I often use GOTO statements in C code to mimic exception catching without duplicating cleanup code. It works very well, and its easy to understand, maintain, and debug. Example:
x = do_stuff(); if (x 0) { goto cleanup; }
y = do_more stuff(); if (y 0) { goto cleanup; } return 1;
That only works if you wake up at a fixed time each day. With an IoT teapot, you can link it to a motion detector, and have it turn on when it detects you getting out of bed.
It would at least be respectably configured for living in (bathroom, sink, heat/ac, fridge, etc).
You can use your employer's toilet/sink/fridge. If they don't allow 24/7/365 access, then get a new employer. AC isn't necessary if you sleep at night, since the SF Bay Area has low humidity and cool nights. Heat is also unnecessary since it just doesn't get very cold even in the winter.
Boy, it's going to be awesome for him if the company gym makes a new rule limiting the way he's using it.
They are not going to do that. Living in the parking lot is common in the Bay Area. I lived in a van for three years when I first moved here. Companies are aware of that, and the whole point of the gym, showers, kitchen, etc. is to accommodate the campers thus making it easier to recruit. Providing showers is way cheaper than paying higher salaries. My company provides a gym, showers, full kitchen, and washer/dryer. It is just good business.
When I conduct interviews, it is common for candidates to ask me about showers, and 24/7 access to toilets. Even if they don't ask, I usually give them a quick tour, and make sure to point that out. In addition to the campers, employees that commute by bike also appreciate the showers.
It's less smugness and more earthquake protection.
Not true at all. Modern skyscrapers can ride out even the biggest quakes. San Francisco has tall buildings, it just doesn't have many of them. Last year, more than 95% of building permits in SF were rejected. One and two story buildings were rejected right along with the tall buildings. This is not about safety. It is about incumbent property owners protecting their interests.
Most products are about filling a desire rather than a need. My wife is a tea connoisseur, spending hundreds of $s on gourmet blends. I could see her buying a device like this, so she could precisely control the timing and temperature. She would certainly buy it if it came with a Python API so she could write her own tea brewing apps.
Just good to mention that Chip & PIN cards would not have prevented the Target breach in any way as mentioned in Brian Krebs follow up article
The CC number would have been compromised. But the PIN would be secret. The whole point of the PIN is that the CC# alone is not enough to complete a transaction.
Indeed. Compelling someone to work for less than minimum wage is illegal. For instance, unpaid internships are generally illegal in America.
If nothing of value is offered in return, it's not a contract.
I believe the thing of value is the severance check. When my company last did a layoff, the terminatees were give one month of pay for each year of employment... unless they refused to sign the severance agreement, in which case they got zilch. Everyone signed, but it was a very standard agreement, with no weird clauses... basically an agreement not to steal anything and an agreement not to sue.
But of course we wouldn't want to use Stingrays for saving lives when they're much more useful for spying on everyone.
Those two uses are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the former facilitates the latter. Law enforcement can justify the procurement and deployment of a Stingray for search and rescue, and then use it for spying on the boyfriend of their ex-wife when there is no SAR in progress. They could use the same argument to justify the drone it is mounted on.
despite the obvious evidence it is the ONLY green energy.
Except for solar+wind+storage, where storage includes electric car batteries connected to smart chargers. I already have an electric car, and a smart charger. It charges at 2am when electricity prices hit a trough. But with wider adoption of solar, it could charge at mid-day instead.
So if the Chinese are going to do it what's wrong with us doing it back?
We are not "doing it back". China is. We started it.
But I don't think it is "wrong". Political espionage and corporate espionage are done by all sides, and in general help to make things more transparent. They are Good Things. What is wrong is the hypocrisy of pretending to be outraged about China, while we do the same thing. Instead of making a big fuss, we should be securing our servers.
The corporate accounts that provide most of Microsoft's sales , characterized as mostly Democrats or mostly Republicans?
Microsoft and The Bill Gates Foundation are separate entities. Microsoft's biggest donations go to Seattle area and Washington State politicians, who are mostly Democrats.
Then you've never studied history, nor do you understand how humanity functions.
I have studied history, and I think war is preventable. There is far less war in the world today than at any other time in history. There are wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but these are very small wars by historical standards. The ceasefire appears to be holding in Ukraine. There are no imminent conflicts anywhere else in the world.
If you look at the reasons for the decline in warfare, all the indicators are moving in the right direction. Globalization and international rules for trade mean that if you lack resources, you don't have to take them by force. You can just buy them. The UN and international arbitration courts provide an alternative dispute mechanism, and have settled many disagreements that could have led to conflict. War is seen as less and less legitimate.
