I think the idea here (although it'd be hard to prove one way or the other) is that this is an indication of his character, which will influence how likely he is to re-offend in the future, AND what his actual intent was in setting up and running the site. Setting up a black market and using it yourself to obtain some marijuana is a far cry from setting up a blat market and attempting to use it to kill people. It colors his intent for use.
But it's still not a good move on both the prosecution's part and the judge's part, as it damages the veil of impartiality.
The one time I was on jury duty for attempted murder, we were constantly leaving the room while they discussed what could be allowed to be said in court. Both the victim and the attacker had ties to organized crime, and prety much everything they said and did had links to other court cases that had either already happened or were pending. It was pretty easy to figure out what we weren't hearing from the direction the questioning was going each time the judge called a halt and asked us to step out. At least with that judge, unless the accusations had witnesses who were in court and were used to indicate character, and the accounting had no impact on other cases, it would not be allowed.
So in this case, if the officer who moonlighted as the guy arranging the hit was called on as a character reference and used this story in that context, it might be admissible and affect the weight of the sentencing. If it was just thrown in as hearsay, that would be grounds for mis-sentencing, and a new judge would need to be called for the sentencing (not for the finding of fact).
Well no -- in this case, it was the state that first of all posed as a resource that had carried out hits in the past, and then later responded to his request, first to "send a message" and later to "take him out". They instead staged the whole thing (the guy who was supposed to be killed actually being held by the state at the time the hit was arranged). So at least in one of the five cases, they knew exactly what he had said/done, because they were involved in setting it all up.
Using english for side-spin is 2-D, as you're still on the plane of motion. But you can also add topspin or bottom spin without hopping the ball, which involves rotation through the third dimension, thus making it more than a two-dimensional maneuver.
And yeah; any useful pool move also takes time into account unless it's a straight shot, so until you go hopping the ball, you're in 3 dimensions (x, y, and t).
Well, baseboard heaters will use AC on their own circuit for a long time, I'm sure -- as will ovens, hot water heaters and clothes dryers.
Anything with a heating element is likely to be pegged to 110VAC, including hair dryers, soldering irons, curling irons, clothes irons, heat guns, and the like. At least with vacuum cleaners, you have the option to go with a built-in system, at which point your power options are less limited.
While the playing surface is usually 2-D, the balls have always moved in 3-D in the games I've played. When the players are bad, the balls arc through the air to land on the floor/go through a window/etc. When the players are good, use of english means that the balls are accomplishing specific rotations that influence the other pieces with a decidedly non-2D physics model.
So if these plasma balls aren't on a 2-D plane, it's highly probable that this black hole just isn't very good. Most black holes are more subtle, putting a spin on their galaxies and taking their time with the collisions.
That takes care of the first 20%... but what about the cheap AC->DC transformers that sit between your house wiring and your devices? I'd love to be able to switch each outlet I have between 110VAC/15a, 12VDC/3-5a and 9VDC/500Ma-2a, and do away with wall warts altogether.
Increasingly, sites are starting to detect ad-blockers and refuse to serve content to those people.
So just like you don't have to view their ads, they don't have to let you view the bulk of the internet if you don't.
See who wins that battle, shall we? And don't pretend you'll just "download but not display them". That's just about as good, as far as they are concerned, because all the same tracking still applies.
No, what I'll do (and what I DO do) is stop visiting that site. So what battle was won and by whom? Ad agency gets less of a chance of getting a hit, site loses a viewer, and I have more time to do other things (one guarantee in life is that you won't have enough of it to do everything you want).
Here's the final sentence from the article that didn't make it into TFS:
At a ceremony on 9 June, Syllm-Rapoport will officially become an M.D.-Ph.D. and, without doubt, the oldest new graduate of this or any other academic year.
