The hypothetical grocer will adjust what he offers me based on how many of his offers I take up. If he noticed that
I buy a lot of pickles and he suggests a certain brand of dill pickle. I can tell him that I'm not interested in dills, only sweet or half-sour pickles, and he won't tell me about gourmet dill pickles again. There is no way to say I'm not interested to an online advertiser becuase normal behavior looks exactly like rejection.
Also, the grover won't recommend say a better drain cleaner becuase I bought a new plunger at the hardware store down the block. Online advertisers are increasing collating data across several sites to offer more targeted ads. I shop for many completely unrelated things online and having my bookstore recommend a graphics card becuase I just built a computer.
The final difference (at least for the moment) is that the small town grocer is smarter than any advertising computer. He is capable of guessing that I probably don't want farm fresh corn in January, and that he shouldn't mention the amount of liquor I bought last weekend when I'm chatting in line with my pastor. A computer isn't that smart.
The reason you hear so many references is that it is a huge legal gray area in the US, mostly becuase of the 4th amendment, but also the 5th and 6th (freedom from self-incrimination, right to counsel) and the associated court cases.
For example, a police officer doesn't need a search warrant to seize something which is in plain sight, such as a joint of a table. But if that joint is concealed then if it were to be seized then it would be inadmissible.
Another example is that statements made to the police after arrest but before being read the Miranda rights (you have the right to remain silent...) cannot be admitted into court.
To make matters more complicated, excluded evidence (such as from an illegal search) can sometimes be admitted anyways for various reasons.
It could be useful with mobile applications because of the physical limitations of cell phones, sending some hard number crunching back to your desktop might make sense.
Also the server side could be trivialy protected by charging per flop instead of per use.
They can't both be right and still disagree. The law of excluded middle pretty much rules that out.
This statement assumes a solution space of a single point, in real solution spaces are often by much larger. For example, possible solutions to for a crime wave include (but are not limited to):
-hiring A more police officers
-spending B on jobs in the area
-adjusting prison terms by C
-spending D on community out-reach
-providing E free weapons to law abiding citizens so they can defend themselves
-requiring mandatory abortions for F percent of the populaton judged to raise criminals
-rounding up every male between the ages of G and H and sending them into the middle of now-where to work in a labor camp
Just considering these options we have a 8 dimensional solution space. It is non-trivial to optimize this solution for a) crime reduction, b) cost and c)moral standards, and giving the quality of data which exists for these kinds of things, it's probably impossible. So it's very possible that two people can both be right and still disagree, they just have to pick different points in the solution space.
I think you're confusing liquid and fluid. A fluid is a substance which is unable to resist any shear stress, and all gases exhibit this behavior. Also, your units seem to be off, if the molecular mass is dimensionless then you're missing a mass^.5 somewhere. If not then you need to account for moles and the fact that m=.029 kg/mol.
Interestingly enough TFA has the opposite correlation, the time it takes an irregular verb in English to become regular is inversely proportional to the square of it's frequency within usage.
If you're playing right you should. Eat a floating eye and carry a towel, or blindfold. Find an amulet of telepathy,a ring of warning or one of the many artifacts which grant you telepathy or warning. Also, most of the really big bads in the game occur either as a result of a players action or in a set place.
It's easy to say that having one kid in the back seat doesn't do much to reduce traffic, but what about having your kid and three others as well? It's reasonable to that any child isn't going to be driving, but by giving them a ride you are still taking three other cars off the road.
In general, it's probably better to err on the side of tolerance with regard to HOV's, at least until they are as busy as all the other lanes of traffic.
It may be different for you, but seeing something up on the board doesn't help me learn. Graphics are great for illustrating a point, but in terms of equations and diagrams, I need to write it to remember it. Getting copies of the instructors notes just gives students a lazy way out, not a chance to participate more.
The problem with most of the technology is that it gives information too fast for most students. It's easy to whip up a whole bunch of slides, or pre-made note-sheets for a document camera, but it's much harder for the students to follow. When you're doing things on the board (I guess a tablet pc and a projector might work here) it's much easier to understand step by step process, particularly in derivations, when the instructor is speaking and writing every step of the way. In terms of tablets versus blackboards, blackboards generally allow you to keep more information in front of your students for longer, but feel free to ignore this if the geometry of your space limits blackboard space.
