Ironically, I thought one of the tenents of creationism was that god created the Earth in pretty much the form it is in today, therefore precluding such major changes.
Actually, no. Creationism does not hold that. Creationism does hold that God created the earth as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2 _but_ not in the form it is today, namely because of the events in Genesis 6 to 8, e.g. the Great Flood. A true, honest Creationist would have to admit that the environment of the Earth is unknown prior to the Great Flood - other than that it could sustain life fairly well. From what little we do know Biblically, it was likely more of a tropical paradise, but that is only what we can deduce - not what we know for sure. What we know for sure is that the Earth was greatly different prior to the flood. How, we can't say - though conditions were more amiable towards prolonged human life.
So a true, honest Creationist has to recognize that God did make at least one great change to the Earth after the initial creation in Genesis 1 and 2. In fact, a true, honest Creationist could probably argue that there were likely two big changes, the first being at the "Fall" in Genesis 3, and the second being the Great Flood.
In either case, a Creationist cannot hold that the Earth was always as it is today, and in fact a true, honest Creationist would have to agree that anyone arguing that the Earth has always been as it is now would fall among the scoffers mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3-6. From a Creationist point of view, Evolutionism is one of those scoffers.
But there is no evidence for that. In fact, all of the evidence points in the other direction; we have a perfectly plausible theory about how humans evolved without the need for alien intervention.
No we don't. The "evidence" is just like a lot of people make out String Theory to be - a bunch of junk put together and when something doesn't fit, another rule thrown in.
There is plenty of evidence for temporary micro-evolution - a bird will adapt to environment so long as it is in that environment, when removed the adaption goes away. But there is zero evidence for macro evolution of any species.
But I have a suspicion that there is a variable factor involved in the decay rate that physics has overlooked.
While it is possible that some physical 'constants' are actually changing value in time, there are lots of experiments in this area and there are quite rigorous bounds that show that, if there is any variation, it is on time-scales of ~ billions of years, and of no consequence to carbon dating methods....There may also be some biological reasons why the C12/C13 ratios in particular, could change in time. But this would be due...
There's also another cause, and it's a basic flaw in the assumptions made in science - everything in the environment we are currently in was true then - it doesn't allow for environmental changes on massive scales, and where the math does support it, scientists tend to choose the portion of the math that fits their assumptions rather than laying it all out and saying "these are all the possibilities".
For example - suppose the oxygen content was at one point higher, the barometric pressure lower, average temperature higher, and a near consistent atmosphere across the entire earth (e.g. no ice in the poles, lower amount of water on the surface, higher water content below surface - e.g more land mass). Science has no way to account for it and simply says "this process works this way, so this must have done this" regardless of any kind of major changes.
For example - the Grand Canyon has been held by science to have been created by erosion; however, recent observance has shown that a lake could blow out and create the same thing in a matter of weeks or less. (They've also looked at the GC geographically and seen it is highly likely it was in this new time scale and not due to erosion.)
So, assume some event happened that we don't get to observe again, but the result looks like it could have been done by something else - science has no way of determining the event, and leans towards what was observed (even if wrong) and denies any other possibility. We've seen this many times - Grand Canyon, Helio-Geo Centrism, origin of species, etc. Some may continue to remain that way as scientists refuse to admit any other possibility...
The sad thing though is that current scientific processes pretty much are designed to keep thinking the same and banish anyone that wants to really shake up the scientific world, especially since a lot of things would break too many dissertations, and put many out of work for flawed assumptions...
Should passengers be discrimating based on the technical merits of Boeing versus Airbus planes
Should and will are different. I will not fly on an Airbus unless there is simply no other way. The chances of something going wrong on an airline are quite small, but if that number comes up I'd much rather be in a Boeing product than Airbus. But I'm not the normal passenger so I have no illusions as to how people actually choose. Cost.
Agreed. I disagree with Airbus's philosophy that the computer knows more than the pilot (thus the computer overrides the pilot); unlike Boeing's philosophy that the pilot is in complete control (and able to override the computer).
