You can never resign your right for self protection and preservation. You will have to deal with the consequences afterwards. IF you can show just cause, legally you are well within your rights. Without video proof, it's very unlikely you would legally prevail.
For example, police bust down a door with guns in hands. A cop is shot and killed. The shooter is in turn shot and arrested. The cops did not identify themselves and the courts ruled it was justifiable self defense. That's why cops are suppose to immediately ID themselves anytime they bust down a door and rush in.
The founders intended for people to have the ability to mount an armed insurrection against an injust government, and the tools of the day included everything up to and including field artillery (the tanks and planes of the day).
That's true! Most people don't realize that most gun control laws are very clearly unconstitutional. Those that bother to read any history know this is absolutely true. Back in the day it was common for people in the local militia to own a cannon or other artillary piece. Heck, during WWII, the military put people in charge of anti-ship batteries along the coastlines. Soldiers that came home after war commonly retained their guns. Heck, this all ignores the fact that both people and companies used to own war ships. That's friggen WAR SHIPS...the most powerful weapon of the day.
People that don't blink an eye when they are told the constitution never intended for people to own powerful weapons are brainwashed, ignorant, and anti-American. As you said, the entire intent is to allow the people to have the means to overthrow a corrupt government, which becomes near impossible because of the unconstitutional laws passed against guns and gun owners.
You may call me crazy, but I don't believe in any restrictions whatsoever.
Noone of any concept of the constitution or history would call you crazy on this point. Only the ignorant would attempt to correct you on your point.
Even worse, they are trying to get light GA to pay the airlines' shares while the airlines deposit what was once a federal tax and claim for their own income. All the while, empowering the airlines to run, regulate, and establish policy for the FAA.
There is no technological reason why we couldn't get rid of leaded fuel for normally aspirated piston engines tomorrow.
That's actually not true. The lead acts as both a lubricant, extending the engine's life, and as an octane booster. While they can come up with replacement octane boosters, they typically are much more expensive and even more dangerous for the environment while providing for worse fuel economy.
It's true that many engines which have lower compression can run on normal auto fuel (and many do in limited quantities) but it creates a whole new world of safety problems like vapor lock, higher operating temps, and premature component wear. Worse, the larger, higher compression engines simply can not run auto fuel without detonation; which is a none starter.
I've seen estimates which state only as much as 40% of the existing light GA piston market can hope to obtain an auto fuel STC. That still leaves a huge chunk that would not be able to fly while creating more dangerous skys for the a large chunk of the 40% that did convert.
Long story short, I believe you are over simplifying the situation.
Most aircraft owners would switch to unleaded in a heartbeat because it's far cheaper.
This is very true! Most people tend to think plane owners are millionaires but reality is, most plane owners are your typical middle class Americans ($40,000/yr+) that passes on expensive cars and big dinners for the privilege of owning and piloting.
In all probability they can recertify with a combination of electronic ignition and the same 100LL formulation but without TEL, and they can do that relatively inexpensively. If the feds made every aircraft owner who replaced their engines eligible for fuel tax rebates for a period of, say, 5 years from date of installation, that'd probably get the job done to get the fleet converted. But nobody is in a rush to do this because nobody at the EPA sees a public health problem here.
But its a catch-22. Aviation piston engines cost anywhere from $18,000 - $60,000 to replace, as is. No tax rebate is going to cover the cost of engine replacement; especially once you add in the cost of a newly certified engine technology. Certifying an engine with the FAA easily costs $1,000,000 and up. Because the FAAs moto is, "We're not happy unless you're not happy", they keep various technologies unavailable simply because the price for entry is far, far too high, despite it being a proven technology. Worse, most of their regulations are based about 1940s and 1950s technology assumptions; as that's the technology base most of the guys that created the regulations could relate to. The Beech Starship is a classic example. They truly innovated but the FAA tied them up with red tape for so long during the certification process, it was cheaper for Beech to buy back every plane and DESTROY THEM than it was to hope they could make their money back on their investment.
Heck, manual adjustment of the air/fuel mixture is common place in GA. Something as common as fuel injection is still considered a big step up and the fuel inject is decades behind what is commonly found in cars. And, even with fuel injection, manual control of the air/fuel mixture is still the norm.