THIS. The things to look for in entry-level C++ are: 1a) a grasp of ANSI C 1b) a grasp of OOP 2) a demonstrated ability to figure out how to understand all the legacy C++ code 3) a demonstrated ability to write new C++ code in the style of the legacy code such that the next person who comes along has a clue as to what they were meaning to do 4) appropriate documentation (via comments AND proper code structuring)
But what counts even more is that the person is a good working fit with the senior programmer in general, and appears to be someone who can learn as they go (because no matter how good their C++ skills are, they're going to be DOING IT WRONG according to the senior programmer).
Oh, I'm definitely reading. Wrapping robotics in theater to attract girls who like theater is going to do nothing to show girls what working in the robotics field is like.
What it IS going to do is expose them to the possibility of doing such a thing, in an environment that is familiar to them. Only a small number of those girls will go anywhere with it, but a few, once exposed, will become fascinated with what is possible.
This is exactly the same with the boys. Most boys I know who join robotics groups do it because of video games they've played or cool toys they've played with. Then they get into the nitty gritty of servo mechanics and AI programming, and discover it's actually a LOT of work, and the first things you produce are nothing like Gundam Wing.
So in reality, you're not wrapping robotics (or anything else) in theater to attract people who like theater, you're changing the student body perception of the program itself so that more people might be willing to try it out and stick with it long enough for it to be rewarding -- even when there are other "quick social win" programs out there that it's competing with.
Robotics and programming can be fun and fascinating -- they can also be very dry and boring. Maths are the same way; introduce mathematical concepts in the right way, and they're tools to do something great -- introduce them the wrong way and they become this bit of useless knowledge that accomplishes nothing useful.
If all that makes you interested in chemistry is making kitchen goo and colored smoke and liquids, that's enough to get you interested and start learning about chemistry fundamentals. We're talking kids who are 10-14 here -- they don't know what they're allowed to want to do at this point, and are nowhere near a track for a job in ANY profession.
Once the smoke clears, a few kids who joined a chemistry club because they wanted to learn how to make mustard gas and smoke/stink bombs will discover they can do much more, and much more rewarding things, and it's worth the effort. The majority will graduate from highschool and go into a profession or education track that has nothing to do with being a chemist.
And yeah; I'm a case in point for all of these. In highschool I used to "sign out" chemicals from the chem supply room at the school and create all sorts of compounds on my own time, just because I thought it was neat. As a result, I understand the basics of chemistry and can make many basic compounds from scratch, including substituting when needed. And I know how to do it safely. But I'm no chemist, and have no interest in a job in chemistry.
Programming I got into because my elementary school needed some software to perform a specific task, and I had some spare time and thought I'd see how you make something like that happen. Completely self-driven, and I doubt anyone today or then recalls/cares that it was actually me who developed that software for my school.
So from those two examples, I prove your point: attracted by fancy chemistry experiments, I never went into chemistry. Attracted by solving a problem and playing around with some expensive machinery, I got hooked on computer programming.
But I'm sure glad I had that exposure to chemistry, and I'd probably be better at my job today if there'd been a fun club working on computer projects instead of just me and the school secretary who even touched a computer.
In fact, at one point I actually taught a math/computer "club"/class to elementary school kids -- all boys. Even with them, what really got them learning the hard stuff was giving them rewarding problems to solve that resulted in something they could share with others who might not understand exactly what they were learning.
Along these lines, I remember back in the 90's encountering people who mentioned that they'd built their own computers. At first I was in awe -- having years of knowledge of how computers are made, I couldn't imagine someone making an ENTIRE computer. Then I r
That was my point. I wasn't talking about the LEDs themselves but the overall construction of the consumer LED "bulbs". The LEDs pretty much never fail before the cheap capacitors on the mainboard or just bad circuit layout causes a failure. This was not the case in the earlier LED bulbs due to the fact that when you're creating a premium product and setting a reputation, you don't skimp on the design or components. Same was true for incandescent bulbs, and Edison & Co. figured out how to do it faster and cheaper (and brighter) with an acceptable failure rate that was measured in months instead of decades. But in his case, it was the filament that went, not the supporting circuitry.
I was surprised that after setting a secure admin password the cable company could just bypass it once it was back on there network.
