Egads... with 15% sales tax the streets must be paved with gold.
Anyway, the method you teach is something I actually learned in grade school (I guess fourth grade) from my vice principal, of all people. He was sitting in the class and suggested it along with the "standard" method of "x + %x" that the teacher was using. The handful of kids who had trouble grokking it (or were just annoyed by the extra step) got it right there.
What he actually left out was the next phrase in the sentence, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", which is not quite the same as saying "in the eyes of the law" as these are also known as "natural rights" while "in the eyes of the law" would suggest the presence of a government.
I realize we're dealing with Slashdot nerds who are unaccustomed to having their sperm meet up with eggs, but a sperm will never develop into a human on its own and neither will an egg. Once you have a zygote, if no problems are encountered it will become an independent human being. Not after it pops out in nine months, of course-- so that gives you food for thought, as to why the point where the infant passes into our world and is no longer physically tethered to its mother is the only one accepted as life. Indeed, the true birth of the soul comes later, so are we protecting a life form in the present or its potential for the future?
I used to follow that strategy when I was younger. I stuck with my current position over 10 years, because I found myself in a great team and a great business line inside a large corporation. That corporation has made several poor choices regarding both capital and personnel that expose it to various kinds of risk-- including the compensation of THIS particular human resource. I'm part of a critical two-man team, so if one of us leaves the other is sure to follow-- there are issues such as 24-hour on-call that would make hanging around intolerable when it's questionable that the vacated position would ever be filled at all. Besides my industry experience and skills, I have entrepreneurial options so walking out would be scary, but exciting. I'm trying to impress this on my superiors in a low-key, professional manner but the foot dragging continues, so the nuclear option becomes more likely every day.
OK, you don't know what my level of driving skill is. I know how to operate a stick, although I'd be pretty rusty by now. I think the last vehicle I operated with a stick had it on the column.
Second, IF MY CAR DOESN'T HAVE A STICK I DON'T NEED TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE WITH A STICK. Example: the ham licensing. Morse code skills are no longer vital, so you don't need to demonstrate morse code proficiency for the novice license. If I never touch a manual transmission, why should I learn to use one? I mean, you're demanding people obtain a car with a stick so they can pass a driving test on it when they may never use one. Maybe I should make you learn in the 1971 Ford pickup that had it on the column-- just in case you had to drive one.
It's really not that hard to avoid using a stick. Maybe you're some sort of automotive purist who believes we need to have manual transmissions to "really drive". People in the past protested when we got power steering, independent suspension, and OBD too.
Knowing the task well enough to automate it, and knowing how to automate tasks at all, is a skill that not everyone has. It's like the anecdote about Charles Steinmetz, who charged Ford $1 for a chalk mark on the proper access panel of a faulty generator and $9,999 for knowing where to put it.
As a dirty libertarian capitalist, I agree with this. Management's job is to set objectives and make sure they're accomplished, within budget. If one of their employees can meet these objectives in 20 hours a week by being a genius with the computing speed of Data and the communication skills of Ronald Reagan, so be it. If they can meet them by being cunning, and working a few extra hours to automate tasks so that they can meet the objectives in 20 hours a week, so be it. Only a moronic manager (but I repeat myself) would fire that guy because he wouldn't take on more work-- because you'll be lucky if the next guy can get the same work done in 40 hours.
It's an interesting question of ethics whether or not you should comprehensively document the scripts so that they can be maintained. After all, once you've automated much of your job penny-pinching and shortsighted managers could decide you're no longer needed. We're assuming they're wrong, and you really ARE needed and not just looking for a Wally job (see Dilbert). I'm pretty sure putting a dead-man's switch in the scripts (unless it's actually a safety feature, to ensure that someone's checking the logs in case there is a potentially data-destroying fault) is unethical, but what about all the time put into documenting any code and daily operations?
The article, and the summary, say the "most recent supported version". This doesn't mean the latest version of IE for every supported platform will be the same version of IE. There's a chart right on the page. It's quite clear.
I don't need to know how to operate a manual transmission if I don't have a manual transmission. I don't know how to start a Model T either, but I don't own a model T. And I don't know why you think average drivers should be able to pull a Rockford turn and immobilize people. I mean, we've all had cop fantasies, but...