Another example is something as simple as a clock. The FAA regulations require a certified clock (think of time/distance navigation where time is very important for safe operation). That made sense during the 1940s and 1950s when a precise time piece was uncommon. Likewise, it made sense as a clock to be mounted is required to maintain accuracy with various vibration and pressure changes, and would be hard to find back then. These days, the FAA certified clocks cost hundreds of dollars yet are less accurate, BY FAR, than what most people can pick up for $5 bucks at the local dollar store. Some of the old certified clocks will actually lose a minute or more over a four hour flight. And they can get worse with age. Worse yet, they are renowned for their unreliability. As a result, most pilots violate the regulations because they want something that is accurate, safe, and reliable rather than something that is certified. And yes, the FAA does ding people for using something that is safe and reliable rather than something that is certified.
Long story short, the ONLY thing preventing piston airplanes from becoming faster, cheaper, safer, and more environmentally friendly is the FAA. If the goverment would clean house and restructure the FAA, forcing them to revamp their certification process, the world of air travel would be a much, much better place.
That's more than I pay towards the fixed costs of a light aircraft!
Most people have no concept of the costs of light GA. Most people expect that you drive to the airport in your very expensive European car while giving the finger to everyone else. Worse, if they take the FAA's word at face value, you then go about taking an unshare fair of FAA consumable taxes and cause delays for major airlines. This is of course why the FAA's moto is, "We're not happy until you're not happy."
In other words, if you're going to throw out a tidbit like that, you might include more details so the masses have some hope of relating. While piloting is expensive, people don't realize that the average GA pilot makes less than $60,000/yr. In fact, I believe it's actually less than $40,000/yr.
According to Bob Jones, Satan is already running the Catholic church.
Seems like a better question would be when hasn't Satan been running the Catholic church? Okay, okay, that was loaded but I have your attention. One only has to look at history, both in modern times and as far back as we have records on the church, to see the woe that comes from that cult (IMO, they are the largest cult in history). Heck, they even supported and aided the Nazis during WWII. Most recently, shared children between priests for sex and refused to cooporate with authorities until the numbers at mass started rapidly declining.
No matter how you cut it, a lot of bad stuff bad can be directly linked to the Catholic church. Hopefully I won't be burned on a pire and my wife won't be raped trying to force a confession from her; as is historically but not altogether commonly done by the church against heretics.
The Apollo capsule's lifting body properties were exploited to maneuver it during reentry, giving it a much longer landing zone and the ability to avoid unfavorable weather conditions.
A lifting body design need not be required to obtain the results you cite. One need only modify the shape, or change its AOA slightly while in flight to achieve the same result. Drag and basic vector changes do wonderful things. Heck, even airplanes have to be "in trim" else the imposed asymmetrical drag, causes the plane to fly in another direction. To be absolutely clear, few airplanes qualify as "lifting body" designs despite the fact they only get into the air by means of lift.
Do you have anything to support your conclussion that a high drag rock qualifies as a lifting body design? Frankly, for the life of me, I can not imagine there is any lift to be generated from a simple capsule falling through the air. It seems to me you consider anything that creates drag which moves through the air a lifting body design. Simply stated, drag != lift.
Also note that even the wikipedia article on lifting bodies contrast the differences between high drag capsules and true lifting body designs. While wikipedia is hardly the hard science of contrasting views I find it pretty compelling that everything there follows the very traditional view that capsules are not lifting bodies and then go on to breakdown most all noteworthy lifting body pilots and craft. One would sure think Apollo recovery flights would be considered noteworthy.
Where did you hear that? According to a documentary I saw where they interviewed the engineer the came up with the concept, both the concept and phrase "lifting body" did not exist at the time.
If by "lifting body" you really mean high drag design I'll agree. It is certainly not obvious the Apollo capsule generates any form of lift during reentry until its parachutes pop out. If you insist it is a lifting body design, how does it generate lift (please note, drag is not lift)?
I believe his point is, regardless of what the officer or state says, you can not take away certain rights. Some state and even federal laws are clearly trumped by the Constitution or The Bill or Rights. Now matter how badly a state or police officer wants something, there are some things they can not do lawfully, even if they write it on paper and declare it law. Doing so does not make it legal, you just have a worthless peice of paper with an illegal, unenforceable law.
It is really odd that you would consider it so wrong to film near a military base. What, are all the soldiers so afraid, of being seen and not being able to defend themselves.
