Too bad, because I'm struggling right now with how to map caveserv.com AND adamstechconsultants.com/drupal to the same Drupal site without having cookies and nodes get all jacked up with mod_rewrite and other hosting nuances.
You can mod_rewrite one domain name to 301 to the other and just config stuff for the other, but you probably already knew that. It's still the simplest solution.
You can also try making sites/caveserv.com a symbolic link to sites/adamstechconsultants.com (so all the other files underneath stay the same), but you'll have to modify the settings.php file to comment out the $base_url line. After that, you'll have to also ensure all your pages are using relative links, not any links with the domain name in it. Sessions on one domain won't stay if they switch to the other domain.
Typically, those of us using Drupal for a small business site paid the learning curve a long time ago and don't have to relearn it while doing several more small business sites each month. You can even create installation profiles now that automate setting up the modules and configs that you prefer for a new type of site.
The biggest work for a new site usually ends up being creating a custom theme to match a designer's graphics and layout and a couple of custom little things a particular site owner wants to have.
However, if you are talking about someone new to Drupal that only plans on ever doing one small site, then yeah, the learning curve is probably a bit high. For a single large site with multiple ongoing developers, the built-in modularity probably has more advantages then the curve to learn how that works has disadvantages, which is why a lot of large companies are starting to use Drupal for their sites.
Drupal's a great dynamic web application framework, as well as being being a really complicated blog-publishing tool. Don't get me started on setting up forums....
Or rather, `portinstall -R gnome2` for a new installation. You'd have to add a -N to the portupgrade command if you wanted it to install if it doesn't exist already. Of course, the two progams are actually the exact same program, sharing a man page.
Just a little curious as to why you're still using pkg_add instead of portupgrade?
For example, your "two commands" could just be one command, `portupgrade -R gnome2`, after which it'll figure out what else needs to be installed that you don't have and take care of it all.
Warning! You may find this or another comment in this thread amusing. Regular amusement from reading comments on this web site may be addictive and potentially cause financial harm to your employer as well as contribute to a lack of interpersonal relationship time. Read comments with extreme caution and with moderation. (Pun intended).
Dish Network's VIP series of receivers (622/722) are better than the HD tivos. They also came out earlier and cost less. The interface is better as well as the storage mechanism (storing the raw incoming MPEG2/4 satellite signal instead of decompressing/recompressing).
Yes you can transfer video files to and from a Dish VIP receiver, but no, not to anything you like. They've apparently made an agreement with their content providers to limit it, so you have to buy a Dish branded portable player. Otherwise you can legitimately transfer content to an external hard drive through a usb2 interface, but the only other place you can play it back is on one of your Dish Network receivers.
You can even take some of the Dish Network receivers that aren't DVRs and turn them into a DVR by just plugging in an external usb hard drive. Nice to see code reuse like that.
In this particular lawsuit, TIVO was asking for several claims, some of which were hardware related (using a hard drive to record, etc..) and some of which were software related. On this appeal, they threw out the hardware related claims and just issued the injunction for the two remaining software claims. Dish Network has already announced that they had previously rewritten the portion of their DVR software that was claimed to infringed and thus there was no need for any future changes to comply with this injunction.
In completely unrelated news, a couple of weeks later large portions of mideast anti-western terrorist sponsoring areas had internet access disrupted or cut off in a series of coincidental unobserved "accidents".
Basically, this means that, in high population areas where you would have thousands of cars flying in all directions, there isn't a computer system in the world that could control all of those cars.
There's also isn't a computer system in the world that can control the routing for all of the packets in the internet, yet somehow they get to their destination.
Perhaps you haven't considered that there are other ways to do traffic control besides having a central authority controlling every vehicle?
All a computerized vehicle needs to do is to pick the path for itself that moves itself closer to it's destination without moving itself towards other objects that are heading towards any part of that same path in the same timeframe.
I can think of multiple ways of accomplishing that off the top of my head. One would be to use a common path description format and then for a vehicle to pick a path and then broadcast a time-based path reservation to the other vehicles within a radius determined by safety considerations. That path reservation would then become off-limits when those other vehicles are picking their paths. Infrequent reservation collisions would require a resolution of which vehicle needs to recompute a new path for itself, but we use simplified rules for that already, as illustrated by the phrase "right-of-way".
Go do a realistic assessment of your value to an employer. Maybe find someone who's been in your industry for a while and ask them personally to tell you what they think after they've reviewed your skills and experience.
Then go find a company that needs what you have to offer and convince them to hire you.
Then put in your 2 weeks notice at your current company, cause that's the most you're gonna want to keep working there once you find a decent company to work for.
Also remember that small companies will usually pay a little less and have less job security, while big companies will almost all turn out to be full of stupid bureacratic rules and fiefdoms. Let your personal risk aversion and sufferance of crap be your guide as to which kind of company you want to work for.