I feel that the USA needs a few small, but sensible changes to its transportation laws to approach the level of safety in Germany. This is tricky, as each state has its own laws, but it can be done.
First of all, the drivers' tests in most states need to be tightened up. Many of them don't test you at any higher than 25 MPH because they're done in the city or a closed course. A high-speed element MUST BE REQUIRED.
Second, states need to stop treating driver's licenses as a privilege. I don't mean that they shouldn't be revoked for abuse-- quite the contrary. But states like NJ use them as a carrot on young people. If you get caught for even a stupid juvenile offense like TP'ing someone's house, they use it as an excuse to wait until you're 18 or older. TP'ing someone's house doesn't mean you're unfit to drive! Make them do community service-- but let them earn their license so they can drive to the soup kitchen. Making them wait just results in 20 year old bad drivers instead of 17 year old bad drivers.
Third, the speed limits are TOO LOW. I know this sounds crazy, but the USA is large and trips take too long as a consequence. If we make sure the drivers can handle high speeds (see item 1 above), we can raise the speed limit and make the trips shorter. How does this help safety? If your trip is shorter, you're less likely to get tired and stop paying attention. Sure, people should stop and rest, but the trips are already taking so damn long that we refuse to do that. The current speed limits are largely due to politics. States like Montana had no speed limits on some highways-- and accidents went DOWN. Until lobbyists made them put limits back in-- and accidents went up. Everyone knows they went up, but the limits are still in place. The politicians who signed off on this know their decision is killing people, and they DON'T CARE.
Secondly, the average driver in the US is considered a very poor driver by Australian standards
Australians and Germans appear to be safe drivers according to statistics, but Americans aren't exceptionally bad. We're in about the same number of accidents/km as Belgians and Austrians. Your Kiwi neighbors are surprisingly accident-prone.
The hilarious part is that Connecticut, like most of New England, is from far a conservative state or even nominally Republican. Remember, this is the place that, although it already had strong gun-control laws, took the political opportunity to impose downright oppressive laws that were enough to get a major gun manufacturer to flee the state (taking thousands of jobs with it). They have high taxes, are represented exclusively by Democrats in their capitol, in the US Senate, and the US House, allow same-sex marriage, and voted for a Democrat in the last six presidential elections.
Government forced us to remove even the tiniest hint of phosphates from our "detergents", such that they don't actually clean anything anymore unless you have a water softener. They forgot to check on the farms that were dumping an order of magnitude more into the water, though.
The problem is that the intellectual elite see a "push" as demanding a government mandate. They don't have the fortitude to persuade the public-- or merely see them as subhuman and incapable of reason-- and so, default to forcing them against their will.
Nobody lynched a black vaudeville performer on stage-- I think. But they weren't allowed on stage in the first place-- promoters believed people would rather see Al Jolson in blackface. That's what we're talking about. Not every topic is about OMG GENOCIDE type racism. This one is about culture.
If you're talking about the old pushbuttons, they're neat but I hear the issue with them is that they arc a lot more than modern switches. I imagine if the switch is not overly worn, it's OK, but I wonder if any of those oldies are enough to trip the arc fault protectors we use in the modern code.
Wires from a home built in the 1970's are often so brittle that they crumble. not just the jacket coatings but the copper itself. This is due to heat. Heat comes from resistance.
If you ever saw 1970s cabling that had the insulation breaking down, much less the copper itself, then it was overloaded far past its design limit. Normal usage does not cause breakdowns. There is one exception, in that the insulation used before the 1980s did have a temp limit of 60 degrees C, which could be exceeded readily when used inside an enclosed light fixture. Since then, the standard is 90 C and you will see a warning on any new enclosed fixtures to make sure your cabling is rated properly.
Copper breaking down? No way. It couldn't even get corroded except where the insulation is stripped away-- and I haven't seen that unless there was a water intrusion problem. If you have water getting on your wiring, your structure won't be around long enough for the copper to "break down".
Think about it: do you think everyone with wiring over 40 years old is about to have their house burn down? I've replaced wiring older than that and it wasn't broken down. I replaced it because it doesn't meet our current heat standard or was damaged by pests.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess the only reason you haven't been modded to -1 by the PC set is because you didn't include a TL;DR version.
Egads... with 15% sales tax the streets must be paved with gold.
