There are plastic 3D-printed parts that are strong enough for their intended purpose, even if injection molding could do better.
When I first started to get interested in 3D printing, the low-end machines cost thousand of dollars. I can now get a better one for under $500. (It looks like I'd be buying myself a new hobby if I got one, so I'm going to wait until after retirement.) Metal sintering machines are going to decrease in cost over time, and may well wind up being hobbyist machines. There's nothing inherently preventing them from becoming cheap. (There are things that may never make it, like sintering titanium, but other alloys can be developed.)
I also know where I can send a CAD file and get stuff 3D-printed professionally without having to buy my own machine.
In the US, the Constitutional purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create, and hence the term should be long enough to encourage planning. Personally, I can't see anyone doing something for the purpose of the money they'll collect over thirty years later, so I'm fine with the old 14+14-year system from my younger days. It also had the great advantage that I could look at a copyright page and know whether it was in copyright (first 14 years), might be and where to check (next 14), or definitely wasn't (after 28 years).
People don't necessarily make money for themselves, and often do it for their children or other heirs. Assume a 28-year copyright. I'm unlikely to live that long myself, all things considered, but I may want the royalties for what I create to continue and go to my son. If I had a terminal disease, I might still be able to create something good (perhaps because of the disease), and it may be worth my while to polish it up if my copyright can live beyond me, and not worth doing otherwise.
If we have no rules and regulations, there's nothing to stop companies from polluting the environment as much as they like. There's nothing to stop them from demanding what they like from employees, and treating them arbitrarily badly, in a race to the bottom. The purpose of many of these rules and regulations is to protect the relatively powerless from the relatively powerful.
Obviously, there's going to be corruption and bad rules and regulations, but the government is answerable to the people, and that counterbalances the power of money.
I don't trust the government, and I don't trust corporations, but having some sort of tension between the two allows liberty to those who would otherwise get crushed by one or another.
The decision established that there can be no legislative controls on the use of money in political campaigns, from corporations and other groups. It had immediate changes on the law that are more significant than what you said, but the consequences are far-reaching.
It means that there cannot be a US law that stops corporations from using corporate funds to influence elections, which is what most bothers me.
It's possible, although unlikely, for genuinely unforeseen situations to occur, and disaster plans usually have a limit on how much of a disaster they're good for.
A lot of businesses have an obligation to serve certain people when they're open for business. That's not the same thing. If a bakery shop shuts down for a day, they lose business, and quite likely future business, but that's their call to make (unless they're doing it for a specifically illegal reason). If they refuse to serve someone for certain reasons, which vary from state to state but generally include race and religion, while they're serving other people, that's illegal.
Modern mainframes are extremely fault-tolerant by themselves. IBM's been making them better and better over the decades. For certain classes of work, like running very large volumes of relatively simple transactions with extremely high reliability, which sounds like a lot of stuff Delta's doing, they're wonderful.
If the airline hired IT people who didn't realize the need for backups, top management really screwed up. If they hired competent IT people who presented a backup and recovery plan that cost a reasonable amount and then decided not to fund it, it's top management's call, and certainly not IT's fault. If they hired seemingly competent IT people who created a backup and recovery plan that was adequately funded by the company, start blaming IT.
I don't know how Delta operates internally, but it's the fault of management. Either they hired incompetents, or they hired competent people and didn't budget for what those people told them was necessary, or they deliberately decided to risk downtime. It may also be IT's fault, but it's the job of management to hire people who can do the job.
Are you telling me that the FBI only flies those things during riots? Given 3500 flights in the second half of 2015, it looks like they fly them a lot when there are no riots.
Why is that different from me? I can make as many companies as I like, and I don't have to operate them. (I spent quite a few years with a Doing Business As* registration that I didn't use.)
That guy resigned because he realized he wasn't going to be able to do the CEO job properly. It wasn't just a matter of support, it was the donation of $100K to curtail the rights of people Mozilla had ties to. One job of the CEO is to represent the company, and he compromised his ability to do that.
I imagine a fair number of people could come up with stories of vindictive employers. In an "at will" state, your employer can fire you for any reason other than a few specified ones, and participating in political activity the boss doesn't like isn't one of those. With increasing surveillance, employers can more easily find out if any of their employees were at specific protests.
If there's a big protest, then sending a lot of police to keep an eye on it makes sense. The police on the ground have the potential to either keep things peaceful or cut off violence before it spreads. If someone starts lighting molotov cocktails, a few police on the scene are going to be much more useful than someone flying around the sky and trying to watch everything at once. (At least if the guy with the firebombs isn't FBI.)
If there's cameras watching the whole protest, and there aren't eyes on them, then they're pretty much useless in preventing anything from happening. If someone does happen to catch a view of the firebombers, there's not likely to be time to direct officers to the area before the situation goes out of control.
Unless, of course, there's enough police to distribute them over the protest area, which is basically what GP thought would be better than a surveillance aircraft.
The Republicans have been trying to get shit pinned on her for decades. They've spend millions of dollars, enlisted Congress in endless hearings, and conducted mass media campaigns, and so far nada. Empirically, they can't pin shit on her.
