Our justice system is based on protection of the innocent not punishment of the guilty. We placed the burdon of evidence on the state when we wrote our constitution because we as a society felt it was more important the innocent be protected then the guilty be punished. So frankly I would rather all the drunk drivers not be convicted then one single person be found guilty after a miss-ready.
You say these things have been tested empirically ok then the jury better be correctly informed as to the answers to the following:
By whom? Where the testing methods sound? What exactly was the error rate? Within the error rate what was the ratio of false positives to false negatives? How big a sample? How granular was the test? Was the sample big enough to be statistically sound? Was the data independently verified?
Blackbox testing might be adequate as a method of demonstrating the utility of this things as evidence, but as a juror I would need to the answers to at least those questions, and have them be good ones before I would even start to consider the "testimony" of any machine as remotely adequate satisfaction of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I think when it comes to a trial "what's fair" has openness at its very core. I don't think you can have fairness without openness. How can a trial ever be fair if one side is allowed to manufacture evidence just by buying some little black boxes.
it's that when what they produced is used to convict someone, that person has the right to examine the methods used.
The natural corralling would be: That which is not open to the examination of the accused can not be used to convict.
I think that is totally correct for a justice standpoint. You have the right to cross examine a whiteness that should not be denied you just because the whiteness is a mechanical device.
I think your assault on the GP is mostly correct. Evaluated objectively on its own its a pretty OK movie. I would however offer that action movies of equal quality and depth are quite available in the $7 bin at your local Wall Mart. This movie was not all that special and I think if it did not have the name Star Trek attached to it, there would be no special love for it. Frankly on its own its a typical summer action flick that would be forgotten 6 months after the DVD release.
That said JJ did a good job not messing up the canon. He did a pretty good job keeping somewhat true to the characters. It was an ok story.
I sorta have an issue with REBOOTs in general though. I think you should build or add to a story. If you want to tell a new and different one, make it a new one. The last two Bond movies are EXCELLENT action flicks, I loved them. They are not James Bond though. They don't feel like Bond the only thing that makes them a Bond movie is the characters names and the title. Why not come up with a new secret agent for the modern era? Why can't we have a new space oddesy? Its certainly possible to write one, Firefly is well regarded by those who have seen it, Farscape was successful. Is the public such a bunch of bone heads they can't open themselves to a new experience? Are our writers and producers to uncreative and cowardly to tell their own story?
Honestly any REBOOT gets an automatic one star deduction just for being a reboot as far as I am concerned. Its coup out. If you want tell me a new story take a risk and tell me a NEW story!
I don't think it makes any sense. The police can't just install a camera on my lawn to watch the house. They should not be able install something on my car either. Its not the same as a tail operation at all. All I can say is that the police have no reasonable expectation of getting their GPS back since they are obviously disposing of it by leaving in on my property.
Ok but, degrees, minutes, seconds or days minutes seconds are also kinda arbitrary. There on on 60's in a minute and 60 of those in an hour because we decided there should be.
It would be more natural to measure these things in radians or some other multiple of Pi. 2(Pi) would come up quite a bit so being divisible by 2 is a nice property but both base 2,8,10 and base 16 would also give you that will retaining the advantages they offer.
Its interesting that you say that. Most peoples minds can work with five complex propositions or seven to ten simples ones at a time. You can handle more complex thinking about things your are familiar with. Your own phone number or your girl friends is probably one prop for your mind. You have assembled it into one logical object.
Someone you don't phone often on the other hand often requires your brain to deal with it as a string of digits, each using its on slot. There maybe savings when you are familiar with area and exchange codes in most cases. If you are dealing with unfamiliar phone numbers, are not accustom to the area and exchange codes, and then get saddled with some internal PBX extension that is going to be difficult for most people to remember and work with while also attempting to retain other information being delivered in the message.
A pad and paper is really your best bet. No amount of memory practice is going to enable you to perform such a task. Familiarity might. If you call people in Rochester everyday you eventually learn the area code out there is 585. Now when you hear a phone number you just remembering "Rochester" (short term) and the final seven digets (short term); eight things instead of ten and when you go to make the call you retrieve the 585 from memory (long term).
I agree with what you said. I don't know how to do it on a cell phone but if you have a PBX or VOIP system at work, your probably can send a VM without ringing their phone. Usually you dial * or # before their extension.
