The gender exclusivity comes from the product of Federal law when combined with some interpretations of the Constitution, not from interpretations of the Constitution by themselves.
I just find it amusing that, because of the codified definition of the U.S. militia, a person who supports interpreting the 2nd Amendment as "only the militia is allowed to own firearms" ends up also taking the position "only men (and women in the National Guard) are allowed to own firearms". And that position was affirmed by Congress as recently as 5 months ago.
All of this is academic, though, as SCOTUS appears to believe that the 2nd Amendment does give an individual right to firearms.
That's... pretty interesting, actually. I wish I still had mod points to up this with. That makes it sound like interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is almost irrelevant, with such a broad definition of a militia codified into federal law. Though I notice it's also unequal - exempting women (outside of the National Guard) from classification as part of the militia also means they could potentially be excluded from gun rights under some interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.
The really attention-grabbing thing about the IRS guidance is Question 8 under the FAQ, which reads: Q-8: Does a taxpayer who “mines” virtual currency (for example, uses computer
resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public Bitcoin
transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the virtual currency
resulting from those activities?
A-8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value
of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income. See
Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable
income.
(emphasis in the original)
This sounds like an enormous amount of record keeping for individual miners to keep track of.
If it means only having to pass a scan from a geiger counter instead of a full-body pat down at the airport, I'm all for replacing terrorist fearmongering with thermonuclear fearmongering.
From my own research, difficulty appears to vary by card manufacturer, linux distro, and specific task. If you pick the right distro, support is decent. If you pick the wrong distro, you spend many hours wandering the internet safari. I can sympathize with Google's position.
In the briefest terms, AMD/ATI = Hard Mode, or so it appears.
Most recently, it took me a significant part of a weekend to setup a GPU-based Dogecoin miner on Debian, using ATI cards. The first and most painful lesson was learning that Debian Squeeze was a non-starter, which wasn't immediately obvious as several seemingly outdated guides exist, referring to experimental apt packages that no longer exist. Upgrading to Wheezy, I only managed to get a single card working, though a second identical card was plugged into the motherboard and known to be good. Lamenting my half-solved problem, a coworker directed me to a hardware hack (resistors stuck into a DVI/VGA converter) so that the second GPU would be fooled into thinking a monitor was present, so it would be recognized by the mining software. Apparently, this is a hardware hack needed to run Apple desktops in headless mode.
Supposedly, these things are "easier" on NVidia-based setups, or at least have a larger community to assist, but there are still some gotchas. I wouldn't blame Google for feeling that things need to be improved before offering official support. With any luck at all, Steambox will push card manufacturers to create better drivers for at least one distro, even if it's only Steambox. The Count tells me that One is greater than Zero, Ah, Ah, Ah.
When I drive more than an hour or two, I'm making a journey that crosses state lines. If I felt I had that kind of money to waste driving a rental across state lines, I wouldn't be worried about putting miles on the car I have.
It's not "unpossible". Protons (like most things at the sub-atomic scale) are not like the physical objects you're accustomed to, with seemingly concrete boundaries. It's not like a very small kind of baseball.
Protons are more like the broadcast range of a wifi hotspot (assuming, like any good physicist, that the hotspot signal is exactly spherical, to make the math easier). You might look at signal-to-noise ratio, which will produce one definition of "size", or you might look at wattage, which produces a different measurement of "size", or you might look at some other factor entirely, producing yet another definition of "size". These will not give you the game size, but are all "correct" within their contexts.
And, of course, since protons are actually composed of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, that complicates the question of "size" further, since you could define proton size based on measurements and modeling of the quarks, which would be analogous to considering the shape and location of the antennae in the aforementioned wifi hotspot.
I think anyone here will recognize how easily "smart gun technologies" will be circumvented on the streets, either by hardware hacks or software ones, meaning the technology will be useless at preventing illegal firearms transfers after a few days of being introduced. The only kind of crime that would be prevented by biometric or RFID identification would be stealing someone's gun to use on them in the heat of the confrontation. This seems somewhat desirable for peace officers and security personnel, but only if the technology can be made robust enough to prevent false negatives. No officer would ever want to place their lives in the hands of a gun that might refuse to fire at the most important moment.
