treating empty space as a repulsor made it easier to calculate something.
Of course someone in that shape could have done what was claimed (not necessarily safely, but that's not the issue here). However, said person could not have done so without the effort being shown in the pacemaker logs.
Nobody's saying he couldn't have moved stuff out fast. What people are saying is that it would have changed his heart rate to be measurable. No problem with adrenaline, but I suspect it would affect his heart rate in a way the pacemaker could detect. I've come off a few adrenaline situations with the feeling of my heart pounding in my chest.
If you are completely paralyzed, you might change your mind. It happens. In that case, it would be good to be able to confirm that's what you want before pulling the plug. In the meantime, see what you need as an advance healthcare directive or living will or whatever.
Anecdotal evidence isn't going to prove anything (although there was this guy I knew who used nothing but anecdotal evidence....), but it can be interesting and suggestive.
However, if Apple product adoption was just a matter of people wanting to buy anything Apple, the Apple watch would be much more popular than it is relative to the iPhone. It may not be popular to hear on Slashdot, but people generally buy Apple products because they meet their needs and wants, not because Apple made them.
I look at it a little differently. If you're already broke, and you insist on spending money on smoking to the exclusion of essentials, then there's a reason why you're doing it, and we really need to find out why first and shame later (if at all).
One problem with smoking in pubs and such places is the safety of the workers. Since people are basically forced to accept jobs where they can find them, we have an interest in making them all reasonably safe.
If you don't have guns around, your toddler is not going to shoot you, you're not going to have an accident, you're not going to panic shoot someone, no intruder will consider it vital to take you out ASAP, and it will be harder to carry out a suicide. Yeah, I know some of these are due to people being stupid, but we'll always have stupid people. Unless there's a specific need for a firearm, you're really safer without one. (That doesn't mean people shouldn't own guns, but they are health risks.)
What bothers me about excluding people who do certain risky things from healthcare: First they came for the illegal drug users, then they came for the smokers,...,then they came for the somewhat overweight who don't exercise nearly enough, and was left to speak up for me? I don't really care if my taxes go up slightly to pay for the health of people who do stupid things, because a lot of my taxes already go for people who do stupid things (like invade Iraq or drive drunk).
The free market simply doesn't account for externalities, which have to be accounted for somehow for a reasonable economy. A tax on a substance whose normal consumption causes external costs can look identical to a sin tax.
Or, maybe we could make health care costs a mostly individual responsibility for all but the poorest so that we don't have to try to control individual behaviors & activities and/or suffer when someone else acts irresponsibly.
That evidently doesn't work. The rising costs of health care pretty well forced insurance companies to intervene, who could only make money with reasonable premiums by selling group coverage, etc. etc. etc. It's really easy for someone in the middle class to be bankrupted by health care costs, if they don't have insurance.
The only health care systems that work reasonably well are universal ones.
Note that "risky computing" includes going to reputable websites without an ad blocker, and downloading third-party software from a site you haven't carefully vetted. Sigh.
The big problem Microsoft has here is that their people just don't seem to understand the difference between a phone and a desktop, and are going for a one-size-fits-all solution, unlike Apple and its iOS/OSX approach. After all, if you buy limited apps for your phone that are designed to work on a small touch screen, that must be what you want for your computer with 4K monitor, keyboard and mouse, right?
Commercial anti-virus software won't protect you well from anything new, as you point out, but modern AV can recognize actions typical of malware, and their recognition databases get updated so last quarter's popular new virus will probably just be blocked today.
One problem with sandboxing and restricted permissions is that the user data is usually what's important. I can blow away and restore operating systems without a qualm, but I'd really miss my home directory stuff if it went. (That's why it's backed up, of course.)
I'm taking Trump's actions about his business affairs as evidence that he is probably violating one or more emoluments clauses, and also the extent of his businesses. His hotels have got to be doing stuff with government officials. At least one emoluments clause has seen legal examination, specifically with regard to Obama's prize. The Justice Department determined that he was covered under the "foreign governments" emoluments clause, but that the Nobel committee was not a government or an arm of one. I'd expect such determinations to be more or less repeated.