This type of system is annoying for the reasons you cite. People know or think they can reasonably expect to know when you have received the message. The then take it as a personal slight when you don't respond at the first possible moment. E-mail suffers from this problem as well. At least with a paper letter they don't know when you got it, at least not to a finer resolution than a day or two. This permits you some slack time in which respond when its somewhat convenient for you; without the need to drop everything your are doing and orient your life around reacting to their message. They don't feel they are being ignored because if they'd like to imaging that is how you react to message from them they can do so with nothing to shatter the illusion for them.
Ignoring the fact that cars are registered and titles and things like that so you usually know if you are in possession of a stolen car, there is no reason to think this computer is "hot".
Unless its been reported stolen Alienware should not be hassling this guy. These things are registered with the company when you buy them. So you can probably call in and say my box is missing without needing the serial. When ordering parts its certainly reasonable for Alienware to ask for the serial, which you should be able to provide since you physically have the thing. They should be able to key that in and unless that serial is associated with an existing account that has reported a theft, they should be able to just sell you a part. There is really no good reason this should be hard.
I think this has more to do with them not really wanting to support their hardware in the second hand market. This is a company after all that makes its profit selling really high markup cutting edge (or so they claim) gear. They don't make money stocking and selling replacement parts for last years, hell probably even last months model.
There is an older slightly more ridged definition that many still prefer. Individuals are members of a different species if members of the populations cannot interbreed to produce fertile off spring. They may produce viable off spring. A horse and a donkey can produce a mule, a mule however is not fertile so horses and donkeys are still different species.
I am going to ignore your obvious racism. I am also not going to comment on things I don't know enough about to even speculate. I am simply going to put this question to you. I am going to ignore Africans vs. Rest of the world stuff too because its not related to the topic.
On what basis do conclude a smaller brain implies less intelligence, particularly in creatures within the same genius?
Perhaps a smaller brain is simply more compact, the article was talking about it being smaller for reasons of caloric efficiency, we can't really know if it is less powerful. My car engine displaces only 2.7 liters, and its much more powerful than some big seven and eight liter classic cars. Smaller does not always indicate less output. Elephants have larger brains than Humans, do you think they are smarter then we are? Last I checked I am not the one in the zoo doing tricks for peanuts.
Right, honestly COBOL was a success in that it was really THE FIRST highlevel language. It actually dates to the 40's with Grace Hopper in the Navy. After commercialization in the 50's it really did achieve its goals of being,
1.Resonably self documenting
2.Something non-programmers who would have been assembly jocks at the time could use
3.Write once run anywhere, programs written for 60's era IBM mainframes will run perfectly on you brand new System Z today. Its usually trivial to port programs to different hardware when your compiler vendor makes a product for the destination platform, its not terribly harder to port to another vendors COBOL in most cases.
COBOL is still a good choice for large control break processing type operations like account reconciliation in mainframe environments. Its not terribly hard to maintain, where it is hard is when where someone did tricks manipulate the normal representation of the things like dates in memory to save a few bytes. In the last 15 years people have pretty much stopped playing games and are doing it the COBOL way which does use 4 bytes in most cases to store "2009". Memory and storage are not so expensive anymore as to make this a problem.
If what you want to do is detail 500,000 telephone bills; COBOL is still a good way to go about it as there are few tools that would truly be easily understood by just anyone looking at them.
I am not saying lets all start developing complex applications in COBOL but it STILL has a place in some tasks.
This is a problem of big/complex government in general. The more complicated the system with more rules the easier it will be to game. The problem as usual is government in the first place. This is a problem the government created by trying to control behavior with the tax code. Which is unjust and immoral to begin with, IMHO.
If the tax code were simple, like universal use tax, with heavy fines for not reporting purchases outside the US, and some simple exceptions for things like food, clothing, and shelter so the code is not overly regressive, there would be little or no tax evasion.
Business which already have the facility in place to collect and report sales taxes simply do so. The Federal government in turn collects taxes from the States, there is going to be some complexity there but that can get hammered out once and then its done with.
Individuals fill out one simple form at the end of each year detailing purchases they made outside the us and send a check simply calculated $[ $taxrate * $total ].
You still have to do something with the clippings, if you mulch them they are going to rot and release guess what....CO2 and methane. Its probably impractical for a device like you describe to collect all the clippings so you could then bury them, sequestering the carbon.
