So, the airport machines are 100% safe to, say, a first trimester fetus.
What's the peer-reviewed evidence to support that conjecture? If the machine does cause harm to a fetus, does the operator himself face the risk of life in prison? If not, why not?
It's too bad that "don't touch my junk" guy isn't likely to be capable of putting the government on the defensive in a federal hearing. He's not an activist, he's just someone who did a foolish act. He's not the Rosa Parks of airport security.
>The TSA doesn't "own" flying. They are proposing measures that are invasive and fundamentally ineffective, and we're supposed to have a say in whether or >not we want that.
A president, a majority of both chambers of congress, or possibly even a state legislature can end the TSA's mission.
Perhaps running for office with airport security reform in your platform may not be so far fetched?
I'd feel safer if the TSA screener job required a qualified completion of Marine basic training. Or really if was *anything* other than an entry-level, vocational rehab job.
>Being sexually assaulted is an administrative policy, without being specifically allowed by law.
If someone can force an individual agent into making a specific defense, at least there would be something. So far, I have not seen the wording of any specific law that gives an individual TSA agent a defense against a minor child's claim that the touching is sexual assault as defined by the laws in the location where the touching occurred.
>Yeah, but who's going to convict them? The Government? That'll be the day.
One thing that could happen is that the government could be put into the position of making a specific individual defense that groping a minor in some specific context somehow is not child molestation even though the specific action is clearly codified as illegal in the place where it happened.
What specifically gives the screeners immunity, and how exactly is it worded? The child (say a 13 year old) cannot consent to being groped, the parents cannot consent for her, and how exactly is it not a broad "license to rape" for an on-duty TSA agent?
A DHS uniformed guy on a folding chair in front of the server closet in the 4-member IT dept of a small company that is, among other things, a defense contractor. This uniformed guy checks the sysadmin's badge each of the 20-50 times a day he goes into the server closet. The rest of the time he sits there doing search-a-word puzzles or watching a portable tv or whatever. I'm as horrified by this image as I am amused by it.
WoW has plateaus. At a given time, it does have an endgame, and the path to that endgame is progressive. For some, the problem is that reaching that endgame involves team play, and the difficulty of the game isn't so much the mechanics of the game itself, but the difficulty of assembling and organizing a group of people to work toward a mutual goal, perhaps over a period of weeks or months. Even though there are X million players, there are usually only on the order of a couple of thousand players in your partition of the users who are at end-game capability, and there are usually 40 or 50 guilds and other kinds of groups putting pressure on that population, which means that the metagame becomes *competition for forming teams*. This leads to all kinds of issues of social interaction.
>Remember that you are not representing yourself anymore, you are representing your cause.
Nothing draws attention to the cause more effectively than being imprisoned by the very subject of your grievance for your perfectly nonviolent form of redress.
China unfortunately had no tradition of free thought and free political expression in the first place, and the communist revolution obviously didn't create one.
I'm a fan of the First Amendment because it establishes three fundamental rights, and the order is not a coincidence:
1. Freedom of Thought, with religion being its ulitimate abstraction, 2. Freedom to Communicate, without which free thought is abridged, and 3. Freedom to Gather in Groups, which is necessary for communication.
There is a particular subtext in the First Amendment that these freedoms are protected in exercise of petition against government, but in my universal view, that application is secondary.
But China actually tries to suppress, and to some degree succeeds in suppressing the very freedom of thought of its people. Shockingly few people in China seem to actually disagree with this point of view (not just because the ideas are suppressed, you can easily find expats who will express party views and clearly believe them), and compared to the size of the population, the number of people who actually practice any conceivable form of civil disobedience is small enough that the government can actually have some success in suppressing them. This isn't a situation that just began in 1949.
>Which ammendment is the "Parade Permit Required to Exercise Free >Expression"?
There is a great deal of very intelligent judicial review of the notion of "Time, place and manner" restrictions on First Amendment activity. There are a few areas where the courts and agency rules have gotten it wrong in my opinion (e.g., 36 CFR Parts 251 & 261), but for the most part the kinds of restrictions that have been allowed, have tended to be to the overall benefit of those seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights.
You don't have to think too much to see how the parade permit example might in the absence of any restriction cause the rights of one group of people to be abridged in the face of another group exercising theirs in a dominant or overly zealous way.
I don't agree with every First Amendment ruling that's been made, but I certainly do agree that some restrictions are for the greater good and for the sake of civil rights in general.
>Let's put it this way -- Facebook and Google ain't runnin' on Oracle.
Last time I checked, Facebook was still running on MySQL with Cassandra, where Cassandra's role is basically a dimension cache. Considering their recent growth spurt that may have changed.
Google BigTable/GFS is a poor fit for a lot of applications.
What I really want to know is what Google uses internally for HR, Accounting, and facilities management software (and questions like that seem far more relevant to the typical small business -- your startup does NOT have the web traffic or DB write load of Google or Facebook, sorry).
>Data consistency will always be the anchor on any system.
There are applications where data consistency is completely off the list of requirements, while really fast, globally distributed lookups of of huge collections of simple maps is the primary or only consideration.