So I do try to avoid Airbus planes, even if it costs a little more, when I have a choice.
so how about when the MITM changes the cert and resubmits your data to the actual site? The MITM has highjacked your session and you don't know about it. Honestly, I like the feature in FFv3 b/c then I have to consciously approve the cert, and in doing so I can view the data. It also doesn't prevent me from using another tab for another site - for instance, looking up the issue in Google and learning about it, or seeing if there is anything I can find out about it. Sure, some user's will just click their way through it, but some may become better informed as a result. At least you can tell it was a self-signed cert, etc. then - as opposed to the old method that just let you in with a single prompt of 'ok'/'cancel' - now you actually have to retrieve the cert and approve it; and once you approve it it doesn't do anything more until the cert changes - and then it goes through the same process. So, you'll know if something happened - or at least you are more likely to know.
Hmm... don't have the site operator choose one trusted party to sign their cert, have the browser people choose several trusted parties on different network routes to ask if they all see the same cert and if the cert has changed. Then we can go back to having the purpose of CAs be to verify the meatspace <-> cyberspace connection, like they were always supposed to do.
That, my friend, is an impossibility. A certificate will never be able to authoritatively verify that it came from a specific person. Even with passphrases, etc. malware can (and will target at some point if not already) the ability to get that information to use it.
Image a bank trusting your cert; a virus gets access to it, and then transfer all of your money from the bank and to a third party; even closing your bank account.
Or, think of the other side - a virus gets access to your cert for e-mail, and sends a message to someone stating that you will give them all of your money, your wife, and your job. You'll think again about certs for that purpose when they show the signed e-mail (by you) giving them everything you have.
And if that kind of attack is not already underway, it will be. And - FYI - some companies are already requiring that kind of legal binding when their employees get a company cert on their e-mail.
(The uninformed would call it "deceleration" in a collision.)
"deceleration" is just the positive value of a negative acceleration. so they are quite right to call it deceleration when the acceleration value is -10 kmph (or -10 mph).
So I would hardly call them 'uninformed'.
Please go back to school as well; apparently you need a 4th time through that physics class, and at least a 2nd time through English.
Actually, these price diferences are true not only to software but hardware as well. And the value has nothing to do with the versions being localized.
In fact, the price difference applies across the board. Pretty much everything in American is just dirt cheap.
(Which is why, when we're passing through the US lat this year, we'll be arriving with two empty suitcases each and leaving with them stuffed full of clothes, electronics, and the like. The money saved over buying in Europe or Australia will pay for a non-trivial portion of the trip.)
Until you have to declare it while going through Customs...
Of course, then you'll see the real difference - spending the U.S. price plus tax, instead of the localized price plus tax. (What, you thought they included tax in the listed price?)
Correct to a degree - that Linux implements POSIX, and (according to kernel.org) seeks to implement the "Single UNIX Specification". However, it was originally just a Minix clone, which is what Torvalds has always said it was - a Minix clone.
Linux is, however, a completely separate implementation that is designed far differently from any UNIX and most UNIX clones.
Get the restaurants - especially the non-Fast-Food-Restaurants - and various stores in on the game so they offer parking spots that have a plug for people to power the cars with. Furthermore, make them 'handicap-like' in that only vehicles that can be charged can park there - i.e. no-non-electric-plug-in such as the current Prius, or any gas-only powered vehicles would be towed. They need not necessarily be the closest (though they likely would be).
This would give the restaurants (and other interested businesses) another line of revenue as well. It _would_ be economically beneficial - utilities sell extra power to the restaurants, who would have extra lines just for it, and then the restaurants would sell to customers.
The big trick would be to get the charge time down to a 30-minute meal time. And if you want to keep off-peak, offer slightly lower rates at different hours - i.e. have them charge a lower rate between 1 PM and 3 PM to get drivers to stop in for a little later lunch, and then again between 8 PM and 10 PM for a later dinner. Keeps the restaurants going, and drives business hours longer. It also would help to smooth out traffic as some would stop at normal hours and others would wait for the cheaper hours.
So yeah...the utilities would need to be involved. But so would a lot of other people - especially small businesses. GM would do well to work with GMAC & the utilities to extend the SMB's loans to get the stuff too. (Yes, I realize GMAC was spun-off.)
what functionality that could solve a real/virtual world problem.