Wow you really have gotten completely lost in the liberal propaganda haven't you!
Or the fact that a society in which medical care costs are under control and removed from consideration of individual businessmen is actually more friendly to small enterprise
This only appears true because comparisons are made with our society and socialist societies. It has nothing do with medical care, its costs or public health. The reason small enterprise is hurt in our system is that they lack the buying power to get into the big group plans, so providing the benefit is expensive on a per capita basis compared to a large enterprise. These big group plans only exist in the first place because some big Government types in Washington managed to rig the tax code such that money toward the benefit did not get applied to payroll taxes.
If the tax loop hole did not exist than there would be no bias in the system in the first place to favor the big enterprise. Your argument is complete B.S. as your proposed solution is more government as answer to a problem that same government created in the first place. You either don't understand the problem or are irrational. Any rational person knows unless its completely impractical to do so you fix problems by addressing the cause not the symptoms when the cause is known. So IgnoramusMaximus you either don't know the cause, have some other agenda, or are a fool; take your pick.
My guess is you are just ignorant, heard "Yes we can!" a few to many times and forgot to think which is what *they* want you to do. Start thinking, start analyzing past the surface and quit voting for sound bites.
I am with you on this, on a micro scale I like the a la carte idea, but I think the results on a the macro scale would be bad. Eventually it would get to be pretty slim pickens. You would have POP Television and not much else.
a la carte is no good if the only choices you have are clones House MD and American idol, and NYPD Blue; because those are the only types of programs that can be profitably produced.
You also have to consider that what you will be looking at is mostly homemade stuff that is probably not very exciting, maybe even a little off putting. Most people don't look to good shoot under poor light with a low res cell phone camera. I suspect this is going to be a good deal of what you find on facebook.
Light does a lot, a photo of female with a shadow on her often makes it appear as if she has hair. Ever wonder why professional photographers almost always use direct light on girls in studio work? They don't do this as much with men which they may shoot under flood because a little darkness on parts of the face make him appear rugged and manly. Then you have all those dorm room fluorescents that are going to make people look pale or green. Finally most people are just not as good looking as models who are almost always air brushed themselves.
Now when this is your girl friend or something your brain can sorta compensate for the unflattering camera effects, you can image what she really looks like and its possible very arousing. When its someone you don't know you are going to see what is on the page. So when you girl or guy friend sends you a titillating image its fun, when you are sifting though other peoples images I don't much of it is going to be a turn on. As to the models being air brushed and such, well again when its someone you have affection for you probably see what you want to see, when its someone you don't know well; her breasts are really uneven and her nose is sort big etc etc.
Finally although our society is much more open about the female form than the male; I am sure Facebook has its share of flamers and men sending pictures to their girlfriends alike. Truly, I don't think many men are as disgusted at seeing other men nude as most of us pretend. Its not like we don't see dick when we look down in the shower every morning. Still this is probably going to be at least of fourth of the images or so; that is 25% of the time you are just classifying what to you are uninteresting images. If I was doing something as dull as identifying common images a quarter of the time I was at the office, I would get to hate work pretty fast.
Frankly sifting though slightly off putting images for eight hours day, with only a handful of them making me go "Nice" sounds like a pretty terrible job.
I'd hate to see slashdoters ignoring the basic principles of our justice system just to pursue some prejudice against accused drunk drivers.
Like it or not the foundation of out criminal justice system is based on the idea its better to let the guilty go free then the innocent be punished. It might be "PC" to "get tough on drunk driving," but this is a nation of laws or at least it used to be. The burden of evidence is supposed to be on the state. If the state is using equipment that must have its inner workings concealed as evidence. I think in the name of justice we must assume that without other pretty damning evidence its not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt guilt.
If you can't show me how it works or show that it does work in a double blind test with a sufficient sample size, it would not be a good enough argument for me serving on a jury to convict.
The state is much more powerful than and individual the burden of proof is supposed to be on them. A few numbers on an LED display connected to some box you blow in does not cut it, unless you can tell me a lot about what those numbers mean, how they are determined, if its accurate.
It depends, physical security and data security are not always comparable in that sense. Yes the obnoxious alarm and police being on the way is a problem if you need to load up 50" tv and stereo into your van while fending off the dog.
