Simply require that H-1B visa holders must be paid at least the 90th percentile (or 95th if you like) wage for their field.
Plus any amount that the employer would have to pay into a government entitlement program for a US employee that he doesn't need to pay into said program for a foreigner on H1B (or other work visa systems).
It's even fair. If the program is, say, a retirement program that the visiting worker can't benefit from, shouldn't he have the money to buy a replacement for it elsewhere?
... by everyone's favorite munitions manufacturer: Dow Chemical.
Dow makes a LOT of chemical stuff. Some of it's useful to the military.
If their Dow Corning partnership-subsidiary hadn't been hammered into bankruptct by a bunch of (later shown to be bogus) suits claiming medial harm from their silicon breast implants, we might have had hybrid cars a couple decades earlier, out of Detroit rather than Japan, using lenticular, glass fiber, super flywheels, rather than batteries, for energy storage.
It's my understanding that when you're committing a crime, the last thing you want to do is break even worse laws that will get you a worse sentence if caught.
Yeah, you'd think that. And some of them actually do think of that.
But many criminals don't think very well, or very far ahead. Not thinking about being caught is common. Not expecting to be seriously inconvenienced if they ARE caught is common also.
Think about it: How is "Send me a bitcoin or your insulin pump will deliver a fatal dose!" different from armed robbery for a fat wallet? "Give me a bunch of money or I shoot you!" And a bunch of them DO shoot - (VERY) often even if they GOT the money.
The threat of law-enforcement escalation for murder doesn't seem to have stopped up-front-and-personal armed robbery. Why should it stop distant-and-anonymous ransomware?
The problem is that the whole thing lends itself to "wackadoodles". You have an entire system of belief based on nothing but hearsay... Then people believe this stuff with no evidence for it... take some part of that "literal truth" and decide that it really means you need to go murder some people.
Unfortunately, trying to stop it also has bad history. Meme-infected people tend to remain meme-infected until death when opposed (because opposition tends to reenforce such memes), and forcible brain-washing normally doesn't work (though it may get them to pretend to have changed their beliefs, in order to make the pain stop or avoid death or mutilation). Meanwhile there's a long history of people infected with OTHER religious memes using governmental power to wipe out the believers in competing religions.
The history of Europe, in the centuries before the framing of the US' Constitution, was full of disastrous religious wars, and many of the religious groups in the Americas were here to escape this. One of the groups was "The Separatists", the (colorfully dressed "Pilgrims" of the Plymouth colony, often conflated with the "Puritans" who settled a bit farther north) who held, as a core belief,the separation of the church and the state (because each would corrupt the other).
This ideal was built into the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights, pushed by many leaders of small religions (who knew that, if the government picked and promoted a church, it was unlikely to be theirs, and the religious wars would start over here). The US federal government (and, though "incorporation", the states and their subdivisions) is prohibited from doing anything, for or against, any specific religion (including dogmatic non-religion).
And Islam was known to the framers. It shows up in their debates, where it is held up as an example of a non-Christian religion for which the same arguments can be made, for and against, as are made with respect to Christian sects.
So tracking people by religion, as religion, is right out, and any such plan would almost certainly be gutted the first time it hits the courts.
If the government wants to go after the I.S. brigands, it needs to frame the laws and activities in terms of their civil actions, without respect to any religious motivations or professed religious claims.
Does it get broken down into something harmless in the stomach? Or do YOU get conductive lines along YOUR plumbing?
It's not a minor thing: For starters the heartbeat propagation is partly electrical. Better-than-blood-plasma conductors laid out along the plumbing of the heart might affect the heartbeat in a dangerous manner.
... there's always room for a conspiracy theory like the NWO controlling both the US and German governments and then some to suppress the truth.
The problem is that people do tend to work together to advance their own interests, and do so in secret to reduce opposition from others. That is the definition of conspiracy. Such activity is not purely mythical or rare - it's pervasive, inherent to the human condition.
Governments, and groups within and/or associated with them, have a long track record of doing such things, getting away with them for years, and having (some of) them come to light decades later. It's always the same story: "Oh, yes, back in the bad old days there were such things going on. But that stuff isn't done any more. (And anybody who claims such stuff is happening now is a nutcase, so pay no attention to him.)"