She lies sometimes, yes. So does almost every other politician out there. She's pretty honest by politician standards, far more honest than Trump.
Are you aware that people with darker skin than you can organize protests that are not built around death and destruction? Can you give me an example of a Black Lives Matter demonstration that evolved into a full-scale riot? There are nutcases out to shoot random police officers in response to unpunished deaths of black people under highly suspicious circumstances, but there's nutcases on all sides of issues.
It doesn't take that many agents provocateur to get some real action started. In a tense crowd, break a few windows and start hauling stuff out and some of the rest will follow suit.
I took my son to an ore boat museum in Duluth, without any expectation that he'd work on an ore boat someday. (Ore boats are actually fairly large ships.)
Turing machines are a mathematical concept, extremely useful in proving things about computers. Stick a Turing machine display somewhere for the kids that will be interested in that. Call it a really simple description of a computer. Don't mention Turing completeness. Heck, don't mention universal Turing machines, since they're more complexity than you want to throw at a kid.
The prism explanation does extend itself to explain rainbows, with a little work. Observe that the white light coming in is turned into colors at different angles. Therefore, if you were some distance from a prism of a certain orientation relative to incoming light, you'll see it as red. The next prism, at a slightly different angle, will show as orange. Work with that, and you can come up with an explanation for a rainbow.
Science isn't there to tell you lies. It's there to tell you partial truths, and to show you you can keep going deeper into more and more complete truths. I'm not going to get into religion here, except to mention that it's not necessarily lying. Many religious statements can neither be objectively verified or objectively refuted, and therefore should not be taught in public schools.
Technically, a Universal Turing Machine can emulate any other Turing machine or any other process we normally refer to as computation. Not all Turing machines are UTMs. Turing machines as a class, or a UTM in specific, can emulate any computation*. Proofs do not necessarily involve UTMs, but rather construct Turing machines that do something.
*The Church-Turing thesis is that any computation can be emulated on a Turing machine. Without an ironclad definition of "computation" it can't be proven, but so far nobody's come up with a reasonable definition of computation that can't be emulated on a Turing machine.
If you need to stick two childish insults into a three-sentence post, you don't have an argument. (The third sentence doesn't respond to what you were theoretically responding to either, but it's a true statement with no insult.)
Slashdot Mirror
There are plastic 3D-printed parts that are strong enough for their intended purpose, even if injection molding could do better.
When I first started to get interested in 3D printing, the low-end machines cost thousand of dollars. I can now get a better one for under $500. (It looks like I'd be buying myself a new hobby if I got one, so I'm going to wait until after retirement.) Metal sintering machines are going to decrease in cost over time, and may well wind up being hobbyist machines. There's nothing inherently preventing them from becoming cheap. (There are things that may never make it, like sintering titanium, but other alloys can be developed.)
I also know where I can send a CAD file and get stuff 3D-printed professionally without having to buy my own machine.
In the US, the Constitutional purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create, and hence the term should be long enough to encourage planning. Personally, I can't see anyone doing something for the purpose of the money they'll collect over thirty years later, so I'm fine with the old 14+14-year system from my younger days. It also had the great advantage that I could look at a copyright page and know whether it was in copyright (first 14 years), might be and where to check (next 14), or definitely wasn't (after 28 years).
People don't necessarily make money for themselves, and often do it for their children or other heirs. Assume a 28-year copyright. I'm unlikely to live that long myself, all things considered, but I may want the royalties for what I create to continue and go to my son. If I had a terminal disease, I might still be able to create something good (perhaps because of the disease), and it may be worth my while to polish it up if my copyright can live beyond me, and not worth doing otherwise.
If we have no rules and regulations, there's nothing to stop companies from polluting the environment as much as they like. There's nothing to stop them from demanding what they like from employees, and treating them arbitrarily badly, in a race to the bottom. The purpose of many of these rules and regulations is to protect the relatively powerless from the relatively powerful.
Obviously, there's going to be corruption and bad rules and regulations, but the government is answerable to the people, and that counterbalances the power of money.
I don't trust the government, and I don't trust corporations, but having some sort of tension between the two allows liberty to those who would otherwise get crushed by one or another.
The decision established that there can be no legislative controls on the use of money in political campaigns, from corporations and other groups. It had immediate changes on the law that are more significant than what you said, but the consequences are far-reaching.
It means that there cannot be a US law that stops corporations from using corporate funds to influence elections, which is what most bothers me.
The US does have laws other than the Constitution, but only the Constitution can make a law unConstitutional.
I've occasionally read submitters claim that their summary got screwed up by the editors, so I'm not sure they never read it.
It's possible, although unlikely, for genuinely unforeseen situations to occur, and disaster plans usually have a limit on how much of a disaster they're good for.
A lot of businesses have an obligation to serve certain people when they're open for business. That's not the same thing. If a bakery shop shuts down for a day, they lose business, and quite likely future business, but that's their call to make (unless they're doing it for a specifically illegal reason). If they refuse to serve someone for certain reasons, which vary from state to state but generally include race and religion, while they're serving other people, that's illegal.