The computer paging the owner on the other hand might not be a problem. If what I want is your identity and you have a fast connection I could copy an awful lot your how directory before you could even get to a keyboard to the machine to see what is happening, or shut it down.
Changes are you know something about the targets you are going after. If I was cracking random windows boxes I would probably target *.doc*, *.xls*, whatever extension various tax software might use, and some other things under c:\documents and settings. Linux/Unix PCs and workstations same things only oo's extensions and/home.
If I were attacking cooperate platforms I would be after access databases, excel sheets, on servers with "fs" in the name. Whatever...
You have these things scripted before you break in. These scripts can get pretty smart with a little work, probably less working the the hack itself by miles, and you can do a lots of damage in only a few seconds.
So yea detecting an breach fast is important but keeping them out in the first place probably is more import in the networked data security world than the physical world.
You have never owned a convertible apparently. This might very with make model, hard top soft top things like that, but here is the general deal.
*If you are worried about something in the car being stolen you lock it in the boot(trunk). *The remaining locks are for honest people, chances are pretty good even with the top up its way easier to gain access to the interior of the door than with a sedan and therefore bypass the lock. *You don't really want it locked when the top is up. Depending on your insurance, it might be better for you if someone simply opens the door to steal your $200 car stereo rather, rather than first slicing through your $500 canvas top and then opening the door. This is something you should understand. *To prevent the car from being stolen, a batter quick disconnect is nice. This is especially try if you have a car where the batter is mounted in the boot and is clean as opposed to under the bonnet. There is a light fused line to all power to electronics, put you pull the big steal pin out of the positive lead. If someone manages hotwire it unless they knew about that little trap and first broke into the boot as well and fixed it, as soon as they touch the starter the fuse will blow and the car will be dead. *Convertibles are probably always a little less secure than other cars no matter what way less secure if you don't go through a little extra trouble.
Well not to nitpick but *caugh* certain recent versions of Gnome have been no to hang for very longs periods when no DNS server is available. Now distros could probably solve that buy running a local named and a few scripts to update the forwards from DHCP, but still it happens.
Windows can get pretty funky too when the DNS fails. In the case of home users regardless of what OS they probably use the ISP's DNS. Even if it is only to get back "NXDOMAIN" in a hurry.
I would think it would be things like sys calls, and perhaps other actions kernels do, like scheduling, predictive paging, and file system related operations. Once your program is running its, your code is being executed until the interrupt timer fires an OS thread gets to run again. Instructions like add, dive, jmp, ble, are not going to be any slower or faster because the CPU happened to be executing code that was part of a micro kernel before it, or a monolithic one.
What it comes down to is how much time is the CPU spending in user land as opposed to kernel land. The more user land time the better because that means the machine is doing something useful as opposed to just managing itself. A micro kernel is slower because in the end it results in probably more code and certainly more expensive code.
In a monolithic kernel when one thread needs to pass information to some other thread or update some structure like a process table it simply does a stor. In a micro kernel its going to have to write some shared space "used" for IPC. Then calling function is going to need its registers saved off to the stack or heap, probably the MMU is going to get used to isolate the processes there are a few more calls there, then you need to fetch all the cpu state for the server that is now being run, then you need to fetch the date that was wrote before, only now can you update your structure or act on the signal etc etc.
As you can image if several or more servers need to interact to complete a sys call or other kernel operation it can get much more expensive cpu time wise to do that. So the system is busy doing kernel stuff longer and user stuff shorter. Part of this goes away as we move to systems with larger numbers of cpu cores. Multiple instruction, multiple data, systems will make it more practical to do micro kernel operating systems in the PC world as the cost in human terms will be minimized. If you have effectively 16 cpus, you can say have the OS using one to be scheduling all the time, and anther to do IO all the time or idling, and still have lots computer left over to serve user processes.
I don't know that they should be completely open. I think in certain cases such as violent crimes or cases of abuse where the victim is a child and even perhaps certain fraud cases there may be good reasons to seal documents and proceedings.
In criminal cases victims may not come forward unless their privacy can be assured. I think voluntary parties should have a much higher bar to meet when requesting things be sealed then involuntary ones, especially when involuntary parties are found to be not liable or not guilty.