Sorry for the confusion in the course catalog. Due to a printing error, the "Dealing with Bureacracy" class was mislabeled as the "Advanced C++" class.
It's an easy mistake to make, but to get an A in the bureacracy class, you have to convince the TA that regulations required the assignment to be accepted. Since you only went so far as to discuss it with the instructor and didn't even bother a school administrator, you're lucky you didn't get a C in the class instead. Must be your likeable personality that got you the B.
Even better, have you ever wondered why the germans were so much farther advanced in rocketry than the rest of the world?
Part of the limitations put on Germany after WW I was that they weren't allowed to have artillery larger than a certain size limit.
So among their other ways around the restrictions of the treaty (training pilots and storing planes in Russia, etc...), they also made rockets a huge research priority as a way to get better long range artillery without technically violating the treaty.
The major advances in rocketry at the time were made not only in the pursuit of better ways to kill people, but wouldn't have happened without the restrictions placed on Germany's using other methods of killing people.
Those German rocket scientists became the foundation of rocketry in the rest of the world after WW II, so we may STILL not have orbital rockets today if it wasn't for war as an incentive.
Only a race that repress its tendency to kill everything can survive technology.
Here, let me fix that for you:
Only a race that repress its tendency to kill itself can survive technology.
What eliminates a race that focuses all of its agression against others not of their race? It makes a great external enemy that allows the race itself to work together with a common bond, at peace with itself.
It's just too bad that we turn out to be one of those "others", huh?
Oppresive regimes to this all the time on earth, using an "external" enemy to create peace at home in furtherance of opposing the "greater enemy".
According to a quick check of Wikipedia, the Florida counties involved in the hand recounts were Broward, Miami Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia. The issues in Florida revolved around counting problems and ballot design. Of the four counties involved in the recount, the first three are heavily Democrat controlled, while Volusia is not. (Although according to the NY Times, Volusia was hostile to Bush in the 2000 election anyway). The infamous "Butterfly" ballot was designed by a Democrat controlled county election board (Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Theresa Lepore, who was elected as a registered Democrat). Do you think Palm Beach county designed the ballot in order to get Bush elected, or that they're just incompetent Democrats who thought the larger print would help elderly voters vote in more Democrats?
The state of Florida didn't design or count the ballots at issue in the 2000 election, they just certified the results. The counties at issue were not Bush-friendly. Trying to blame Bush or Republicans for somehow creating the mess by magically controlling them is ridiculous.
The complaints in Ohio in 2004 revolved around vote counting/re-counting as well as polling place availability and voting machine availability. Both were supposedly issues in the voting locations where Kerry had the most support, in densely populated areas.
Now, knowing that densely populated areas were heavily Democrat controlled (hence why they also went for Kerry) and that in Ohio the County elections board deals with all counting issues, do you think it's reasonable that in a heavily Democrat controlled county the Democrat elections board was miscounting things in order to favor Bush?
So let's take machine availability and malfunctions. Cuyahoga County was at the center of the controversy. Like the other counties in Ohio, they buy their own voting machines (although they wanted the State to pay them back for replacing the Diebold machines that caused them problems). Want to review the 54 pages of Democrat elected officials in the county? Do you really think they were conspiring to disenfranchise their own Democrat voters in order to throw the election to Bush? Or is it more likely that they're just more incompetent Democrats who weren't able to organize the voting process in their County?
I mentioned precincts as well as counties because in Ohio, the word was that certain heavily Democrat precincts had problems with their voting machines. Since they're heavily Democrat precincts, do you really think that the Precinct people there were Republicans in control of the Precinct polling location? You can do the research to prove that it wasn't, but instead certain people choose to believe something that doesn't even make sense on the face of it, that somehow a cabal of Republicans managed to physically control precincts in heavily Democrat areas in order to suppress their votes.
They're such stupid accusations it's hard to see why anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the elections process could take them seriously. As for the original point, he wanted to run statistical tests on the 2000 and 2004 elections for those "problem" areas in order to analyze whether similar problems to the recent Russian election occurred. My original point was that the actual voting process in those "problem" areas was controlled by Democrats, so what incentive did they have to somehow arrange to alter vote totals to favor Bush?
Putin controlled the election machinery in Russia. Bush, nor the Republicans, controlled the election machinery in the vast majority of areas that were claimed to be problems in the 2000 and 2004 elections. There's no real comparison possible.
WHat he specifically was talking about was fraud in the totals reported from the local county and precincts. In the locales he was complaining about, those were all run by Democrats. It would go beyond belief to think that somehow the local election boards were reporting the "right" totals and somehow the State government was changing those totals without them noticing, so it's meaningless who was running the State.
It's the local election boards that run the actual election. At the state level, they just compile the numbers, they have no power to influence or modify what numbers are given to them by the locals.
Yes, clearly the Democrat election officials in charge there were trying to throw the election to Bush.
