I'd presume that they still send back photos that are used in navigation because I remember watching people use them that way when Voyager II was on its way in to Neptune when I was at JPL helping one of the programmers. That's how I learned what I mentioned above about the navigation programs.
I suppose it's inevitable that the summary of a Slashdot article is inaccurate, but in this case it's highly misleading. The code in the Phoenix Lander has nothing whatsoever to do with getting it to Mars. The Spaceprobe Navigation Package (Are they still using MOPS and TRAM, I wonder? After all, they were good enough for Voyager I and II.) run on mainframes at JPL, in Pasadena, and course corrections are sent from their to the space craft. This is because the same programs doing the navigation for Phoenix can be used at the same time for other missions, instead of wasting valuable memory (and the energy needed to run them) on putting a separate copy of the program on every, single probe.
No it doesn't - at least the last time I looked. What it does is ignore the root window, and create its own desktop window on top of it.
I've looked into this a little, and I've found that there would be a way to do it if the Gnome devels were willing to do what's needed. It's already possible to tell nautilus not to draw any wallpaper but you must specify a background colour and it must be opaque. All they'd have to do is allow the background to be transparent and Bob's your uncle. Granted, I'm not a graphics programmer and I've no idea how hard that is in practice, but in principle it's not that big a change.
- So if the prosecution fails to disprove even one counter-theory it's a win for the defense.
Only if the jury finds that theory reasonable. If the defence in a murder trial claimed that little green men from Mars materialized, shot the deceased and dematerialized, I doubt that the prosecution would even bother trying to disprove it because the probability of the jury finding it reasonable is nil.
No, the attorney was on the stand. However, thinking things over, I realize that I may have misrepresented things a little bit. (The case in question was about twenty years ago, so it took me a while to remember some of the details.) The attorney who testified was the one who'd written up some of the motions used by the plaintiffs, but he wasn't the one representing the plaintiff in court. Sorry for any confusion, but as I said, it's been a long time and that had slipped my mind.
Who would object? One of the other attorneys acting for the plaintiff. That's why I said, "...one of the attorneys..." And, he was only asked to testify about this one point, not the facts of the case itself. I might add that it was a rather weird case. It started out as a suit and countersuit. Then, the main suit was settled, leaving only the countersuit to be litigated, so that the defence was suing the plaintiffs but not (by now) the other way around.
Aside from the amusement factor and shooting their credibility in the foot, that isn't relevant.
In this case, the argument was one of the key claims of the suit. Showing that one of the plaintiff's attorneys had argued the exact opposite in another case made it look like even he didn't believe his own arguments. I might add that AFAICT nobody on the jury agreed with that argument anyway, but shooting it down that way was a nice touch.
It's not exactly lying, because they're not making statements that are false to fact. What they're doing, however is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be considered experts in cases where that gives them special advantages and laymen in cases where they'd get in trouble pretending to be unlicensed experts.
Years ago I was a juror on a civil trial. At one point, the defence counsel had one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs on the stand. He read off one of the claims that attorney had made in the case and asked him if he'd ever argued anything contrary to it. "No, of course not." Then, the defence attorney read into the record part of a brief from another case where the witness had argued the exact opposite of what he now claimed. I won't say it's common, but it's not exactly unheard of.
The review says that almost a quarter of the book is endnotes referencing other books and an extensive bibliography. Considering that this is a book written about the web, don't you think that the average reader will know how to use Google to find that? I'd rather have a shorter, less costly book that trusts me to know how to find further information should I need it.
There's a list of books suitable for children from six to sixteen at The LASFS website. It's one of the many projects of This World's Oldest Science Fiction Club.
You can't use this. I can't use this. But a real pro can.
Exactly. And not just any pro, either. Somebody who makes his living doing weddings, bar mitzvahs and high school yearbook photos would have no use for it because it's too big for the job. Where this will be useful will be things like aerial photography (Think Google Earth, here.) or, as another poster pointed out, bullboards. Possibly magazine advertisements too, but I'm not sure they're detailed enough to need this.