That's because you've changed the admin password only. Above the admin password is a support password that has more privileges, and then the root password that rules them all. Your ISP holds these other two accounts that aren't visible from the Admin settings.
By your suggestion, Westinghouse didn't generate AC power, Edison didn't invent the light bulb (well, actually, he didn't...), and DARPA didn't start the internet.
No, by his suggestion, Nicola Tesla didn't generate AC power, Edison didn't invent the light bulb, and J. C. R. Licklider didn't start the internet. Instead, those people were the driving forces that had the ideas and shepherded/browbeat the people who made it happen. Well, except in the case of Edison, where all he did was lead the group that invented the *commodity* light bulb.*
* If you ever wonder why that firehall in Livermore, CA has a bulb that has burned for 106 years when a store-bought incandescent bulb burns out after around 1.5 years, that's because Edison's team also invented the disposable bulb -- a bulb that has a thin enough filament that it eventually burns out and needs to be replaced. This is the kind used today, and we're seeing the same progression in LED bulbs; the newer ones are cheaper to manufacture, but don't last anywhere near as long as the original LED bulbs will.
Boys would still come for the same reason they always did. And some girls would drop out later, but this is an after-school program, and you only get to show off if you make it to the end.
As for "it's no theater," well, neither is theater. A much higher percentage of people who go into robotics get high paying rewarding jobs that make a difference than people who go into theater. This message however, isn't really promoted at the school level in anything but words (and rarely even with words).
Slashdot Mirror
I think the idea here (although it'd be hard to prove one way or the other) is that this is an indication of his character, which will influence how likely he is to re-offend in the future, AND what his actual intent was in setting up and running the site. Setting up a black market and using it yourself to obtain some marijuana is a far cry from setting up a blat market and attempting to use it to kill people. It colors his intent for use.
But it's still not a good move on both the prosecution's part and the judge's part, as it damages the veil of impartiality.
Ah; but the damage of a 2 pound multirotor might not be physical -- it could be the intel captured on its camera/mic setup.
For that matter, the multirotor could be the homing beacon for some remote-fired homing system.
It's not hearsay when the prosecution were the ones (under false pretenses) who were asked by the defendant to arrange the hit.
The one time I was on jury duty for attempted murder, we were constantly leaving the room while they discussed what could be allowed to be said in court. Both the victim and the attacker had ties to organized crime, and prety much everything they said and did had links to other court cases that had either already happened or were pending. It was pretty easy to figure out what we weren't hearing from the direction the questioning was going each time the judge called a halt and asked us to step out. At least with that judge, unless the accusations had witnesses who were in court and were used to indicate character, and the accounting had no impact on other cases, it would not be allowed.
So in this case, if the officer who moonlighted as the guy arranging the hit was called on as a character reference and used this story in that context, it might be admissible and affect the weight of the sentencing. If it was just thrown in as hearsay, that would be grounds for mis-sentencing, and a new judge would need to be called for the sentencing (not for the finding of fact).
Well no -- in this case, it was the state that first of all posed as a resource that had carried out hits in the past, and then later responded to his request, first to "send a message" and later to "take him out". They instead staged the whole thing (the guy who was supposed to be killed actually being held by the state at the time the hit was arranged). So at least in one of the five cases, they knew exactly what he had said/done, because they were involved in setting it all up.
Using english for side-spin is 2-D, as you're still on the plane of motion. But you can also add topspin or bottom spin without hopping the ball, which involves rotation through the third dimension, thus making it more than a two-dimensional maneuver.
And yeah; any useful pool move also takes time into account unless it's a straight shot, so until you go hopping the ball, you're in 3 dimensions (x, y, and t).
You, sir, sound like an excellent candidate for an "experienced C++ programmer" position.
Well, baseboard heaters will use AC on their own circuit for a long time, I'm sure -- as will ovens, hot water heaters and clothes dryers.