Doesn't anyone even give a few seconds of thought or research to things anymore before spouting conspiracy theories? That heavily Democrat counties and precincts with Democrat elected officials and Democrat controlled boards of election were somehow manipulating their voting system in order to favor a Republican doesn't exactly pass the laugh test. What exactly is their motivation supposed to be?
Sorry, don't let reality get in the way of your fantasy world.
Citing Ronald Coase's path-breaking work, Walker argues that it would have been far better to have allowed broadcasters to stake their claims to frequencies and then to have protected their frequencies against interference through tort law, much as a homesteader would sue to stop trespass on his land. During the 1920s, such a common-law-based order in radio was emerging, with spectrum rights being traded and some court decisions recognizing a right against interference. Unfortunately, the free-market, common-law regime that was beginning to break through the crust of federal regulation was strangled in its cradle by the 1927 Act, which eliminated all individual rights in the radio spectrum. Henceforth, the Federal Radio Commission (later renamed the Federal Communications Commission) would assign frequencies, and naturally politics would play a leading role.
The basic principle based on existing common law that was emerging in the courts before the Feds stepped in and decided they were going to control everything was that once you began using a frequency in an area you had a right to that frequency and no one else could overpower your signal. Private property rights instead of government ownership of the airwaves.... what a simple concept, eh? It almost seems like that's been tried in other areas before and worked well....
The problem of the early radio conflicts is that no one was recognized to own a particular frequency yet. Before that was completely sorted out in the courts, the feds came in and essentially socialized frequencies by declaring that the government owned them all and work control, assign, and regulate radio. That led to our current situation where you must get government approval of whatever you use radio waves for, in circumvention of the 1st amendment, among other things.
The article summary at least indicates one of the reasons that most people really shouldn't vote.
It's like those Jeff Foxworthy redneck jokes....
If you think NASA has about the same budget as the defense department... you shouldn't vote. If you post lame "first post" attempts on/.... you shouldn't vote.
Hmmm... plenty more where that came from... maybe I'll turn it into a stand-up routine.
For someone who wants to spend a lot less than that, there are so many options at the local walmart/electronics store that it'd be useless to list them. Just go listen to them and pick something you like the best. For someone in what I consider the "high-end" price range, the ascend accoustics are available online direct from the maker, so anyone can get them at an excellent price. They're much better sounding than anything you'll find in an actual local storefront or even online for anywhere near the same price.
If you really want to spend lots more money, than that only makes sense if you are super rich and thus need a personal consultant to help you spend your money (so you're outside the target of the guide) or if you are specifically looking for a better looking cabinet in some way. If you get past Ascend's range of speakers, you aren't buying improved sound, you're buying a prettier cabinet and that's an ascetic purchase that you'll have to determine how much what the suggested change in looks is worth to you. Since you like the other links, you'll also like one for AVS forum, which can be a bit much for someone to read through it all who isn't seriously interested, but will confirm the consensus about Ascend. Having installed and listened to lots of speaker systems of wildly varying prices, I can also confirm that bias from personal experience. If I did my own theater over (and I will when I build a new house), I'd replace my very high-end Canton system with Ascends in a minute.
If you set it up and installed it, you know what everything does and how it works. You know you need to push one button on the receiver remote to turn it on to get sound and another button on a different remote to turn the projector on and a third button to turn on the DVD player and a fourth button to switch the receiver to the DVD inputs in order to watch a DVD. If you set it up, you'll understand how that works and what's needed in a particular situation.
With others involved, it's a pain that elicits from others who live in the household complaints about how complicated it all is.
With a good programmable universal remote, you push the one button that is marked DVD and it makes sure everything is setup correctly for watching a DVD. When you want to watch TV, you push the TV button.
Realistically, if you set your devices somewhere out of direct line of sight, then you're going to want a universal uhf remote anyway, since that's a better solution than an IR repeater for the IR remotes that came with most of your equipment.
People also lose remotes, especially children. I have four kids and a wife, so I actually have three remotes. One is "My" remote. One is my wife's remote and one is the kid's remote. I always know where my remote is and never have to hunt for where the kids left the remote. If they can't find their remote, that stays their problem and doesn't turn into my problem. That's another advantage, but not the one I was officially thinking of.
Here's a much more useful article for anyone who actually wants to setup a great HT. My version's also going to be much shorter and based on much better research, since I actually occasionally work as an independant HT consultant to help people out:
For speakers go to Ascend Acoustics. The 170's are great, if you have a small room, go ahead and get the even smaller ones. Buy them w/the mounting bracket and aim 'em all towards the center of the "sweet spot" you want in your room. $1200 w/shipping and brackets.
Buy a decent subwoofer. Get a Canton, for example. Get it as inexpensive as you can find online. Probably get one smaller than you think you'll need, since everyone overestimate's how big of a sub they need, especially if you have full size other speakers, like the Ascend 170s. $250-350
For wires, go to Monoprice for anything specialty (hdmi, etc...) and Home Depot for a big spool of large gauge speaker wire. Everything wire could possibly need for a HT shouldn't run more than $100-200 total. Use good shielded coax for your sub. Every other speaker is perfect with Home Depot copper.
