Assuming you're talking about (US) federal tax only (and not state, FICA, Medicare, etc.), and you don't have some sort of multiyear carryover from prior years, or evil AMT issues, I call bullshit. Consulting the tax tables for the 2004 tax year, 20k in TAXABLE income means you owe $2,646 in taxes (and that's at the high single/married filing separately rate). You should fire your tax guy, dude.
On the other hand, if you're getting burnt by the AMT because of its bizarre rules, then I truly feel sorry for you.
Do you really think it would be difficult at all for Google to just manually tweak their search database to make their pages on traffic come up first given the appropriate searches?
If they went that way, how easy do you think it would be to spot? Is it not better that they are doing this in a relatively open manner? Is it not their database that they are manipulating? Has anyone tried the user agent strings for other spiders?
And even assuming that some environmental change is causing more cancer is dangerous. We're living longer now than we used to. That's more time to be exposed to those things that cause cancer, and therefore a greater chance of contracting it over one's lifetime. There's a bunch of studies that would need to be done (I'm sure some have been done already) to account for this.
My guess is we'll find it to be a complicated mess of cofactors and contributory agents. Personally, I'm worried about cancer for myself because I worked at a full-serve gas station for a year and half back in the '80s. I came home after work reeking of gas, kerosene and diesel. I'm less concerned about my cellphone, since I rarely use it for more than a minute or two.
But, you never know. Life isn't risk free. We play the odds whenever we drive a car, fly in an airplane, sit in front of an electron gun, use a phone, or step out of the shower. But knowing the risks beforehand with rigorous studies to back it up makes it easier to make informed decisions on whether it's worth the risk. Even if the use of cellphone once gave me an 90% chance of cancer in 10-20 years, you can bet that I'll use it in a life-or-death emergency right now. It all comes down to risk versus reward.
On their own servers, then they're obeying the rules.
The question is: Do they use these patches on the search appliances they sell, and does that count as "distribution"? I honestly don't know the answer to that question, and I'd like to think Google has sharp legal advisors to go with their sharp technical people.
It's as incorrect as "mute point" and "intensive purposes"
It's not quite that bad. "Chomp" is a word that doesn't already carry any other meaning. You're correct in that it derived from "champ", but the twisting you refer to happened before anybody alive today was born, and has become a generally accepted (though I would concede informal) part of American English.
Unless you're talking about a point made without sound, or designs which are forceful, "mute point" and "intensive purposes" are just wrong.
"Mute" for "moot" is a big pet peeve of mine, second only to the even more pedantic distinction between "disinterested" versus "uninterested".
Yes, mods, I'm offtopic. I'm not posting with my karma bonus, so go easy on me.
If all I'm supposed to do is crusade against injustice every waking moment of every day and never engage in the superfluous, entertaining, or downright silly even for a moment, then you can just drag me out in the street and shoot me right now, because I'd rather be dead.
NEWSFLASH: The world's a shithole. Has been for time out of mind and doesn't look like it's going to get better anytime soon. I'm not saying not to do anything about it, and not to be concerned with the considerable problems we face. But as all which is Holy and Unholy as my witness, I reject utterly the concept that I cannot enjoy something in my life that may be trivial and banal because these problems exist. This is secular puritanism made manifest and I find it contemptible.
So, you support the forcible taking of someone's property for what you percieve to be the "good of humanity" because you're not selfish? All well and good, but just how in the hell do you figure out what's "good for humanity" in the first place? Do you really trust the political class to know the answer to these questions?
Helping humanity is good, but if you give people the power to seize another's property to go good, you've given them the power to seize property to do evil.
I'm not debating the ugliness of the word (for the record, I hate it). However, to reject "spim" simply because it is new, and spam has a time honored tradition, rooted in the very bedrock of our language TEN YEARS AGO, is silly. To accept the use of a word up until you understand its origin is recent and then to reject it is beyond conservatism. It's hidebound reactionism.
People need to understand that all language is relatively arbitrary. Onomatopoeia is an exception to this rule, and ISTR a study that showed that many languages tended to use words with high front vowels (long e, short i) that use small mouth openings to represent small objects. That's hardly set in stone, however.
So, "spimming" is bad because it means "instant message spamming", where "spam" was originally a trademark of Hormel until 10 years ago when it was used to refer to commercial crossposting to Usenet? Why do you support the lazy use of "spamming" when it would be more correct to say "The transmission of unsolicited commercial language by text messaging services"?
because if you were comparing two pointers on the same host the AND in your condition would always lead to "pointer AND 0", regardless of address. If either condition is true, then the object is not the same (address is different, or host is different to ensure different objects.).