It's called national security. Most bases are not public property, rather, they are federal and/or state property. The combination of the two means you have zero right to film on a military installation unless the specific right has been granted. Traditionally, film from public lands has been allowed but since 911 that has become a gray area. That's the whole deal behind Area 51 Observers, in that they can film whatever they want from a public vantage without fear of prosecution. With recent laws, many reasonable laws have been surpressed. I don't know where that leaves us in relation to filming from public land.
Regardless if you believe you have a right to film on a military base, you do not. It is not public property. Thusly, you can be arrested for trespass for simply stepping on it.
Heck, just I want to know what the law actually says that they feel they can ding anyone for using veg oil. One would hope the law says something about sale as fuel rather than use as fuel. Do they base tax on the number of gallons placed into a vehicle? What about R/C fuels, do they have to pay state and federal taxes too since it's put into a tank and burned as fuel in an ICE? Will they go after R/C hobbiests for tax evasion next? I means shesh...where's the line and what does the law actually say? Is this unique to that state or common across all states? Since the Feds are involved it seems to imply everyone in all states can fall victim here.
As for the rest, we've read that but for the most part, it's just silly. Issues with timeframes like that are simply not issues for the bulk of the computing world. They were when 486s were king but these days, the gap (what desktop computes can do versus can't in a reasonable window) is so large, it's just not a concern with discusion unless you have legitimate reason to raise it.
Of course, that does not mean performance is altogether ignored its just that performance these days isn't normally "can we or can't we", rather, it's are we willing to suffer a 20% hit? And when it does matter, languages like C/C++ are normally picked. These days, the problem domains where language choice is critical (hard real time, FPS game, simulation, etc) is pretty well known up front by experienced coders; and driven by a performance requirement. Performance requirements are a requirement or they are not. Just because a performance requirement is not given doesn't mean common sense goes out the window; thusly, the silliness of the often preached comments.
What doesn't always matter is run-time performance. Programmer performance is often just as, or more, important. A program that takes three hours to write and ten minutes to run is inferior to one that takes an hour to write and half an hour to run, if it's only going to be run once.
You're pretty much alone in your analysis. To boot, you stacked the deck by creating a performance critical requirement. Most studies confirm that, given your example, what would take three hours to write in Java will take six to eight in C/C++. And sense no one sane will be using Java for performance critical code, your runtime comparisons can be ignored. After all, no one cares if it takes your Java app 10ms to process a transaction verses 1ms. If they did, they wouldn't (shouldn't) be using Java.
At the end of the day, Java, Python, Ruby, Perl, all have their place. Stacking the deck to ultimately waste development time is silly.
It's clear that that feature was placed there in order to help you secure your system -- turning it off ought to be grounds for a reprimand from above. You wouldn't leave telnet open to the world in this day and age, so why would you turn off SELinux on a system that used it?
Of course you wouldn't unless your manager, out of fear and ignorance, forces you to disable it as step one following installation. This is the same manager that has root access which I must constantly go behind to fix things he's messed up, or configured in a non-standard way making updates painful. Hypothetically speaking of course.
It's been a while since I last looked at the benchmark results but I seem to recall they were only faster at some two out of twenty or so tests. In the remainder of the tests, IronPython was hidiously slow. In other words, there is still a very long road ahead for the likes of IronPython before claims of performance can be had. Then again, perhaps my comments are a release or two behind...and I'm going off memory.
Speed isn't everything. If your server application is network or database bound then stability and API richness is considerably more important than speed of execution. After all, does it matter that your app completes 2ms faster if it has to wait 500ms for the database to return?
I would like to complement your position on Java. It's rather refreshing to see someone take a realistic view of Java's strengths and weaknesses. Contrary to the usual assertion by Java zealots, Java does have weaknesses and one of its largest is its performance. Having said that, as you clearly identified, not every problem domain requires 100% of the CPU 100% of the time. As such, languages like Java, Python, Perl, and Ruby, etc. have many, many advantages other than raw performance.
IMO, the sooner Java zealots stop saying silly things like "Java is faster than C/C++" and start preaching the real merits of Java, wider adoption will occur. Until then it simply comes across as zealotry and undeserved hero worship, and is a real turn off for the knowing masses.