Then, maybe 30 or 40 years later what was going on THIS time comes to light, and the story repeats. Or somebody blows the whistle while it's still going on and presents evidence (often at great cost to himself), and then it's "That's just a rogue person/agency/group. We're bringing them to heel." or "It's a corrupt administration. Replace the head of state with a different one (maybe from the other major party but keep the same two parties in power) and it's all taken care of." Yeah, right.
Snowden revelations, ECHELON, Watergate, COINTELPRO, Pentagon Papers, Hanford Experiment, Tuskegee Experiment, Factor 8, Abscam, Ng Lap Seng, Iran-Contra, MK-Ultra, Operations MOCKINGBIRD, PHOENIX, and CHAOS,... I could go on for pages, and that's just big, US (sometimes with allies), stuff that came to light in MY lifetime.
The government has whole agencies tasked with conspiring in secret to collect information and/or intervene to interfere with any opposition to its interests. The US has "Black Budgets" to unauditably fund such activity, and the Department of Defense, alone, spends an estimated $50 BILLION a year on its portion of this (as of 2009).
With their activities occurring in secret, there is much temptation to, and limited checks on, also targeting the biggest risk to the people currently in power in any government: The citizens of the country.
"Spook" agencies have a number of techniques to keep these conspiracies hidden, and one that has come to light (and is appropos) is the "Second Cover". This consists of spreading TWO cover stories: The first is plausible. The second is tinfoil-hat fruitcake material, lightly hidden. Anybody who figures out the first cover IS a cover and starts digging finds the second cover. Then they usually either give up (rather than dig for a third level) or you get new material for the tabloids, and another boost for the "conspiracy theories are ALL crazy talk" meme. (And it also helps that occasionally they DO try out the odd piece of mystic bulls**t, just to see if any of it, like some herbal medicine, DOES work.)
I generally assume (as did The Framers) that this sort of creeping (or galloping) encroachment is inherent in governments, is going on (and having new project starts) all the time, we usually can't tell, through the fog of misdirection, what's going on NOW, and the job of the people, like a farmer clearing weeds and trimming orchard trees, is to continually cut it back to levels that don't ruin our own lives and livelihoods.
Do you have any IDEA what a mess Daylight Savings Time makes of things like programs for process control and scheduling - and has at least since I did software for it back in the late '70s
Heck: For far longer than that. I hear the railroads handle it like this:
- In the spring, suddenly all the trains are an hour late. They work their way back to being on-time as they normally would - by running as fast as is practical.
- In the fall they STOP FOR AN HOUR. They just sit there with their engines running... It's just easier than trying to figure out something "better" to do about it.
The claims that it saves energy are currently backward and getting more so. They may always have been, or it may be because lighting is more efficient (so the savings is small) while air conditioners are far more prevalent (and run more if people get home earlier).
Meanwhile it increases death rates: From DST-lagged drivers just after a change, from kids getting hit going to school in the dark on more days, from stress-related diseases exacerbated by the stress of the time change.
It also was a big factor in killing drive-in theatres.
If the government MUST twiddle with the clocks seasonally they should set them the OTHER WAY, creating Night Life Savings Time. We ALREADY have a shortage of dark time for evening recreation in the summer. Why take another hour away by shifting the clocks? Add one instead.
Thus we also get ethical arguments that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict 1 innocent man and so on.
That's not what the ethical issue is about. The issue is "Who Watches The Watchmen?" This issue has been an identified at least since the Roman Empire.
The problem of how to effectively enforce the law on the enforcers of the law is a very difficult one. Militaries and police forces are made up of humans, with human failings. On one hand, they may break the law when convenient. On the other they tend to identify as "us" - the enforcers - vs. "them" - the citizens. One of their number who tries to bring another in for lawbreaking becomes ostracised, as every other rank-and-file officer worries that he's next. Setting up separate departments to police the police just moves the problem one step back.
The solution found by the US courts is the doctrine of the "fruit of the poisoned tree": If the police, prosecutor, etc. break the law in their efforts to apprehend, search for evidence, and/or prosecute their case, everything resulting from that lawbreaking is thrown out. That usually breaks the case beyond redemption and the accused goes free. So lawbreaking by cops and prosecutors is deterred - not by punshment, but by it being counter-productive.
