In its current form most states "sexual offenders list" is dang near useless.
I thought that too, but I took a few minutes to sift through the registry in my zipcode in Virginia. And, I'll readily acknowledge that one state out of 50 hardly disproves "most", so feel free to do a sample from your state.
About 80% of the offenders were listed as violent, charges ranged from aggravated sexual battery to "penetration with a foreign object" to rape, and about half of the violent crimes were against children. The non-violent charges all seemed to be indecent liberties or child porn. So, unless my zipcode is very unusual, the VA state police only seem to be registering serious offenders.
Quite a few of us Obama supporters have been writing, calling, and petitioning him to do exactly that.
He tried that, and it doesn't work. The civilian rules of evidence don't make sense for people captured on a battlefield because there's no way to maintain a chain of custody and discovery can get our intel people killed.
These guys are war criminals, the worst of the worst, and if a few innocent schmucks got stuck at the Guantanamo resort, they're getting fat and enjoying a nice vacation.
Why should someone who is fighting out of uniform, and frequently committing war crimes to boot, get more protections that those fighting in uniform? That completely undermines the whole concept behind Geneva and Hague. Are any of you people even remotely concerned about this?
Hi, I'm the Project Lead for Growl. I'll be happy to respond to any questions replied to this thread, as long as they are kept nice, courteous, professional, etc.
I'm pretty much over it to be completely honest. To me modern Perl is Python. All the stuff you learn to hate about Perl just kind of goes away when you use Python. The only thing Perl really has going for it is CPAN. I have yet to find a programming language that has a resource that even compares to CPAN.
I think PyPi has a pretty good collection and, really, if I'm doing something that's complicated enough to where it's worth installing a 3rd party library, it's going to be in Python.
In 2010, 66.2% of all Federal outlays went to direct payments to individuals. The government spent over half its money writing checks, and that doesn't count salaries. The notion that banks are somehow walking off with all the money is total bunk. If you want your checks, just wait until you're old or unemployed; it's mostly social security, medicare and unemployment benefits. (Even if it's paid by a state, it probably came from the feds.)
Neither of those held that a fingerprint is a search. They concluded that it is evidence based on "the fruit of the poisoned tree." Any evidence that is brought to light, whether it is testimony, physical evidence or otherwise, that only comes to light because of an illegal action by the police can be classified as such.
(Personally, I think it's a stupid doctrine. The person should be guilty based on the evidence, but the individuals involved in the illegal conduct should then liable to that person or their family for damages equivalent to the additional sentence imposed as a result of it.)
Simple: instead of "mod as you read," have a flag option any user can use, and a moderation mode that jumps moderators to a particular comment (and its ancestors.) That way early comments aren't biased, and we don't have people hanging irrelevant threads off early comments to get them noticed.
Complex: instead of +1 this +1 that, a ranking system from 1 to 10 on a number of factors. Use a clustering algo to find clusters of traits, and then try to recognize common clusters of thought. So in an emacs / vi discussion, the pro-emacs group and the pro-vi group are highlighted, and let the reader decide which opinions they want to read.
Sounds like a lot of work for the student, first finding something to copy, then submitting it then changing stuff submitting again, and repeat until 'not plagiarized' pops up and then turn the thing in and hope you managed to keep the paper viable as far as grade and content goes.
I'd rather just write the damn thing and know that I'm not plagiarizing anyone.
And that's how it was for me, too, and most of the people I knew. The morality of it aside, it was just completely impractical: I needed to learn the material anyway, so the time spent cheating would be a double waste.
So if our base assumption is that a certain portion of people will do something immoral if there's an opportunity, we see that our peers don't because they don't really have the opportunity.
But I knew several people who almost certainly cheated on exams, another guy who was notorious for trying to get people to do his assignments, along with one girl who didn't contribute to a group project but, when we had her kicked off the team, suddenly produced the assignment in a few days. So she probably bought the paper. Was I missing some opportunity they saw, or were they in a different situation than me?
I didn't piece it together until years later when I read a story, possibly here, about a guy who wrote papers for money. And he pointed out that most of his clients were non-English speakers. And, not surprisingly, the people I knew who had cheated were non-English speakers also.