Get a Denon 38XX receiver. A really good receiver is key. Do some research on which models do what to fit your specific needs, but get something decent in the $900-1200 range at least to get the most use out of your speakers. Denon won't steer you wrong. There are other brands that are comparable, but don't cost any less when they're truely comparable and usually have at least one receiver class that isn't worth the money.
Get the latest best deal HT projector by going to Projector Central and reading the latest set of reviews in your price range. Then shop online for the best deal. It changes too fast for a recommendation to be really useful, but you can get a Sanyo PLV-Z2000 1080p projector for $2200 right now. Get a ceiling mount kit for it if that fits your room.
Get a stewart filmscreen to fit your room. Remember, you want your head to be sitting about 1.3-1.8 time the screen width away from the screen. The variance is for if you prefer to sit in the front, middle, or back in big screen movie theaters. Your screen will last much longer than your electronics, so don't be afraid to get a nice one. If you have a totally light controlled room, get a white screen. If you don't, get a grey screen. Either way, get the model with the thick black velvet border, it's way worth it. $800-1800, depending on size and style.
Get an upscaling HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray player. Shop online for the best deal of the moment, or buy a PS3 if you want Blu-Ray. $400-750
Unless you absolutely must have the NFL sunday ticket, order Dishnetwork and get their current VIP-series HD DVR. Right now that's a 722, although a 622 is almost identical. Get the DishDVR package w/HD. Watch HD in pleasure. $90/month.
If you don't live alone, get a HT-specific uhf universal remote and program it to control everything else. Check Remote Central for the latest recommendations and deals. $100-600.
Use pot lights for the ceiling and rope lights from Home Depot for steps/theater aisle floors. Hook all lights up through remote controllable dimmers. Crown molding a bit down the wall w/rope lights in it also works well. Price Varies depending on taste.
If you might have power issues, get a $100-200 UPS online and plug your expensive stuff in through it.
Don't use a square room. Do look at the acoustic issues and consider soundproofing and deadening the walls and ceiling. (Carpet usually takes care of the floor).
For the best experience, no windows and black walls and ceiling. Put the door where if it opens, it doesn't shine light directly on the screen.
Ideally arrange the projector and screen so that the light go
So after I RTFA (I know, I must be new here), it appears that what they are claiming is that someone experiencing a religious moment has their brain stimulated and that if you stimulate their brain in a similar manner, that someone will feel like they are experiencing a religious moment.
Despite the failure of anyone to reproduce this work, "Although a 2005 attempt by Swedish scientists to replicate Persinger's God helmet findings failed, researchers are not yet discounting the temporal lobe's role in some types of religious experience.", as noted in TFA, we'll assume that it's accurate and that this isn't just a/. rehash of some really old story dressed up as something new. (I know, really big assumption.:)
Let's take an alternate case. Let's say that experiments have shown that when someone has sex, their brain appears stimulated in certain areas and that if you recreate that brain stimulation, the person has feelings similar to the feelings they had while having sex. Would you then conclude from this experiment that sex doesn't really happen, since you can create similar feelings by directly affecting their brain? Would you conclude that the sex the person reported experiencing before must have been just a hallucination? Hardly.
Why is it that atheists who are supposed to be oh-so-much-more-rational-than-those-faith-people are willing to twist logic in such a fashion in order to attempt to try and discredit religion based on an old non-reproducible study that actually supports the idea that there is a physical reality to people's religious experiences?
Surely someone has a better case for the anti-religious than this article???
The problem I have is that I am currently in the position of needing to buy a few hundred computers for little kids in Elementary School and Junior High in one of the lowest funded and poorest rural parts of the country. Any money that I can save on those computers will be used to hire additional teacher aides or purchase additional library books instead.
If the OLPC people allowed schools to buy the OLPC for it's current $200 cost in order to use it in a non-profit "for the kids" environment, they might actually sell enough of them to get their component costs down to closer to $100 for third-worlders to purchase. Instead, they make the cost $400, making it a better choice for me to either buy a much more useful full $400 laptop for the kids, or (in my case), plan to buy a bunch of inexpensive or used desktops for the kids for around $250 each, complete with Free OS, and spend the difference on other stuff.
If I want to buy OLPCs to help a poor kid overseas, I can do that by simply paying for one. If that's my motivation (and it might be as a private individual, instead of someone entrused to get the most out of public or donated money for a specific set of kids in the U.S.), then there is no need to require me to buy a second one for local kids.
Their plan might make sense if there is a hard limit on the number of OLPCs that can be manufactured and sold, but with the world computer construction capacity and their plan to farm out construction to other countries for a nominal fee, that doesn't seem to be that case. In the event that (like most manufactured computer products), the ability to supply them can increase and lower the cost per unit, their tactic should be to sell as many OLPCs to whomever is willing to buy one so that they can turn around and give or sell the rest to "poor kids overseas" as cheaply as possible.