Anyway, the method you teach is something I actually learned in grade school (I guess fourth grade) from my vice principal, of all people. He was sitting in the class and suggested it along with the "standard" method of "x + %x" that the teacher was using. The handful of kids who had trouble grokking it (or were just annoyed by the extra step) got it right there.
What he actually left out was the next phrase in the sentence, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", which is not quite the same as saying "in the eyes of the law" as these are also known as "natural rights" while "in the eyes of the law" would suggest the presence of a government.
OK, not-adult stem cells. I stand corrected.
I realize we're dealing with Slashdot nerds who are unaccustomed to having their sperm meet up with eggs, but a sperm will never develop into a human on its own and neither will an egg. Once you have a zygote, if no problems are encountered it will become an independent human being. Not after it pops out in nine months, of course-- so that gives you food for thought, as to why the point where the infant passes into our world and is no longer physically tethered to its mother is the only one accepted as life. Indeed, the true birth of the soul comes later, so are we protecting a life form in the present or its potential for the future?
I used to follow that strategy when I was younger. I stuck with my current position over 10 years, because I found myself in a great team and a great business line inside a large corporation. That corporation has made several poor choices regarding both capital and personnel that expose it to various kinds of risk-- including the compensation of THIS particular human resource. I'm part of a critical two-man team, so if one of us leaves the other is sure to follow-- there are issues such as 24-hour on-call that would make hanging around intolerable when it's questionable that the vacated position would ever be filled at all. Besides my industry experience and skills, I have entrepreneurial options so walking out would be scary, but exciting. I'm trying to impress this on my superiors in a low-key, professional manner but the foot dragging continues, so the nuclear option becomes more likely every day.
OK, you don't know what my level of driving skill is. I know how to operate a stick, although I'd be pretty rusty by now. I think the last vehicle I operated with a stick had it on the column.
Second, IF MY CAR DOESN'T HAVE A STICK I DON'T NEED TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE WITH A STICK. Example: the ham licensing. Morse code skills are no longer vital, so you don't need to demonstrate morse code proficiency for the novice license. If I never touch a manual transmission, why should I learn to use one? I mean, you're demanding people obtain a car with a stick so they can pass a driving test on it when they may never use one. Maybe I should make you learn in the 1971 Ford pickup that had it on the column-- just in case you had to drive one.
It's really not that hard to avoid using a stick. Maybe you're some sort of automotive purist who believes we need to have manual transmissions to "really drive". People in the past protested when we got power steering, independent suspension, and OBD too.
Be sure to use lots of regexes.
Knowing the task well enough to automate it, and knowing how to automate tasks at all, is a skill that not everyone has. It's like the anecdote about Charles Steinmetz, who charged Ford $1 for a chalk mark on the proper access panel of a faulty generator and $9,999 for knowing where to put it.
As a dirty libertarian capitalist, I agree with this. Management's job is to set objectives and make sure they're accomplished, within budget. If one of their employees can meet these objectives in 20 hours a week by being a genius with the computing speed of Data and the communication skills of Ronald Reagan, so be it. If they can meet them by being cunning, and working a few extra hours to automate tasks so that they can meet the objectives in 20 hours a week, so be it. Only a moronic manager (but I repeat myself) would fire that guy because he wouldn't take on more work-- because you'll be lucky if the next guy can get the same work done in 40 hours.
It's an interesting question of ethics whether or not you should comprehensively document the scripts so that they can be maintained. After all, once you've automated much of your job penny-pinching and shortsighted managers could decide you're no longer needed. We're assuming they're wrong, and you really ARE needed and not just looking for a Wally job (see Dilbert). I'm pretty sure putting a dead-man's switch in the scripts (unless it's actually a safety feature, to ensure that someone's checking the logs in case there is a potentially data-destroying fault) is unethical, but what about all the time put into documenting any code and daily operations?
The article, and the summary, say the "most recent supported version". This doesn't mean the latest version of IE for every supported platform will be the same version of IE. There's a chart right on the page. It's quite clear.
Anyone using IE6 has bigger problems, because their OS isn't even supported. No desktop version newer than XP supports IE6.
I don't need to know how to operate a manual transmission if I don't have a manual transmission. I don't know how to start a Model T either, but I don't own a model T. And I don't know why you think average drivers should be able to pull a Rockford turn and immobilize people. I mean, we've all had cop fantasies, but ...
