I use Sage quite a bit. It's basically a wrapper for almost all the mathematics software available. http://www.sagemath.org/
While you still need to drop down to C for great performance, it solves a lot of the interoperability issues discussed. In other words, take the example from the summary: from Sage, you can call Matlab commands and then immediately use the results with R commands.
Sage works through a web browser, and it's based on Python, which is a plus.
Really. I get to see it the way I see it, in a discussion about how everyone will not see things the same! Thanks, Man!
I see what you did there, you silly goose. Your sarcasm seems to be a bit misdirected, if you think about it. SleazyRidr's point was not that you get to see it the way you see it, or that other people in this discussion might not see things this same. His point was that the supreme court, based on previous rulings, sees the situation in a way that is diametrically opposed to yours. There's also the implicit understanding that when it comes down to it, the majority opinion of those 9 justices is what will matter. For the record, I think it SHOULD be the way you describe, and for all I know, so does SleazyRidr. But none of that matters in the system we currently have.
It's interesting how you're saying this is not good at a large-sum, high-scale level, but in general Slashdotters think that doing it on a smaller scale, with donations to musicians, is a good one. As an IP discussion: when does the 'non-guaranteed pay' model work and when is it toxic?
I would say the 'non-guaranteed pay' model becomes toxic when that model allows people to be paid below a decent living wage. People should be paid decently for their work, if that work benefits society (like these textbooks presumably do). They probably shouldn't be paid millions (lets not even mention sports and athlete wages), but they should get more than a few nickels out of the deal.
We require MML for our algebra classes. The upside is that the textbook is recommended, so the student is free to choose their own algebra text, new or used, current edition or old, etc). So the total cost to the student is less than $50 for the code, plus however much they want to spend at half price books or online for any decent algebra textbook (international editions are godawful cheap). That's usually far cheaper than the cost of a new textbook, even without the access code.
I agree though; forcing the student to pay for the access code AND a new textbook is just being greedy/lazy.
To your point though, it is the folks that demand their rights be viewed as absolute that usually bring about more regulation.
bullshit. It's the folks that want to limit, or regulate, other people's rights, despite the obviously absolute phrasing used in the constitution and the bill of rights, that brings about more regulation.
Who is being protected by allowing two people to get a better tax return for being married?
Wrong question: Who is being harmed by not allowing two people who love each other get married and enjoy the benefits of being married, just because they have the same genitalia.
The answer to both these questions are immediate and obvious. The people being protected are the married gay people who would now get to enjoy the same benefits married straight people receive. Who would be harmed? Well, some of those benefits come in the form of tax deductions and other types of monetary perks. Married people can usually put their spouse on their insurance. I'm sure there are more examples . ..So who is harmed? The American taxpayer, who has to absorb that deduction, or the other members under that insurance plan . .
No, I think the right question is . . Would the protection given to gay people by allowing them the right to marry outweigh the harm done to those other groups, and if so, by how much?
I believe the answer to that question is a resounding yes, insomuch that I believe a persons ability to choose their marriage parter is a civil right.
Mostly things that have already received thier fair share of slashdot commentary already. 1) The constant expansion of federal power through a vile misrepresentation of the commerce clause (by the Supreme Court). 2) The constant limitation of the people's and the state's power by the Supreme Court adding exception after exception to the Bill of Rights. (free speech zones, border crossing zones, etc) 3) The interpretation that treaties are held at the same level as the constitution itself. 4) The defacto standing of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of a law's constitutionality. IMO it is entirely too difficult to overturn a Supreme Court verdict. You can wait 30 years for the old bags to get replaced, and then work through the court system again, or you can try to pass a constitutional amendment, which is a terrible ordeal in itself.
Most other major injustices in America today (Patriot Act, NDAA, I'm looking at you) can be traced back to one of these.
As I write this, I realize that all the other issues I've listed actually stem from the last one: there are no effective checks and balances on the Supreme Court.
You jest; but I believe the current supreme court standing, which bestows personhood on corporations and other groups, is one of the five fatal flaws in the U.S. government. I believe corporate personhood is a larger threat to our freedoms than any so called "terrorist threats."
I infer from your comment that you believe we should not try to repress brutal violence because it would just crop up elsewhere, in unhealthy quantities. Teh question is: Is that actually what you meant to imply?