The solution to this problem is "Looser pays legal fees".
Since "losing" is usually only tenuously related to the merits of the case, this would be a huge barrier to anyone without deep pockets, even if they have a valid case. Our justice system is already skewed in favor of big organizations, we don't need to make it worse.
A better solution would be a system of quick summary proceedings, similar to small claims court. Each side gets 5 minutes to make their case, without a lawyer. Then it is only loser pays if the loser rejected the summary judgement and later lost in a full trial. Another (or additional) solution would be to make Rule 68 mandatory for both sides: both parties would be required to make a good faith offer of settlement, and it would only be "loser pays" if the final settlement is less than what was offered by the other side at the beginning.
Slashdot Mirror
Three major airports all sharing the same airspace also limits how many tall skyscrapers are built throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.
That does NOT limit "how many". It only limits "how high". As long as they keep the buildings under 1 km, the airplanes will be fine.
Oh great. I get up in the middle of the night to pee and then the stupid thing wanders off and makes tea.
That is why every teapot needs a programmable API.
if (motionDetected() && (timeDiff(now() - 0700) > 0) && teapot.waterInPot) {
teapot.turnOnHeatingElement();
}
I often use GOTO statements in C code to mimic exception catching without duplicating cleanup code. It works very well, and its easy to understand, maintain, and debug. Example:
x = do_stuff();
if (x 0) { goto cleanup; }
y = do_more stuff();
if (y 0) { goto cleanup; }
return 1;
cleanup:
fix_my_mess();
fix_it_4realz();
return 0;
You are using a goto when you should be using a subroutine.
int foo() {
if (do_stuff() == 0) {
return ERROR;
}
if (do_more_stuff() == 0) {
return ERROR;
}
return SUCCESS;
}
int main() {
if (foo() != SUCCESS) {
fix_my_mess();
fix_it_4realz();
}
return 0;
}
Because I can't walk down a clean sidewalk to the corner store and pick up my standard groceries without being accosted or worse?
If you believe that Bangalore and Manila are more dirty and dangerous than Detroit, then you need to get a passport and go see the world.
You, sir, then need the Goblin Teasmaid.
That only works if you wake up at a fixed time each day. With an IoT teapot, you can link it to a motion detector, and have it turn on when it detects you getting out of bed.
It would at least be respectably configured for living in (bathroom, sink, heat/ac, fridge, etc).
You can use your employer's toilet/sink/fridge. If they don't allow 24/7/365 access, then get a new employer. AC isn't necessary if you sleep at night, since the SF Bay Area has low humidity and cool nights. Heat is also unnecessary since it just doesn't get very cold even in the winter.
Boy, it's going to be awesome for him if the company gym makes a new rule limiting the way he's using it.
They are not going to do that. Living in the parking lot is common in the Bay Area. I lived in a van for three years when I first moved here. Companies are aware of that, and the whole point of the gym, showers, kitchen, etc. is to accommodate the campers thus making it easier to recruit. Providing showers is way cheaper than paying higher salaries. My company provides a gym, showers, full kitchen, and washer/dryer. It is just good business.
When I conduct interviews, it is common for candidates to ask me about showers, and 24/7 access to toilets. Even if they don't ask, I usually give them a quick tour, and make sure to point that out. In addition to the campers, employees that commute by bike also appreciate the showers.
Cleveland, Pittsburg, Detroit, and Upstate NY are all good locations
Bangalore, Mumbai, and Manila are also nice locations. Once you go remote, why stop at the border?
It's less smugness and more earthquake protection.
Not true at all. Modern skyscrapers can ride out even the biggest quakes. San Francisco has tall buildings, it just doesn't have many of them. Last year, more than 95% of building permits in SF were rejected. One and two story buildings were rejected right along with the tall buildings. This is not about safety. It is about incumbent property owners protecting their interests.
Seriously, is this a need?
Most products are about filling a desire rather than a need. My wife is a tea connoisseur, spending hundreds of $s on gourmet blends. I could see her buying a device like this, so she could precisely control the timing and temperature. She would certainly buy it if it came with a Python API so she could write her own tea brewing apps.
Just good to mention that Chip & PIN cards would not have prevented the Target breach in any way as mentioned in Brian Krebs follow up article
The CC number would have been compromised. But the PIN would be secret. The whole point of the PIN is that the CC# alone is not enough to complete a transaction.
If my bank ever did this, they would lose a customer
SunTrust is a holding company. If you live in the Bible Belt, it is quite likely that they own your bank.
... and most of their other customers
You are vastly overestimating how much typical customers know/care about the labor practices of the businesses that they patronize.