Slashdot Mirror
Our justice system is based on protection of the innocent not punishment of the guilty. We placed the burdon of evidence on the state when we wrote our constitution because we as a society felt it was more important the innocent be protected then the guilty be punished. So frankly I would rather all the drunk drivers not be convicted then one single person be found guilty after a miss-ready.
You say these things have been tested empirically ok then the jury better be correctly informed as to the answers to the following:
By whom?
Where the testing methods sound?
What exactly was the error rate?
Within the error rate what was the ratio of false positives to false negatives?
How big a sample?
How granular was the test?
Was the sample big enough to be statistically sound?
Was the data independently verified?
Blackbox testing might be adequate as a method of demonstrating the utility of this things as evidence, but as a juror I would need to the answers to at least those questions, and have them be good ones before I would even start to consider the "testimony" of any machine as remotely adequate satisfaction of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I think when it comes to a trial "what's fair" has openness at its very core. I don't think you can have fairness without openness. How can a trial ever be fair if one side is allowed to manufacture evidence just by buying some little black boxes.
it's that when what they produced is used to convict someone, that person has the right to examine the methods used.
The natural corralling would be: That which is not open to the examination of the accused can not be used to convict.
I think that is totally correct for a justice standpoint. You have the right to cross examine a whiteness that should not be denied you just because the whiteness is a mechanical device.
I think your assault on the GP is mostly correct. Evaluated objectively on its own its a pretty OK movie. I would however offer that action movies of equal quality and depth are quite available in the $7 bin at your local Wall Mart. This movie was not all that special and I think if it did not have the name Star Trek attached to it, there would be no special love for it. Frankly on its own its a typical summer action flick that would be forgotten 6 months after the DVD release.
That said JJ did a good job not messing up the canon. He did a pretty good job keeping somewhat true to the characters. It was an ok story.
I sorta have an issue with REBOOTs in general though. I think you should build or add to a story. If you want to tell a new and different one, make it a new one. The last two Bond movies are EXCELLENT action flicks, I loved them. They are not James Bond though. They don't feel like Bond the only thing that makes them a Bond movie is the characters names and the title. Why not come up with a new secret agent for the modern era? Why can't we have a new space oddesy? Its certainly possible to write one, Firefly is well regarded by those who have seen it, Farscape was successful. Is the public such a bunch of bone heads they can't open themselves to a new experience? Are our writers and producers to uncreative and cowardly to tell their own story?
Honestly any REBOOT gets an automatic one star deduction just for being a reboot as far as I am concerned. Its coup out. If you want tell me a new story take a risk and tell me a NEW story!
I don't think it makes any sense. The police can't just install a camera on my lawn to watch the house. They should not be able install something on my car either. Its not the same as a tail operation at all. All I can say is that the police have no reasonable expectation of getting their GPS back since they are obviously disposing of it by leaving in on my property.
Ok but, degrees, minutes, seconds or days minutes seconds are also kinda arbitrary. There on on 60's in a minute and 60 of those in an hour because we decided there should be.
It would be more natural to measure these things in radians or some other multiple of Pi. 2(Pi) would come up quite a bit so being divisible by 2 is a nice property but both base 2,8,10 and base 16 would also give you that will retaining the advantages they offer.
Its interesting that you say that. Most peoples minds can work with five complex propositions or seven to ten simples ones at a time. You can handle more complex thinking about things your are familiar with. Your own phone number or your girl friends is probably one prop for your mind. You have assembled it into one logical object.
Someone you don't phone often on the other hand often requires your brain to deal with it as a string of digits, each using its on slot. There maybe savings when you are familiar with area and exchange codes in most cases. If you are dealing with unfamiliar phone numbers, are not accustom to the area and exchange codes, and then get saddled with some internal PBX extension that is going to be difficult for most people to remember and work with while also attempting to retain other information being delivered in the message.
A pad and paper is really your best bet. No amount of memory practice is going to enable you to perform such a task. Familiarity might. If you call people in Rochester everyday you eventually learn the area code out there is 585. Now when you hear a phone number you just remembering "Rochester" (short term) and the final seven digets (short term); eight things instead of ten and when you go to make the call you retrieve the 585 from memory (long term).
I agree with what you said. I don't know how to do it on a cell phone but if you have a PBX or VOIP system at work, your probably can send a VM without ringing their phone. Usually you dial * or # before their extension.
The joys of near time async communications....