Yes, that means, when the police and/or prosecutors start breaking the law, lots of really bad guys go free (along with any falsely-accused good guys who were illegally processed). But a corrupt criminal justice system is SO MUCH WORSE than ANY number of other sorts of bad guys that it's a good trade.
Indeed, NASA has suggested that the exploration of space is like NASCAR only with rocket ships instead of souped up, high powered cars.
No to mention that many of the rocket scientists and/or astronauts/test pilots are the same sort of - occasionally even the same instances of - "rednecks" that build and/or drive the cars.
Sure there were also transplanted German rocket scientists. But the Otto Cycle - the four-stroke cycle of the gasoline engine - was originated (with "coal gas" for the fuel) by a German scientist / engineer, too: Nikolaus August Otto.
And just to forestall anyone replying to you with "lots of snow means no global warming": Warmer air means it can hold more moisture. This leads to more precipitation....
So does that mean California's several-year drought is evidence against global warming? B-)
You get a delivery of half a dozen of these - along with a 55-galon drum of freeze-dried mealworms to tide them over until the "livestock" are producing.
Seriously: Mealworms are something like 50% protein. Chickens LOVE them. Mealworms and yoghurt are the chicken version of sweet-and-sour shrimp. The main problem with using them for chicken treats is that the chickens will eat enough to overdose on protein and destroy their kidneys.
We have a show hen that the breeder had to stop showing: The breeder had tried to train her, using a reward of mealworms, to assume an erect posture to impress the judges. The hen decided that if standing up straight was good for getting a mealworm, going farther would get her more. So she started doing backflips - which mostly impressed the judges as weird (and possibly a sign of impaired balance) rather than just enthusiasm.
Commercial mealworms are pricey and flour is cheap. We've considered growing our own mealworms for "the girls", but that's a bit more labor-intensive than we're into. If this gadget is cheap enough an automatic enough (and non-stinky enough) they've got a sale - and probably a lot of them once the chicken fanciers find out about it.
* "Researcher" acknowledges that all materials are supplied strictly for non-human research purposes only, except for those instances in which such is clearly and explicitly otherwise specified....
Products protected by valid patents are not offered for sale in countries where the sale of such products constitutes a patent infringement. Buyers shall verify the patent status for their respective country.
Products currently covered by valid Patents are offered for R&D use in accordance with 35 USC 271(e)+A13(1) in the US, EC Directive 2001/82/EC, 2001/83/EC, and their amendments in EU. Similar laws and rules may apply in other countries.
So it's not offered for sale in the US, due to the patent, except possibly for R&D use under that US code section. (No time to look it up right now.)
As I recall US law, drugs not approved are currently prohibited, under decades-old "designer drug" legislation which was passed to halt sales of an apparently unending series of minor molecular tweaks on recreational drugs (often with horrible side-effects).
Note that the anti-ageing effects were seen in a strain of mutated mice that "exhibit rapid ageing". It may turn out that the drug's effects are specific for the pathway affected by the mouse line's particular genetic fault, rather than against ageing in general.
But even if that's the case, I expect it would retard SOME aspects of age-related debilitation in normal mice and in humans. I await the results of the upcoming human trials.
Those Arabs who despise ISIS call them "Daesh" and it's insulting enough to make them cut your tongue of if you use it so perhaps it's what we all should use at least colloquially to refer to Daesh.
So given the choice between using a label (yet another acronym) that they hate so much (because it sounds a little like "dahes" - i.e. "brigand") that they'll cut your tongue out for using it...
Or using a label that says to 1.6 BILLION Muslims that you believe:
- It is their religious DUTY to hunt down and KILL these people.
- If they're killed while attempting this, they get the express trip to heaven.
- They don't have to take your word for it - they can check for themselves, by comparing the bad guys' actions to the description in the Koran...
You'd pick the loose tongue option?
If you're going to get your tongue cut out for calling them something that sounds a little like brigand, why not use the real word?
Someday people will look back on the shared delusion of religion and wonder what the fuck was wrong with everyone.
One problem religion shares with alcoholism and drug addiction is that attempts to stop it usually both fail miserably and cause more harm than letting it run its course without intervention.
One problem it shares with Rabies, Herpes, and HIV is that those afflicted with some forms of it can not be cured. The choice is to leave them alone (and maybe treat the symptoms) or kill them off.