>and to do so without compensation
Would seem unenforceable.
Indeed. Compelling someone to work for less than minimum wage is illegal. For instance, unpaid internships are generally illegal in America.
If nothing of value is offered in return, it's not a contract.
I believe the thing of value is the severance check. When my company last did a layoff, the terminatees were give one month of pay for each year of employment ... unless they refused to sign the severance agreement, in which case they got zilch. Everyone signed, but it was a very standard agreement, with no weird clauses ... basically an agreement not to steal anything and an agreement not to sue.
Book stores, coffee shops, concerts, local parks and even night clubs have been successful places in the past.
Also: dog parks, yoga classes, horse riding lessons.
These do NOT work: Chess/Go tournaments, model railroading conventions, civil war re-enactments.
But of course we wouldn't want to use Stingrays for saving lives when they're much more useful for spying on everyone.
Those two uses are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the former facilitates the latter. Law enforcement can justify the procurement and deployment of a Stingray for search and rescue, and then use it for spying on the boyfriend of their ex-wife when there is no SAR in progress. They could use the same argument to justify the drone it is mounted on.
despite the obvious evidence it is the ONLY green energy.
Except for solar+wind+storage, where storage includes electric car batteries connected to smart chargers. I already have an electric car, and a smart charger. It charges at 2am when electricity prices hit a trough. But with wider adoption of solar, it could charge at mid-day instead.
you would be trying to argue with a doctor with a degree, license and experience.
You would also be arguing in front of an experienced judge with subject matter expertise, who specializes in medical summaries.
They'd get an expert witness, you'd get whatever you could Google...
Five minutes isn't enough time to bring in an expert witness.
so I'd expect the doctor to win every time at summary judgment.
Plenty of people take corporations to small claims court, and prevail more often than in higher courts.
BTW, Loser pays is what they do in the UK and *most* of Europe. They have a lot less of a problem with stupid civil cases clogging up their courts.
Common citizens have far less access to the justice system in Europe. "Loser pays" is basically the same as "Corporation wins".
So if the Chinese are going to do it what's wrong with us doing it back?
We are not "doing it back". China is. We started it.
But I don't think it is "wrong". Political espionage and corporate espionage are done by all sides, and in general help to make things more transparent. They are Good Things. What is wrong is the hypocrisy of pretending to be outraged about China, while we do the same thing. Instead of making a big fuss, we should be securing our servers.
he is a corporatist, globalist oligarch.
So is a "globalist" someone that wants to solve global problems, like malaria, extreme poverty, and 3rd world illiteracy?
The corporate accounts that provide most of Microsoft's sales , characterized as mostly Democrats or mostly Republicans?
Microsoft and The Bill Gates Foundation are separate entities. Microsoft's biggest donations go to Seattle area and Washington State politicians, who are mostly Democrats.
in Denmark they strike a balance
Denmark has a far more open economy than even America. Their merchandise trade was 60% of GDP. America's was about 20%.
Using Denmark as an example of a closed economy producing a better quality of life is idiotic in the extreme.
Then you've never studied history, nor do you understand how humanity functions.
I have studied history, and I think war is preventable. There is far less war in the world today than at any other time in history. There are wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but these are very small wars by historical standards. The ceasefire appears to be holding in Ukraine. There are no imminent conflicts anywhere else in the world.
If you look at the reasons for the decline in warfare, all the indicators are moving in the right direction. Globalization and international rules for trade mean that if you lack resources, you don't have to take them by force. You can just buy them. The UN and international arbitration courts provide an alternative dispute mechanism, and have settled many disagreements that could have led to conflict. War is seen as less and less legitimate.
... as well as Bill Gates Foundation.
Bill Gates is not a Republican. He is a political independent, and has donated more to Democrats than Republicans.
The solution to this problem is "Looser pays legal fees".
Since "losing" is usually only tenuously related to the merits of the case, this would be a huge barrier to anyone without deep pockets, even if they have a valid case. Our justice system is already skewed in favor of big organizations, we don't need to make it worse.
A better solution would be a system of quick summary proceedings, similar to small claims court. Each side gets 5 minutes to make their case, without a lawyer. Then it is only loser pays if the loser rejected the summary judgement and later lost in a full trial. Another (or additional) solution would be to make Rule 68 mandatory for both sides: both parties would be required to make a good faith offer of settlement, and it would only be "loser pays" if the final settlement is less than what was offered by the other side at the beginning.
How else would you explain their straight-faced, utterly disingenuous denials?
The same way you explain the straight-faced denials by America, until the Snowden leaks exposed them as utterly disingenuous.