I wouldn't necessarily say it would have to be reflective of real-world problems. Of the classes I had in high school, the books for the 3 different languages overlapped in the problem sets quite a bit, and they were nearly never real-world associated - a lot of things were like:
1) For Loop based Fibonacci generator
2) While Loop based Fibonacci generator
3) Do Loop based Fibonacci generator
4) Recursive Fibonacci generator
Or other similar kinds of things (factorials, lowest common denominators, etc.). A lot of math related stuff, some in other areas - like draw a snowman (Qbasic), draw a series of cars driving across the screen (C++), or do something else.
Ultimately there was a lot of different tasks, but each built on something; the primary thing was that we could achieve the task our own way - for example, when I had to do a calendar I used a button class I had created to build a quick interface; I reused that class again later when creating my own version of the game MasterMind. Creative is key.
Several ground rules:
1) Keep the class fun.
2) Keep it competitive - let the students challenge each other.
3) Keep it challenging.
4) Allow the students to reuse code from each other - as long as it is not central to that particular assignment.
Note on #4: I.e. if the program is suppose to accomplish a specific task, so what if the students re-use each other's code for generating a mouse cursor, button, etc? What really matters is that they wrote the code/logic that achieves that particular task, can demonstrate it, and explain it. Let the periphery be just that.
Honestly, a lot of the above is what got me into programming. I had a great teacher who let us go at the assignments. As long as we got the assignments done, and wrote the core code ourselves it didn't matter. We shared code for buttons, mouse/keyboard drivers, video drivers, etc; but we still wrote the central functionality ourselves. It ended up becoming a challenge to see who could outdo who, at least among the top of the class (and everyone else got to enjoy the show too!).
Let them write games, and other things as well; and challenge them to come up with new solutions. Teach the real heart of education - how to learn - as well as the core material - the actual programming language.
The kids will enjoy it; and their own sociological structures will keep feeding it as well. And best of all - you won't get bored teaching it since the kids will always come up with something new.;-)
I'm currently studying for my Java certification. Why? Because I love Java?
Nope. Because it's good to have something to fall back on. I'll get a.NET cert too, as icky as that sounds. I have a family and I have to think of them first.
Glad your thinking of your family first, but realize this - a certification is nothing to fall back on. All it does is please a PHB. In the long run, it won't help you in your career, and it won't test you in any meaningful way. So save your money if you can. It won't make one lick of difference in how much money you make.
That said, there is one certification I would recommend - the GIAC Secure Programming certification. Not so much for your employer as to train you and help you realize what you need to do to write secure programs. So it would be well worth it. They do have it for Java too.
3. It's fast(er). Older Java GUI stuff was not fast, and it gave people the impression that all of Java is not fast. Well, Java 1.6 is fast.
Java has certainly come along way since its start; however, it is still a slow beast. Though that is probably more due to its engineered/layering approach to programming than anything else any more but the bytecode nature doesn't help either - and never will. (I.e. the more layers you add the slower it goes, typically and irregardless of language.)
4. It's cross platform. This isn't a big deal for me so much, but it might be for some people.
That's only true if it supports the platform you work on. For example, Sun's JVM is not very platform friendly at the moment. Sure it supports the native OS/processor sets for the standard proprietary OS's (Windows/x86, HP-UX, Solaris, etc.) - but once you run Linux, you're pretty much stuck to the x86 processor series in 32-bit mode. So for those of us running a 64-bit mode or other processors, the open sourcing of Java will make a great big difference. We can finally get native support.
actually... according to the interwebs http://www.mymemory.co.uk/Micro-SDHC
since sdhc standard is fat32 the upper limit is about 32gb currently. Though I imagine a little tinkering could probably let them extend the limit up to the file table limit of about 2TB as listed in the first paragraph here Won't think they'd have to do any tinkering - just get MS (or whoever provides their FS driver) to support it. Linux supports it quite well, and I've used Linux to format 100GB drives using FAT32 and then turned around and used the drive under Windows without a problem. (NTFS wasn't supported in r/w mode at that time, and I needed the compatibility.)
Can you really blame people -- especially poor people -- when all their experience tells them to avoid wasting food/money?
Yes. I can. I've been there. And when your poor, you make your budget stretch that much further - which means buying what you can afford - what is within budget, not necessarily getting the biggest thing for the "best" price.
And if you really cared, then you would take it home for leftovers regardless and just learn to palette it. I do so when I can. (So far I've only had one occasion where there was enough for leftovers but I wouldn't have been able to palette it in any manner; of course, I was barely able to palette it in the restaurant, and was pretty disappointed about that too - the whole gagging effect thing was a problem.)