If you're doing development by edit/make, rather than inside an IDE package, it really doesn't matter what editor you use as long as you know how to use it. Let them use whatever editor makes them happy, even if they're the only one in the company using it as long as they save their work in ASCII. Making everybody use the same editor means that there's always going to be one nose out of joint, and that's just one more excuse for egos to get in the way of the work. Standardize on the things that make a difference, and let them use what they want where it doesn't.
No, dude, it didn't. He didn't need to explain his behavior.
That's absolutely right. He had no legal requirement to testify in his own behalf. He chose to, of his own free will. In so doing, he presented an explanation of his actions that the jury found so unbelievable that it (apparently) helped them decide that he was guilty as charged.
It isn't common, but it does happen. I know, because I've seen it before. A club I belong to was trying to decide whether or not to revoke the membership of a man who'd caused quite a bit of trouble. At the meeting where we discussed this, he was given a chance to defend himself against the charges before the vote. The vote was written and it took a 2/3 majority of all votes cast to expel him. That meant that turning in a blank ballot, or writing "abstain" on it was the same as voting against the expulsion. (This makes it hard to revoke a membership, and that's why it's done; we want it to be hard.) In the end, he lost his membership. A number of the people at the meeting said that they'd been planning on abstaining, or voting against the motion until they heard his defence. It was basically, "This is how I am, this is how I've always been and this is how I'm always going to be." It said, in effect that if he remained a member, he'd just go on doing exactly the same things he'd always done even though he knew they were causing problems for everybody concerned. After hearing that, they voted in favour of the motion to expel. He was thrown out mostly, because of his inept defence. So yes, I can easily believe that Hans Reisner did exactly the same thing.
he's a despicable human being and deserves no luck at this point.
Why is he despicable? What is it about the fact that he's been convicted of murder that makes him despicable? For all I know, he's a decent human being, if a bit nerdy and weird. I respect his abilities as a programmer and what's happened doesn't change that. For all I know, the stress of the messy divorce was too much for him to handle and he finally snapped. Does that make him despicable? If so, why?
the prosecution barely had enough to bring to trial and it was all circumstantial.
Nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. I've seen it written that circumstantial evidence is like a cable. If one strand breaks, there are always others.
(ran away to frame him, insane best friend that claims to have murdered people still alive are 2 that I can think of).
I think you're stretching the definition of "reasonable" here. That doesn't mean that you can find another explanation, it means that you have another explanation that a rational person would find explains the facts just as well as the theory that the defendant is guilty. Do you really find that either of those two theories explains the bit about him washing blood out of his car that matched his wife's?
-1 Redundant? I always knew most of the mods were on crack, but this just takes the cake! This post deserves either +5 Funny or -1 Troll, and I don't really care which. It may be many things, but it's not Redundant. Sheesh! Can't you mods even mod me down for the right reason?
And, of course, never forget the ever popular bustenhalter. Oh, wait, I forgot: this is Slashdot. Most of the posters wouldn't know what one of those looked like if they saw it.
I've learned that my not-that-common name is shared by a very good graphics designer in Chicago and there used to be a minor editor of the NY Times with my name. I once made the mistake of doing some googlemancy on my name without the quotation marks and found something even funnier: there was, at the time, a prominent actor in X-rated films with my last name. (From what I could gather, his parts were strictly gay.) Any time there was somebody in the film with my first name, it hit.
And I use Fedora, personally. However, I'd never give either of those distros to somebody with nothing but Windows experience because neither one is newby-friendly. That's why, when my sister got tired of Win2K I gave her Ubuntu.