Instead, their tactic appears to be to limit sales and production as much as possible while they decide who "deserves" to be able to purchase one. As usual, many people who see themselves as "doing good" for the third world either need a lesson in basic economics or need to stop thinking that they have to keep all the power and choice to themselves and control everything in the process.
Typical government/large corporate software project steps: 1. Have a manager in a government bureacracy or at a director-level that the vendor takes out for "business" golf make the decision. 2. Ensure that manager has no repercussions for his decision and probably isn't even in the same position when the project is supposed to go live. 3. Have the vendor, with no knowledge of the existing system, come up with a timeline to replace it with their stuff, but "customized". 4. Pay vendor millions in licensing fees. Golf has a very good ROI for big vendors. 5. Pay vendor millions more to supply a few brand new employees who took the vendor's "class" on his product to "customize" it for you, thus making those employees valuable enough to get something of a real job working for someone else later. 6. When the first few milestones are missed, have the vendor add a couple of people to the project that know even less than the original consultants. 7. When things start go even slower, begin to blame the "extra" work that wasn't ever planned for to start with, but is critical to the project. 8. To make up time, cut out any originally required user training. 9. To make up more time, cut out all documentation efforts. 10. To make up more time, cut out all quality assurance efforts and related paperwork. 11. To save time, skip development and testing environments and deploy everything straight to production servers. 12. Switch over to the new system, even though it's not done, hasn't been tested, and no one knows how to use it. 13. Sign a long-term consulting contract with the vendor to pay them for keeping the original consultants on doing "maintenance" for the forseeable future, hoping something will eventually work. 14. Ignore your own staff's original predictions and recommendations and complain about how no one could have predicted that this project could possibbly fail, since the vendor is the "industry leader". 15. ???? 16. If you're the vendor, "Profit!!!!" . If you're the original manager, put "Successfully led a $50,000,000 software project" on your resume.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure they're encouraging you to buy the book to find out this and other related answers...
You can mod_rewrite one domain name to 301 to the other and just config stuff for the other, but you probably already knew that. It's still the simplest solution.
You can also try making sites/caveserv.com a symbolic link to sites/adamstechconsultants.com (so all the other files underneath stay the same), but you'll have to modify the settings.php file to comment out the $base_url line. After that, you'll have to also ensure all your pages are using relative links, not any links with the domain name in it. Sessions on one domain won't stay if they switch to the other domain.
Typically, those of us using Drupal for a small business site paid the learning curve a long time ago and don't have to relearn it while doing several more small business sites each month. You can even create installation profiles now that automate setting up the modules and configs that you prefer for a new type of site.
The biggest work for a new site usually ends up being creating a custom theme to match a designer's graphics and layout and a couple of custom little things a particular site owner wants to have.
However, if you are talking about someone new to Drupal that only plans on ever doing one small site, then yeah, the learning curve is probably a bit high. For a single large site with multiple ongoing developers, the built-in modularity probably has more advantages then the curve to learn how that works has disadvantages, which is why a lot of large companies are starting to use Drupal for their sites.
Drupal's a great dynamic web application framework, as well as being being a really complicated blog-publishing tool. Don't get me started on setting up forums....
Or rather, `portinstall -R gnome2` for a new installation. You'd have to add a -N to the portupgrade command if you wanted it to install if it doesn't exist already. Of course, the two progams are actually the exact same program, sharing a man page.
Just a little curious as to why you're still using pkg_add instead of portupgrade?
For example, your "two commands" could just be one command, `portupgrade -R gnome2`, after which it'll figure out what else needs to be installed that you don't have and take care of it all.
Do you use cvsup or cvsup-without-gui? I'd hope so....
Warning! You may find this or another comment in this thread amusing. Regular amusement from reading comments on this web site may be addictive and potentially cause financial harm to your employer as well as contribute to a lack of interpersonal relationship time. Read comments with extreme caution and with moderation. (Pun intended).
Dish Network's VIP series of receivers (622/722) are better than the HD tivos. They also came out earlier and cost less. The interface is better as well as the storage mechanism (storing the raw incoming MPEG2/4 satellite signal instead of decompressing/recompressing).
Yes you can transfer video files to and from a Dish VIP receiver, but no, not to anything you like. They've apparently made an agreement with their content providers to limit it, so you have to buy a Dish branded portable player. Otherwise you can legitimately transfer content to an external hard drive through a usb2 interface, but the only other place you can play it back is on one of your Dish Network receivers.
You can even take some of the Dish Network receivers that aren't DVRs and turn them into a DVR by just plugging in an external usb hard drive. Nice to see code reuse like that.
In this particular lawsuit, TIVO was asking for several claims, some of which were hardware related (using a hard drive to record, etc..) and some of which were software related. On this appeal, they threw out the hardware related claims and just issued the injunction for the two remaining software claims. Dish Network has already announced that they had previously rewritten the portion of their DVR software that was claimed to infringed and thus there was no need for any future changes to comply with this injunction.