This type of system is annoying for the reasons you cite. People know or think they can reasonably expect to know when you have received the message. The then take it as a personal slight when you don't respond at the first possible moment. E-mail suffers from this problem as well. At least with a paper letter they don't know when you got it, at least not to a finer resolution than a day or two. This permits you some slack time in which respond when its somewhat convenient for you; without the need to drop everything your are doing and orient your life around reacting to their message. They don't feel they are being ignored because if they'd like to imaging that is how you react to message from them they can do so with nothing to shatter the illusion for them.
Ignoring the fact that cars are registered and titles and things like that so you usually know if you are in possession of a stolen car, there is no reason to think this computer is "hot".
Unless its been reported stolen Alienware should not be hassling this guy. These things are registered with the company when you buy them. So you can probably call in and say my box is missing without needing the serial. When ordering parts its certainly reasonable for Alienware to ask for the serial, which you should be able to provide since you physically have the thing. They should be able to key that in and unless that serial is associated with an existing account that has reported a theft, they should be able to just sell you a part. There is really no good reason this should be hard.
I think this has more to do with them not really wanting to support their hardware in the second hand market. This is a company after all that makes its profit selling really high markup cutting edge (or so they claim) gear. They don't make money stocking and selling replacement parts for last years, hell probably even last months model.
There is an older slightly more ridged definition that many still prefer. Individuals are members of a different species if members of the populations cannot interbreed to produce fertile off spring. They may produce viable off spring. A horse and a donkey can produce a mule, a mule however is not fertile so horses and donkeys are still different species.
Well, Mr.AC
I am going to ignore your obvious racism. I am also not going to comment on things I don't know enough about to even speculate. I am simply going to put this question to you. I am going to ignore Africans vs. Rest of the world stuff too because its not related to the topic.
On what basis do conclude a smaller brain implies less intelligence, particularly in creatures within the same genius?
Perhaps a smaller brain is simply more compact, the article was talking about it being smaller for reasons of caloric efficiency, we can't really know if it is less powerful. My car engine displaces only 2.7 liters, and its much more powerful than some big seven and eight liter classic cars. Smaller does not always indicate less output. Elephants have larger brains than Humans, do you think they are smarter then we are? Last I checked I am not the one in the zoo doing tricks for peanuts.
Right, honestly COBOL was a success in that it was really THE FIRST highlevel language. It actually dates to the 40's with Grace Hopper in the Navy. After commercialization in the 50's it really did achieve its goals of being,
1.Resonably self documenting
2.Something non-programmers who would have been assembly jocks at the time could use
3.Write once run anywhere, programs written for 60's era IBM mainframes will run perfectly on you brand new System Z today. Its usually trivial to port programs to different hardware when your compiler vendor makes a product for the destination platform, its not terribly harder to port to another vendors COBOL in most cases.
COBOL is still a good choice for large control break processing type operations like account reconciliation in mainframe environments. Its not terribly hard to maintain, where it is hard is when where someone did tricks manipulate the normal representation of the things like dates in memory to save a few bytes. In the last 15 years people have pretty much stopped playing games and are doing it the COBOL way which does use 4 bytes in most cases to store "2009". Memory and storage are not so expensive anymore as to make this a problem.
If what you want to do is detail 500,000 telephone bills; COBOL is still a good way to go about it as there are few tools that would truly be easily understood by just anyone looking at them.
I am not saying lets all start developing complex applications in COBOL but it STILL has a place in some tasks.
I have to agree this is really the only option.
No we don't need them to agree, we just cut the cord if they don't. Frankly I think we would be better off.
This is a problem of big/complex government in general. The more complicated the system with more rules the easier it will be to game. The problem as usual is government in the first place. This is a problem the government created by trying to control behavior with the tax code. Which is unjust and immoral to begin with, IMHO.
If the tax code were simple, like universal use tax, with heavy fines for not reporting purchases outside the US, and some simple exceptions for things like food, clothing, and shelter so the code is not overly regressive, there would be little or no tax evasion.
Business which already have the facility in place to collect and report sales taxes simply do so. The Federal government in turn collects taxes from the States, there is going to be some complexity there but that can get hammered out once and then its done with.
Individuals fill out one simple form at the end of each year detailing purchases they made outside the us and send a check simply calculated $[ $taxrate * $total ].
No fuss no cheating!