Excuse me, but I'm speaking from personal experience here. I was one of the techs who had to clean up after IE5's installation went tits up. I did it hundreds of times. And, I'll admit, once it was installed correctly, IE5 wasn't bad. I never really liked it, but that was just personal taste. But I can assure you that I didn't make up any of the details about the trouble you could have upgradeing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd presume that they still send back photos that are used in navigation because I remember watching people use them that way when Voyager II was on its way in to Neptune when I was at JPL helping one of the programmers. That's how I learned what I mentioned above about the navigation programs.
I suppose it's inevitable that the summary of a Slashdot article is inaccurate, but in this case it's highly misleading. The code in the Phoenix Lander has nothing whatsoever to do with getting it to Mars. The Spaceprobe Navigation Package (Are they still using MOPS and TRAM, I wonder? After all, they were good enough for Voyager I and II.) run on mainframes at JPL, in Pasadena, and course corrections are sent from their to the space craft. This is because the same programs doing the navigation for Phoenix can be used at the same time for other missions, instead of wasting valuable memory (and the energy needed to run them) on putting a separate copy of the program on every, single probe.
I've looked into this a little, and I've found that there would be a way to do it if the Gnome devels were willing to do what's needed. It's already possible to tell nautilus not to draw any wallpaper but you must specify a background colour and it must be opaque. All they'd have to do is allow the background to be transparent and Bob's your uncle. Granted, I'm not a graphics programmer and I've no idea how hard that is in practice, but in principle it's not that big a change.
Not a bad ideal. They can keep the current name for the first company and come up with a new one for the second. B-Ark would be a good choice.
Only if the jury finds that theory reasonable. If the defence in a murder trial claimed that little green men from Mars materialized, shot the deceased and dematerialized, I doubt that the prosecution would even bother trying to disprove it because the probability of the jury finding it reasonable is nil.
No, the attorney was on the stand. However, thinking things over, I realize that I may have misrepresented things a little bit. (The case in question was about twenty years ago, so it took me a while to remember some of the details.) The attorney who testified was the one who'd written up some of the motions used by the plaintiffs, but he wasn't the one representing the plaintiff in court. Sorry for any confusion, but as I said, it's been a long time and that had slipped my mind.
Who would object? One of the other attorneys acting for the plaintiff. That's why I said, "...one of the attorneys..." And, he was only asked to testify about this one point, not the facts of the case itself. I might add that it was a rather weird case. It started out as a suit and countersuit. Then, the main suit was settled, leaving only the countersuit to be litigated, so that the defence was suing the plaintiffs but not (by now) the other way around.
In this case, the argument was one of the key claims of the suit. Showing that one of the plaintiff's attorneys had argued the exact opposite in another case made it look like even he didn't believe his own arguments. I might add that AFAICT nobody on the jury agreed with that argument anyway, but shooting it down that way was a nice touch.
It's not exactly lying, because they're not making statements that are false to fact. What they're doing, however is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be considered experts in cases where that gives them special advantages and laymen in cases where they'd get in trouble pretending to be unlicensed experts.
Years ago I was a juror on a civil trial. At one point, the defence counsel had one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs on the stand. He read off one of the claims that attorney had made in the case and asked him if he'd ever argued anything contrary to it. "No, of course not." Then, the defence attorney read into the record part of a brief from another case where the witness had argued the exact opposite of what he now claimed. I won't say it's common, but it's not exactly unheard of.
The review says that almost a quarter of the book is endnotes referencing other books and an extensive bibliography. Considering that this is a book written about the web, don't you think that the average reader will know how to use Google to find that? I'd rather have a shorter, less costly book that trusts me to know how to find further information should I need it.
There's a list of books suitable for children from six to sixteen at The LASFS website. It's one of the many projects of This World's Oldest Science Fiction Club.
Exactly. And not just any pro, either. Somebody who makes his living doing weddings, bar mitzvahs and high school yearbook photos would have no use for it because it's too big for the job. Where this will be useful will be things like aerial photography (Think Google Earth, here.) or, as another poster pointed out, bullboards. Possibly magazine advertisements too, but I'm not sure they're detailed enough to need this.