Actually, I believe any attorney will tell you the phrasing is too broad to apply to anything. Likewise, it's purposely broad to allow Microsoft to slap anyone that doesn't play their game. A "technical limitation" can mean absolutely anything; which is why I believe any reasonable judge would slap it down. Very, strictly interpretted, he clearly did not work around any technical limitation if he used publically available APIs. To truly be "technically limited", Microsoft must prove that they specifically worked to limit access to those APIs, or that he used unpublished APIs; which doesn't seem possible since they specifically bundled them with the product and publically push the API.
Long story short, MS is obviously wrong...but how many thousands of dollars does he want to throw at the situation to prove once again, only an idiot gets in bed with Microsoft?
To be sure, I am speaking of US law and what I'm telling you is well established. This is why police call look in your vehicle but can not check your glove box or trunk without your consent. They only have right to what is within public view. Drawing your blinds is well established as creating the expectation of privacy within ones homes. If law enforcement believe something is happening behind those drawn blinds, they must obtain a court order before they can follow up on that belief.
Unless they have an insane judge, no judge is going to grant such orders on the basis of, "he drew his blinds therefore he is a terrorists."
See my post again. I believe your question was already answered. If you can prove you had a reasonable expectation of privacy, then the law is on your side. Drawing your blinds make it clear that you don't expect people to be able to see into your room.
Which is probably why they have claimed they will do it. Their drivers stink. If they can get people to code up quality drivers for little to no expense, suddenly they are much more competative with NVIDIA plus they've bought mindshare in the OSS community.
I think that falls under the plain sight rules. If you are visible from the street then you have no expecation of privacy. If on the other hand, your blinds are closed and your curtains are drawn, and someone can still spy on you, then I'd say you have an argument for reasonable expecation of privacy. At least that's how it is in the US.
...and the first thing that many courts do to change all of the behaviors your citing, when they were never physically disciplined is to physically discipline them to good results. What does the military do? Physically discipline them. Why? Because it has centuries of proof that it works for the majority. The problem is, many people believe that physical discipline is an end all to its own. It's not!
From my own personal experience, the worst kids, by far, are typically those that were never physically disciplined. Talk about spoiled, selfish kids. Talk about piece of crap young adults. Heck, take the family across the street from me. Before they had kids, they would openly scold us for disciplining our kids. Our kids are pretty much grown and they are primed to be excellent members of society. We often receive praise for their good behavior. The family across the street refused to physically disipline their first child. No one allows their kids to play with that child without direct supervision, and the play sessions often end quickly with that child being told to go home. Their other two children have both been physically disciplined from an early age and are very nice kids. The parents around htere enjoy them playing with their children. These are results I've observed for my entire life.
There are many, many aspects of this, to which I'm fairly sure most studies fail to capture. I do agree that some kids never require physical discipline. There are those that absoluetely need it. Implemneted correctly, it hardly ever needs to actually be used.
To be sure, like any tool, it can be misused and abused.
A method of placing an order for an item comprising: under control of a client system, displaying information identifying the item; and in response to only a single action being performed, sending a request to order the item along with an identifier of a purchaser of the item to a server system; under control of a single-action ordering component of the server system, receiving the request; retrieving additional information previously stored for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request; and generating an order to purchase the requested item for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request using the retrieved additional information; and fulfilling the generated order to complete purchase of the item whereby the item is ordered without using a shopping cart ordering model.
It's called cookies. The fact that they could implement it without a custom browser proves prior art. After all, this exact type of transaction (remote key allows for local association of customer's data; server's perspective) was the inspiration for cookies. In other words, the prior art is anyone that ever wrote a web page that used cookies. Everything else from that point is obvious.
Wow. In other words, I'm stupid because your post is irrational, illogical, and factually incorrect? You seriously want to live in a fantasy world. Your third paragraph was never disputed and I have no idea why you offer it. It was never a topic.
Secondly, what you're claiming I believe is called SAE HP rating but is in itself not HP. It is a scaled HP rating. So in other words, your first post is nonsenses, someone (me) pointed it out and corrected your many errors. You fire back by proving your stupidity while calling someone stupid.
I see that someone even replied with a real world, working vehicle that disproves your nonesenes even further. But I'm sure he's stupid too for once again pointing out that you live in a fantasy world.
Look, if you want to look like an idiot, continue to do what your doing. In the meantime, I was honestly being nice friendly. Flatly, your post was nonsense. I'm sorry you got upset with reality.
Slashdot Mirror
You can never resign your right for self protection and preservation. You will have to deal with the consequences afterwards. IF you can show just cause, legally you are well within your rights. Without video proof, it's very unlikely you would legally prevail.