You still have to do something with the clippings, if you mulch them they are going to rot and release guess what....CO2 and methane. Its probably impractical for a device like you describe to collect all the clippings so you could then bury them, sequestering the carbon.
Wow you really have gotten completely lost in the liberal propaganda haven't you!
Or the fact that a society in which medical care costs are under control and removed from consideration of individual businessmen is actually more friendly to small enterprise
This only appears true because comparisons are made with our society and socialist societies. It has nothing do with medical care, its costs or public health. The reason small enterprise is hurt in our system is that they lack the buying power to get into the big group plans, so providing the benefit is expensive on a per capita basis compared to a large enterprise. These big group plans only exist in the first place because some big Government types in Washington managed to rig the tax code such that money toward the benefit did not get applied to payroll taxes.
If the tax loop hole did not exist than there would be no bias in the system in the first place to favor the big enterprise. Your argument is complete B.S. as your proposed solution is more government as answer to a problem that same government created in the first place. You either don't understand the problem or are irrational. Any rational person knows unless its completely impractical to do so you fix problems by addressing the cause not the symptoms when the cause is known. So IgnoramusMaximus you either don't know the cause, have some other agenda, or are a fool; take your pick.
My guess is you are just ignorant, heard "Yes we can!" a few to many times and forgot to think which is what *they* want you to do. Start thinking, start analyzing past the surface and quit voting for sound bites.
I am with you on this, on a micro scale I like the a la carte idea, but I think the results on a the macro scale would be bad. Eventually it would get to be pretty slim pickens. You would have POP Television and not much else.
a la carte is no good if the only choices you have are clones House MD and American idol, and NYPD Blue; because those are the only types of programs that can be profitably produced.
You also have to consider that what you will be looking at is mostly homemade stuff that is probably not very exciting, maybe even a little off putting. Most people don't look to good shoot under poor light with a low res cell phone camera. I suspect this is going to be a good deal of what you find on facebook.
Light does a lot, a photo of female with a shadow on her often makes it appear as if she has hair. Ever wonder why professional photographers almost always use direct light on girls in studio work? They don't do this as much with men which they may shoot under flood because a little darkness on parts of the face make him appear rugged and manly. Then you have all those dorm room fluorescents that are going to make people look pale or green. Finally most people are just not as good looking as models who are almost always air brushed themselves.
Now when this is your girl friend or something your brain can sorta compensate for the unflattering camera effects, you can image what she really looks like and its possible very arousing. When its someone you don't know you are going to see what is on the page. So when you girl or guy friend sends you a titillating image its fun, when you are sifting though other peoples images I don't much of it is going to be a turn on. As to the models being air brushed and such, well again when its someone you have affection for you probably see what you want to see, when its someone you don't know well; her breasts are really uneven and her nose is sort big etc etc.
Finally although our society is much more open about the female form than the male; I am sure Facebook has its share of flamers and men sending pictures to their girlfriends alike. Truly, I don't think many men are as disgusted at seeing other men nude as most of us pretend. Its not like we don't see dick when we look down in the shower every morning. Still this is probably going to be at least of fourth of the images or so; that is 25% of the time you are just classifying what to you are uninteresting images. If I was doing something as dull as identifying common images a quarter of the time I was at the office, I would get to hate work pretty fast.
Frankly sifting though slightly off putting images for eight hours day, with only a handful of them making me go "Nice" sounds like a pretty terrible job.
I'd hate to see slashdoters ignoring the basic principles of our justice system just to pursue some prejudice against accused drunk drivers.
Like it or not the foundation of out criminal justice system is based on the idea its better to let the guilty go free then the innocent be punished. It might be "PC" to "get tough on drunk driving," but this is a nation of laws or at least it used to be. The burden of evidence is supposed to be on the state. If the state is using equipment that must have its inner workings concealed as evidence. I think in the name of justice we must assume that without other pretty damning evidence its not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt guilt.
If you can't show me how it works or show that it does work in a double blind test with a sufficient sample size, it would not be a good enough argument for me serving on a jury to convict.
The state is much more powerful than and individual the burden of proof is supposed to be on them. A few numbers on an LED display connected to some box you blow in does not cut it, unless you can tell me a lot about what those numbers mean, how they are determined, if its accurate.