I feel that the USA needs a few small, but sensible changes to its transportation laws to approach the level of safety in Germany. This is tricky, as each state has its own laws, but it can be done.
First of all, the drivers' tests in most states need to be tightened up. Many of them don't test you at any higher than 25 MPH because they're done in the city or a closed course. A high-speed element MUST BE REQUIRED.
Second, states need to stop treating driver's licenses as a privilege. I don't mean that they shouldn't be revoked for abuse-- quite the contrary. But states like NJ use them as a carrot on young people. If you get caught for even a stupid juvenile offense like TP'ing someone's house, they use it as an excuse to wait until you're 18 or older. TP'ing someone's house doesn't mean you're unfit to drive! Make them do community service-- but let them earn their license so they can drive to the soup kitchen. Making them wait just results in 20 year old bad drivers instead of 17 year old bad drivers.
Third, the speed limits are TOO LOW. I know this sounds crazy, but the USA is large and trips take too long as a consequence. If we make sure the drivers can handle high speeds (see item 1 above), we can raise the speed limit and make the trips shorter. How does this help safety? If your trip is shorter, you're less likely to get tired and stop paying attention. Sure, people should stop and rest, but the trips are already taking so damn long that we refuse to do that. The current speed limits are largely due to politics. States like Montana had no speed limits on some highways-- and accidents went DOWN. Until lobbyists made them put limits back in-- and accidents went up. Everyone knows they went up, but the limits are still in place. The politicians who signed off on this know their decision is killing people, and they DON'T CARE.
Australians and Germans appear to be safe drivers according to statistics, but Americans aren't exceptionally bad. We're in about the same number of accidents/km as Belgians and Austrians. Your Kiwi neighbors are surprisingly accident-prone.
The hilarious part is that Connecticut, like most of New England, is from far a conservative state or even nominally Republican. Remember, this is the place that, although it already had strong gun-control laws, took the political opportunity to impose downright oppressive laws that were enough to get a major gun manufacturer to flee the state (taking thousands of jobs with it). They have high taxes, are represented exclusively by Democrats in their capitol, in the US Senate, and the US House, allow same-sex marriage, and voted for a Democrat in the last six presidential elections.
Is that clear enough?
Government forced us to remove even the tiniest hint of phosphates from our "detergents", such that they don't actually clean anything anymore unless you have a water softener. They forgot to check on the farms that were dumping an order of magnitude more into the water, though.
The problem is that the intellectual elite see a "push" as demanding a government mandate. They don't have the fortitude to persuade the public-- or merely see them as subhuman and incapable of reason-- and so, default to forcing them against their will.
Nobody lynched a black vaudeville performer on stage-- I think. But they weren't allowed on stage in the first place-- promoters believed people would rather see Al Jolson in blackface. That's what we're talking about. Not every topic is about OMG GENOCIDE type racism. This one is about culture.
Again, that has nothing to do "wear" caused by electricity, but by environmental factors.
If you're talking about the old pushbuttons, they're neat but I hear the issue with them is that they arc a lot more than modern switches. I imagine if the switch is not overly worn, it's OK, but I wonder if any of those oldies are enough to trip the arc fault protectors we use in the modern code.
If you ever saw 1970s cabling that had the insulation breaking down, much less the copper itself, then it was overloaded far past its design limit. Normal usage does not cause breakdowns. There is one exception, in that the insulation used before the 1980s did have a temp limit of 60 degrees C, which could be exceeded readily when used inside an enclosed light fixture. Since then, the standard is 90 C and you will see a warning on any new enclosed fixtures to make sure your cabling is rated properly.
Copper breaking down? No way. It couldn't even get corroded except where the insulation is stripped away-- and I haven't seen that unless there was a water intrusion problem. If you have water getting on your wiring, your structure won't be around long enough for the copper to "break down".
Think about it: do you think everyone with wiring over 40 years old is about to have their house burn down? I've replaced wiring older than that and it wasn't broken down. I replaced it because it doesn't meet our current heat standard or was damaged by pests.
Most theoretical physicists I know haven't even made it to base 3.
Fetal stem cells. FETAL.
F E T A L
That is spelled
F
E
T
A
L