Some models fit an enterprise accounting or ERP type of system. Other models fit an exabyte sized store of full motion video. And then there are models appropriate for indexing signatures of that video for the purpose of being copyright police. There might even be a model that can accommodate all those requirements at the same time.
Value judgment of the various data storage and processing solutions without clear notions of the application and required scale, is simply not a conversation we can have.
There's no universal general purpose answer to your question, especially not with the level of detail you have posted. To suggest otherwise would be irresponsible.
For some applications, db scaling is easy. For others it may require some enormously complicated considerations about things like indexing and transactions.
More to the point, what I took from that is that he *had* a Linux software lifecycle to *end*. If he's talking about some imaginary "THE Linux SDLC", it's like a policeman trying to put handcuffs on the revolutionary spirit.
Amsterdam, apparently, and paying enough to live in the Netherlands. From where I sit, this falls squarely in the category of "sounds far too good to be true." Then again, I only know enough Erlang to hack on eJabberd a little.
If you don't share the meme du jour with the other 3rd graders, it won't matter *what* you're into. Chose your hobbies, your heroes, and whatever else you do because you can. Realize that the other kids don't have this drive to have an original thought of their own to begin with, and that no matter what you do (even including trying to adopt their trends!) is going to be met with hostility anyway, because you are different.
You don't join these bandwagon trends because you like their subject matter. You do it because you do not want to stand out, especially when standing out for any reason makes you a threat.
I hate to say it, but this kid is already in the group that needs to be thinking about ways to defend against bullies.
When asked in interviews, the scientists very clearly say there are no practical applications of this research. On one hand, no one involved seems to have any pie-in-the-sky free energy speculation. On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that there's a conscious effort being undertaken not to talk about the elephant in the room. I suppose it should be comforting that antimatter research doesn't have a Leo Szilard.
Still we can be pretty sure that not everyone is watching this research with the idea that it is _entirely_ driven by pure scientific curiosity, as the LHC scientists make a point of mentioning.
>What I mean is, there's almost no expensive components in this phone.
What's driving the price isn't a function of the cost to manufacture, it's an effect of there being a market that will bear the price, and little or no competition in that market.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like they broke into the lab where the secret recipes for ice cream flavors are kept, and they stole Vanilla.
So, the airport machines are 100% safe to, say, a first trimester fetus.
What's the peer-reviewed evidence to support that conjecture? If the machine does cause harm to a fetus, does the operator himself face the risk of life in prison? If not, why not?
What if health insurers were provided with the x-rays?
It's too bad that "don't touch my junk" guy isn't likely to be capable of putting the government on the defensive in a federal hearing. He's not an activist, he's just someone who did a foolish act. He's not the Rosa Parks of airport security.
>The TSA doesn't "own" flying. They are proposing measures that are invasive and fundamentally ineffective, and we're supposed to have a say in whether or
>not we want that.
A president, a majority of both chambers of congress, or possibly even a state legislature can end the TSA's mission.
Perhaps running for office with airport security reform in your platform may not be so far fetched?
The travel time by car to most of the places I usually fly is beginning to converge. The cost lines crossed a long time ago.
I'd feel safer if the TSA screener job required a qualified completion of Marine basic training. Or really if was *anything* other than an entry-level, vocational rehab job.
>Being sexually assaulted is an administrative policy, without being specifically allowed by law.
If someone can force an individual agent into making a specific defense, at least there would be something. So far, I have not seen the wording of any specific law that gives an individual TSA agent a defense against a minor child's claim that the touching is sexual assault as defined by the laws in the location where the touching occurred.
>Yeah, but who's going to convict them? The Government? That'll be the day.
One thing that could happen is that the government could be put into the position of making a specific individual defense that groping a minor in some specific context somehow is not child molestation even though the specific action is clearly codified as illegal in the place where it happened.
What specifically gives the screeners immunity, and how exactly is it worded? The child (say a 13 year old) cannot consent to being groped, the parents cannot consent for her, and how exactly is it not a broad "license to rape" for an on-duty TSA agent?
Right, and they are going to send their best and brightest to do the "enforcement" part. Right.
A DHS uniformed guy on a folding chair in front of the server closet in the 4-member IT dept of a small company that is, among other things, a defense contractor. This uniformed guy checks the sysadmin's badge each of the 20-50 times a day he goes into the server closet. The rest of the time he sits there doing search-a-word puzzles or watching a portable tv or whatever. I'm as horrified by this image as I am amused by it.
WoW has plateaus. At a given time, it does have an endgame, and the path to that endgame is progressive. For some, the problem is that reaching that endgame involves team play, and the difficulty of the game isn't so much the mechanics of the game itself, but the difficulty of assembling and organizing a group of people to work toward a mutual goal, perhaps over a period of weeks or months. Even though there are X million players, there are usually only on the order of a couple of thousand players in your partition of the users who are at end-game capability, and there are usually 40 or 50 guilds and other kinds of groups putting pressure on that population, which means that the metagame becomes *competition for forming teams*. This leads to all kinds of issues of social interaction.