Of course the big problem is that the poor today are more caught up in the "must have it now" portion of the culture than they should be (not true 50 years ago), and tend to make worse decisions as a result. Instead we should be encouraging them to make the right decisions and help them do so.
Actually that is incorrect. Japan is quite culturally diverse. Their overall population is growing while their citizen population is shrinking - they have a negative growth rate. (Namely because to be a Japanese citizen both of your parents must also be Japanese.)
I don't know what the actual ratio is, but I do know that is the case with respect to their population.
The interesting thing, is that tofu, beans, lentils and many other meat substitutes have these items completely beaten in price, as well as healthiness. Careful there. Soy-rich foods (e.g. tofu, soy milk, etc) can be very dangerous for women. Soy has been linked to estrogen production - raising it - and can be dangerous for women who are at risk for estrogen-based breast cancer.
So no, they're not necessarily healthier. A better method is to just use more moderation in what you eat. Personally, I have found it hard to finish my meals at restaurants as of late - I just don't eat that much, and it would be unhealthy to try to.
Microsoft will always pay people to develop IE because it's their single most important app. They recognized a long time ago that the Web was the gateway into the Internet, and that the Internet was the future of computing. So why did they let it languish for years, and only pick it up again when Firefox started to be a pain in their market penetration numbers?
Microsoft sought to become the main gateway into the Internet by developing IE. If you're using IE you had to buy Windows, right? I hear you can run IE under WINE just fine. So, not necessarily though highly likely.
This is why Apple has to keep developing Safari. Apple probably kept developing Safari to guarantee a minimum level of web functionality on the MacOS, so user's can get to higher profit things like iTunes, etc; and to do so without relying on Microsoft or anyone else. It just makes sense to do so.
Now it's completely viable to get on the Web without giving Microsoft a dollar. I'm not sure they expected that to happen either, despite their best efforts to the contrary. It's been completely viable to get to the web without Microsoft since before the IE existed; and has always continued to be. Anything to the contrary is just a dillusion on your part (and Microsoft's).
No. Buy, certainly. I'm interested in owning, not renting. And that is pretty universal for anything I purchase.
There are no leasing/renting terms that could convince me to do so. I want control of my budget, and renting everything is the antithesis of that.
And no, paying for a service - such as a cell phone - is more than merely 'renting/leasing' since there is a lot of backend support that is required to support it and connect to others to make that service useful; versus renting music or movies where the only backend support is what is required to hold everything, which I can easily do myself for my own collection - be it secondary or tertiary storage.
1 -- Do you acknowledge the legitimacy of intellectual property to begin with? That is, do you believe that intellectual property is a valid construct equivalent to physical property, or do you think it's illusory? If not, why? 2 -- If so, how would you go about protecting the rights of intellectual property holders in a way that doesn't require unfair usage limitations or resort to predatory abuse of the tort system?"
To answer your first question - yes and no. Yes, I do believe there need to be protections, but those protections do not (cannot, and should not) relate to physical property; nor do I believe they should be eternal or used simply as defensive mechanisms. (The very fact most companies get them for defensive purposes shows just how utterly broken the system is!) And to see why as well as how to to grant those protection one must first look at the intent behind them - all four categories - copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secret.
First, trademark goes a bit out of the field here as it is more around brand recognition and ensure that a competitor cannot dilute the brand or use it without permission to make gain on what is rightfully your, building upon what you did. So it is really in its own ballpark.
The other three (copyright, patent, and trade secret) break down into two groups - (i) keep a secret (trade secret), and (ii) make it public (copyright, patents), and with the intent such as to either enable one to keep a secret (category 'i') and thus not draw any benefit (or minimal benefit) from the public (usually to build upon something until someone wishes to draw such benefit), or to enable one to make it public (category 'ii') by being granted a limited period of exclusivity during which the producer can recoup costs and make some profits.
As Trade Secret is mostly about keeping it within the confides of "corporate walls" (or whatever organization you are working in), for this discussion it's not very relevant other than to say you won't draw public benefit (e.g. sales) from it easily, but the most you can do if it is broken is sue the people that broke it, possibly getting them criminally charged (though I don't know about that one) all namely due to breach of contract because you should have had Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreements in place for protection.
