Actually, the Vice President presides over the Senate, when he feels like it, and he can vote to make a tie (which defeats a motion) or break one. This is as much influence over the outcome as any Senator has on a majority vote. The VP's only other Constitutional role is to take over from the President under cases of death or disability.
I was at an experimental art performance once, and I figured that it isn't experimental if it can't fail. The soprano was a very good friend of mine, and she was very good. She'd have been better with better material, but at least she got paid for it.
In the US, as long as you don't have too much money in any regular bank, savings & loan, or credit union, you're getting your money back in case of business failure. Of course, most of my assets are not in money form, which means that they're not protected by the government.
I've had several email addresses that don't work anymore. The one I was using when I signed up for Gmail is one of them, although the address I gave them was only directed to that account. Lots of my friends don't have their own domains, so that's not really an option for them.
That's one thing I like about DropBox. The data is automatically on two separate drives at home plus in the cloud. It's still possible to lose it, but it would take something like a house fire at the same time DropBox goes out of business, and I'm willing to accept those odds.
I pay AWS to do some hosting for me. I don't particularly trust their backups, but I'm paying them a small amount of money for some minor services, and I count as a customer.
Lots of people supported the Iraq war, because they were deceived by the Bush administration. Heck, Powell was set up with bad information, and he was Secretary of State.
Every spot on the political spectrum attacks the First Amendment, although not for the same things. Currently, there's a lot of right-wingers who want to establish a state religion, to give one example.
The Second was gutted in 1986, if not earlier, since a citizen could no longer buy a new infantry rifle. The history-illiterate liberal in charge at the time was Ronald Reagan. (I don't particularly care for the Second, myself, but it's part of the frippin' Constitution and I defend it on that basis.)
I don't think you meant the Third, really. Nobody tries to quarter troops in private houses anymore, for good military reasons, although IIRC there was a Third Amendment case a while back because police were occupying an innocent person's house for surveillance purposes. I don't know how it turned out. The Third has become mostly irrelevant over time, although having it around is better than not having it.
Everybody in this thread seems to think the Fourth is just under attack with large government surveillance programs, which are supported by lots of people all over the political spectrum. I'm also interested in the "seizure" part of "search and seizure", and would really like all civil forfeiture laws off the books, or ruled unConstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The Second Amendment was gutted in 1986, when citizens could no longer just go out and buy new infantry rifles.
I don't see an SJW war on the First Amendment. I see people arguing about what sort of speech is proper, not in general what should be illegal. There are assholes on all sides of that argument.
Exactly who do you mean by "crazy people"? I am still under treatment for depression, and expect to be for the rest of my life. Should I have Second Amendment rights?
The big question here is what the US Army would do, because they could break any insurgency fast. Citizens with guns would be of only symbolic value, if that.
Vietnam? You mean the country where we basically went where we wanted and generally defeated our enemies in battle until we got fed up and went home? That's a good model only if you expect the US government to totter and be propped up by EU armies.
There's nothing wrong with a honeymoon in foreign country, and tourism doesn't seem to be deterred by despotic governments. There's some interesting stuff to see in the former Soviet Union.
I don't think it's worthwhile to try to categorize someone on the basis of one view that doesn't affect their policies much. If you went to the Sanders campaign page and looked at what he wanted to do, it's pretty much standard for Western Europe. You have to better than that to be a leftist there.
I was trying to cancel the TV part of my internet/phone deal recently, and had to call a number. It really surprised me when the person on the other end asked me politely why I was canceling and then canceled the service without further ado. (It did cause a network outage, so we had to use our phone hotspots for a day or so.)
If the company allows you to cancel the contract, it doubtless retains the right to do it itself. I don't think there's laws on how friendly they have to be.
I've found that, when writing to companies about cancellations and the like, it's best to use the special form of mail with a return receipt, as without it the letter will somehow have been lost in the mail. Pick the best address you can find and send the letter, being perfectly clear, and save it and the return receipt. It may save you hassle later.
Back in the stone ages of business software, a lot of it was in assembly language, and the standard idea was that you'd rewrite your stuff when you got a new system (it wasn't universal, which is why at least some 360s came with 709x emulators). I don't think many people had the idea that all this software would last for decades. We at least should know better today.
Y2K was a serious problem with a hard deadline, which is why software was modified to deal with it. (I don't expect to be around for the Y10K problem, and have no idea how that will be addressed anyway, given the potential for change, and intend to be retired long before the Y2038 problem.) "Smart keys" are one of the bad ideas people keep reinventing, or hearing about and thinking they're cool or something, and there's no time by which they'll be guaranteed to fail catastrophically.
Once again, a poster who has no clue about how kids behave or how to raise them. 16-month-old kids are not consistently well-behaved, and if they're kept under positive control at all times they aren't going to learn.
The mall is liable, because it was their stuff that injured a child. There might be an indemnity there that allows the mall to get at least some compensation from the robot company.
I have no problem with suing a company that installed something dangerous to children. Think of it as evolution in action, business style.