Around January 18th, news reports are that several city's power grids have been recently attacked via the internet.
In completely unrelated news, a couple of weeks later large portions of mideast anti-western terrorist sponsoring areas had internet access disrupted or cut off in a series of coincidental unobserved "accidents".
Hmm.....
There's also isn't a computer system in the world that can control the routing for all of the packets in the internet, yet somehow they get to their destination.
Perhaps you haven't considered that there are other ways to do traffic control besides having a central authority controlling every vehicle?
All a computerized vehicle needs to do is to pick the path for itself that moves itself closer to it's destination without moving itself towards other objects that are heading towards any part of that same path in the same timeframe.
I can think of multiple ways of accomplishing that off the top of my head. One would be to use a common path description format and then for a vehicle to pick a path and then broadcast a time-based path reservation to the other vehicles within a radius determined by safety considerations. That path reservation would then become off-limits when those other vehicles are picking their paths. Infrequent reservation collisions would require a resolution of which vehicle needs to recompute a new path for itself, but we use simplified rules for that already, as illustrated by the phrase "right-of-way".
Go do a realistic assessment of your value to an employer. Maybe find someone who's been in your industry for a while and ask them personally to tell you what they think after they've reviewed your skills and experience.
Then go find a company that needs what you have to offer and convince them to hire you.
Then put in your 2 weeks notice at your current company, cause that's the most you're gonna want to keep working there once you find a decent company to work for.
Also remember that small companies will usually pay a little less and have less job security, while big companies will almost all turn out to be full of stupid bureacratic rules and fiefdoms. Let your personal risk aversion and sufferance of crap be your guide as to which kind of company you want to work for.
Sorry for the confusion in the course catalog. Due to a printing error, the "Dealing with Bureacracy" class was mislabeled as the "Advanced C++" class.
It's an easy mistake to make, but to get an A in the bureacracy class, you have to convince the TA that regulations required the assignment to be accepted. Since you only went so far as to discuss it with the instructor and didn't even bother a school administrator, you're lucky you didn't get a C in the class instead. Must be your likeable personality that got you the B.
Even better, have you ever wondered why the germans were so much farther advanced in rocketry than the rest of the world?
Part of the limitations put on Germany after WW I was that they weren't allowed to have artillery larger than a certain size limit.
So among their other ways around the restrictions of the treaty (training pilots and storing planes in Russia, etc...), they also made rockets a huge research priority as a way to get better long range artillery without technically violating the treaty.
The major advances in rocketry at the time were made not only in the pursuit of better ways to kill people, but wouldn't have happened without the restrictions placed on Germany's using other methods of killing people.
Those German rocket scientists became the foundation of rocketry in the rest of the world after WW II, so we may STILL not have orbital rockets today if it wasn't for war as an incentive.
Here, let me fix that for you:
What eliminates a race that focuses all of its agression against others not of their race? It makes a great external enemy that allows the race itself to work together with a common bond, at peace with itself.
It's just too bad that we turn out to be one of those "others", huh?
Oppresive regimes to this all the time on earth, using an "external" enemy to create peace at home in furtherance of opposing the "greater enemy".
According to a quick check of Wikipedia, the Florida counties involved in the hand recounts were Broward, Miami Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia. The issues in Florida revolved around counting problems and ballot design. Of the four counties involved in the recount, the first three are heavily Democrat controlled, while Volusia is not. (Although according to the NY Times, Volusia was hostile to Bush in the 2000 election anyway). The infamous "Butterfly" ballot was designed by a Democrat controlled county election board (Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Theresa Lepore, who was elected as a registered Democrat). Do you think Palm Beach county designed the ballot in order to get Bush elected, or that they're just incompetent Democrats who thought the larger print would help elderly voters vote in more Democrats?
The state of Florida didn't design or count the ballots at issue in the 2000 election, they just certified the results. The counties at issue were not Bush-friendly. Trying to blame Bush or Republicans for somehow creating the mess by magically controlling them is ridiculous.
The complaints in Ohio in 2004 revolved around vote counting/re-counting as well as polling place availability and voting machine availability. Both were supposedly issues in the voting locations where Kerry had the most support, in densely populated areas.
Now, knowing that densely populated areas were heavily Democrat controlled (hence why they also went for Kerry) and that in Ohio the County elections board deals with all counting issues, do you think it's reasonable that in a heavily Democrat controlled county the Democrat elections board was miscounting things in order to favor Bush?
So let's take machine availability and malfunctions. Cuyahoga County was at the center of the controversy. Like the other counties in Ohio, they buy their own voting machines (although they wanted the State to pay them back for replacing the Diebold machines that caused them problems). Want to review the 54 pages of Democrat elected officials in the county? Do you really think they were conspiring to disenfranchise their own Democrat voters in order to throw the election to Bush? Or is it more likely that they're just more incompetent Democrats who weren't able to organize the voting process in their County?