For the majority case, sport and range shooting, the "feature" is nothing more than a potential nuisance, something else that can break in an already complex, dangerous system.
10% or less of the time. I've bought and assembled 4 "enthusiast" PCs for myself across the last 12 years, each time time making a multiple-generation leap in hardware. Actually, I had little choice but to replace the motherboard with the CPU each time, because the march of technology had pretty much rendered my old hardware obsolete each time.
I've also bought a dedicated file server and a used "enthusiast" PC that I could dedicate to CPU-intensive tasks.
I find it amusing that people are trying to argue that there are other enthusiasts out there beyond the ones trying to build fast, powerful hardware. It's like saying that there are car enthusiasts out there who aren't trying to build fast, powerful vehicles. I'm sure they exist, but for every one of them there are at least a dozen others doing doughnuts every night a few miles down the road from me, flashing their illegal lighting modifications in an impressively gaudy display of car nerdery that, in my mind, invalidates any and all criticism they might have over my hobbies.
The abstract concludes that talking about changes in precipitation are more likely to convince people of climate change.
Sure it will. Until their favored politicians tell them one way or the other, at which point I'll bet dollars to yuan that the same statistical anomaly appears for perceptions in precipitation change.
Could someone explain this part to me:
"It would be even worse if we weren't also locking up lots of water from rivers behind dams like the Hoover Dam."
I get that destroying dams would cause greater fluctuations in water flow rates downstream. Over the long term, however, how would destroying dams cause a net increase in annual water flow rates? Are we actually letting out less aggregate water than comes in, causing dam lakes to actually grow larger each year and dooming them to inevitably flood over the dams creating them? I thought dams merely regulated water flow after building up a large reservoir to spin the turbines for electricity generation.
Actually, it/was/ more-or-less self-sustaining, then the baby boomers didn't have kids at the same rate as their parents, and the Ponzi scheme it's based on started to fall apart.
Social Security had been planned on the assumption that the U.S. population would always have more income-earning tax payers than retired geriatrics, costing individual Americans a small amount of money each year to take care of the relatively few Social Security payouts. This is why I call it a Ponzi scheme: the program is premised on paying retirees using the money currently being gathered from taxpayers, and has been since its inception. There was no phase of the program where taxpayers began paying in but Social Security wasn't paying out.
The problem is that two things changed. First, the baby boom happened, which initially meant Social Security was in its heyday, but the relatively better-educated baby boomer kids didn't themselves continue to have children at the same rate as their parents. Second, the baby boom generation has seen the benefit of vastly improved health care, prolonging their life and, consequently, increasing the number of retired Americans drawing on social security.
True, Congress took money from Social Security instead of raising taxes, but the result is simply that they've accelerated what was inevitable anyways. I don't think there was any way the baby boomers could have paid enough into Social Security to avoid this outcome.
Also true, Social Security is not the only long-term problem facing the U.S. budget, nor is it the biggest. Medicare is probably the single biggest contributor to the U.S.'s long-term budget. Also, if we keep raising the debt limit for the country, then paying back those debts may eclipse even Medicare.
At first I was going to make a joke about my government in response to your thought about organizations without profit motive, but then I read about the FCC commissioner joining Comcast/NBC now that her vote has helped make the merger between those two possible.
This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod. I see no reason why that should be the case.
Rephrased: This assumes Microsoft has any obligation whatsoever to support third party browsers on their Windows OS. I see no reason why that should be the case.
Realistically, it would have probably taken out a lot of satellites, and utilities would likely have needed to turn off power in order to preserve transformers. Discovery Channel had an interesting series "Perfect Storms" that covered a mega-sized CME hitting Earth.
But it was never being spun as the fault of Obama. All of modern society's problems stem from G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Haven't you been paying attention?
Slashdot Mirror
The gender exclusivity comes from the product of Federal law when combined with some interpretations of the Constitution, not from interpretations of the Constitution by themselves.
I just find it amusing that, because of the codified definition of the U.S. militia, a person who supports interpreting the 2nd Amendment as "only the militia is allowed to own firearms" ends up also taking the position "only men (and women in the National Guard) are allowed to own firearms". And that position was affirmed by Congress as recently as 5 months ago.