What do you mean by saying Clinton accepted a lot of money while in government employ? There are ways to send money to places an elected official might like without actually giving that person an emolument. Donations to the Clinton Foundation were not emoluments to Clinton. Paying a Trump hotel something is giving money to Trump. The clauses only cover money from governments, so any private money isn't covered. If a Russian businessman rents a room from a Trump hotel, that's Constitutional. If the room is paid for by a government, or (very probably) a government-owned corporation, it isn't.
The impeachment process is for High Crimes and Misdemeanors (and the parsing of that is open to debate). While impeachment is political, the Senate really does have to find the President guilty of something that can be so described. Clinton faced a trial for perjury before the Senate quietly brushed the whole thing under the rug. I don't know what charge Andrew Johnson faced (honest, I wasn't alive for that one). If Trump violates the Constitution, it's a more credible rap than failing to stop and exchange information after a minor accident (to name one misdemeanor, parsing the phrase as (High Crimes) and (Misdemeanors)).
"I have the legal right to do this" is a really bad justification for actions. If this order is against the law, it's quite possible that the Republicans will pass a new law giving the President the power to do what he did, but that law has not passed yet. These lawsuits are likely to have an effect if and only if the order was against the law.
Of course they wanted a different alternative. There were lots of different alternatives, when you consider the Republican primary field and Clinton. I would have liked Clinton or Kasich, for example. The election of Trump is not about lack of alternatives.
Except that there are companies who bring in low-salary H-1Bs and contract them out, and clearly the existing system is not doing enough to prevent it. "Properly advertised" is a joke if nobody's seriously enforcing it. People around here have failed to find the University of Minnesota in what apparently passed as a good-faith search, if it was in their interests not to find it.
The companies that pay $40K for an H-1B don't care about anyone else's need for talent, and they get their visas from the same lottery that a company who really needs someone with certain skills and is willing to pay whatever it takes, which is what the H-1B program is for. I'm happy with Trump's idea (frame those words, you may never see me write them again) to allocate based on pay. That means that H-1Bs go to companies that really value who they want to bring in.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you see, the other comments around it sucked, because they were stupid, so if we reverse the math we can describe stupid posts as the norm and ones that lack stupidity as expanding or something.
In some cases, you can reformulate the math in a model so it's easier to work with at the cost of becoming non-intuitive. I don't know if this is one of those cases, but it's possible that treating empty space as a repulsor made it easier to calculate something.
Of course someone in that shape could have done what was claimed (not necessarily safely, but that's not the issue here). However, said person could not have done so without the effort being shown in the pacemaker logs.
Nobody's saying he couldn't have moved stuff out fast. What people are saying is that it would have changed his heart rate to be measurable. No problem with adrenaline, but I suspect it would affect his heart rate in a way the pacemaker could detect. I've come off a few adrenaline situations with the feeling of my heart pounding in my chest.
If you are completely paralyzed, you might change your mind. It happens. In that case, it would be good to be able to confirm that's what you want before pulling the plug. In the meantime, see what you need as an advance healthcare directive or living will or whatever.
Anecdotal evidence isn't going to prove anything (although there was this guy I knew who used nothing but anecdotal evidence....), but it can be interesting and suggestive.
However, if Apple product adoption was just a matter of people wanting to buy anything Apple, the Apple watch would be much more popular than it is relative to the iPhone. It may not be popular to hear on Slashdot, but people generally buy Apple products because they meet their needs and wants, not because Apple made them.
I look at it a little differently. If you're already broke, and you insist on spending money on smoking to the exclusion of essentials, then there's a reason why you're doing it, and we really need to find out why first and shame later (if at all).
I know two people who went through bartending school, but didn't find work in the field, who don't smoke. Does that count?
One problem with smoking in pubs and such places is the safety of the workers. Since people are basically forced to accept jobs where they can find them, we have an interest in making them all reasonably safe.
If you don't have guns around, your toddler is not going to shoot you, you're not going to have an accident, you're not going to panic shoot someone, no intruder will consider it vital to take you out ASAP, and it will be harder to carry out a suicide. Yeah, I know some of these are due to people being stupid, but we'll always have stupid people. Unless there's a specific need for a firearm, you're really safer without one. (That doesn't mean people shouldn't own guns, but they are health risks.)
That's another issue. Similarly, obesity rates are very high, and it isn't because people have changed because they haven't.