I mentioned precincts as well as counties because in Ohio, the word was that certain heavily Democrat precincts had problems with their voting machines. Since they're heavily Democrat precincts, do you really think that the Precinct people there were Republicans in control of the Precinct polling location? You can do the research to prove that it wasn't, but instead certain people choose to believe something that doesn't even make sense on the face of it, that somehow a cabal of Republicans managed to physically control precincts in heavily Democrat areas in order to suppress their votes.
They're such stupid accusations it's hard to see why anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the elections process could take them seriously. As for the original point, he wanted to run statistical tests on the 2000 and 2004 elections for those "problem" areas in order to analyze whether similar problems to the recent Russian election occurred. My original point was that the actual voting process in those "problem" areas was controlled by Democrats, so what incentive did they have to somehow arrange to alter vote totals to favor Bush?
Putin controlled the election machinery in Russia. Bush, nor the Republicans, controlled the election machinery in the vast majority of areas that were claimed to be problems in the 2000 and 2004 elections. There's no real comparison possible.
WHat he specifically was talking about was fraud in the totals reported from the local county and precincts. In the locales he was complaining about, those were all run by Democrats. It would go beyond belief to think that somehow the local election boards were reporting the "right" totals and somehow the State government was changing those totals without them noticing, so it's meaningless who was running the State.
It's the local election boards that run the actual election. At the state level, they just compile the numbers, they have no power to influence or modify what numbers are given to them by the locals.
Yes, clearly the Democrat election officials in charge there were trying to throw the election to Bush.
Doesn't anyone even give a few seconds of thought or research to things anymore before spouting conspiracy theories? That heavily Democrat counties and precincts with Democrat elected officials and Democrat controlled boards of election were somehow manipulating their voting system in order to favor a Republican doesn't exactly pass the laugh test. What exactly is their motivation supposed to be?
Sorry, don't let reality get in the way of your fantasy world.
The basic principle based on existing common law that was emerging in the courts before the Feds stepped in and decided they were going to control everything was that once you began using a frequency in an area you had a right to that frequency and no one else could overpower your signal. Private property rights instead of government ownership of the airwaves.... what a simple concept, eh? It almost seems like that's been tried in other areas before and worked well....
The problem of the early radio conflicts is that no one was recognized to own a particular frequency yet. Before that was completely sorted out in the courts, the feds came in and essentially socialized frequencies by declaring that the government owned them all and work control, assign, and regulate radio. That led to our current situation where you must get government approval of whatever you use radio waves for, in circumvention of the 1st amendment, among other things.
The article summary at least indicates one of the reasons that most people really shouldn't vote.
... you shouldn't vote. /. ... you shouldn't vote.
It's like those Jeff Foxworthy redneck jokes....
If you think NASA has about the same budget as the defense department
If you post lame "first post" attempts on
Hmmm... plenty more where that came from... maybe I'll turn it into a stand-up routine.
Thanks.
For someone who wants to spend a lot less than that, there are so many options at the local walmart/electronics store that it'd be useless to list them. Just go listen to them and pick something you like the best. For someone in what I consider the "high-end" price range, the ascend accoustics are available online direct from the maker, so anyone can get them at an excellent price. They're much better sounding than anything you'll find in an actual local storefront or even online for anywhere near the same price.
If you really want to spend lots more money, than that only makes sense if you are super rich and thus need a personal consultant to help you spend your money (so you're outside the target of the guide) or if you are specifically looking for a better looking cabinet in some way. If you get past Ascend's range of speakers, you aren't buying improved sound, you're buying a prettier cabinet and that's an ascetic purchase that you'll have to determine how much what the suggested change in looks is worth to you. Since you like the other links, you'll also like one for AVS forum, which can be a bit much for someone to read through it all who isn't seriously interested, but will confirm the consensus about Ascend. Having installed and listened to lots of speaker systems of wildly varying prices, I can also confirm that bias from personal experience. If I did my own theater over (and I will when I build a new house), I'd replace my very high-end Canton system with Ascends in a minute.
If you set it up and installed it, you know what everything does and how it works. You know you need to push one button on the receiver remote to turn it on to get sound and another button on a different remote to turn the projector on and a third button to turn on the DVD player and a fourth button to switch the receiver to the DVD inputs in order to watch a DVD. If you set it up, you'll understand how that works and what's needed in a particular situation.
With others involved, it's a pain that elicits from others who live in the household complaints about how complicated it all is.
With a good programmable universal remote, you push the one button that is marked DVD and it makes sure everything is setup correctly for watching a DVD. When you want to watch TV, you push the TV button.
Realistically, if you set your devices somewhere out of direct line of sight, then you're going to want a universal uhf remote anyway, since that's a better solution than an IR repeater for the IR remotes that came with most of your equipment.