That definitely put them in a different situation: if English isn't your native language, or if you're, say, dyslexic, you might understand the material, but putting it into sentences becomes very hard. The whole cost-benefit analysis becomes plausible.
I think universities really have an obligation to look at what position they are putting foreign students in if they admit them without having good language skills. This is especially true when you consider the massive financial pressure you're under when you study abroad.
You know, the problem with all this cloaking stuff is... we're not fighting wars where it matters. Most of the people we're chasing around aren't in tanks, don't care much about tanks, and don't worry about it's infrared signature because their neighbors are like "holy f*ck! Do you hear the GIANT DIESEL-POWERED TANK coming?"
Nitpicking some details: we don't have any main battle tanks with diesel engines any more. (And, strictly, the Army doesn't use diesel; it's all JP-8, which is aircraft fuel that happens to work in a diesel engine.) That said, yes, the Bradley has a diesel engine and is loud as fuck, but it's one of those vehicles that's been around a lot longer than you'd expect because it's also incredibly versatile.
Tanks are a WWII holdover. We don't use them much anymore. We use fast armored personnel carriers that can survive an IED strike.
We *want* such an APC, but what we have are MRAPs, which are just big ass armored trucks and anything but fast, and Strykers, which are fast APCs, but aren't as well armored, though they are tough as hell. The problem is that if you're running frequent patrols or convoys, you're stuck using familiar routes, so you're going to be hit. Trying to design a vehicle that can survive a hit means moving the vehicle up off the ground, since the energy delivered by an explosion goes down by the cube of the distance. Moving it up off the ground means the center of gravity is high, especially with all that armor, and now... your vehicle is unstable and thus slow. If it weren't late, I'd really get into why I hate MRAPs.
As to whether tanks are a WWII holdover, when I got out a year or so ago I heard the Armor branch was moving from Knox to Benning. So my first inclination is to say you might be right.
I was a Cavalry Scout, which is part of the Armor branch. Armor was born of the old Cavalry, largely through Patton's work. The infantry use armored vehicles too, but they have a different tactical mindset. In a nutshell, armor is more about engaging other armored units, whereas the infantry uses them more to get their soldiers from point a to point b.
So, when you're talking about vehicles, you're only getting the "what" part of the picture. Another part is how we use it, tactics, and another part is who we're up against. And all of these are interdependent.
For instance, who we're up against depends on what and how. In Iraq, we certainly were up against tanks, but only very briefly.:-) Then the enemy adapted, IEDs literally were improvised from all the old crap left around by the Iraqi army.
And a lot of what we have is also aimed at making sure there isn't a who in the first place. I was in an Airborne unit, even though we haven't done an airborne op since WWII. We routinely have officers from other countries jump with our units, and the result is every military on the planet has a few officers who have personally seen us fill the skies with paratroopers.
We need tech that can spot snipers and control large sections of urban landscape where hostiles and non-combatants co-mingle and sometimes even co-habitate as well. The only way to spot them right now is either to wait for the bang (and we sure love those bangs), or drive around in a semi-truck with some backscatter x-ray equipment stuffed in the back that's busy giving the operators and innocent passerbys on the street cancer looking for hidden weapons. And yes, I think driving up and down streets filled with camels and rusted out cars in a state of the art armor-protected semi-truck is going to get noticed "Ah, they're looking for our guns again."
You're assuming that future engagements are going to be remotely like Iraq and Afghanistan. But, you're in good company: the history of war is that we always plan for the last war. And I certainly have no idea what the next one will look like.
Or is this system only effective when the engine's off?
Thermals don't look like they do in movies, or the cherry picked pictures they show on the news. For starters, you're not zoomed right in... you're trying to pick something out against a sea of fuzzy blobby shapes.
And for the ones I've seen, exhaust doesn't show up. I guess if a track was sitting around warming some object up there would be a hot spot against all the background crap. But I suspect that unless you're using them in cold areas, it's going to be hard to increase the sensitivity to catch something by its exhaust without being overwhelmed by the additional noise.
And, really, a system like this would be for those cases where you decide to stop briefly. After all, if you're going to sit around for a while, you're going to dig in and camouflage anyway.