Don't feel too bad, though. I did the truth table twice before I convinced myself there was a problem. I may still have it wrong.:-)
Personally, I would prefer to make an Is operator first and define the IsNot just the inverse of Is:
int Is (clusterPtr a, clusterPtr b) { /* For an appropriate definition of clusterPtr:-) */ if ((a->address == b->address) && (a->host == b->host)) return 1; return 0; }
#define IsNot(a,b) (!Is(a,b))
I generally find that the fewer not operations running around in my code, the easier it is to understand. I feel that defining something "Not" with a bunch of not conditions is like using double negatives in English. While a person may understand what was said, literally interpreting it leads to the opposite meaning. We all know how the computer will deal with that.
Gotta love a code tag that ignores whitespace. No wonder I never post Python snippets.:-)
I would like to humbly suggest these guys. The software was completely self contained (Either static executables, or the dependant libraries on were included). The network agent did a DH key exchange when you first installed it, and after that, each agent contact required a challenge-response before it would do anything. Nothing is ever guaranteed secure, but several very bright engineers who were also experienced sysadmins burned a lot of brain cycles to design the security of this system before a line of code was written. Restores were easy, and you could immediately verify the integirty of a backup when it was finished, and verify that it was still good at any time. When you have a systems failure is not when you want to find out if your tapes are actually any good or not.
In the interest of full disclosure, you should know that I worked on the product that preceeded BRU Server, but I have never had financial interest in the current company that sells any BRU product. It was a product I was proud of when we shipped 1.0 back in 2001, and they appear to have made it only better as time has gone by.
I have not looked at the new version in-depth yet. They have 30 day free trial that will always let you restore, even beyond the 30 days. You just can't do more backups with an expired product.
I believe that its Python bindings are also decent.
The Python GTK+ bindings are the only thing keeping GTK+ running on my home system at all. pygtk makes using GTK+ a breeze. And I don't consider myself of GUI programmer type.
For the most part it's quite beautiful, but there's still some hazy light to the south as a result of the huge growth of Phoenix.
If anyone ever gets a chance, I recommend going to Sedona and seeing the beautiful geology of the day and the wonderful sky at night. The town itself is kinda tourist-trappy, but it's still a great trip.
When we built our house in 2001, one of our local Home Depots sold Monster Cable by the foot with all the other wiring stuff they sell. Apparently, it didn't sell well and they discontinued it just as I was shopping for speaker cable. They sold it for some ludicrously low price (5 cents/ft? I don't remember, but it was the cheapest wire they sold at the time.), but I bought it all when I wired the great room for surround sound. The sound is great or it was until I blew one of my old JBL speakers out. Oh, well, I got 10 years out of 'em, and even now they're still not too bad at low to moderate volume. I'd buy new ones but I'm conserving cash so that my wife can (hopefully) attend Clarion West.
I still have a couple hundred feet left on spools in the garage for those inevitable audio projects that crop up from time to time. So, I got Monster Cable for cheaper than Home Depot 18 Gauge Lamp Cord.
Because a random guess has a probability of 1/n of succeeding where n is the number of options offered. So you give me six choices, and instead of sending 20 million spams, I only send 3.3 million. It helps, but not as much as something with a high answer space, like five random letters.
You could ask several such questions in a row, I suppose, but who wants to take the SAT every time they send an email?
I think you misspelled "most of the time", at least from a remote sensing perspective. Landsat's Thematic Mapper, MOC on Mars Global Surveyor, THEMIS on Odyssey, the Viking orbiters...all their camera systems used/uses filters and there are many more I am less familiar with that also use filters. The old Mariner missions used unfiltered vidicons (and I think 9 [Mars] and 10 [Venus, Mercury] did have filters, but I don't recall), but I'm hard pressed to think of many systems built since the 70s that don't use filters on their optical instruments. I will caveat by admitting my knowledge is very Mars-centric (or 'areocentric' if you prefer) and I don't know much about how the star cameras used for navigation are put together.
Collecting all the photons you can is a good thing, but knowing the wavelength of those photons is pretty darned useful too.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that we get more data our of rovers than we do orbiters. Certainly a rover can give us very detailed data of a given area, but our knowledge of the regional and global characteristics of Mars come courtesy of our orbiter missions. The very landing sites picked were selected because of the data from these orbiters. Most of the rover data is relayed by the relay systems on the Mars Odyssey orbiter. I would say that rovers and orbiters complement each other nicely.
Keep in mind that we've been roving on our planet since before the beginning of history, but we still get a lot of useful information out of orbiters around our world (Landsat, GOES, etc.), too.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming you're talking about (US) federal tax only (and not state, FICA, Medicare, etc.), and you don't have some sort of multiyear carryover from prior years, or evil AMT issues, I call bullshit. Consulting the tax tables for the 2004 tax year, 20k in TAXABLE income means you owe $2,646 in taxes (and that's at the high single/married filing separately rate). You should fire your tax guy, dude.