The other mistake that many of my tech-savvy instructors (both high-school teachers and professors)have made is distributing copies of your notes. It sounds like a good way of making sure all of your students gets all of the information, but it completly eliminates the need to take notes in class or even pay attention to what you're saying.
If the system is prone to failure due to destruction of the infrastructure (e.g. the building) wouldn't that argue for a more distributed model? Either build more depth into the system by building multiple back up repeaters or by switching standards
Our Government works best when only the things which most of the electorate agree on, and when all the divise political issues which make people go bonkers are deadlocked.
If that's a Bad Thing, maybe we shouldn't be a democratic republic anymore
It is a Bad Thing, because if it's unchcked 51% percent of the population could abolish the the right to vote for the other 49%. You could take it further and then have 26% percent of the population disenfranchise the other 25% whose vote survived the last round. Another round could further reduce it to 13% enfranchisement and so forth.
A democratic rebuplic isn't so democratic when 87% of it's citizens can't vote.
This is precisly the reason we have the constitution and the bill of rights, to protect the liberties required to participate in a democracy from The People (i.e. the government.)
I was under the impression that if you didn't present an ID when asked the cop can hold you at the police station until someone with an ID can identify you.
I've always assume that it was an ordered list; life then liberty and then finally property. It seems logical since you cannot have liberties if you're dead, nor can you really own property if the government can sieze it whenever they feel like it.
We all have the right of freedom, but no right for security. I'm not for terrorism or against the police, but freedom has to come first.
I believe not getting blown up falls under the word "Life" in "Life, Liberty and Property" in the declaration of independence. While I'm aware that it's not legally binding, I still think the principle holds. The goverment is charged with protecting the people lives, liberties and property, in that order. Just as you should be able to assume that you can say something in public, you should be able to assume that you will not be killed walking down the street, for whatever reason. Without the right to live all forms of Liberty become meeningless, becuase someone can just kill you for exercising that right.
The sticky part comes when these rights conflict, and I think that it's perfectly reasonable for a society to be able to decide what the correct balance is. Personally I believe that The People should never be deprived of their freedoms and people should have thier individual freedoms restricted at little as possible without a conviction.
It seems like the UK as a society is moving in a different direction, which while acceptable under the precepts of the declaration of independance, is the reason I'm never going to live there.
I believe that this Data (who called whom) isn't directly covered by the 4th amendment, which is why it can be tapped with an administrative supoena rather than a warrant. What's at issue here is that there is another law which states that these records are confidential, and shyould not therefore be given to the government without a warrant or supoena.
Slashdot Mirror
Non-elected surgery is what happens when your parents/guardians/doctors decide to surgically assign you a gender when you are born. It's pretty rare.
The hypothetical grocer will adjust what he offers me based on how many of his offers I take up. If he noticed that I buy a lot of pickles and he suggests a certain brand of dill pickle. I can tell him that I'm not interested in dills, only sweet or half-sour pickles, and he won't tell me about gourmet dill pickles again. There is no way to say I'm not interested to an online advertiser becuase normal behavior looks exactly like rejection.
Also, the grover won't recommend say a better drain cleaner becuase I bought a new plunger at the hardware store down the block. Online advertisers are increasing collating data across several sites to offer more targeted ads. I shop for many completely unrelated things online and having my bookstore recommend a graphics card becuase I just built a computer.
The final difference (at least for the moment) is that the small town grocer is smarter than any advertising computer. He is capable of guessing that I probably don't want farm fresh corn in January, and that he shouldn't mention the amount of liquor I bought last weekend when I'm chatting in line with my pastor. A computer isn't that smart.
For example, a police officer doesn't need a search warrant to seize something which is in plain sight, such as a joint of a table. But if that joint is concealed then if it were to be seized then it would be inadmissible.
Another example is that statements made to the police after arrest but before being read the Miranda rights (you have the right to remain silent...) cannot be admitted into court.
To make matters more complicated, excluded evidence (such as from an illegal search) can sometimes be admitted anyways for various reasons.
If you want more information try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
It could be useful with mobile applications because of the physical limitations of cell phones, sending some hard number crunching back to your desktop might make sense.
Also the server side could be trivialy protected by charging per flop instead of per use.