So get used to having religious people around, and figuring out to live in a world containing them.
It's more like, what's going to keep some sociopath like that in check if you can't instill some kind of external fear in to them.
Objectivism. B-)
Seriously. If the prospect of retaliation by the law (or by the armies of other countries if they've managed to put themselves "above the law") doesn't deter them, why would a story about punishment in the afterlife, (similar in structure to the Santa Claus story they've already rejected) do so?
Objectivism, on the other hand, offers them a carrot: "Do things THIS way and good things are in it for you, in this lifetime. You can see that it works, see how it works, and the logic is eeasy to understand." "Here's what's in it for YOU for CHOSING to be good (for this particular value of "good")."
In a study in the Canadian prison system, teaching Objectivism was the only intervention that substantially reduced the recidivism rate.
We should stop calling them Islamic State... and start calling them islamic sodomites, or something that might offend their world views.
You would respond to violence by calling them names. They would then laugh, and continue with the violence. It's obvious which is more effective.
If you really want to call them something that might do some good, call them "Brigands". That puts them in a class, in Islamic law, where the appropriate action by other Muslims is neither to support them, nor avoid criticizing them as members of a different-but-possibly-valid branch of Islam, but to apprehend them and put them to death for their crimes. It also fits their actions, so it may be persuasive.
IBM had it's own standards for mechanical packaging. But my recollection is that IBM's requirement that all its products fit through a standard 29" door predated the 360 line and was mandated by their sales department, who never wanted to lose a sale because the product could not get into a building.
Yep. The predecessor 14xx and 70x/709x series all had cabinets that size, too. Also the 30x series, including the RAMAC (first moving-head disk drive - name is an acronym for RAndoM ACcess).
The person (faculty at the University of Michigan) who told me about the box size (back in the late '60s) attributed it to Amdahl (who also predates the 360 by quite a bit), but perhaps he did inherit the design principle rather than originate it.
I had a recurring nightmare in the '80s (after Amdahl and Cray had spun out on their own): That Gene Amdahl, Gordon Bell (DEC's PDP 5, PDP 8 instruction set, PDP 11), and Seymour Cray (CDC, Cray Computers) would get together, found an "ABC Computer Company", and spend the next decades having architectural arguments but never producing a product.
Two of them are gone now, and the world is poorer for it.
(Ever wonder why the cabinets of IBM computers in the mid 20th century were the size they were? One of Amdahl's ideas: After seeing a facility have to tear out a wall to install an early machine (univac?) with the spectre of having to do it again to get it out some day, he designed his machines in modules that each just fit through the door and into the car of a standard elevator (with a bit of clearance for padding and room for someone to push the floor buttons. That meant lots of expensive custom cables and connectors, but still far cheaper than tearing up buildings. B-) )
How do you test for "equivalence" between two things...
You misunderstand "equivalence" in this context.
It is not a test, not a kind of comparison. It does not direct the program to do anything,
It is a declaration of storage allocation. It tells the compiler that two symbols refer to the same storage.
In c, for instance:
union {
long int i;
float f; } intflloat;
Lets you say:
intfloat.i = 0xfedcba89;
some_float = intfloat.f; and some_float gets a floating point value whose bits are 0xfedcba89.; In SAN you'd say:
int32 i float f i === f
Then:
i = 0xfedcba89
some_float = f does the same thing.
So you would have moved the confusion up one character. Instead of a confusion between "=" and "==", you'd have it between "==" and "===".
I didn't expect that to be an issue.
Equivalnce is rare and stand-alone, unlike equality comparison, so triple equal would rarely be emitted and, when it was, it would be in a storage declaration, where double-equal would be a syntax error - as triple equal would be in an expression. It would normally only be emitted as a typo, rather than a brain-o, and the compiler would typically catch it.
Arg! Edit failure: (Previewed it too and missed it anyhow.)
Correction:
Equal sign in my language COULD have been considered a unary do-nothing reference-to-the-thing operator (i.e. "foo", "= foo", "= = foo" etc. are all the same thing) and stop there. If thinking that way, "= foo" IS "foo". Otherwise ":=" and "=:" wouldn't store anything. B-)
Slashdot Mirror
Simply require that H-1B visa holders must be paid at least the 90th percentile (or 95th if you like) wage for their field.