For example, police bust down a door with guns in hands. A cop is shot and killed. The shooter is in turn shot and arrested. The cops did not identify themselves and the courts ruled it was justifiable self defense. That's why cops are suppose to immediately ID themselves anytime they bust down a door and rush in.
The founders intended for people to have the ability to mount an armed insurrection against an injust government, and the tools of the day included everything up to and including field artillery (the tanks and planes of the day).
That's true! Most people don't realize that most gun control laws are very clearly unconstitutional. Those that bother to read any history know this is absolutely true. Back in the day it was common for people in the local militia to own a cannon or other artillary piece. Heck, during WWII, the military put people in charge of anti-ship batteries along the coastlines. Soldiers that came home after war commonly retained their guns. Heck, this all ignores the fact that both people and companies used to own war ships. That's friggen WAR SHIPS...the most powerful weapon of the day.
People that don't blink an eye when they are told the constitution never intended for people to own powerful weapons are brainwashed, ignorant, and anti-American. As you said, the entire intent is to allow the people to have the means to overthrow a corrupt government, which becomes near impossible because of the unconstitutional laws passed against guns and gun owners.
You may call me crazy, but I don't believe in any restrictions whatsoever.
Noone of any concept of the constitution or history would call you crazy on this point. Only the ignorant would attempt to correct you on your point.
Even worse, they are trying to get light GA to pay the airlines' shares while the airlines deposit what was once a federal tax and claim for their own income. All the while, empowering the airlines to run, regulate, and establish policy for the FAA.
There is no technological reason why we couldn't get rid of leaded fuel for normally aspirated piston engines tomorrow.
That's actually not true. The lead acts as both a lubricant, extending the engine's life, and as an octane booster. While they can come up with replacement octane boosters, they typically are much more expensive and even more dangerous for the environment while providing for worse fuel economy.
It's true that many engines which have lower compression can run on normal auto fuel (and many do in limited quantities) but it creates a whole new world of safety problems like vapor lock, higher operating temps, and premature component wear. Worse, the larger, higher compression engines simply can not run auto fuel without detonation; which is a none starter.
I've seen estimates which state only as much as 40% of the existing light GA piston market can hope to obtain an auto fuel STC. That still leaves a huge chunk that would not be able to fly while creating more dangerous skys for the a large chunk of the 40% that did convert.
Long story short, I believe you are over simplifying the situation.
Most aircraft owners would switch to unleaded in a heartbeat because it's far cheaper.
This is very true! Most people tend to think plane owners are millionaires but reality is, most plane owners are your typical middle class Americans ($40,000/yr+) that passes on expensive cars and big dinners for the privilege of owning and piloting.
In all probability they can recertify with a combination of electronic ignition and the same 100LL formulation but without TEL, and they can do that relatively inexpensively. If the feds made every aircraft owner who replaced their engines eligible for fuel tax rebates for a period of, say, 5 years from date of installation, that'd probably get the job done to get the fleet converted. But nobody is in a rush to do this because nobody at the EPA sees a public health problem here.
But its a catch-22. Aviation piston engines cost anywhere from $18,000 - $60,000 to replace, as is. No tax rebate is going to cover the cost of engine replacement; especially once you add in the cost of a newly certified engine technology. Certifying an engine with the FAA easily costs $1,000,000 and up. Because the FAAs moto is, "We're not happy unless you're not happy", they keep various technologies unavailable simply because the price for entry is far, far too high, despite it being a proven technology. Worse, most of their regulations are based about 1940s and 1950s technology assumptions; as that's the technology base most of the guys that created the regulations could relate to. The Beech Starship is a classic example. They truly innovated but the FAA tied them up with red tape for so long during the certification process, it was cheaper for Beech to buy back every plane and DESTROY THEM than it was to hope they could make their money back on their investment.
Heck, manual adjustment of the air/fuel mixture is common place in GA. Something as common as fuel injection is still considered a big step up and the fuel inject is decades behind what is commonly found in cars. And, even with fuel injection, manual control of the air/fuel mixture is still the norm.