So, when the robot detected a moving child, why TF didn't it just stop? Kids that age move unpredictably when faced with the unexpected. I always stop in circumstances like that. A toddler can dodge a stationary obstacle better than I can dodge a dodging toddler..
I already figured that the robot didn't sense that it was traveling over the kid's foot, or it would have stopped, so a record of the robot's sense impressions is not all that useful. The injuries to the child are a better guide to what actually happened, since it appears there's confusion there.
Did the company test the robot in simulated child situations? Have they verified that a toddler's fingers or toes register as obstacles? It's an easy thing to fail to do, but it can have consequences. Autonomous vehicles need to avoid injuring people on foot.
The world is dangerous. Adding more dangers to it, particularly in comparatively safe areas like malls, is a bad idea. I don't want to have to use parking lot rules everywhere outside the house.
We had special rules for streets and parking lots (I used to announce "parking lot rules", because those places are specifically dangerous. So are subway platforms. There's usually no immediate danger at the mall, except at obvious stationary points.
I'm going to take a guess that you aren't a parent.
Toddlers aren't under 100% positive control at all times. Deal with it. The parents undoubtedly had considered all sorts of possibilities for harm, but could have overlooked the possibility that the mall might run some 300-pound juggernauts around under their own power unsupervised and without proper safety measures.
Have you ever walked around holding a young child's hand? I have fond memories, but one memory is that we, as a team, were not able to walk or maneuver very fast. If surprised by a security robot, I'm not sure I could have gotten my son out of its way in time.
The mall screwed up bad here. Under no circumstances should the robot have run anyone over. It was dangerous, unsupervised by mall personnel, and out of most people's experience.
More like a line under BRANCH-CODE reading "88 TEST-DATA '089' TO '100'." (I'm not sure about the exact syntax any more, which gives me hope that the COBOL part of my brain may be atrophying.)
Completely agreed. I don't get why anyone would do it the way they did to begin with?
I'm going to take a guess that you haven't been in the software field for more than twenty or thirty years, and have no feel as to how things were done in the old days. They may have wanted to keep the test data around for regression testing, which actually would show more forethought than usual back then. In any case, keeping the data around wouldn't hurt much of anything since the system would ignore it except for tests. It might have been stored separately in the IMS hierarchical database (which might cut down on the need for expensive database hits).
There's an excellent chance that this data was on punch cards at one time, and punch card columns are valuable and scarce real estate. Adding another column to denote test data would have seemed wasteful when they could just set aside a range of branch numbers for the purpose. This sounds like forty-year-old software to me, and that's not how things were done back then.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the Vice President presides over the Senate, when he feels like it, and he can vote to make a tie (which defeats a motion) or break one. This is as much influence over the outcome as any Senator has on a majority vote. The VP's only other Constitutional role is to take over from the President under cases of death or disability.
I was at an experimental art performance once, and I figured that it isn't experimental if it can't fail. The soprano was a very good friend of mine, and she was very good. She'd have been better with better material, but at least she got paid for it.
In the US, as long as you don't have too much money in any regular bank, savings & loan, or credit union, you're getting your money back in case of business failure. Of course, most of my assets are not in money form, which means that they're not protected by the government.
I've had several email addresses that don't work anymore. The one I was using when I signed up for Gmail is one of them, although the address I gave them was only directed to that account. Lots of my friends don't have their own domains, so that's not really an option for them.
That's one thing I like about DropBox. The data is automatically on two separate drives at home plus in the cloud. It's still possible to lose it, but it would take something like a house fire at the same time DropBox goes out of business, and I'm willing to accept those odds.
I pay AWS to do some hosting for me. I don't particularly trust their backups, but I'm paying them a small amount of money for some minor services, and I count as a customer.
Lots of people supported the Iraq war, because they were deceived by the Bush administration. Heck, Powell was set up with bad information, and he was Secretary of State.
Every spot on the political spectrum attacks the First Amendment, although not for the same things. Currently, there's a lot of right-wingers who want to establish a state religion, to give one example.
The Second was gutted in 1986, if not earlier, since a citizen could no longer buy a new infantry rifle. The history-illiterate liberal in charge at the time was Ronald Reagan. (I don't particularly care for the Second, myself, but it's part of the frippin' Constitution and I defend it on that basis.)
I don't think you meant the Third, really. Nobody tries to quarter troops in private houses anymore, for good military reasons, although IIRC there was a Third Amendment case a while back because police were occupying an innocent person's house for surveillance purposes. I don't know how it turned out. The Third has become mostly irrelevant over time, although having it around is better than not having it.
Everybody in this thread seems to think the Fourth is just under attack with large government surveillance programs, which are supported by lots of people all over the political spectrum. I'm also interested in the "seizure" part of "search and seizure", and would really like all civil forfeiture laws off the books, or ruled unConstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The Second Amendment was gutted in 1986, when citizens could no longer just go out and buy new infantry rifles.
I don't see an SJW war on the First Amendment. I see people arguing about what sort of speech is proper, not in general what should be illegal. There are assholes on all sides of that argument.
Exactly who do you mean by "crazy people"? I am still under treatment for depression, and expect to be for the rest of my life. Should I have Second Amendment rights?