All of this is academic, though, as SCOTUS appears to believe that the 2nd Amendment does give an individual right to firearms.
That's... pretty interesting, actually. I wish I still had mod points to up this with. That makes it sound like interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is almost irrelevant, with such a broad definition of a militia codified into federal law. Though I notice it's also unequal - exempting women (outside of the National Guard) from classification as part of the militia also means they could potentially be excluded from gun rights under some interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.
The really attention-grabbing thing about the IRS guidance is Question 8 under the FAQ, which reads:
Q-8: Does a taxpayer who “mines” virtual currency (for example, uses computer
resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public Bitcoin
transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the virtual currency
resulting from those activities?
A-8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value
of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income. See
Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable
income.
(emphasis in the original)
This sounds like an enormous amount of record keeping for individual miners to keep track of.
If it means only having to pass a scan from a geiger counter instead of a full-body pat down at the airport, I'm all for replacing terrorist fearmongering with thermonuclear fearmongering.
...can I pay them in Dogecoins?
From my own research, difficulty appears to vary by card manufacturer, linux distro, and specific task. If you pick the right distro, support is decent. If you pick the wrong distro, you spend many hours wandering the internet safari. I can sympathize with Google's position.
In the briefest terms, AMD/ATI = Hard Mode, or so it appears.
Most recently, it took me a significant part of a weekend to setup a GPU-based Dogecoin miner on Debian, using ATI cards. The first and most painful lesson was learning that Debian Squeeze was a non-starter, which wasn't immediately obvious as several seemingly outdated guides exist, referring to experimental apt packages that no longer exist. Upgrading to Wheezy, I only managed to get a single card working, though a second identical card was plugged into the motherboard and known to be good. Lamenting my half-solved problem, a coworker directed me to a hardware hack (resistors stuck into a DVI/VGA converter) so that the second GPU would be fooled into thinking a monitor was present, so it would be recognized by the mining software. Apparently, this is a hardware hack needed to run Apple desktops in headless mode.
Supposedly, these things are "easier" on NVidia-based setups, or at least have a larger community to assist, but there are still some gotchas. I wouldn't blame Google for feeling that things need to be improved before offering official support. With any luck at all, Steambox will push card manufacturers to create better drivers for at least one distro, even if it's only Steambox. The Count tells me that One is greater than Zero, Ah, Ah, Ah.
Not to mention, this sounds like the kind of plan that could easily result in the loss of two crews, instead of one.
When I drive more than an hour or two, I'm making a journey that crosses state lines. If I felt I had that kind of money to waste driving a rental across state lines, I wouldn't be worried about putting miles on the car I have.
That's a far more interesting phenomenon than the one I thought was being described.
It's not "unpossible". Protons (like most things at the sub-atomic scale) are not like the physical objects you're accustomed to, with seemingly concrete boundaries. It's not like a very small kind of baseball.
Protons are more like the broadcast range of a wifi hotspot (assuming, like any good physicist, that the hotspot signal is exactly spherical, to make the math easier). You might look at signal-to-noise ratio, which will produce one definition of "size", or you might look at wattage, which produces a different measurement of "size", or you might look at some other factor entirely, producing yet another definition of "size". These will not give you the game size, but are all "correct" within their contexts.
And, of course, since protons are actually composed of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, that complicates the question of "size" further, since you could define proton size based on measurements and modeling of the quarks, which would be analogous to considering the shape and location of the antennae in the aforementioned wifi hotspot.
OP is an ivory tower guy. He has no idea how abusive the police and the district attorneys can be in real life.
What? It's not like they'd drive someone to suicide.
Slow news day on Slashdot, apparently.
"Dammit, why did my car just shut off again?!"
I think anyone here will recognize how easily "smart gun technologies" will be circumvented on the streets, either by hardware hacks or software ones, meaning the technology will be useless at preventing illegal firearms transfers after a few days of being introduced. The only kind of crime that would be prevented by biometric or RFID identification would be stealing someone's gun to use on them in the heat of the confrontation. This seems somewhat desirable for peace officers and security personnel, but only if the technology can be made robust enough to prevent false negatives. No officer would ever want to place their lives in the hands of a gun that might refuse to fire at the most important moment.