People also lose remotes, especially children. I have four kids and a wife, so I actually have three remotes. One is "My" remote. One is my wife's remote and one is the kid's remote. I always know where my remote is and never have to hunt for where the kids left the remote. If they can't find their remote, that stays their problem and doesn't turn into my problem. That's another advantage, but not the one I was officially thinking of.
You can, but if you don't live alone, it becomes essential and required equipment, instead of just nice to have. :)
So after I RTFA (I know, I must be new here), it appears that what they are claiming is that someone experiencing a religious moment has their brain stimulated and that if you stimulate their brain in a similar manner, that someone will feel like they are experiencing a religious moment.
/. rehash of some really old story dressed up as something new. (I know, really big assumption. :)
Despite the failure of anyone to reproduce this work, "Although a 2005 attempt by Swedish scientists to replicate Persinger's God helmet findings failed, researchers are not yet discounting the temporal lobe's role in some types of religious experience.", as noted in TFA, we'll assume that it's accurate and that this isn't just a
Let's take an alternate case. Let's say that experiments have shown that when someone has sex, their brain appears stimulated in certain areas and that if you recreate that brain stimulation, the person has feelings similar to the feelings they had while having sex. Would you then conclude from this experiment that sex doesn't really happen, since you can create similar feelings by directly affecting their brain? Would you conclude that the sex the person reported experiencing before must have been just a hallucination? Hardly.
Why is it that atheists who are supposed to be oh-so-much-more-rational-than-those-faith-people are willing to twist logic in such a fashion in order to attempt to try and discredit religion based on an old non-reproducible study that actually supports the idea that there is a physical reality to people's religious experiences?
Surely someone has a better case for the anti-religious than this article???
The problem I have is that I am currently in the position of needing to buy a few hundred computers for little kids in Elementary School and Junior High in one of the lowest funded and poorest rural parts of the country. Any money that I can save on those computers will be used to hire additional teacher aides or purchase additional library books instead.
If the OLPC people allowed schools to buy the OLPC for it's current $200 cost in order to use it in a non-profit "for the kids" environment, they might actually sell enough of them to get their component costs down to closer to $100 for third-worlders to purchase. Instead, they make the cost $400, making it a better choice for me to either buy a much more useful full $400 laptop for the kids, or (in my case), plan to buy a bunch of inexpensive or used desktops for the kids for around $250 each, complete with Free OS, and spend the difference on other stuff.
If I want to buy OLPCs to help a poor kid overseas, I can do that by simply paying for one. If that's my motivation (and it might be as a private individual, instead of someone entrused to get the most out of public or donated money for a specific set of kids in the U.S.), then there is no need to require me to buy a second one for local kids.
Their plan might make sense if there is a hard limit on the number of OLPCs that can be manufactured and sold, but with the world computer construction capacity and their plan to farm out construction to other countries for a nominal fee, that doesn't seem to be that case. In the event that (like most manufactured computer products), the ability to supply them can increase and lower the cost per unit, their tactic should be to sell as many OLPCs to whomever is willing to buy one so that they can turn around and give or sell the rest to "poor kids overseas" as cheaply as possible.
Instead, their tactic appears to be to limit sales and production as much as possible while they decide who "deserves" to be able to purchase one. As usual, many people who see themselves as "doing good" for the third world either need a lesson in basic economics or need to stop thinking that they have to keep all the power and choice to themselves and control everything in the process.
Typical government/large corporate software project steps:
1. Have a manager in a government bureacracy or at a director-level that the vendor takes out for "business" golf make the decision.
2. Ensure that manager has no repercussions for his decision and probably isn't even in the same position when the project is supposed to go live.
3. Have the vendor, with no knowledge of the existing system, come up with a timeline to replace it with their stuff, but "customized".
4. Pay vendor millions in licensing fees. Golf has a very good ROI for big vendors.
5. Pay vendor millions more to supply a few brand new employees who took the vendor's "class" on his product to "customize" it for you, thus making those employees valuable enough to get something of a real job working for someone else later.
6. When the first few milestones are missed, have the vendor add a couple of people to the project that know even less than the original consultants.
7. When things start go even slower, begin to blame the "extra" work that wasn't ever planned for to start with, but is critical to the project.
8. To make up time, cut out any originally required user training.
9. To make up more time, cut out all documentation efforts.
10. To make up more time, cut out all quality assurance efforts and related paperwork.
11. To save time, skip development and testing environments and deploy everything straight to production servers.
12. Switch over to the new system, even though it's not done, hasn't been tested, and no one knows how to use it.
13. Sign a long-term consulting contract with the vendor to pay them for keeping the original consultants on doing "maintenance" for the forseeable future, hoping something will eventually work.
14. Ignore your own staff's original predictions and recommendations and complain about how no one could have predicted that this project could possibbly fail, since the vendor is the "industry leader".
15. ????
16. If you're the vendor, "Profit!!!!" . If you're the original manager, put "Successfully led a $50,000,000 software project" on your resume.