It depends, physical security and data security are not always comparable in that sense. Yes the obnoxious alarm and police being on the way is a problem if you need to load up 50" tv and stereo into your van while fending off the dog.
The computer paging the owner on the other hand might not be a problem. If what I want is your identity and you have a fast connection I could copy an awful lot your how directory before you could even get to a keyboard to the machine to see what is happening, or shut it down.
Changes are you know something about the targets you are going after. If I was cracking random windows boxes I would probably target *.doc*, *.xls*, whatever extension various tax software might use, and some other things under c:\documents and settings. Linux/Unix PCs and workstations same things only oo's extensions and /home.
If I were attacking cooperate platforms I would be after access databases, excel sheets, on servers with "fs" in the name. Whatever ...
You have these things scripted before you break in. These scripts can get pretty smart with a little work, probably less working the the hack itself by miles, and you can do a lots of damage in only a few seconds.
So yea detecting an breach fast is important but keeping them out in the first place probably is more import in the networked data security world than the physical world.
You have never owned a convertible apparently. This might very with make model, hard top soft top things like that, but here is the general deal.
*If you are worried about something in the car being stolen you lock it in the boot(trunk).
*The remaining locks are for honest people, chances are pretty good even with the top up its way easier to gain access to the interior of the door than with a sedan and therefore bypass the lock.
*You don't really want it locked when the top is up. Depending on your insurance, it might be better for you if someone simply opens the door to steal your $200 car stereo rather, rather than first slicing through your $500 canvas top and then opening the door. This is something you should understand.
*To prevent the car from being stolen, a batter quick disconnect is nice. This is especially try if you have a car where the batter is mounted in the boot and is clean as opposed to under the bonnet. There is a light fused line to all power to electronics, put you pull the big steal pin out of the positive lead. If someone manages hotwire it unless they knew about that little trap and first broke into the boot as well and fixed it, as soon as they touch the starter the fuse will blow and the car will be dead.
*Convertibles are probably always a little less secure than other cars no matter what way less secure if you don't go through a little extra trouble.
Well not to nitpick but *caugh* certain recent versions of Gnome have been no to hang for very longs periods when no DNS server is available. Now distros could probably solve that buy running a local named and a few scripts to update the forwards from DHCP, but still it happens.
Windows can get pretty funky too when the DNS fails. In the case of home users regardless of what OS they probably use the ISP's DNS. Even if it is only to get back "NXDOMAIN" in a hurry.
I would think it would be things like sys calls, and perhaps other actions kernels do, like scheduling, predictive paging, and file system related operations. Once your program is running its, your code is being executed until the interrupt timer fires an OS thread gets to run again. Instructions like add, dive, jmp, ble, are not going to be any slower or faster because the CPU happened to be executing code that was part of a micro kernel before it, or a monolithic one.
What it comes down to is how much time is the CPU spending in user land as opposed to kernel land. The more user land time the better because that means the machine is doing something useful as opposed to just managing itself. A micro kernel is slower because in the end it results in probably more code and certainly more expensive code.
In a monolithic kernel when one thread needs to pass information to some other thread or update some structure like a process table it simply does a stor. In a micro kernel its going to have to write some shared space "used" for IPC. Then calling function is going to need its registers saved off to the stack or heap, probably the MMU is going to get used to isolate the processes there are a few more calls there, then you need to fetch all the cpu state for the server that is now being run, then you need to fetch the date that was wrote before, only now can you update your structure or act on the signal etc etc.
As you can image if several or more servers need to interact to complete a sys call or other kernel operation it can get much more expensive cpu time wise to do that. So the system is busy doing kernel stuff longer and user stuff shorter. Part of this goes away as we move to systems with larger numbers of cpu cores. Multiple instruction, multiple data, systems will make it more practical to do micro kernel operating systems in the PC world as the cost in human terms will be minimized. If you have effectively 16 cpus, you can say have the OS using one to be scheduling all the time, and anther to do IO all the time or idling, and still have lots computer left over to serve user processes.
I don't know that they should be completely open. I think in certain cases such as violent crimes or cases of abuse where the victim is a child and even perhaps certain fraud cases there may be good reasons to seal documents and proceedings.
In criminal cases victims may not come forward unless their privacy can be assured. I think voluntary parties should have a much higher bar to meet when requesting things be sealed then involuntary ones, especially when involuntary parties are found to be not liable or not guilty.