Hats off to your insight, but here on/. not many have the same mind share.
Bullshit. There's an endless supply of Citizens of the World who think someone else needs to pay for all the depravities they feel guilty about every time they drive down to Buffalo to dodge their taxes.
all languages have a runtime environment, but it isn't necessarily a virtual machine!
The runtime environment for C++ is often fairly simple, it handles the operating system program entry point and passing arguments to the main() function, as well as initializing parts of the standard library.
Even an assembler will link in those libraries that you're talking about. Objective C clearly has a runtime that is deeply involved with the application, and imposes a runtime model that C doesn't have, and that C++ doesn't have unless you use RTTI.
The runtime environment for Java is a bit more complicated, it usually involves a bytecode interpreter.
But that is mostly a choice of the implementation. Native compilers for Java exist, and so do C++ interpreters.
But you still have to have a runtime to handle dynamic method dispatch, especially if you use reflection, making the Java and ObjC runtime requirements about equivalent. (They both have, in their present incarnations, garbage collection, for example.)
Tear up half the road and use it for rail and the remaining half for bikes and pedestrians. Also, allow freight via light rail to eliminate the need for delivery trucks in the city.
Slashdot Mirror
In its current form most states "sexual offenders list" is dang near useless.
I thought that too, but I took a few minutes to sift through the registry in my zipcode in Virginia. And, I'll readily acknowledge that one state out of 50 hardly disproves "most", so feel free to do a sample from your state.
About 80% of the offenders were listed as violent, charges ranged from aggravated sexual battery to "penetration with a foreign object" to rape, and about half of the violent crimes were against children. The non-violent charges all seemed to be indecent liberties or child porn. So, unless my zipcode is very unusual, the VA state police only seem to be registering serious offenders.
And here I am out of mod points.
Quite a few of us Obama supporters have been writing, calling, and petitioning him to do exactly that.
He tried that, and it doesn't work. The civilian rules of evidence don't make sense for people captured on a battlefield because there's no way to maintain a chain of custody and discovery can get our intel people killed.
These guys are war criminals, the worst of the worst, and if a few innocent schmucks got stuck at the Guantanamo resort, they're getting fat and enjoying a nice vacation.
Those detainees have to go somewhere
How about a courtroom?
Why should someone who is fighting out of uniform, and frequently committing war crimes to boot, get more protections that those fighting in uniform? That completely undermines the whole concept behind Geneva and Hague. Are any of you people even remotely concerned about this?
Yes, obviously everybody who isn't rabidly anti-nuclear is a "pro-nuclear nut". And anti-nuclear people never lie or exaggerate.
Of course not, both of those require understanding what you're talking about.
Hi, I'm the Project Lead for Growl. I'll be happy to respond to any questions replied to this thread, as long as they are kept nice, courteous, professional, etc.
Good luck with that!
'We developed this theory that occasionally there were these brilliant people out there who hadn't found their way to Silicon Valley/
Douche comment of the week right there. And I want to work with someone who has *that* limited of a horizon why, exactly?
It's got a tough contender: "Our favorite: 'Liar, Lair,' seems particularly applicable to slashdot..."
Oh my God, people on a discussion site disagree strongly about things, stop the fucking presses.
I'm pretty much over it to be completely honest. To me modern Perl is Python. All the stuff you learn to hate about Perl just kind of goes away when you use Python. The only thing Perl really has going for it is CPAN. I have yet to find a programming language that has a resource that even compares to CPAN.
I think PyPi has a pretty good collection and, really, if I'm doing something that's complicated enough to where it's worth installing a 3rd party library, it's going to be in Python.
Wouldn't that be Perl6?
Aren't you supposed to be occupying Wall Street or something?
To further pile on, have a look at the OMB's historical tables, in particular, table 11.1 and 11.2.
In 2010, 66.2% of all Federal outlays went to direct payments to individuals. The government spent over half its money writing checks, and that doesn't count salaries. The notion that banks are somehow walking off with all the money is total bunk. If you want your checks, just wait until you're old or unemployed; it's mostly social security, medicare and unemployment benefits. (Even if it's paid by a state, it probably came from the feds.)
Never before have so many spelling atrocities been committed in such a short period of time.