On the other hand, if you're getting burnt by the AMT because of its bizarre rules, then I truly feel sorry for you.
Do you really think it would be difficult at all for Google to just manually tweak their search database to make their pages on traffic come up first given the appropriate searches?
If they went that way, how easy do you think it would be to spot? Is it not better that they are doing this in a relatively open manner? Is it not their database that they are manipulating? Has anyone tried the user agent strings for other spiders?
If you think Google's cheating, there are many other choices out there[1] for you.
And even assuming that some environmental change is causing more cancer is dangerous. We're living longer now than we used to. That's more time to be exposed to those things that cause cancer, and therefore a greater chance of contracting it over one's lifetime. There's a bunch of studies that would need to be done (I'm sure some have been done already) to account for this.
My guess is we'll find it to be a complicated mess of cofactors and contributory agents. Personally, I'm worried about cancer for myself because I worked at a full-serve gas station for a year and half back in the '80s. I came home after work reeking of gas, kerosene and diesel. I'm less concerned about my cellphone, since I rarely use it for more than a minute or two.
But, you never know. Life isn't risk free. We play the odds whenever we drive a car, fly in an airplane, sit in front of an electron gun, use a phone, or step out of the shower. But knowing the risks beforehand with rigorous studies to back it up makes it easier to make informed decisions on whether it's worth the risk. Even if the use of cellphone once gave me an 90% chance of cancer in 10-20 years, you can bet that I'll use it in a life-or-death emergency right now. It all comes down to risk versus reward.
On their own servers, then they're obeying the rules.
The question is: Do they use these patches on the search appliances they sell, and does that count as "distribution"? I honestly don't know the answer to that question, and I'd like to think Google has sharp legal advisors to go with their sharp technical people.
It's not quite that bad. "Chomp" is a word that doesn't already carry any other meaning. You're correct in that it derived from "champ", but the twisting you refer to happened before anybody alive today was born, and has become a generally accepted (though I would concede informal) part of American English.
Unless you're talking about a point made without sound, or designs which are forceful, "mute point" and "intensive purposes" are just wrong.
"Mute" for "moot" is a big pet peeve of mine, second only to the even more pedantic distinction between "disinterested" versus "uninterested".
Yes, mods, I'm offtopic. I'm not posting with my karma bonus, so go easy on me.
Your rediculous.
If all I'm supposed to do is crusade against injustice every waking moment of every day and never engage in the superfluous, entertaining, or downright silly even for a moment, then you can just drag me out in the street and shoot me right now, because I'd rather be dead.
NEWSFLASH: The world's a shithole. Has been for time out of mind and doesn't look like it's going to get better anytime soon. I'm not saying not to do anything about it, and not to be concerned with the considerable problems we face. But as all which is Holy and Unholy as my witness, I reject utterly the concept that I cannot enjoy something in my life that may be trivial and banal because these problems exist. This is secular puritanism made manifest and I find it contemptible.
So, you support the forcible taking of someone's property for what you percieve to be the "good of humanity" because you're not selfish? All well and good, but just how in the hell do you figure out what's "good for humanity" in the first place? Do you really trust the political class to know the answer to these questions?
Helping humanity is good, but if you give people the power to seize another's property to go good, you've given them the power to seize property to do evil.
Hey, that's okay, 'cause so am I. :D
And rightfully so! You disregard the the mighty Templar at your own peril.
It's been too long for me to remember clearly, but didn't select() derive from BSD Unix back in the day?
poll() is nicer, however.
I'm not debating the ugliness of the word (for the record, I hate it). However, to reject "spim" simply because it is new, and spam has a time honored tradition, rooted in the very bedrock of our language TEN YEARS AGO, is silly. To accept the use of a word up until you understand its origin is recent and then to reject it is beyond conservatism. It's hidebound reactionism.
People need to understand that all language is relatively arbitrary. Onomatopoeia is an exception to this rule, and ISTR a study that showed that many languages tended to use words with high front vowels (long e, short i) that use small mouth openings to represent small objects. That's hardly set in stone, however.
So, "spimming" is bad because it means "instant message spamming", where "spam" was originally a trademark of Hormel until 10 years ago when it was used to refer to commercial crossposting to Usenet? Why do you support the lazy use of "spamming" when it would be more correct to say "The transmission of unsolicited commercial language by text messaging services"?
Your rules appear to be pretty damned arbitrary.
I think you mean:
because if you were comparing two pointers on the same host the AND in your condition would always lead to "pointer AND 0", regardless of address. If either condition is true, then the object is not the same (address is different, or host is different to ensure different objects.).