For the majority case, sport and range shooting, the "feature" is nothing more than a potential nuisance, something else that can break in an already complex, dangerous system.
10% or less of the time. I've bought and assembled 4 "enthusiast" PCs for myself across the last 12 years, each time time making a multiple-generation leap in hardware. Actually, I had little choice but to replace the motherboard with the CPU each time, because the march of technology had pretty much rendered my old hardware obsolete each time.
I've also bought a dedicated file server and a used "enthusiast" PC that I could dedicate to CPU-intensive tasks.
I find it amusing that people are trying to argue that there are other enthusiasts out there beyond the ones trying to build fast, powerful hardware. It's like saying that there are car enthusiasts out there who aren't trying to build fast, powerful vehicles. I'm sure they exist, but for every one of them there are at least a dozen others doing doughnuts every night a few miles down the road from me, flashing their illegal lighting modifications in an impressively gaudy display of car nerdery that, in my mind, invalidates any and all criticism they might have over my hobbies.
The abstract concludes that talking about changes in precipitation are more likely to convince people of climate change.
Sure it will. Until their favored politicians tell them one way or the other, at which point I'll bet dollars to yuan that the same statistical anomaly appears for perceptions in precipitation change.
Now I'll never get rid of that Canadian Tire money. It'll sit in my sock drawer for all eternity.
Could someone explain this part to me:
"It would be even worse if we weren't also locking up lots of water from rivers behind dams like the Hoover Dam."
I get that destroying dams would cause greater fluctuations in water flow rates downstream. Over the long term, however, how would destroying dams cause a net increase in annual water flow rates? Are we actually letting out less aggregate water than comes in, causing dam lakes to actually grow larger each year and dooming them to inevitably flood over the dams creating them? I thought dams merely regulated water flow after building up a large reservoir to spin the turbines for electricity generation.
Actually, it /was/ more-or-less self-sustaining, then the baby boomers didn't have kids at the same rate as their parents, and the Ponzi scheme it's based on started to fall apart.
Social Security had been planned on the assumption that the U.S. population would always have more income-earning tax payers than retired geriatrics, costing individual Americans a small amount of money each year to take care of the relatively few Social Security payouts. This is why I call it a Ponzi scheme: the program is premised on paying retirees using the money currently being gathered from taxpayers, and has been since its inception. There was no phase of the program where taxpayers began paying in but Social Security wasn't paying out.
The problem is that two things changed. First, the baby boom happened, which initially meant Social Security was in its heyday, but the relatively better-educated baby boomer kids didn't themselves continue to have children at the same rate as their parents. Second, the baby boom generation has seen the benefit of vastly improved health care, prolonging their life and, consequently, increasing the number of retired Americans drawing on social security.
True, Congress took money from Social Security instead of raising taxes, but the result is simply that they've accelerated what was inevitable anyways. I don't think there was any way the baby boomers could have paid enough into Social Security to avoid this outcome.
Also true, Social Security is not the only long-term problem facing the U.S. budget, nor is it the biggest. Medicare is probably the single biggest contributor to the U.S.'s long-term budget. Also, if we keep raising the debt limit for the country, then paying back those debts may eclipse even Medicare.
Then the answer to global warming is obvious: Re-start the mass use of CFCs!
Port iOS to Plan 9!
At first I was going to make a joke about my government in response to your thought about organizations without profit motive, but then I read about the FCC commissioner joining Comcast/NBC now that her vote has helped make the merger between those two possible.
This assumes Apple has any obligation whatsoever to support third party DRM'd music stores on their iPod. I see no reason why that should be the case.
Rephrased: This assumes Microsoft has any obligation whatsoever to support third party browsers on their Windows OS. I see no reason why that should be the case.
Obviously the dig against him is the part where they say that instead the President urged NASA to send astronauts to an asteroid first.
Realistically, it would have probably taken out a lot of satellites, and utilities would likely have needed to turn off power in order to preserve transformers. Discovery Channel had an interesting series "Perfect Storms" that covered a mega-sized CME hitting Earth.
But it was never being spun as the fault of Obama. All of modern society's problems stem from G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Haven't you been paying attention?