The summary provides a lot of info on how employees view the situation, but it completely lacks any type of proof on whether or not companies are actually punishing workers for using vacation time. The part at the end about the U.S. being the only nation that doesn't guarantee vacation time is a red herring because if an employee has an employment contract that provides a certain amount of vacation time per year, then I would hazard to guess that being punished for actually using that vacation time would be a breech of contract.
It does once you get past the freshman weed out classes: at least that was the case for me when I got my engineering technology degree from Texas A&M and my mathematics degree from the University of Houston . .
If disturbing a small group of bankers could threaten the economy of a whole country, or even the whole world . . . well, isn't that situation part of what OWS is fighting against?
I think the answer you are looking for is there in the summary. They would want the patents. Maybe some things in android could be improved with those patents?
There's no way to be sure? Maybe you could actually READ the post you replied to:...there was a new connector coming (it became HDMI) and a new nasty form of DRM going along with it (HDLC).. The poster was pretty clear that he was "going on about" a technology that became known as HDMI. Congratulations on failing 6th grade reading comprehension.
That's what the parent poster was saying. The mechanics have to pay for their own tools, and similarly, researchers shouldn't expect their tools (research papers) to be given to them for free.
When I open up an article and then log in, I am redirected back to the main page. I would rather be logged in and left on the page I was on. Or worse, sometimes I'll read through the headlines and open the stories I want to read in new tabs, then I'll remember to log in. I have to close all the tabs and re-open them once I am logged in. The site should be able to recognize open tabs and show that I am logged in on each one.
Except parent didn't ask a question. The least you could infer from parent's post is that the summary isn't very clear on how this technology is new. Polymer gel vs. polymer jelly? If the difference is that one is somehow more liquid and the other is more solid, then that should be explained. There is no need for snide remarks about Google. We all know how to use it but the point is that it shouldn't have to be used for every article just because the submitter can't write a decent summary./rant
Why are you so adamant to absolve McAfee of their own stupidity? If a car is advertised as the fastest car ever, then that's ok because their marketing department isn't full of mechanical engineers?
Slashdot Mirror
Probably fine print on the back of an admission ticket, or fine print posted near the door to the facility, or some other such b.s.
The last time I watched the olympics, it was 1996, I was 16, and Dominique Moceanu was very much a cutie.
I use Sage quite a bit. It's basically a wrapper for almost all the mathematics software available. http://www.sagemath.org/ While you still need to drop down to C for great performance, it solves a lot of the interoperability issues discussed. In other words, take the example from the summary: from Sage, you can call Matlab commands and then immediately use the results with R commands. Sage works through a web browser, and it's based on Python, which is a plus.
Low Earth Orbit?
Really. I get to see it the way I see it, in a discussion about how everyone will not see things the same! Thanks, Man!
I see what you did there, you silly goose. Your sarcasm seems to be a bit misdirected, if you think about it. SleazyRidr's point was not that you get to see it the way you see it, or that other people in this discussion might not see things this same. His point was that the supreme court, based on previous rulings, sees the situation in a way that is diametrically opposed to yours. There's also the implicit understanding that when it comes down to it, the majority opinion of those 9 justices is what will matter. For the record, I think it SHOULD be the way you describe, and for all I know, so does SleazyRidr. But none of that matters in the system we currently have.
It's interesting how you're saying this is not good at a large-sum, high-scale level, but in general Slashdotters think that doing it on a smaller scale, with donations to musicians, is a good one. As an IP discussion: when does the 'non-guaranteed pay' model work and when is it toxic?
I would say the 'non-guaranteed pay' model becomes toxic when that model allows people to be paid below a decent living wage. People should be paid decently for their work, if that work benefits society (like these textbooks presumably do). They probably shouldn't be paid millions (lets not even mention sports and athlete wages), but they should get more than a few nickels out of the deal.
We require MML for our algebra classes. The upside is that the textbook is recommended, so the student is free to choose their own algebra text, new or used, current edition or old, etc). So the total cost to the student is less than $50 for the code, plus however much they want to spend at half price books or online for any decent algebra textbook (international editions are godawful cheap). That's usually far cheaper than the cost of a new textbook, even without the access code.
I agree though; forcing the student to pay for the access code AND a new textbook is just being greedy/lazy.
To your point though, it is the folks that demand their rights be viewed as absolute that usually bring about more regulation.
bullshit. It's the folks that want to limit, or regulate, other people's rights, despite the obviously absolute phrasing used in the constitution and the bill of rights, that brings about more regulation.
