This is a great idea, assuming that the reduced costs equate to reduced shipping rates that equal or exceed the depreciation of the goods being shipped . . .
I mean, having your goods sitting on a ship 2.6 times as long as necessary isn't exactly a money-making idea.
I manifestly don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, but US v. Hood is a criminal case involving evidence turned over to a law enforcement agency. You cite the exclusionary rule, which, as far as I can tell, specifically applies to law enforcement in criminal cases.
Allow me to quote myself, "a private party probably can use evidence illegally obtained in a civil case". The page I cite expressly states in their definition of the exclusionary rule, "a private citizen may use illegally obtained evidence, as long as he or she did not obtain it on orders from law-enforcement personnel", which I quoted in the post you replied to.
What's the disconnect here? Did you read my post? Would you mind re-reading it and explaining how there are fewer than two ways in which your reply is not applicable to what I was saying?
My not-very-informed opinion is that a private party probably can use evidence illegally obtained in a civil case, but that he is setting himself up for both criminal prosecution and civil liability.
Wow. That's one gnarly post. You know Slashdot has a preview function, right?
Anyway, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I understand that the FDA authorized Northfield to conduct their research. That's why I said "FDA" in my post.
Are you suggesting that this makes it okay? Or are you simply offering a historical example to suggest that the same outcome is likely?
More to the point, does it induce cardiac infarction, like PolyHeme? (And is the FDA going to foist it on the unconscious without consent, as they did PolyHeme?)
While I agree with you in principal, the article gives a laundry list of reasons a person might not want to have their identity associated with their political speech.
I got an iPhone on release day. My page looked "right" the first time I loaded it. So did the PDF on my site. Nearly ever other site I visited looked broken.
I fail to see how I'm the one with the problem.
The fact that you describe my vanity page as "horribly bland" says as much about you as it does about it. I'd be more inclined to call it "perfectly functional", or, if I was feeling generous, "delightfully austere".
Presentation certainly can be part of the content. But if I can't get to your content because you made some bad assumptions about the capabilities of my agent who benefits?
The extreme example is when all of the content of the site is buried in Flash. When I browse to it on my iPhone I get a little blue box with a question mark in it. In that case the presentation is the content indeed. And the content is, "You're not welcome here."
User Tip: If I can't even display your web page, I'm going to go to your competitor.
Web pages should render the same in any browser, on any OS.
Your heart is firmly in the right place, but you're conclusions are faulty.
No version of HTML as ever been intended to be a page description language. If you want things to look a certain way use PostScript, PDF, or another language that is intended to give a specific layout.
HTML is intended to allow you to describe your content so that an agent can display it in accordance with the viewer's preferences.
The fundamental problem, even bigger than IE's lousy compliance, is that graphic designers seem to be the largest producers of HTML. They fall in love with their "brochure" designs and then foist them on the rest of us. Consumers of web sites would almost universally be better served if content providers would just stick to straightforward HTML, and allow agents to present the content in a way that suits the users' preferences, devices, visual acuity, etc.
I wish I had mod points. Like you, I care not a bit for either of these parties, but this pattern seems quite clear to me. And the perpetrators seem completely unembarrassed by their naked intellectual dishonesty.
I don't respond to ACs, but two have replied to this post with essentially the same complaint.
First, my intention was to criticize the OP's defense of the President, more than the President himself.
Second, I don't misunderstand "change" to mean "change every single thing, regardless of its merit". But I do think that continuing the fleecing of the taxpayer (and the taxpayers of future generations) for the enrichment of commercial interests is precisely the kind of change that President Obama sold the electorate. And I think that the stimulus bill that he supported and signed manifestly belies the rhetoric on which he campaigned.
These things are meant to detect pollutants? Do they detect each other? They are clearly full of batteries. And, as pointed out by others, they probably look delicious to various sea life.
They're beautiful, but releasing them into the sea seems ill conceived.
The [economy] has absolutely destroyed [my checking account]. [My budget was] simply never built to support that amount of [recession], and the [economic downturn] / [unemployment rate] have crushed [it].
So I shouldn't have to hold up my end of the contract, right?
Or maybe they need to figure it out. As long as I'm holding up my end of the contract, they're obliged to hold up theirs.
Peter, I understand why you are being negative (as with most of the replies here). Programming is not an easy field to succeed in. But neither is any other field. And besides, why are we discouraging someone to do what he loves?
Todd, after over two thousand posts, I can't recall having ever been addressed by my name on Slashdot before!