This statement assumes a solution space of a single point, in real solution spaces are often by much larger. For example, possible solutions to for a crime wave include (but are not limited to):
-hiring A more police officers
-spending B on jobs in the area
-adjusting prison terms by C
-spending D on community out-reach
-providing E free weapons to law abiding citizens so they can defend themselves
-requiring mandatory abortions for F percent of the populaton judged to raise criminals
-rounding up every male between the ages of G and H and sending them into the middle of now-where to work in a labor camp
Just considering these options we have a 8 dimensional solution space. It is non-trivial to optimize this solution for a) crime reduction, b) cost and c)moral standards, and giving the quality of data which exists for these kinds of things, it's probably impossible. So it's very possible that two people can both be right and still disagree, they just have to pick different points in the solution space.
I think you're confusing liquid and fluid. A fluid is a substance which is unable to resist any shear stress, and all gases exhibit this behavior. Also, your units seem to be off, if the molecular mass is dimensionless then you're missing a mass^.5 somewhere. If not then you need to account for moles and the fact that m= .029 kg/mol.
Correspondence is copyrighted(see TFA) while conversation is not.
Interestingly enough TFA has the opposite correlation, the time it takes an irregular verb in English to become regular is inversely proportional to the square of it's frequency within usage.
If you're playing right you should. Eat a floating eye and carry a towel, or blindfold. Find an amulet of telepathy,a ring of warning or one of the many artifacts which grant you telepathy or warning. Also, most of the really big bads in the game occur either as a result of a players action or in a set place.
In general, it's probably better to err on the side of tolerance with regard to HOV's, at least until they are as busy as all the other lanes of traffic.
Try Read The Fucker.
the silly string hangs of the trip wires, allowing them to bee seen easily without putting nough pressure on the wire to cause it to go off.
It may be different for you, but seeing something up on the board doesn't help me learn. Graphics are great for illustrating a point, but in terms of equations and diagrams, I need to write it to remember it. Getting copies of the instructors notes just gives students a lazy way out, not a chance to participate more.
The other mistake that many of my tech-savvy instructors (both high-school teachers and professors)have made is distributing copies of your notes. It sounds like a good way of making sure all of your students gets all of the information, but it completly eliminates the need to take notes in class or even pay attention to what you're saying.
I've never heard of it being done before, but it sure sounds neat. Would it be too much to ask for a link to yours?
If the system is prone to failure due to destruction of the infrastructure (e.g. the building) wouldn't that argue for a more distributed model? Either build more depth into the system by building multiple back up repeaters or by switching standards
How did you know they were illegal?
Our Government works best when only the things which most of the electorate agree on, and when all the divise political issues which make people go bonkers are deadlocked.
It is a Bad Thing, because if it's unchcked 51% percent of the population could abolish the the right to vote for the other 49%. You could take it further and then have 26% percent of the population disenfranchise the other 25% whose vote survived the last round. Another round could further reduce it to 13% enfranchisement and so forth.
A democratic rebuplic isn't so democratic when 87% of it's citizens can't vote.
This is precisly the reason we have the constitution and the bill of rights, to protect the liberties required to participate in a democracy from The People (i.e. the government.)
I was under the impression that if you didn't present an ID when asked the cop can hold you at the police station until someone with an ID can identify you.
It's designed to keep the British from invading.
I've always assume that it was an ordered list; life then liberty and then finally property. It seems logical since you cannot have liberties if you're dead, nor can you really own property if the government can sieze it whenever they feel like it.
We all have the right of freedom, but no right for security. I'm not for terrorism or against the police, but freedom has to come first.
I believe not getting blown up falls under the word "Life" in "Life, Liberty and Property" in the declaration of independence. While I'm aware that it's not legally binding, I still think the principle holds. The goverment is charged with protecting the people lives, liberties and property, in that order. Just as you should be able to assume that you can say something in public, you should be able to assume that you will not be killed walking down the street, for whatever reason. Without the right to live all forms of Liberty become meeningless, becuase someone can just kill you for exercising that right.
The sticky part comes when these rights conflict, and I think that it's perfectly reasonable for a society to be able to decide what the correct balance is. Personally I believe that The People should never be deprived of their freedoms and people should have thier individual freedoms restricted at little as possible without a conviction.
It seems like the UK as a society is moving in a different direction, which while acceptable under the precepts of the declaration of independance, is the reason I'm never going to live there.
Nope, that would be for plagarizing (those are lyrics from Metallica's the unamed feeling).
I believe that this Data (who called whom) isn't directly covered by the 4th amendment, which is why it can be tapped with an administrative supoena rather than a warrant. What's at issue here is that there is another law which states that these records are confidential, and shyould not therefore be given to the government without a warrant or supoena.