Another example is something as simple as a clock. The FAA regulations require a certified clock (think of time/distance navigation where time is very important for safe operation). That made sense during the 1940s and 1950s when a precise time piece was uncommon. Likewise, it made sense as a clock to be mounted is required to maintain accuracy with various vibration and pressure changes, and would be hard to find back then. These days, the FAA certified clocks cost hundreds of dollars yet are less accurate, BY FAR, than what most people can pick up for $5 bucks at the local dollar store. Some of the old certified clocks will actually lose a minute or more over a four hour flight. And they can get worse with age. Worse yet, they are renowned for their unreliability. As a result, most pilots violate the regulations because they want something that is accurate, safe, and reliable rather than something that is certified. And yes, the FAA does ding people for using something that is safe and reliable rather than something that is certified.
Long story short, the ONLY thing preventing piston airplanes from becoming faster, cheaper, safer, and more environmentally friendly is the FAA. If the goverment would clean house and restructure the FAA, forcing them to revamp their certification process, the world of air travel would be a much, much better place.
That's more than I pay towards the fixed costs of a light aircraft!
Most people have no concept of the costs of light GA. Most people expect that you drive to the airport in your very expensive European car while giving the finger to everyone else. Worse, if they take the FAA's word at face value, you then go about taking an unshare fair of FAA consumable taxes and cause delays for major airlines. This is of course why the FAA's moto is, "We're not happy until you're not happy."
In other words, if you're going to throw out a tidbit like that, you might include more details so the masses have some hope of relating. While piloting is expensive, people don't realize that the average GA pilot makes less than $60,000/yr. In fact, I believe it's actually less than $40,000/yr.
According to Bob Jones, Satan is already running the Catholic church.
Seems like a better question would be when hasn't Satan been running the Catholic church? Okay, okay, that was loaded but I have your attention. One only has to look at history, both in modern times and as far back as we have records on the church, to see the woe that comes from that cult (IMO, they are the largest cult in history). Heck, they even supported and aided the Nazis during WWII. Most recently, shared children between priests for sex and refused to cooporate with authorities until the numbers at mass started rapidly declining.
No matter how you cut it, a lot of bad stuff bad can be directly linked to the Catholic church. Hopefully I won't be burned on a pire and my wife won't be raped trying to force a confession from her; as is historically but not altogether commonly done by the church against heretics.
The Apollo capsule's lifting body properties were exploited to maneuver it during reentry, giving it a much longer landing zone and the ability to avoid unfavorable weather conditions.
A lifting body design need not be required to obtain the results you cite. One need only modify the shape, or change its AOA slightly while in flight to achieve the same result. Drag and basic vector changes do wonderful things. Heck, even airplanes have to be "in trim" else the imposed asymmetrical drag, causes the plane to fly in another direction. To be absolutely clear, few airplanes qualify as "lifting body" designs despite the fact they only get into the air by means of lift.
Do you have anything to support your conclussion that a high drag rock qualifies as a lifting body design? Frankly, for the life of me, I can not imagine there is any lift to be generated from a simple capsule falling through the air. It seems to me you consider anything that creates drag which moves through the air a lifting body design. Simply stated, drag != lift.
Also note that even the wikipedia article on lifting bodies contrast the differences between high drag capsules and true lifting body designs. While wikipedia is hardly the hard science of contrasting views I find it pretty compelling that everything there follows the very traditional view that capsules are not lifting bodies and then go on to breakdown most all noteworthy lifting body pilots and craft. One would sure think Apollo recovery flights would be considered noteworthy.
Actually, the Apollo Capsule is a lifting body.
Where did you hear that? According to a documentary I saw where they interviewed the engineer the came up with the concept, both the concept and phrase "lifting body" did not exist at the time.
If by "lifting body" you really mean high drag design I'll agree. It is certainly not obvious the Apollo capsule generates any form of lift during reentry until its parachutes pop out. If you insist it is a lifting body design, how does it generate lift (please note, drag is not lift)?
I believe his point is, regardless of what the officer or state says, you can not take away certain rights. Some state and even federal laws are clearly trumped by the Constitution or The Bill or Rights. Now matter how badly a state or police officer wants something, there are some things they can not do lawfully, even if they write it on paper and declare it law. Doing so does not make it legal, you just have a worthless peice of paper with an illegal, unenforceable law.
It is really odd that you would consider it so wrong to film near a military base. What, are all the soldiers so afraid, of being seen and not being able to defend themselves.