Anything with a heating element is likely to be pegged to 110VAC, including hair dryers, soldering irons, curling irons, clothes irons, heat guns, and the like. At least with vacuum cleaners, you have the option to go with a built-in system, at which point your power options are less limited.
...which is another reason why everyone's moving to git.
While the playing surface is usually 2-D, the balls have always moved in 3-D in the games I've played. When the players are bad, the balls arc through the air to land on the floor/go through a window/etc. When the players are good, use of english means that the balls are accomplishing specific rotations that influence the other pieces with a decidedly non-2D physics model.
So if these plasma balls aren't on a 2-D plane, it's highly probable that this black hole just isn't very good. Most black holes are more subtle, putting a spin on their galaxies and taking their time with the collisions.
That takes care of the first 20%... but what about the cheap AC->DC transformers that sit between your house wiring and your devices? I'd love to be able to switch each outlet I have between 110VAC/15a, 12VDC/3-5a and 9VDC/500Ma-2a, and do away with wall warts altogether.
Well, it works for brocoli...
I like bitter chocolate, and I like broccoli -- I even like chocolate-covered broccoli.
But I'd never use either to lose weight.
Increasingly, sites are starting to detect ad-blockers and refuse to serve content to those people.
So just like you don't have to view their ads, they don't have to let you view the bulk of the internet if you don't.
See who wins that battle, shall we? And don't pretend you'll just "download but not display them". That's just about as good, as far as they are concerned, because all the same tracking
still applies.
No, what I'll do (and what I DO do) is stop visiting that site. So what battle was won and by whom? Ad agency gets less of a chance of getting a hit, site loses a viewer, and I have more time to do other things (one guarantee in life is that you won't have enough of it to do everything you want).
String theory encompasses more than just C strings; there's no null terminators on many other string types, such as cheese, for example.
Here's the final sentence from the article that didn't make it into TFS:
At a ceremony on 9 June, Syllm-Rapoport will officially become an M.D.-Ph.D. and, without doubt, the oldest new graduate of this or any other academic year.
Did you just grammar-Godwin the thread?
THIS. The things to look for in entry-level C++ are:
1a) a grasp of ANSI C
1b) a grasp of OOP
2) a demonstrated ability to figure out how to understand all the legacy C++ code
3) a demonstrated ability to write new C++ code in the style of the legacy code such that the next person who comes along has a clue as to what they were meaning to do
4) appropriate documentation (via comments AND proper code structuring)
But what counts even more is that the person is a good working fit with the senior programmer in general, and appears to be someone who can learn as they go (because no matter how good their C++ skills are, they're going to be DOING IT WRONG according to the senior programmer).
Oh, I'm definitely reading. Wrapping robotics in theater to attract girls who like theater is going to do nothing to show girls what working in the robotics field is like.
What it IS going to do is expose them to the possibility of doing such a thing, in an environment that is familiar to them. Only a small number of those girls will go anywhere with it, but a few, once exposed, will become fascinated with what is possible.
This is exactly the same with the boys. Most boys I know who join robotics groups do it because of video games they've played or cool toys they've played with. Then they get into the nitty gritty of servo mechanics and AI programming, and discover it's actually a LOT of work, and the first things you produce are nothing like Gundam Wing.
So in reality, you're not wrapping robotics (or anything else) in theater to attract people who like theater, you're changing the student body perception of the program itself so that more people might be willing to try it out and stick with it long enough for it to be rewarding -- even when there are other "quick social win" programs out there that it's competing with.
Robotics and programming can be fun and fascinating -- they can also be very dry and boring. Maths are the same way; introduce mathematical concepts in the right way, and they're tools to do something great -- introduce them the wrong way and they become this bit of useless knowledge that accomplishes nothing useful.
If all that makes you interested in chemistry is making kitchen goo and colored smoke and liquids, that's enough to get you interested and start learning about chemistry fundamentals. We're talking kids who are 10-14 here -- they don't know what they're allowed to want to do at this point, and are nowhere near a track for a job in ANY profession.