So we're really concerned with the public category (copyrights and patents), which according to law (U.S.) break down into two categories: tangible (patents) vs intangible (copyrights), so it really is a case of never the twain shall meet, as much as some are trying to change that by getting some things (e.g. software) under patents protection, though (IMHO) they should then lose any copyright protection they would have otherwise been granted.
In either case, I think we could easily reach compromise by relating the length of the period granted to a business plan for (a) recouping costs and (b) obtaining some profit - a given percentage above R&D cost. However, the administrative overhead would have to be managed and could be a problem on its own; but it would be about the only way to really do it. The business plan would have to be submitted and approved; and the underlying idea is that something that is actually valuable to the public would recoup the costs and pay the granted profits quickly - thus pushing it out to the public quickly - and something that is not valuable would stagnate into obsolescence, likely being turned over to the public when the owner does not with to go through the administrative processes any further since it would eventually either (a) find value and thus end quickly or (b) not earn enough to make it worth it to continue in the process. One tenant should be that the rights could not be sold off to another, or at least that if sold the new owner must continue the same business plan put forth by the initial innovator. (I.e. it would kill off patent-trolls and the likes.) The business p
What new license? Public Domain means no license; you can do what you want.
"Public Domain" is still a license - it is just a license to do what you please with, and one provided by law - so you don't have to write it yourself.
Since he had a prior license, it is a "new" license.
Guess what? That number still has a long ays to drop before it'll be back in reality.
I think you're right but it's clear that increased demand is responsible for this. It's not some magic inflation. Of course house prices might seem unrealistic, but why does gold or oil cost so much? It's just supply/demand. Not entirely. Sometimes, as was the case in Northern VA, prices go up b/c of supply/demand (ok), but then stay up as people get an unrealistic idea of what the price should be, which leads to the situation they are facing now - declining prices that are going to bankrupt a lot of people.
Now, the prices there got that way because people would go in an offer $10k+ over the asking price just to seal the deal, but also because communities changed zoning laws to protect their way of life too - in the end, developers couldn't buy 20 acres and create quarter acre lots to put houses on - they could only put somewhere between 1 and 4 houses on it instead per zoning. So there are a number of factors.
But in the end, housing prices are ultimately determined by what people can afford. The typical price of a house should be around 3 times your annual salary; in Northern VA it was at something like 5 or 6 times. Now salaries did go up there too (average household is around $90k/anum, thus average sale should be around $270k), but not enough to support everyone buying $500k+ homes, which was the starting point for a house (of any size) just a couple years ago (it has since come down into the $300k range).
Tried WinPooch (0.6.6). Neat idea, but has a ways to go. Perhaps b/c of design issues with clamav - it has to reload the clamav database between each scan - but even after those were supposedly fixed (clamav 0.93?) WinPooch would still take over the CPU and make the system unusable. Would really like to see it finished as it would really complement ClamAV well on Windows, but the CPU hogging needs to be fixed. (This on both Win2k and WinXP.)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no. Creationism does not hold that. Creationism does hold that God created the earth as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2 _but_ not in the form it is today, namely because of the events in Genesis 6 to 8, e.g. the Great Flood. A true, honest Creationist would have to admit that the environment of the Earth is unknown prior to the Great Flood - other than that it could sustain life fairly well. From what little we do know Biblically, it was likely more of a tropical paradise, but that is only what we can deduce - not what we know for sure. What we know for sure is that the Earth was greatly different prior to the flood. How, we can't say - though conditions were more amiable towards prolonged human life.
So a true, honest Creationist has to recognize that God did make at least one great change to the Earth after the initial creation in Genesis 1 and 2. In fact, a true, honest Creationist could probably argue that there were likely two big changes, the first being at the "Fall" in Genesis 3, and the second being the Great Flood.
In either case, a Creationist cannot hold that the Earth was always as it is today, and in fact a true, honest Creationist would have to agree that anyone arguing that the Earth has always been as it is now would fall among the scoffers mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3-6. From a Creationist point of view, Evolutionism is one of those scoffers.
But there is no evidence for that. In fact, all of the evidence points in the other direction; we have a perfectly plausible theory about how humans evolved without the need for alien intervention.