If you're doing development by edit/make, rather than inside an IDE package, it really doesn't matter what editor you use as long as you know how to use it. Let them use whatever editor makes them happy, even if they're the only one in the company using it as long as they save their work in ASCII. Making everybody use the same editor means that there's always going to be one nose out of joint, and that's just one more excuse for egos to get in the way of the work. Standardize on the things that make a difference, and let them use what they want where it doesn't.
That's absolutely right. He had no legal requirement to testify in his own behalf. He chose to, of his own free will. In so doing, he presented an explanation of his actions that the jury found so unbelievable that it (apparently) helped them decide that he was guilty as charged.
It isn't common, but it does happen. I know, because I've seen it before. A club I belong to was trying to decide whether or not to revoke the membership of a man who'd caused quite a bit of trouble. At the meeting where we discussed this, he was given a chance to defend himself against the charges before the vote. The vote was written and it took a 2/3 majority of all votes cast to expel him. That meant that turning in a blank ballot, or writing "abstain" on it was the same as voting against the expulsion. (This makes it hard to revoke a membership, and that's why it's done; we want it to be hard.) In the end, he lost his membership. A number of the people at the meeting said that they'd been planning on abstaining, or voting against the motion until they heard his defence. It was basically, "This is how I am, this is how I've always been and this is how I'm always going to be." It said, in effect that if he remained a member, he'd just go on doing exactly the same things he'd always done even though he knew they were causing problems for everybody concerned. After hearing that, they voted in favour of the motion to expel. He was thrown out mostly, because of his inept defence. So yes, I can easily believe that Hans Reisner did exactly the same thing.
Why is he despicable? What is it about the fact that he's been convicted of murder that makes him despicable? For all I know, he's a decent human being, if a bit nerdy and weird. I respect his abilities as a programmer and what's happened doesn't change that. For all I know, the stress of the messy divorce was too much for him to handle and he finally snapped. Does that make him despicable? If so, why?
Nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. I've seen it written that circumstantial evidence is like a cable. If one strand breaks, there are always others.
I think you're stretching the definition of "reasonable" here. That doesn't mean that you can find another explanation, it means that you have another explanation that a rational person would find explains the facts just as well as the theory that the defendant is guilty. Do you really find that either of those two theories explains the bit about him washing blood out of his car that matched his wife's?
-1 Redundant? I always knew most of the mods were on crack, but this just takes the cake! This post deserves either +5 Funny or -1 Troll, and I don't really care which. It may be many things, but it's not Redundant. Sheesh! Can't you mods even mod me down for the right reason?
And, of course, never forget the ever popular bustenhalter. Oh, wait, I forgot: this is Slashdot. Most of the posters wouldn't know what one of those looked like if they saw it.
No, at least twice could be right if there's a pair of twins. If the girls are triplets, of course, he might have managed with doing it only once.
I've learned that my not-that-common name is shared by a very good graphics designer in Chicago and there used to be a minor editor of the NY Times with my name. I once made the mistake of doing some googlemancy on my name without the quotation marks and found something even funnier: there was, at the time, a prominent actor in X-rated films with my last name. (From what I could gather, his parts were strictly gay.) Any time there was somebody in the film with my first name, it hit.
Don't be such a literal-minded, fuggheaded philistine! It's a joke! It's supposed to be funny, boy, why aren't you laughing?
And I use Fedora, personally. However, I'd never give either of those distros to somebody with nothing but Windows experience because neither one is newby-friendly. That's why, when my sister got tired of Win2K I gave her Ubuntu.
Excuse me, but I'm speaking from personal experience here. I was one of the techs who had to clean up after IE5's installation went tits up. I did it hundreds of times. And, I'll admit, once it was installed correctly, IE5 wasn't bad. I never really liked it, but that was just personal taste. But I can assure you that I didn't make up any of the details about the trouble you could have upgradeing.