I take it you've never graded papers.
Sounds to me like it was written by some douchebag who must always be right, and must always be correcting everyone else.
That's pretty much the essence of a fact checker.
Neither of those held that a fingerprint is a search. They concluded that it is evidence based on "the fruit of the poisoned tree." Any evidence that is brought to light, whether it is testimony, physical evidence or otherwise, that only comes to light because of an illegal action by the police can be classified as such.
(Personally, I think it's a stupid doctrine. The person should be guilty based on the evidence, but the individuals involved in the illegal conduct should then liable to that person or their family for damages equivalent to the additional sentence imposed as a result of it.)
So inetd starts a service on a PnP event?
No, that's automount and autofs.
Two changes, one simple and one complex:
Simple: instead of "mod as you read," have a flag option any user can use, and a moderation mode that jumps moderators to a particular comment (and its ancestors.) That way early comments aren't biased, and we don't have people hanging irrelevant threads off early comments to get them noticed.
Complex: instead of +1 this +1 that, a ranking system from 1 to 10 on a number of factors. Use a clustering algo to find clusters of traits, and then try to recognize common clusters of thought. So in an emacs / vi discussion, the pro-emacs group and the pro-vi group are highlighted, and let the reader decide which opinions they want to read.
Ah, another New Zealander whining because no one cares about your shit country.
The US is there at the invitation of S. Korea, a sovereign nation.
Sounds like a lot of work for the student, first finding something to copy, then submitting it then changing stuff submitting again, and repeat until 'not plagiarized' pops up and then turn the thing in and hope you managed to keep the paper viable as far as grade and content goes.
I'd rather just write the damn thing and know that I'm not plagiarizing anyone.
And that's how it was for me, too, and most of the people I knew. The morality of it aside, it was just completely impractical: I needed to learn the material anyway, so the time spent cheating would be a double waste.
So if our base assumption is that a certain portion of people will do something immoral if there's an opportunity, we see that our peers don't because they don't really have the opportunity.
But I knew several people who almost certainly cheated on exams, another guy who was notorious for trying to get people to do his assignments, along with one girl who didn't contribute to a group project but, when we had her kicked off the team, suddenly produced the assignment in a few days. So she probably bought the paper. Was I missing some opportunity they saw, or were they in a different situation than me?
I didn't piece it together until years later when I read a story, possibly here, about a guy who wrote papers for money. And he pointed out that most of his clients were non-English speakers. And, not surprisingly, the people I knew who had cheated were non-English speakers also.
That definitely put them in a different situation: if English isn't your native language, or if you're, say, dyslexic, you might understand the material, but putting it into sentences becomes very hard. The whole cost-benefit analysis becomes plausible.
I think universities really have an obligation to look at what position they are putting foreign students in if they admit them without having good language skills. This is especially true when you consider the massive financial pressure you're under when you study abroad.
You know, the problem with all this cloaking stuff is... we're not fighting wars where it matters. Most of the people we're chasing around aren't in tanks, don't care much about tanks, and don't worry about it's infrared signature because their neighbors are like "holy f*ck! Do you hear the GIANT DIESEL-POWERED TANK coming?"
Nitpicking some details: we don't have any main battle tanks with diesel engines any more. (And, strictly, the Army doesn't use diesel; it's all JP-8, which is aircraft fuel that happens to work in a diesel engine.) That said, yes, the Bradley has a diesel engine and is loud as fuck, but it's one of those vehicles that's been around a lot longer than you'd expect because it's also incredibly versatile.
Tanks are a WWII holdover. We don't use them much anymore. We use fast armored personnel carriers that can survive an IED strike.
We *want* such an APC, but what we have are MRAPs, which are just big ass armored trucks and anything but fast, and Strykers, which are fast APCs, but aren't as well armored, though they are tough as hell. The problem is that if you're running frequent patrols or convoys, you're stuck using familiar routes, so you're going to be hit. Trying to design a vehicle that can survive a hit means moving the vehicle up off the ground, since the energy delivered by an explosion goes down by the cube of the distance. Moving it up off the ground means the center of gravity is high, especially with all that armor, and now... your vehicle is unstable and thus slow. If it weren't late, I'd really get into why I hate MRAPs.