Plus any amount that the employer would have to pay into a government entitlement program for a US employee that he doesn't need to pay into said program for a foreigner on H1B (or other work visa systems).
It's even fair. If the program is, say, a retirement program that the visiting worker can't benefit from, shouldn't he have the money to buy a replacement for it elsewhere?
How helpful. You flamed him without bothering to actually ANSWER HIS QUESTION - while claiming the answer was obvious and easy to find.
If you actually HAVE the answer, adding it to the "helpful" "how to make this clock" flame would have been a friendly gesture.
... by everyone's favorite munitions manufacturer: Dow Chemical.
Dow makes a LOT of chemical stuff. Some of it's useful to the military.
If their Dow Corning partnership-subsidiary hadn't been hammered into bankruptct by a bunch of (later shown to be bogus) suits claiming medial harm from their silicon breast implants, we might have had hybrid cars a couple decades earlier, out of Detroit rather than Japan, using lenticular, glass fiber, super flywheels, rather than batteries, for energy storage.
It's been a plague on mankind since IBM compatible PCs started getting into the consumer market,
No kidding.
Back in the '80s I got one of the (perhaps THE) first third-party external hard drives on the market. It came preloaded with a bunch of junkware.
It's my understanding that when you're committing a crime, the last thing you want to do is break even worse laws that will get you a worse sentence if caught.
Yeah, you'd think that. And some of them actually do think of that.
But many criminals don't think very well, or very far ahead. Not thinking about being caught is common. Not expecting to be seriously inconvenienced if they ARE caught is common also.
Think about it: How is "Send me a bitcoin or your insulin pump will deliver a fatal dose!" different from armed robbery for a fat wallet? "Give me a bunch of money or I shoot you!" And a bunch of them DO shoot - (VERY) often even if they GOT the money.
The threat of law-enforcement escalation for murder doesn't seem to have stopped up-front-and-personal armed robbery. Why should it stop distant-and-anonymous ransomware?
The problem is that the whole thing lends itself to "wackadoodles". You have an entire system of belief based on nothing but hearsay ... Then people believe this stuff with no evidence for it ... take some part of that "literal truth" and decide that it really means you need to go murder some people.
Unfortunately, trying to stop it also has bad history. Meme-infected people tend to remain meme-infected until death when opposed (because opposition tends to reenforce such memes), and forcible brain-washing normally doesn't work (though it may get them to pretend to have changed their beliefs, in order to make the pain stop or avoid death or mutilation). Meanwhile there's a long history of people infected with OTHER religious memes using governmental power to wipe out the believers in competing religions.
The history of Europe, in the centuries before the framing of the US' Constitution, was full of disastrous religious wars, and many of the religious groups in the Americas were here to escape this. One of the groups was "The Separatists", the (colorfully dressed "Pilgrims" of the Plymouth colony, often conflated with the "Puritans" who settled a bit farther north) who held, as a core belief,the separation of the church and the state (because each would corrupt the other).
This ideal was built into the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights, pushed by many leaders of small religions (who knew that, if the government picked and promoted a church, it was unlikely to be theirs, and the religious wars would start over here). The US federal government (and, though "incorporation", the states and their subdivisions) is prohibited from doing anything, for or against, any specific religion (including dogmatic non-religion).
And Islam was known to the framers. It shows up in their debates, where it is held up as an example of a non-Christian religion for which the same arguments can be made, for and against, as are made with respect to Christian sects.
So tracking people by religion, as religion, is right out, and any such plan would almost certainly be gutted the first time it hits the courts.
If the government wants to go after the I.S. brigands, it needs to frame the laws and activities in terms of their civil actions, without respect to any religious motivations or professed religious claims.
Does it get broken down into something harmless in the stomach? Or do YOU get conductive lines along YOUR plumbing?
It's not a minor thing: For starters the heartbeat propagation is partly electrical. Better-than-blood-plasma conductors laid out along the plumbing of the heart might affect the heartbeat in a dangerous manner.
... there's always room for a conspiracy theory like the NWO controlling both the US and German governments and then some to suppress the truth.