Anyway, my intent was not to discourage our intrepid AC. My intent was to arm him with a realistic view, and a plan for achieving success. I don't know if anyone said, "Experience is the difference between realism and pessimism." If not, I just did.
I sincerely believe that if our AC is unwilling or unable to suffer the trials I describe he will fail. Would I help him by concealing this from him? By telling him a bunch of happy bullshit about how if he just wants it he can achieve it?
But, if he goes into this with his shoulders squared. If he's fully prepared to fight and scratch, to try and fail and try again. If he has the aptitude. If he has the financial freedom to start a new career. If he has the zeal for learning. Then he has a real chance at success. And I sincerely wish for that outcome for him. For all the good that's worth!;-)
You don't give us much to go on, but surely software is used in your field . . . whatever it is. You probably already know more about that domain than most programmers already working in it. You might want to get as far away from that field as possible, but I doubt you can afford to not use your experience as a key selling point.
You probably don't want to hear this, but you're starting over. Without a relevant degree. So you're going back to entry level. I hope your finances are in order.
So, for example, you might apply to the support department for a software package that you use in your current field. I do QA, and I often say, "QA is a ghetto", but that's another possible entry point.
Once you get your foot in the door on the technical side you might be able to move toward programming if you bust your hump. For years. Largely without recognition. Be prepared, not just to prove yourself, but to prove your self over and over until someone actually notices. And then to that again until someone who is willing to take a chance on you notices.
Then, some day, if you put in a hero's effort, you might be able to be an entry-level programmer.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a great idea, assuming that the reduced costs equate to reduced shipping rates that equal or exceed the depreciation of the goods being shipped . . .
I mean, having your goods sitting on a ship 2.6 times as long as necessary isn't exactly a money-making idea.
-Peter
I manifestly don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, but US v. Hood is a criminal case involving evidence turned over to a law enforcement agency. You cite the exclusionary rule, which, as far as I can tell, specifically applies to law enforcement in criminal cases.
Allow me to quote myself, "a private party probably can use evidence illegally obtained in a civil case". The page I cite expressly states in their definition of the exclusionary rule, "a private citizen may use illegally obtained evidence, as long as he or she did not obtain it on orders from law-enforcement personnel", which I quoted in the post you replied to.
What's the disconnect here? Did you read my post? Would you mind re-reading it and explaining how there are fewer than two ways in which your reply is not applicable to what I was saying?
-Peter
Do you have any support for your statement?
My not-very-informed opinion is that a private party probably can use evidence illegally obtained in a civil case, but that he is setting himself up for both criminal prosecution and civil liability.
Gee, here's a web page that backs my guess up. "[A] private citizen may use illegally obtained evidence, as long as he or she did not obtain it on orders from law-enforcement personnel."
-Peter
I think that being a twitter user is its own punishment.
-Peter
Vitrus repairo. You never pay attention in Flitwick's class.
-Peter
That's an interesting statement, since that is precisely the application it was developed for!
-Peter
Maybe you're unfamiliar with three ring binders.
They're archaic devices used to store non-electronic paper-based documents. You can ask your granddad about them.
I'm beginning to think these kids today don't realize that the desktop metaphor is . . . a metaphor!
-Peter
Wait, are you saying that I should attempt no landing there?
-Peter
All you -oids always stick together!
I didn't want to point out that it's just to the left of the submit button . . . on a page written in a left-to-right language.
-Peter
Wow. That's one gnarly post. You know Slashdot has a preview function, right?
Anyway, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I understand that the FDA authorized Northfield to conduct their research. That's why I said "FDA" in my post.
Are you suggesting that this makes it okay? Or are you simply offering a historical example to suggest that the same outcome is likely?
-Peter
More to the point, does it induce cardiac infarction, like PolyHeme? (And is the FDA going to foist it on the unconscious without consent, as they did PolyHeme?)
-Peter
While I agree with you in principal, the article gives a laundry list of reasons a person might not want to have their identity associated with their political speech.
I found it fairly persuasive.
-Peter
There's no arrange by penis.
-Peter
Nobody had.
I can't really decide between fixing it and retiring it. I'm not very motivated to do either.
-Peter
I got an iPhone on release day. My page looked "right" the first time I loaded it. So did the PDF on my site. Nearly ever other site I visited looked broken.
I fail to see how I'm the one with the problem.