"Give me five bees for a quarter" you'd say.
Who is being protected by allowing two people to get a better tax return for being married?
Wrong question: Who is being harmed by not allowing two people who love each other get married and enjoy the benefits of being married, just because they have the same genitalia.
The answer to both these questions are immediate and obvious. The people being protected are the married gay people who would now get to enjoy the same benefits married straight people receive. Who would be harmed? Well, some of those benefits come in the form of tax deductions and other types of monetary perks. Married people can usually put their spouse on their insurance. I'm sure there are more examples . . .So who is harmed? The American taxpayer, who has to absorb that deduction, or the other members under that insurance plan . .
No, I think the right question is . . Would the protection given to gay people by allowing them the right to marry outweigh the harm done to those other groups, and if so, by how much?
I believe the answer to that question is a resounding yes, insomuch that I believe a persons ability to choose their marriage parter is a civil right.
Mostly things that have already received thier fair share of slashdot commentary already.
1) The constant expansion of federal power through a vile misrepresentation of the commerce clause (by the Supreme Court).
2) The constant limitation of the people's and the state's power by the Supreme Court adding exception after exception to the Bill of Rights. (free speech zones, border crossing zones, etc)
3) The interpretation that treaties are held at the same level as the constitution itself.
4) The defacto standing of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of a law's constitutionality. IMO it is entirely too difficult to overturn a Supreme Court verdict. You can wait 30 years for the old bags to get replaced, and then work through the court system again, or you can try to pass a constitutional amendment, which is a terrible ordeal in itself.
Most other major injustices in America today (Patriot Act, NDAA, I'm looking at you) can be traced back to one of these.
As I write this, I realize that all the other issues I've listed actually stem from the last one: there are no effective checks and balances on the Supreme Court.
You jest; but I believe the current supreme court standing, which bestows personhood on corporations and other groups, is one of the five fatal flaws in the U.S. government. I believe corporate personhood is a larger threat to our freedoms than any so called "terrorist threats."
I infer from your comment that you believe we should not try to repress brutal violence because it would just crop up elsewhere, in unhealthy quantities. Teh question is: Is that actually what you meant to imply?
Not every kind of phone. Just the million types that use the micro-USB, mini-USB, and the iphone connector. That's all you need really.
The summary provides a lot of info on how employees view the situation, but it completely lacks any type of proof on whether or not companies are actually punishing workers for using vacation time. The part at the end about the U.S. being the only nation that doesn't guarantee vacation time is a red herring because if an employee has an employment contract that provides a certain amount of vacation time per year, then I would hazard to guess that being punished for actually using that vacation time would be a breech of contract.
It does once you get past the freshman weed out classes: at least that was the case for me when I got my engineering technology degree from Texas A&M and my mathematics degree from the University of Houston . .
Someone didn't read the article they are commenting on? Shocking! You must be new here.
If disturbing a small group of bankers could threaten the economy of a whole country, or even the whole world . . . well, isn't that situation part of what OWS is fighting against?
Better than a new release with an old, smaller number!
I think the answer you are looking for is there in the summary. They would want the patents. Maybe some things in android could be improved with those patents?
There's no way to be sure? Maybe you could actually READ the post you replied to: ...there was a new connector coming (it became HDMI) and a new nasty form of DRM going along with it (HDLC) .. The poster was pretty clear that he was "going on about" a technology that became known as HDMI. Congratulations on failing 6th grade reading comprehension.
That's what the parent poster was saying. The mechanics have to pay for their own tools, and similarly, researchers shouldn't expect their tools (research papers) to be given to them for free.
When I open up an article and then log in, I am redirected back to the main page. I would rather be logged in and left on the page I was on. Or worse, sometimes I'll read through the headlines and open the stories I want to read in new tabs, then I'll remember to log in. I have to close all the tabs and re-open them once I am logged in. The site should be able to recognize open tabs and show that I am logged in on each one.
Except parent didn't ask a question. The least you could infer from parent's post is that the summary isn't very clear on how this technology is new. Polymer gel vs. polymer jelly? If the difference is that one is somehow more liquid and the other is more solid, then that should be explained. There is no need for snide remarks about Google. We all know how to use it but the point is that it shouldn't have to be used for every article just because the submitter can't write a decent summary. /rant
Why are you so adamant to absolve McAfee of their own stupidity? If a car is advertised as the fastest car ever, then that's ok because their marketing department isn't full of mechanical engineers?