No we don't. The "evidence" is just like a lot of people make out String Theory to be - a bunch of junk put together and when something doesn't fit, another rule thrown in.
There is plenty of evidence for temporary micro-evolution - a bird will adapt to environment so long as it is in that environment, when removed the adaption goes away. But there is zero evidence for macro evolution of any species.
There's also another cause, and it's a basic flaw in the assumptions made in science - everything in the environment we are currently in was true then - it doesn't allow for environmental changes on massive scales, and where the math does support it, scientists tend to choose the portion of the math that fits their assumptions rather than laying it all out and saying "these are all the possibilities".
For example - suppose the oxygen content was at one point higher, the barometric pressure lower, average temperature higher, and a near consistent atmosphere across the entire earth (e.g. no ice in the poles, lower amount of water on the surface, higher water content below surface - e.g more land mass). Science has no way to account for it and simply says "this process works this way, so this must have done this" regardless of any kind of major changes.
For example - the Grand Canyon has been held by science to have been created by erosion; however, recent observance has shown that a lake could blow out and create the same thing in a matter of weeks or less. (They've also looked at the GC geographically and seen it is highly likely it was in this new time scale and not due to erosion.)
So, assume some event happened that we don't get to observe again, but the result looks like it could have been done by something else - science has no way of determining the event, and leans towards what was observed (even if wrong) and denies any other possibility. We've seen this many times - Grand Canyon, Helio-Geo Centrism, origin of species, etc. Some may continue to remain that way as scientists refuse to admit any other possibility...
The sad thing though is that current scientific processes pretty much are designed to keep thinking the same and banish anyone that wants to really shake up the scientific world, especially since a lot of things would break too many dissertations, and put many out of work for flawed assumptions...
Should passengers be discrimating based on the technical merits of Boeing versus Airbus planes Should and will are different. I will not fly on an Airbus unless there is simply no other way. The chances of something going wrong on an airline are quite small, but if that number comes up I'd much rather be in a Boeing product than Airbus. But I'm not the normal passenger so I have no illusions as to how people actually choose. Cost.
Agreed. I disagree with Airbus's philosophy that the computer knows more than the pilot (thus the computer overrides the pilot); unlike Boeing's philosophy that the pilot is in complete control (and able to override the computer). So I do try to avoid Airbus planes, even if it costs a little more, when I have a choice.
so how about when the MITM changes the cert and resubmits your data to the actual site? The MITM has highjacked your session and you don't know about it. Honestly, I like the feature in FFv3 b/c then I have to consciously approve the cert, and in doing so I can view the data. It also doesn't prevent me from using another tab for another site - for instance, looking up the issue in Google and learning about it, or seeing if there is anything I can find out about it. Sure, some user's will just click their way through it, but some may become better informed as a result. At least you can tell it was a self-signed cert, etc. then - as opposed to the old method that just let you in with a single prompt of 'ok'/'cancel' - now you actually have to retrieve the cert and approve it; and once you approve it it doesn't do anything more until the cert changes - and then it goes through the same process. So, you'll know if something happened - or at least you are more likely to know.
Hmm... don't have the site operator choose one trusted party to sign their cert, have the browser people choose several trusted parties on different network routes to ask if they all see the same cert and if the cert has changed. Then we can go back to having the purpose of CAs be to verify the meatspace <-> cyberspace connection, like they were always supposed to do.
That, my friend, is an impossibility. A certificate will never be able to authoritatively verify that it came from a specific person. Even with passphrases, etc. malware can (and will target at some point if not already) the ability to get that information to use it.
Image a bank trusting your cert; a virus gets access to it, and then transfer all of your money from the bank and to a third party; even closing your bank account.
Or, think of the other side - a virus gets access to your cert for e-mail, and sends a message to someone stating that you will give them all of your money, your wife, and your job. You'll think again about certs for that purpose when they show the signed e-mail (by you) giving them everything you have.
And if that kind of attack is not already underway, it will be. And - FYI - some companies are already requiring that kind of legal binding when their employees get a company cert on their e-mail.
No thanks.
"deceleration" is just the positive value of a negative acceleration. so they are quite right to call it deceleration when the acceleration value is -10 kmph (or -10 mph).
So I would hardly call them 'uninformed'.