What bothers me about excluding people who do certain risky things from healthcare: First they came for the illegal drug users, then they came for the smokers,...,then they came for the somewhat overweight who don't exercise nearly enough, and was left to speak up for me? I don't really care if my taxes go up slightly to pay for the health of people who do stupid things, because a lot of my taxes already go for people who do stupid things (like invade Iraq or drive drunk).
The free market simply doesn't account for externalities, which have to be accounted for somehow for a reasonable economy. A tax on a substance whose normal consumption causes external costs can look identical to a sin tax.
That evidently doesn't work. The rising costs of health care pretty well forced insurance companies to intervene, who could only make money with reasonable premiums by selling group coverage, etc. etc. etc. It's really easy for someone in the middle class to be bankrupted by health care costs, if they don't have insurance.
The only health care systems that work reasonably well are universal ones.
Note that "risky computing" includes going to reputable websites without an ad blocker, and downloading third-party software from a site you haven't carefully vetted. Sigh.
The big problem Microsoft has here is that their people just don't seem to understand the difference between a phone and a desktop, and are going for a one-size-fits-all solution, unlike Apple and its iOS/OSX approach. After all, if you buy limited apps for your phone that are designed to work on a small touch screen, that must be what you want for your computer with 4K monitor, keyboard and mouse, right?
When my wife went to the New York Times website and was infected by an ad, I decided ad blockers were a really good idea.
Commercial anti-virus software won't protect you well from anything new, as you point out, but modern AV can recognize actions typical of malware, and their recognition databases get updated so last quarter's popular new virus will probably just be blocked today.
One problem with sandboxing and restricted permissions is that the user data is usually what's important. I can blow away and restore operating systems without a qualm, but I'd really miss my home directory stuff if it went. (That's why it's backed up, of course.)
it doesn't seem to work very well. We've been trying it for years.
I believe the current Nook Tablets are made by Samsung, if that helps.
I'm taking Trump's actions about his business affairs as evidence that he is probably violating one or more emoluments clauses, and also the extent of his businesses. His hotels have got to be doing stuff with government officials. At least one emoluments clause has seen legal examination, specifically with regard to Obama's prize. The Justice Department determined that he was covered under the "foreign governments" emoluments clause, but that the Nobel committee was not a government or an arm of one. I'd expect such determinations to be more or less repeated.
What do you mean by saying Clinton accepted a lot of money while in government employ? There are ways to send money to places an elected official might like without actually giving that person an emolument. Donations to the Clinton Foundation were not emoluments to Clinton. Paying a Trump hotel something is giving money to Trump. The clauses only cover money from governments, so any private money isn't covered. If a Russian businessman rents a room from a Trump hotel, that's Constitutional. If the room is paid for by a government, or (very probably) a government-owned corporation, it isn't.
The impeachment process is for High Crimes and Misdemeanors (and the parsing of that is open to debate). While impeachment is political, the Senate really does have to find the President guilty of something that can be so described. Clinton faced a trial for perjury before the Senate quietly brushed the whole thing under the rug. I don't know what charge Andrew Johnson faced (honest, I wasn't alive for that one). If Trump violates the Constitution, it's a more credible rap than failing to stop and exchange information after a minor accident (to name one misdemeanor, parsing the phrase as (High Crimes) and (Misdemeanors)).
"I have the legal right to do this" is a really bad justification for actions. If this order is against the law, it's quite possible that the Republicans will pass a new law giving the President the power to do what he did, but that law has not passed yet. These lawsuits are likely to have an effect if and only if the order was against the law.
Of course they wanted a different alternative. There were lots of different alternatives, when you consider the Republican primary field and Clinton. I would have liked Clinton or Kasich, for example. The election of Trump is not about lack of alternatives.
Except that there are companies who bring in low-salary H-1Bs and contract them out, and clearly the existing system is not doing enough to prevent it. "Properly advertised" is a joke if nobody's seriously enforcing it. People around here have failed to find the University of Minnesota in what apparently passed as a good-faith search, if it was in their interests not to find it.
The companies that pay $40K for an H-1B don't care about anyone else's need for talent, and they get their visas from the same lottery that a company who really needs someone with certain skills and is willing to pay whatever it takes, which is what the H-1B program is for. I'm happy with Trump's idea (frame those words, you may never see me write them again) to allocate based on pay. That means that H-1Bs go to companies that really value who they want to bring in.