The big question here is what the US Army would do, because they could break any insurgency fast. Citizens with guns would be of only symbolic value, if that.
Vietnam? You mean the country where we basically went where we wanted and generally defeated our enemies in battle until we got fed up and went home? That's a good model only if you expect the US government to totter and be propped up by EU armies.
There's nothing wrong with a honeymoon in foreign country, and tourism doesn't seem to be deterred by despotic governments. There's some interesting stuff to see in the former Soviet Union.
I don't think it's worthwhile to try to categorize someone on the basis of one view that doesn't affect their policies much. If you went to the Sanders campaign page and looked at what he wanted to do, it's pretty much standard for Western Europe. You have to better than that to be a leftist there.
I was trying to cancel the TV part of my internet/phone deal recently, and had to call a number. It really surprised me when the person on the other end asked me politely why I was canceling and then canceled the service without further ado. (It did cause a network outage, so we had to use our phone hotspots for a day or so.)
If the company allows you to cancel the contract, it doubtless retains the right to do it itself. I don't think there's laws on how friendly they have to be.
I've found that, when writing to companies about cancellations and the like, it's best to use the special form of mail with a return receipt, as without it the letter will somehow have been lost in the mail. Pick the best address you can find and send the letter, being perfectly clear, and save it and the return receipt. It may save you hassle later.
Back in the stone ages of business software, a lot of it was in assembly language, and the standard idea was that you'd rewrite your stuff when you got a new system (it wasn't universal, which is why at least some 360s came with 709x emulators). I don't think many people had the idea that all this software would last for decades. We at least should know better today.
Y2K was a serious problem with a hard deadline, which is why software was modified to deal with it. (I don't expect to be around for the Y10K problem, and have no idea how that will be addressed anyway, given the potential for change, and intend to be retired long before the Y2038 problem.) "Smart keys" are one of the bad ideas people keep reinventing, or hearing about and thinking they're cool or something, and there's no time by which they'll be guaranteed to fail catastrophically.
Once again, a poster who has no clue about how kids behave or how to raise them. 16-month-old kids are not consistently well-behaved, and if they're kept under positive control at all times they aren't going to learn.
The mall is liable, because it was their stuff that injured a child. There might be an indemnity there that allows the mall to get at least some compensation from the robot company.
I have no problem with suing a company that installed something dangerous to children. Think of it as evolution in action, business style.
So, when the robot detected a moving child, why TF didn't it just stop? Kids that age move unpredictably when faced with the unexpected. I always stop in circumstances like that. A toddler can dodge a stationary obstacle better than I can dodge a dodging toddler..
I already figured that the robot didn't sense that it was traveling over the kid's foot, or it would have stopped, so a record of the robot's sense impressions is not all that useful. The injuries to the child are a better guide to what actually happened, since it appears there's confusion there.
Did the company test the robot in simulated child situations? Have they verified that a toddler's fingers or toes register as obstacles? It's an easy thing to fail to do, but it can have consequences. Autonomous vehicles need to avoid injuring people on foot.
The world is dangerous. Adding more dangers to it, particularly in comparatively safe areas like malls, is a bad idea. I don't want to have to use parking lot rules everywhere outside the house.
We had special rules for streets and parking lots (I used to announce "parking lot rules", because those places are specifically dangerous. So are subway platforms. There's usually no immediate danger at the mall, except at obvious stationary points.
This is the United States. I recommend issuing handguns to children at 15 months and training them to shoot anything coming at them.
I'm going to take a guess that you aren't a parent.
Toddlers aren't under 100% positive control at all times. Deal with it. The parents undoubtedly had considered all sorts of possibilities for harm, but could have overlooked the possibility that the mall might run some 300-pound juggernauts around under their own power unsupervised and without proper safety measures.
Have you ever walked around holding a young child's hand? I have fond memories, but one memory is that we, as a team, were not able to walk or maneuver very fast. If surprised by a security robot, I'm not sure I could have gotten my son out of its way in time.
The mall screwed up bad here. Under no circumstances should the robot have run anyone over. It was dangerous, unsupervised by mall personnel, and out of most people's experience.
More like a line under BRANCH-CODE reading "88 TEST-DATA '089' TO '100'." (I'm not sure about the exact syntax any more, which gives me hope that the COBOL part of my brain may be atrophying.)
I'm going to take a guess that you haven't been in the software field for more than twenty or thirty years, and have no feel as to how things were done in the old days. They may have wanted to keep the test data around for regression testing, which actually would show more forethought than usual back then. In any case, keeping the data around wouldn't hurt much of anything since the system would ignore it except for tests. It might have been stored separately in the IMS hierarchical database (which might cut down on the need for expensive database hits).
There's an excellent chance that this data was on punch cards at one time, and punch card columns are valuable and scarce real estate. Adding another column to denote test data would have seemed wasteful when they could just set aside a range of branch numbers for the purpose. This sounds like forty-year-old software to me, and that's not how things were done back then.
Written thirty years ago? Optimist! Forty years ago sounds more reasonable to me.