>Remember that you are not representing yourself anymore, you are representing your cause.
Nothing draws attention to the cause more effectively than being imprisoned by the very subject of your grievance for your perfectly nonviolent form of redress.
China unfortunately had no tradition of free thought and free political expression in the first place, and the communist revolution obviously didn't create one.
I'm a fan of the First Amendment because it establishes three fundamental rights, and the order is not a coincidence:
1. Freedom of Thought, with religion being its ulitimate abstraction,
2. Freedom to Communicate, without which free thought is abridged,
and
3. Freedom to Gather in Groups, which is necessary for communication.
There is a particular subtext in the First Amendment that these freedoms are protected in exercise of petition against government, but in my universal view, that application is secondary.
But China actually tries to suppress, and to some degree succeeds in suppressing the very freedom of thought of its people. Shockingly few people in China seem to actually disagree with this point of view (not just because the ideas are suppressed, you can easily find expats who will express party views and clearly believe them), and compared to the size of the population, the number of people who actually practice any conceivable form of civil disobedience is small enough that the government can actually have some success in suppressing them. This isn't a situation that just began in 1949.
>Which ammendment is the "Parade Permit Required to Exercise Free
>Expression"?
There is a great deal of very intelligent judicial review of the notion of "Time, place and manner" restrictions on First Amendment activity. There are a few areas where the courts and agency rules have gotten it wrong in my opinion (e.g., 36 CFR Parts 251 & 261), but for the most part the kinds of restrictions that have been allowed, have tended to be to the overall benefit of those seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights.
You don't have to think too much to see how the parade permit example might in the absence of any restriction cause the rights of one group of people to be abridged in the face of another group exercising theirs in a dominant or overly zealous way.
I don't agree with every First Amendment ruling that's been made, but I certainly do agree that some restrictions are for the greater good and for the sake of civil rights in general.
>Let's put it this way -- Facebook and Google ain't runnin' on Oracle.
Last time I checked, Facebook was still running on MySQL with Cassandra, where Cassandra's role is basically a dimension cache. Considering their recent growth spurt that may have changed.
Google BigTable/GFS is a poor fit for a lot of applications.
What I really want to know is what Google uses internally for HR, Accounting, and facilities management software (and questions like that seem far more relevant to the typical small business -- your startup does NOT have the web traffic or DB write load of Google or Facebook, sorry).
>I'm just a little skeptical that a SaaS startup is already hitting limits with what you "can do with relational
>databases".
Or if they are, then it will be relatively easy to find people willing to help out with the cash situation.
>Data consistency will always be the anchor on any system.
There are applications where data consistency is completely off the list of requirements, while really fast, globally distributed lookups of of huge collections of simple maps is the primary or only consideration.
Some models fit an enterprise accounting or ERP type of system. Other models fit an exabyte sized store of full motion video. And then there are models appropriate for indexing signatures of that video for the purpose of being copyright police. There might even be a model that can accommodate all those requirements at the same time.
Value judgment of the various data storage and processing solutions without clear notions of the application and required scale, is simply not a conversation we can have.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
There's no universal general purpose answer to your question, especially not with the level of detail you have posted. To suggest otherwise would be irresponsible.
For some applications, db scaling is easy. For others it may require some enormously complicated considerations about things like indexing and transactions.
More to the point, what I took from that is that he *had* a Linux software lifecycle to *end*.
If he's talking about some imaginary "THE Linux SDLC", it's like a policeman trying to put handcuffs on the revolutionary spirit.
What I take from this statement is that a Microsoft executive in Russia *had* a Linux development lifecycle to end.
If he's trying to say that Linux is one single project with one well-defined development methodology, he's just too far out of touch to get it.
He's trying to map a standard model onto something that would defy being defined, let alone controlled.
Amsterdam, apparently, and paying enough to live in the Netherlands. From where I sit, this falls squarely in the category of "sounds far too good to be true." Then again, I only know enough Erlang to hack on eJabberd a little.
If you don't share the meme du jour with the other 3rd graders, it won't matter *what* you're into. Chose your hobbies, your heroes, and whatever else you do because you can. Realize that the other kids don't have this drive to have an original thought of their own to begin with, and that no matter what you do (even including trying to adopt their trends!) is going to be met with hostility anyway, because you are different.
You don't join these bandwagon trends because you like their subject matter. You do it because you do not want to stand out, especially when standing out for any reason makes you a threat.
I hate to say it, but this kid is already in the group that needs to be thinking about ways to defend against bullies.
When asked in interviews, the scientists very clearly say there are no practical applications of this research. On one hand, no one involved seems to have any pie-in-the-sky free energy speculation. On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that there's a conscious effort being undertaken not to talk about the elephant in the room. I suppose it should be comforting that antimatter research doesn't have a Leo Szilard.
Still we can be pretty sure that not everyone is watching this research with the idea that it is _entirely_ driven by pure scientific curiosity, as the LHC scientists make a point of mentioning.
>What I mean is, there's almost no expensive components in this phone.
What's driving the price isn't a function of the cost to manufacture, it's an effect of there being a market that will bear the price, and little or no competition in that market.