It's called national security. Most bases are not public property, rather, they are federal and/or state property. The combination of the two means you have zero right to film on a military installation unless the specific right has been granted. Traditionally, film from public lands has been allowed but since 911 that has become a gray area. That's the whole deal behind Area 51 Observers, in that they can film whatever they want from a public vantage without fear of prosecution. With recent laws, many reasonable laws have been surpressed. I don't know where that leaves us in relation to filming from public land.
Regardless if you believe you have a right to film on a military base, you do not. It is not public property. Thusly, you can be arrested for trespass for simply stepping on it.
Heck, just I want to know what the law actually says that they feel they can ding anyone for using veg oil. One would hope the law says something about sale as fuel rather than use as fuel. Do they base tax on the number of gallons placed into a vehicle? What about R/C fuels, do they have to pay state and federal taxes too since it's put into a tank and burned as fuel in an ICE? Will they go after R/C hobbiests for tax evasion next? I means shesh...where's the line and what does the law actually say? Is this unique to that state or common across all states? Since the Feds are involved it seems to imply everyone in all states can fall victim here.
Anyone know anything on the details?
Then I misunderstood.
As for the rest, we've read that but for the most part, it's just silly. Issues with timeframes like that are simply not issues for the bulk of the computing world. They were when 486s were king but these days, the gap (what desktop computes can do versus can't in a reasonable window) is so large, it's just not a concern with discusion unless you have legitimate reason to raise it.
Of course, that does not mean performance is altogether ignored its just that performance these days isn't normally "can we or can't we", rather, it's are we willing to suffer a 20% hit? And when it does matter, languages like C/C++ are normally picked. These days, the problem domains where language choice is critical (hard real time, FPS game, simulation, etc) is pretty well known up front by experienced coders; and driven by a performance requirement. Performance requirements are a requirement or they are not. Just because a performance requirement is not given doesn't mean common sense goes out the window; thusly, the silliness of the often preached comments.
What doesn't always matter is run-time performance. Programmer performance is often just as, or more, important. A program that takes three hours to write and ten minutes to run is inferior to one that takes an hour to write and half an hour to run, if it's only going to be run once.
You're pretty much alone in your analysis. To boot, you stacked the deck by creating a performance critical requirement. Most studies confirm that, given your example, what would take three hours to write in Java will take six to eight in C/C++. And sense no one sane will be using Java for performance critical code, your runtime comparisons can be ignored. After all, no one cares if it takes your Java app 10ms to process a transaction verses 1ms. If they did, they wouldn't (shouldn't) be using Java.
At the end of the day, Java, Python, Ruby, Perl, all have their place. Stacking the deck to ultimately waste development time is silly.
It's clear that that feature was placed there in order to help you secure your system -- turning it off ought to be grounds for a reprimand from above. You wouldn't leave telnet open to the world in this day and age, so why would you turn off SELinux on a system that used it?
Of course you wouldn't unless your manager, out of fear and ignorance, forces you to disable it as step one following installation. This is the same manager that has root access which I must constantly go behind to fix things he's messed up, or configured in a non-standard way making updates painful. Hypothetically speaking of course.
It's been a while since I last looked at the benchmark results but I seem to recall they were only faster at some two out of twenty or so tests. In the remainder of the tests, IronPython was hidiously slow. In other words, there is still a very long road ahead for the likes of IronPython before claims of performance can be had. Then again, perhaps my comments are a release or two behind...and I'm going off memory.
Speed isn't everything. If your server application is network or database bound then stability and API richness is considerably more important than speed of execution. After all, does it matter that your app completes 2ms faster if it has to wait 500ms for the database to return?
I would like to complement your position on Java. It's rather refreshing to see someone take a realistic view of Java's strengths and weaknesses. Contrary to the usual assertion by Java zealots, Java does have weaknesses and one of its largest is its performance. Having said that, as you clearly identified, not every problem domain requires 100% of the CPU 100% of the time. As such, languages like Java, Python, Perl, and Ruby, etc. have many, many advantages other than raw performance.
IMO, the sooner Java zealots stop saying silly things like "Java is faster than C/C++" and start preaching the real merits of Java, wider adoption will occur. Until then it simply comes across as zealotry and undeserved hero worship, and is a real turn off for the knowing masses.