As to whether tanks are a WWII holdover, when I got out a year or so ago I heard the Armor branch was moving from Knox to Benning. So my first inclination is to say you might be right.
I was a Cavalry Scout, which is part of the Armor branch. Armor was born of the old Cavalry, largely through Patton's work. The infantry use armored vehicles too, but they have a different tactical mindset. In a nutshell, armor is more about engaging other armored units, whereas the infantry uses them more to get their soldiers from point a to point b.
So, when you're talking about vehicles, you're only getting the "what" part of the picture. Another part is how we use it, tactics, and another part is who we're up against. And all of these are interdependent.
For instance, who we're up against depends on what and how. In Iraq, we certainly were up against tanks, but only very briefly. :-) Then the enemy adapted, IEDs literally were improvised from all the old crap left around by the Iraqi army.
And a lot of what we have is also aimed at making sure there isn't a who in the first place. I was in an Airborne unit, even though we haven't done an airborne op since WWII. We routinely have officers from other countries jump with our units, and the result is every military on the planet has a few officers who have personally seen us fill the skies with paratroopers.
We need tech that can spot snipers and control large sections of urban landscape where hostiles and non-combatants co-mingle and sometimes even co-habitate as well. The only way to spot them right now is either to wait for the bang (and we sure love those bangs), or drive around in a semi-truck with some backscatter x-ray equipment stuffed in the back that's busy giving the operators and innocent passerbys on the street cancer looking for hidden weapons. And yes, I think driving up and down streets filled with camels and rusted out cars in a state of the art armor-protected semi-truck is going to get noticed "Ah, they're looking for our guns again."
You're assuming that future engagements are going to be remotely like Iraq and Afghanistan. But, you're in good company: the history of war is that we always plan for the last war. And I certainly have no idea what the next one will look like.
Okay, recent Cavalry Scout here.
Or is this system only effective when the engine's off?
Thermals don't look like they do in movies, or the cherry picked pictures they show on the news. For starters, you're not zoomed right in... you're trying to pick something out against a sea of fuzzy blobby shapes.
And for the ones I've seen, exhaust doesn't show up. I guess if a track was sitting around warming some object up there would be a hot spot against all the background crap. But I suspect that unless you're using them in cold areas, it's going to be hard to increase the sensitivity to catch something by its exhaust without being overwhelmed by the additional noise.
And, really, a system like this would be for those cases where you decide to stop briefly. After all, if you're going to sit around for a while, you're going to dig in and camouflage anyway.
You might want to look into a SawStop.
It seems like it's a bit late for that.
Hats off to your insight, but here on /. not many have the same mind share.
Bullshit. There's an endless supply of Citizens of the World who think someone else needs to pay for all the depravities they feel guilty about every time they drive down to Buffalo to dodge their taxes.
all languages have a runtime environment, but it isn't necessarily a virtual machine!
The runtime environment for C++ is often fairly simple, it handles the operating system program entry point and passing arguments to the main() function, as well as initializing parts of the standard library.
Even an assembler will link in those libraries that you're talking about. Objective C clearly has a runtime that is deeply involved with the application, and imposes a runtime model that C doesn't have, and that C++ doesn't have unless you use RTTI.
The runtime environment for Java is a bit more complicated, it usually involves a bytecode interpreter.
But that is mostly a choice of the implementation. Native compilers for Java exist, and so do C++ interpreters.
But you still have to have a runtime to handle dynamic method dispatch, especially if you use reflection, making the Java and ObjC runtime requirements about equivalent. (They both have, in their present incarnations, garbage collection, for example.)
Look at Objective C or Vala -- just as easy as C# or Java, but none of the headaches of a virtual machine runtime.
Objective C doesn't have a runtime? I wonder why Apple decided to write a manual for it.
Not quite bullshit, and unfortunately, that's true. I have lived in Shanghai for 8 years now, and personally saw that.
Woah, you personally witnessed a driver deliberately back over someone he had hit in order to make sure they were dead?
Tear up half the road and use it for rail and the remaining half for bikes and pedestrians. Also, allow freight via light rail to eliminate the need for delivery trucks in the city.
How do emergency services operate?