The problem is that people do tend to work together to advance their own interests, and do so in secret to reduce opposition from others. That is the definition of conspiracy. Such activity is not purely mythical or rare - it's pervasive, inherent to the human condition.
Governments, and groups within and/or associated with them, have a long track record of doing such things, getting away with them for years, and having (some of) them come to light decades later. It's always the same story: "Oh, yes, back in the bad old days there were such things going on. But that stuff isn't done any more. (And anybody who claims such stuff is happening now is a nutcase, so pay no attention to him.)"
Then, maybe 30 or 40 years later what was going on THIS time comes to light, and the story repeats. Or somebody blows the whistle while it's still going on and presents evidence (often at great cost to himself), and then it's "That's just a rogue person/agency/group. We're bringing them to heel." or "It's a corrupt administration. Replace the head of state with a different one (maybe from the other major party but keep the same two parties in power) and it's all taken care of." Yeah, right.
Snowden revelations, ECHELON, Watergate, COINTELPRO, Pentagon Papers, Hanford Experiment, Tuskegee Experiment, Factor 8, Abscam, Ng Lap Seng, Iran-Contra, MK-Ultra, Operations MOCKINGBIRD, PHOENIX, and CHAOS, ... I could go on for pages, and that's just big, US (sometimes with allies), stuff that came to light in MY lifetime.
The government has whole agencies tasked with conspiring in secret to collect information and/or intervene to interfere with any opposition to its interests. The US has "Black Budgets" to unauditably fund such activity, and the Department of Defense, alone, spends an estimated $50 BILLION a year on its portion of this (as of 2009).
With their activities occurring in secret, there is much temptation to, and limited checks on, also targeting the biggest risk to the people currently in power in any government: The citizens of the country.
"Spook" agencies have a number of techniques to keep these conspiracies hidden, and one that has come to light (and is appropos) is the "Second Cover". This consists of spreading TWO cover stories: The first is plausible. The second is tinfoil-hat fruitcake material, lightly hidden. Anybody who figures out the first cover IS a cover and starts digging finds the second cover. Then they usually either give up (rather than dig for a third level) or you get new material for the tabloids, and another boost for the "conspiracy theories are ALL crazy talk" meme. (And it also helps that occasionally they DO try out the odd piece of mystic bulls**t, just to see if any of it, like some herbal medicine, DOES work.)
I generally assume (as did The Framers) that this sort of creeping (or galloping) encroachment is inherent in governments, is going on (and having new project starts) all the time, we usually can't tell, through the fog of misdirection, what's going on NOW, and the job of the people, like a farmer clearing weeds and trimming orchard trees, is to continually cut it back to levels that don't ruin our own lives and livelihoods.
Do you have any IDEA what a mess Daylight Savings Time makes of things like programs for process control and scheduling - and has at least since I did software for it back in the late '70s
Heck: For far longer than that. I hear the railroads handle it like this:
- In the spring, suddenly all the trains are an hour late. They work their way back to being on-time as they normally would - by running as fast as is practical.
- In the fall they STOP FOR AN HOUR. They just sit there with their engines running...
It's just easier than trying to figure out something "better" to do about it.
The claims that it saves energy are currently backward and getting more so. They may always have been, or it may be because lighting is more efficient (so the savings is small) while air conditioners are far more prevalent (and run more if people get home earlier).
Meanwhile it increases death rates: From DST-lagged drivers just after a change, from kids getting hit going to school in the dark on more days, from stress-related diseases exacerbated by the stress of the time change.
It also was a big factor in killing drive-in theatres.
If the government MUST twiddle with the clocks seasonally they should set them the OTHER WAY, creating Night Life Savings Time. We ALREADY have a shortage of dark time for evening recreation in the summer. Why take another hour away by shifting the clocks? Add one instead.
Thus we also get ethical arguments that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict 1 innocent man and so on.
That's not what the ethical issue is about. The issue is "Who Watches The Watchmen?" This issue has been an identified at least since the Roman Empire.
The problem of how to effectively enforce the law on the enforcers of the law is a very difficult one. Militaries and police forces are made up of humans, with human failings. On one hand, they may break the law when convenient. On the other they tend to identify as "us" - the enforcers - vs. "them" - the citizens. One of their number who tries to bring another in for lawbreaking becomes ostracised, as every other rank-and-file officer worries that he's next. Setting up separate departments to police the police just moves the problem one step back.