Don't feel too bad, though. I did the truth table twice before I convinced myself there was a problem. I may still have it wrong. :-)
Personally, I would prefer to make an Is operator first and define the IsNot just the inverse of Is:
I generally find that the fewer not operations running around in my code, the easier it is to understand. I feel that defining something "Not" with a bunch of not conditions is like using double negatives in English. While a person may understand what was said, literally interpreting it leads to the opposite meaning. We all know how the computer will deal with that.
Gotta love a code tag that ignores whitespace. No wonder I never post Python snippets. :-)
I would like to humbly suggest these guys. The software was completely self contained (Either static executables, or the dependant libraries on were included). The network agent did a DH key exchange when you first installed it, and after that, each agent contact required a challenge-response before it would do anything. Nothing is ever guaranteed secure, but several very bright engineers who were also experienced sysadmins burned a lot of brain cycles to design the security of this system before a line of code was written. Restores were easy, and you could immediately verify the integirty of a backup when it was finished, and verify that it was still good at any time. When you have a systems failure is not when you want to find out if your tapes are actually any good or not.
In the interest of full disclosure, you should know that I worked on the product that preceeded BRU Server, but I have never had financial interest in the current company that sells any BRU product. It was a product I was proud of when we shipped 1.0 back in 2001, and they appear to have made it only better as time has gone by.
I have not looked at the new version in-depth yet. They have 30 day free trial that will always let you restore, even beyond the 30 days. You just can't do more backups with an expired product.
Hi! I just heard about this site from some of my hacker friends, and just wanted to say hi to you people!
The Python GTK+ bindings are the only thing keeping GTK+ running on my home system at all. pygtk makes using GTK+ a breeze. And I don't consider myself of GUI programmer type.
I am now a work of art. No one may now take my picture in public without my express written permission.
Continued usage of the Krebs cycle constitutes acceptance of these terms.
Will someone please mod this up?
Thank you Nugget, for my new sig...
For the most part it's quite beautiful, but there's still some hazy light to the south as a result of the huge growth of Phoenix.
If anyone ever gets a chance, I recommend going to Sedona and seeing the beautiful geology of the day and the wonderful sky at night. The town itself is kinda tourist-trappy, but it's still a great trip.
When we built our house in 2001, one of our local Home Depots sold Monster Cable by the foot with all the other wiring stuff they sell. Apparently, it didn't sell well and they discontinued it just as I was shopping for speaker cable. They sold it for some ludicrously low price (5 cents/ft? I don't remember, but it was the cheapest wire they sold at the time.), but I bought it all when I wired the great room for surround sound. The sound is great or it was until I blew one of my old JBL speakers out. Oh, well, I got 10 years out of 'em, and even now they're still not too bad at low to moderate volume. I'd buy new ones but I'm conserving cash so that my wife can (hopefully) attend Clarion West.
I still have a couple hundred feet left on spools in the garage for those inevitable audio projects that crop up from time to time. So, I got Monster Cable for cheaper than Home Depot 18 Gauge Lamp Cord.
Because a random guess has a probability of 1/n of succeeding where n is the number of options offered. So you give me six choices, and instead of sending 20 million spams, I only send 3.3 million. It helps, but not as much as something with a high answer space, like five random letters.
You could ask several such questions in a row, I suppose, but who wants to take the SAT every time they send an email?
I think you misspelled "most of the time", at least from a remote sensing perspective. Landsat's Thematic Mapper, MOC on Mars Global Surveyor, THEMIS on Odyssey, the Viking orbiters ...all their camera systems used/uses filters and there are many more I am less familiar with that also use filters. The old Mariner missions used unfiltered vidicons (and I think 9 [Mars] and 10 [Venus, Mercury] did have filters, but I don't recall), but I'm hard pressed to think of many systems built since the 70s that don't use filters on their optical instruments. I will caveat by admitting my knowledge is very Mars-centric (or 'areocentric' if you prefer) and I don't know much about how the star cameras used for navigation are put together.
Collecting all the photons you can is a good thing, but knowing the wavelength of those photons is pretty darned useful too.
No, Noel, you're supposed to baiting Mars nuts at that other site.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that we get more data our of rovers than we do orbiters. Certainly a rover can give us very detailed data of a given area, but our knowledge of the regional and global characteristics of Mars come courtesy of our orbiter missions. The very landing sites picked were selected because of the data from these orbiters. Most of the rover data is relayed by the relay systems on the Mars Odyssey orbiter. I would say that rovers and orbiters complement each other nicely.
Keep in mind that we've been roving on our planet since before the beginning of history, but we still get a lot of useful information out of orbiters around our world (Landsat, GOES, etc.), too.