The fact that you describe my vanity page as "horribly bland" says as much about you as it does about it. I'd be more inclined to call it "perfectly functional", or, if I was feeling generous, "delightfully austere".
Presentation certainly can be part of the content. But if I can't get to your content because you made some bad assumptions about the capabilities of my agent who benefits?
The extreme example is when all of the content of the site is buried in Flash. When I browse to it on my iPhone I get a little blue box with a question mark in it. In that case the presentation is the content indeed. And the content is, "You're not welcome here."
User Tip: If I can't even display your web page, I'm going to go to your competitor.
-Peter
Your heart is firmly in the right place, but you're conclusions are faulty.
No version of HTML as ever been intended to be a page description language. If you want things to look a certain way use PostScript, PDF, or another language that is intended to give a specific layout.
HTML is intended to allow you to describe your content so that an agent can display it in accordance with the viewer's preferences.
The fundamental problem, even bigger than IE's lousy compliance, is that graphic designers seem to be the largest producers of HTML. They fall in love with their "brochure" designs and then foist them on the rest of us. Consumers of web sites would almost universally be better served if content providers would just stick to straightforward HTML, and allow agents to present the content in a way that suits the users' preferences, devices, visual acuity, etc.
-Peter
I wish I had mod points. Like you, I care not a bit for either of these parties, but this pattern seems quite clear to me. And the perpetrators seem completely unembarrassed by their naked intellectual dishonesty.
-Peter
I don't respond to ACs, but two have replied to this post with essentially the same complaint.
First, my intention was to criticize the OP's defense of the President, more than the President himself.
Second, I don't misunderstand "change" to mean "change every single thing, regardless of its merit". But I do think that continuing the fleecing of the taxpayer (and the taxpayers of future generations) for the enrichment of commercial interests is precisely the kind of change that President Obama sold the electorate. And I think that the stimulus bill that he supported and signed manifestly belies the rhetoric on which he campaigned.
-Peter
Sir, I believe that reference is reserved for Republicans.
-Peter
These things are meant to detect pollutants? Do they detect each other? They are clearly full of batteries. And, as pointed out by others, they probably look delicious to various sea life.
They're beautiful, but releasing them into the sea seems ill conceived.
-Peter
Oh, brave new world! Where "change" means "keep doing the same fucking thing"!
-Peter
Cry me a river.
The [economy] has absolutely destroyed [my checking account]. [My budget was] simply never built to support that amount of [recession], and the [economic downturn] / [unemployment rate] have crushed [it].
So I shouldn't have to hold up my end of the contract, right?
Or maybe they need to figure it out. As long as I'm holding up my end of the contract, they're obliged to hold up theirs.
-Peter
This is a great point. One of the best and most successful programmers I know, by any metric, did a two year tech school program.
Having said that, he was bolstered by the Dot Com bubble.
-Peter
Todd, after over two thousand posts, I can't recall having ever been addressed by my name on Slashdot before!
Anyway, my intent was not to discourage our intrepid AC. My intent was to arm him with a realistic view, and a plan for achieving success. I don't know if anyone said, "Experience is the difference between realism and pessimism." If not, I just did.
I sincerely believe that if our AC is unwilling or unable to suffer the trials I describe he will fail. Would I help him by concealing this from him? By telling him a bunch of happy bullshit about how if he just wants it he can achieve it?
But, if he goes into this with his shoulders squared. If he's fully prepared to fight and scratch, to try and fail and try again. If he has the aptitude. If he has the financial freedom to start a new career. If he has the zeal for learning. Then he has a real chance at success. And I sincerely wish for that outcome for him. For all the good that's worth! ;-)
-Peter
You don't give us much to go on, but surely software is used in your field . . . whatever it is. You probably already know more about that domain than most programmers already working in it. You might want to get as far away from that field as possible, but I doubt you can afford to not use your experience as a key selling point.
You probably don't want to hear this, but you're starting over. Without a relevant degree. So you're going back to entry level. I hope your finances are in order.
So, for example, you might apply to the support department for a software package that you use in your current field. I do QA, and I often say, "QA is a ghetto", but that's another possible entry point.
Once you get your foot in the door on the technical side you might be able to move toward programming if you bust your hump. For years. Largely without recognition. Be prepared, not just to prove yourself, but to prove your self over and over until someone actually notices. And then to that again until someone who is willing to take a chance on you notices.
Then, some day, if you put in a hero's effort, you might be able to be an entry-level programmer.
You've picked a tough row to hoe, sir.
-Peter