Actually, I believe any attorney will tell you the phrasing is too broad to apply to anything. Likewise, it's purposely broad to allow Microsoft to slap anyone that doesn't play their game. A "technical limitation" can mean absolutely anything; which is why I believe any reasonable judge would slap it down. Very, strictly interpretted, he clearly did not work around any technical limitation if he used publically available APIs. To truly be "technically limited", Microsoft must prove that they specifically worked to limit access to those APIs, or that he used unpublished APIs; which doesn't seem possible since they specifically bundled them with the product and publically push the API.
Long story short, MS is obviously wrong...but how many thousands of dollars does he want to throw at the situation to prove once again, only an idiot gets in bed with Microsoft?
In the final analysis, I'm forced to think of The Scorpion and the Frog parable.
To be sure, I am speaking of US law and what I'm telling you is well established. This is why police call look in your vehicle but can not check your glove box or trunk without your consent. They only have right to what is within public view. Drawing your blinds is well established as creating the expectation of privacy within ones homes. If law enforcement believe something is happening behind those drawn blinds, they must obtain a court order before they can follow up on that belief.
Unless they have an insane judge, no judge is going to grant such orders on the basis of, "he drew his blinds therefore he is a terrorists."
See my post again. I believe your question was already answered. If you can prove you had a reasonable expectation of privacy, then the law is on your side. Drawing your blinds make it clear that you don't expect people to be able to see into your room.
But ATI's drivers are poop anyway.
Which is probably why they have claimed they will do it. Their drivers stink. If they can get people to code up quality drivers for little to no expense, suddenly they are much more competative with NVIDIA plus they've bought mindshare in the OSS community.
I think that falls under the plain sight rules. If you are visible from the street then you have no expecation of privacy. If on the other hand, your blinds are closed and your curtains are drawn, and someone can still spy on you, then I'd say you have an argument for reasonable expecation of privacy. At least that's how it is in the US.
...and the first thing that many courts do to change all of the behaviors your citing, when they were never physically disciplined is to physically discipline them to good results. What does the military do? Physically discipline them. Why? Because it has centuries of proof that it works for the majority. The problem is, many people believe that physical discipline is an end all to its own. It's not!
From my own personal experience, the worst kids, by far, are typically those that were never physically disciplined. Talk about spoiled, selfish kids. Talk about piece of crap young adults. Heck, take the family across the street from me. Before they had kids, they would openly scold us for disciplining our kids. Our kids are pretty much grown and they are primed to be excellent members of society. We often receive praise for their good behavior. The family across the street refused to physically disipline their first child. No one allows their kids to play with that child without direct supervision, and the play sessions often end quickly with that child being told to go home. Their other two children have both been physically disciplined from an early age and are very nice kids. The parents around htere enjoy them playing with their children. These are results I've observed for my entire life.
There are many, many aspects of this, to which I'm fairly sure most studies fail to capture. I do agree that some kids never require physical discipline. There are those that absoluetely need it. Implemneted correctly, it hardly ever needs to actually be used.
To be sure, like any tool, it can be misused and abused.
A method of placing an order for an item comprising: under control of a client system, displaying information identifying the item; and in response to only a single action being performed, sending a request to order the item along with an identifier of a purchaser of the item to a server system; under control of a single-action ordering component of the server system, receiving the request; retrieving additional information previously stored for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request; and generating an order to purchase the requested item for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request using the retrieved additional information; and fulfilling the generated order to complete purchase of the item whereby the item is ordered without using a shopping cart ordering model.
It's called cookies. The fact that they could implement it without a custom browser proves prior art. After all, this exact type of transaction (remote key allows for local association of customer's data; server's perspective) was the inspiration for cookies. In other words, the prior art is anyone that ever wrote a web page that used cookies. Everything else from that point is obvious.
Wow. In other words, I'm stupid because your post is irrational, illogical, and factually incorrect? You seriously want to live in a fantasy world. Your third paragraph was never disputed and I have no idea why you offer it. It was never a topic.
Secondly, what you're claiming I believe is called SAE HP rating but is in itself not HP. It is a scaled HP rating. So in other words, your first post is nonsenses, someone (me) pointed it out and corrected your many errors. You fire back by proving your stupidity while calling someone stupid.
I see that someone even replied with a real world, working vehicle that disproves your nonesenes even further. But I'm sure he's stupid too for once again pointing out that you live in a fantasy world.
Look, if you want to look like an idiot, continue to do what your doing. In the meantime, I was honestly being nice friendly. Flatly, your post was nonsense. I'm sorry you got upset with reality.