Once the smoke clears, a few kids who joined a chemistry club because they wanted to learn how to make mustard gas and smoke/stink bombs will discover they can do much more, and much more rewarding things, and it's worth the effort. The majority will graduate from highschool and go into a profession or education track that has nothing to do with being a chemist.
And yeah; I'm a case in point for all of these. In highschool I used to "sign out" chemicals from the chem supply room at the school and create all sorts of compounds on my own time, just because I thought it was neat. As a result, I understand the basics of chemistry and can make many basic compounds from scratch, including substituting when needed. And I know how to do it safely. But I'm no chemist, and have no interest in a job in chemistry.
Programming I got into because my elementary school needed some software to perform a specific task, and I had some spare time and thought I'd see how you make something like that happen. Completely self-driven, and I doubt anyone today or then recalls/cares that it was actually me who developed that software for my school.
So from those two examples, I prove your point: attracted by fancy chemistry experiments, I never went into chemistry. Attracted by solving a problem and playing around with some expensive machinery, I got hooked on computer programming.
But I'm sure glad I had that exposure to chemistry, and I'd probably be better at my job today if there'd been a fun club working on computer projects instead of just me and the school secretary who even touched a computer.
In fact, at one point I actually taught a math/computer "club"/class to elementary school kids -- all boys. Even with them, what really got them learning the hard stuff was giving them rewarding problems to solve that resulted in something they could share with others who might not understand exactly what they were learning.
Along these lines, I remember back in the 90's encountering people who mentioned that they'd built their own computers. At first I was in awe -- having years of knowledge of how computers are made, I couldn't imagine someone making an ENTIRE computer. Then I r
Don't forget the ex-employees too... including the ones that were fired with cause.
That was my point. I wasn't talking about the LEDs themselves but the overall construction of the consumer LED "bulbs". The LEDs pretty much never fail before the cheap capacitors on the mainboard or just bad circuit layout causes a failure. This was not the case in the earlier LED bulbs due to the fact that when you're creating a premium product and setting a reputation, you don't skimp on the design or components. Same was true for incandescent bulbs, and Edison & Co. figured out how to do it faster and cheaper (and brighter) with an acceptable failure rate that was measured in months instead of decades. But in his case, it was the filament that went, not the supporting circuitry.
Only if they're currently having accountability issues.
I was surprised that after setting a secure admin password the cable company could just bypass it once it was back on there network.
That's because you've changed the admin password only. Above the admin password is a support password that has more privileges, and then the root password that rules them all. Your ISP holds these other two accounts that aren't visible from the Admin settings.
By your suggestion, Westinghouse didn't generate AC power, Edison didn't invent the light bulb (well, actually, he didn't...), and DARPA didn't start the internet.
No, by his suggestion, Nicola Tesla didn't generate AC power, Edison didn't invent the light bulb, and J. C. R. Licklider didn't start the internet. Instead, those people were the driving forces that had the ideas and shepherded/browbeat the people who made it happen. Well, except in the case of Edison, where all he did was lead the group that invented the *commodity* light bulb.*
* If you ever wonder why that firehall in Livermore, CA has a bulb that has burned for 106 years when a store-bought incandescent bulb burns out after around 1.5 years, that's because Edison's team also invented the disposable bulb -- a bulb that has a thin enough filament that it eventually burns out and needs to be replaced. This is the kind used today, and we're seeing the same progression in LED bulbs; the newer ones are cheaper to manufacture, but don't last anywhere near as long as the original LED bulbs will.
Boys would still come for the same reason they always did. And some girls would drop out later, but this is an after-school program, and you only get to show off if you make it to the end.
As for "it's no theater," well, neither is theater. A much higher percentage of people who go into robotics get high paying rewarding jobs that make a difference than people who go into theater. This message however, isn't really promoted at the school level in anything but words (and rarely even with words).
In the West? Chances are very few people will be reseacrhing online inside the voting booth. Do your homework before election day.
You'd be surprised at how many people bring their smartphone into the voting booth with them for some quick wikipedia lookups.