The solution found by the US courts is the doctrine of the "fruit of the poisoned tree": If the police, prosecutor, etc. break the law in their efforts to apprehend, search for evidence, and/or prosecute their case, everything resulting from that lawbreaking is thrown out. That usually breaks the case beyond redemption and the accused goes free. So lawbreaking by cops and prosecutors is deterred - not by punshment, but by it being counter-productive.
Yes, that means, when the police and/or prosecutors start breaking the law, lots of really bad guys go free (along with any falsely-accused good guys who were illegally processed). But a corrupt criminal justice system is SO MUCH WORSE than ANY number of other sorts of bad guys that it's a good trade.
Indeed, NASA has suggested that the exploration of space is like NASCAR only with rocket ships instead of souped up, high powered cars.
No to mention that many of the rocket scientists and/or astronauts/test pilots are the same sort of - occasionally even the same instances of - "rednecks" that build and/or drive the cars.
Sure there were also transplanted German rocket scientists. But the Otto Cycle - the four-stroke cycle of the gasoline engine - was originated (with "coal gas" for the fuel) by a German scientist / engineer, too: Nikolaus August Otto.
And just to forestall anyone replying to you with "lots of snow means no global warming": Warmer air means it can hold more moisture. This leads to more precipitation. ...
So does that mean California's several-year drought is evidence against global warming? B-)
You get a delivery of half a dozen of these - along with a 55-galon drum of freeze-dried mealworms to tide them over until the "livestock" are producing.
Seriously: Mealworms are something like 50% protein. Chickens LOVE them. Mealworms and yoghurt are the chicken version of sweet-and-sour shrimp. The main problem with using them for chicken treats is that the chickens will eat enough to overdose on protein and destroy their kidneys.
We have a show hen that the breeder had to stop showing: The breeder had tried to train her, using a reward of mealworms, to assume an erect posture to impress the judges. The hen decided that if standing up straight was good for getting a mealworm, going farther would get her more. So she started doing backflips - which mostly impressed the judges as weird (and possibly a sign of impaired balance) rather than just enthusiasm.
Commercial mealworms are pricey and flour is cheap. We've considered growing our own mealworms for "the girls", but that's a bit more labor-intensive than we're into. If this gadget is cheap enough an automatic enough (and non-stinky enough) they've got a sale - and probably a lot of them once the chicken fanciers find out about it.
At $100/gram.
And hit the "terms" tab. Excerpt:
So it's not offered for sale in the US, due to the patent, except possibly for R&D use under that US code section. (No time to look it up right now.)
As I recall US law, drugs not approved are currently prohibited, under decades-old "designer drug" legislation which was passed to halt sales of an apparently unending series of minor molecular tweaks on recreational drugs (often with horrible side-effects).
I can't wait for them to try this on Humans!
Note that the anti-ageing effects were seen in a strain of mutated mice that "exhibit rapid ageing". It may turn out that the drug's effects are specific for the pathway affected by the mouse line's particular genetic fault, rather than against ageing in general.
But even if that's the case, I expect it would retard SOME aspects of age-related debilitation in normal mice and in humans. I await the results of the upcoming human trials.
Those Arabs who despise ISIS call them "Daesh" and it's insulting enough to make them cut your tongue of if you use it so perhaps it's what we all should use at least colloquially to refer to Daesh.
So given the choice between using a label (yet another acronym) that they hate so much (because it sounds a little like "dahes" - i.e. "brigand") that they'll cut your tongue out for using it...
Or using a label that says to 1.6 BILLION Muslims that you believe: ...
- It is their religious DUTY to hunt down and KILL these people.
- If they're killed while attempting this, they get the express trip to heaven.
- They don't have to take your word for it - they can check for themselves, by comparing the bad guys' actions to the description in the Koran
You'd pick the loose tongue option?
If you're going to get your tongue cut out for calling them something that sounds a little like brigand, why not use the real word?
Someday people will look back on the shared delusion of religion and wonder what the fuck was wrong with everyone.
One problem religion shares with alcoholism and drug addiction is that attempts to stop it usually both fail miserably and cause more harm than letting it run its course without intervention.