Modern mainframes are extremely fault-tolerant by themselves. IBM's been making them better and better over the decades. For certain classes of work, like running very large volumes of relatively simple transactions with extremely high reliability, which sounds like a lot of stuff Delta's doing, they're wonderful.
If the airline hired IT people who didn't realize the need for backups, top management really screwed up. If they hired competent IT people who presented a backup and recovery plan that cost a reasonable amount and then decided not to fund it, it's top management's call, and certainly not IT's fault. If they hired seemingly competent IT people who created a backup and recovery plan that was adequately funded by the company, start blaming IT.
I don't know how Delta operates internally, but it's the fault of management. Either they hired incompetents, or they hired competent people and didn't budget for what those people told them was necessary, or they deliberately decided to risk downtime. It may also be IT's fault, but it's the job of management to hire people who can do the job.
Are you telling me that the FBI only flies those things during riots? Given 3500 flights in the second half of 2015, it looks like they fly them a lot when there are no riots.
Why is that different from me? I can make as many companies as I like, and I don't have to operate them. (I spent quite a few years with a Doing Business As* registration that I didn't use.)
If you have to go back 50 years for an example, you're not talking about a big problem.
That guy resigned because he realized he wasn't going to be able to do the CEO job properly. It wasn't just a matter of support, it was the donation of $100K to curtail the rights of people Mozilla had ties to. One job of the CEO is to represent the company, and he compromised his ability to do that.
I imagine a fair number of people could come up with stories of vindictive employers. In an "at will" state, your employer can fire you for any reason other than a few specified ones, and participating in political activity the boss doesn't like isn't one of those. With increasing surveillance, employers can more easily find out if any of their employees were at specific protests.
If there's a big protest, then sending a lot of police to keep an eye on it makes sense. The police on the ground have the potential to either keep things peaceful or cut off violence before it spreads. If someone starts lighting molotov cocktails, a few police on the scene are going to be much more useful than someone flying around the sky and trying to watch everything at once. (At least if the guy with the firebombs isn't FBI.)
If there's cameras watching the whole protest, and there aren't eyes on them, then they're pretty much useless in preventing anything from happening. If someone does happen to catch a view of the firebombers, there's not likely to be time to direct officers to the area before the situation goes out of control.
Unless, of course, there's enough police to distribute them over the protest area, which is basically what GP thought would be better than a surveillance aircraft.
The Republicans have been trying to get shit pinned on her for decades. They've spend millions of dollars, enlisted Congress in endless hearings, and conducted mass media campaigns, and so far nada. Empirically, they can't pin shit on her.
She lies sometimes, yes. So does almost every other politician out there. She's pretty honest by politician standards, far more honest than Trump.
Are you aware that people with darker skin than you can organize protests that are not built around death and destruction? Can you give me an example of a Black Lives Matter demonstration that evolved into a full-scale riot? There are nutcases out to shoot random police officers in response to unpunished deaths of black people under highly suspicious circumstances, but there's nutcases on all sides of issues.
It doesn't take that many agents provocateur to get some real action started. In a tense crowd, break a few windows and start hauling stuff out and some of the rest will follow suit.
People then talked about "goto-less programming", which struck me as a terrible description. I always preferred "structured programming".
I took my son to an ore boat museum in Duluth, without any expectation that he'd work on an ore boat someday. (Ore boats are actually fairly large ships.)
Turing machines are a mathematical concept, extremely useful in proving things about computers. Stick a Turing machine display somewhere for the kids that will be interested in that. Call it a really simple description of a computer. Don't mention Turing completeness. Heck, don't mention universal Turing machines, since they're more complexity than you want to throw at a kid.
The prism explanation does extend itself to explain rainbows, with a little work. Observe that the white light coming in is turned into colors at different angles. Therefore, if you were some distance from a prism of a certain orientation relative to incoming light, you'll see it as red. The next prism, at a slightly different angle, will show as orange. Work with that, and you can come up with an explanation for a rainbow.
Science isn't there to tell you lies. It's there to tell you partial truths, and to show you you can keep going deeper into more and more complete truths. I'm not going to get into religion here, except to mention that it's not necessarily lying. Many religious statements can neither be objectively verified or objectively refuted, and therefore should not be taught in public schools.
Technically, a Universal Turing Machine can emulate any other Turing machine or any other process we normally refer to as computation. Not all Turing machines are UTMs. Turing machines as a class, or a UTM in specific, can emulate any computation*. Proofs do not necessarily involve UTMs, but rather construct Turing machines that do something.
*The Church-Turing thesis is that any computation can be emulated on a Turing machine. Without an ironclad definition of "computation" it can't be proven, but so far nobody's come up with a reasonable definition of computation that can't be emulated on a Turing machine.
If you need to stick two childish insults into a three-sentence post, you don't have an argument. (The third sentence doesn't respond to what you were theoretically responding to either, but it's a true statement with no insult.)