One problem it shares with Rabies, Herpes, and HIV is that those afflicted with some forms of it can not be cured. The choice is to leave them alone (and maybe treat the symptoms) or kill them off.
So get used to having religious people around, and figuring out to live in a world containing them.
It's more like, what's going to keep some sociopath like that in check if you can't instill some kind of external fear in to them.
Objectivism. B-)
Seriously. If the prospect of retaliation by the law (or by the armies of other countries if they've managed to put themselves "above the law") doesn't deter them, why would a story about punishment in the afterlife, (similar in structure to the Santa Claus story they've already rejected) do so?
Objectivism, on the other hand, offers them a carrot: "Do things THIS way and good things are in it for you, in this lifetime. You can see that it works, see how it works, and the logic is eeasy to understand." "Here's what's in it for YOU for CHOSING to be good (for this particular value of "good")."
In a study in the Canadian prison system, teaching Objectivism was the only intervention that substantially reduced the recidivism rate.
We should stop calling them Islamic State ... and start calling them islamic sodomites, or something that might offend their world views.
You would respond to violence by calling them names. They would then laugh, and continue with the violence. It's obvious which is more effective.
If you really want to call them something that might do some good, call them "Brigands". That puts them in a class, in Islamic law, where the appropriate action by other Muslims is neither to support them, nor avoid criticizing them as members of a different-but-possibly-valid branch of Islam, but to apprehend them and put them to death for their crimes. It also fits their actions, so it may be persuasive.
IBM had it's own standards for mechanical packaging. But my recollection is that IBM's requirement that all its products fit through a standard 29" door predated the 360 line and was mandated by their sales department, who never wanted to lose a sale because the product could not get into a building.
Yep. The predecessor 14xx and 70x/709x series all had cabinets that size, too. Also the 30x series, including the RAMAC (first moving-head disk drive - name is an acronym for RAndoM ACcess).
The person (faculty at the University of Michigan) who told me about the box size (back in the late '60s) attributed it to Amdahl (who also predates the 360 by quite a bit), but perhaps he did inherit the design principle rather than originate it.
I had a recurring nightmare in the '80s (after Amdahl and Cray had spun out on their own): That Gene Amdahl, Gordon Bell (DEC's PDP 5, PDP 8 instruction set, PDP 11), and Seymour Cray (CDC, Cray Computers) would get together, found an "ABC Computer Company", and spend the next decades having architectural arguments but never producing a product.
Two of them are gone now, and the world is poorer for it.
(Ever wonder why the cabinets of IBM computers in the mid 20th century were the size they were? One of Amdahl's ideas: After seeing a facility have to tear out a wall to install an early machine (univac?) with the spectre of having to do it again to get it out some day, he designed his machines in modules that each just fit through the door and into the car of a standard elevator (with a bit of clearance for padding and room for someone to push the floor buttons. That meant lots of expensive custom cables and connectors, but still far cheaper than tearing up buildings. B-) )
Oops. Make that: := 0xfedcba89 := f
i
some_float
How do you test for "equivalence" between two things ...
You misunderstand "equivalence" in this context.
It is not a test, not a kind of comparison. It does not direct the program to do anything,
It is a declaration of storage allocation. It tells the compiler that two symbols refer to the same storage.
In c, for instance:
union {
long int i;
float f;
} intflloat;
Lets you say:
intfloat.i = 0xfedcba89;
some_float = intfloat.f;
and some_float gets a floating point value whose bits are 0xfedcba89.; In SAN you'd say:
int32 i
float f
i === f
Then:
i = 0xfedcba89
some_float = f
does the same thing.
I didn't expect that to be an issue.
Equivalnce is rare and stand-alone, unlike equality comparison, so triple equal would rarely be emitted and, when it was, it would be in a storage declaration, where double-equal would be a syntax error - as triple equal would be in an expression. It would normally only be emitted as a typo, rather than a brain-o, and the compiler would typically catch it.
Arg! Edit failure: (Previewed it too and missed it anyhow.)
Correction:
Equal sign in my language COULD have been considered a unary do-nothing reference-to-the-thing operator (i.e. "foo", "= foo", "= = foo" etc. are all the same thing) and stop there. If thinking that way, "= foo" IS "foo". Otherwise ":=" and "=:" wouldn't store anything. B-)