Please go back to school as well; apparently you need a 4th time through that physics class, and at least a 2nd time through English.
Actually, these price diferences are true not only to software but hardware as well. And the value has nothing to do with the versions being localized.
In fact, the price difference applies across the board. Pretty much everything in American is just dirt cheap.
(Which is why, when we're passing through the US lat this year, we'll be arriving with two empty suitcases each and leaving with them stuffed full of clothes, electronics, and the like. The money saved over buying in Europe or Australia will pay for a non-trivial portion of the trip.)
Until you have to declare it while going through Customs...
Of course, then you'll see the real difference - spending the U.S. price plus tax, instead of the localized price plus tax. (What, you thought they included tax in the listed price?)
Correct to a degree - that Linux implements POSIX, and (according to kernel.org) seeks to implement the "Single UNIX Specification". However, it was originally just a Minix clone, which is what Torvalds has always said it was - a Minix clone. Linux is, however, a completely separate implementation that is designed far differently from any UNIX and most UNIX clones.
Get the restaurants - especially the non-Fast-Food-Restaurants - and various stores in on the game so they offer parking spots that have a plug for people to power the cars with. Furthermore, make them 'handicap-like' in that only vehicles that can be charged can park there - i.e. no-non-electric-plug-in such as the current Prius, or any gas-only powered vehicles would be towed. They need not necessarily be the closest (though they likely would be).
This would give the restaurants (and other interested businesses) another line of revenue as well. It _would_ be economically beneficial - utilities sell extra power to the restaurants, who would have extra lines just for it, and then the restaurants would sell to customers.
The big trick would be to get the charge time down to a 30-minute meal time. And if you want to keep off-peak, offer slightly lower rates at different hours - i.e. have them charge a lower rate between 1 PM and 3 PM to get drivers to stop in for a little later lunch, and then again between 8 PM and 10 PM for a later dinner. Keeps the restaurants going, and drives business hours longer. It also would help to smooth out traffic as some would stop at normal hours and others would wait for the cheaper hours.
So yeah...the utilities would need to be involved. But so would a lot of other people - especially small businesses. GM would do well to work with GMAC & the utilities to extend the SMB's loans to get the stuff too. (Yes, I realize GMAC was spun-off.)
I wouldn't necessarily say it would have to be reflective of real-world problems. Of the classes I had in high school, the books for the 3 different languages overlapped in the problem sets quite a bit, and they were nearly never real-world associated - a lot of things were like:
1) For Loop based Fibonacci generator
2) While Loop based Fibonacci generator
3) Do Loop based Fibonacci generator
4) Recursive Fibonacci generator
Or other similar kinds of things (factorials, lowest common denominators, etc.). A lot of math related stuff, some in other areas - like draw a snowman (Qbasic), draw a series of cars driving across the screen (C++), or do something else.
Ultimately there was a lot of different tasks, but each built on something; the primary thing was that we could achieve the task our own way - for example, when I had to do a calendar I used a button class I had created to build a quick interface; I reused that class again later when creating my own version of the game MasterMind. Creative is key.
Several ground rules:
;-)
1) Keep the class fun.
2) Keep it competitive - let the students challenge each other.
3) Keep it challenging.
4) Allow the students to reuse code from each other - as long as it is not central to that particular assignment.
Note on #4: I.e. if the program is suppose to accomplish a specific task, so what if the students re-use each other's code for generating a mouse cursor, button, etc? What really matters is that they wrote the code/logic that achieves that particular task, can demonstrate it, and explain it. Let the periphery be just that.
Honestly, a lot of the above is what got me into programming. I had a great teacher who let us go at the assignments. As long as we got the assignments done, and wrote the core code ourselves it didn't matter. We shared code for buttons, mouse/keyboard drivers, video drivers, etc; but we still wrote the central functionality ourselves. It ended up becoming a challenge to see who could outdo who, at least among the top of the class (and everyone else got to enjoy the show too!).
Let them write games, and other things as well; and challenge them to come up with new solutions. Teach the real heart of education - how to learn - as well as the core material - the actual programming language.
The kids will enjoy it; and their own sociological structures will keep feeding it as well. And best of all - you won't get bored teaching it since the kids will always come up with something new.
NADA que ver aqui, por favor pasar ahora a lo largo de
/. did not want to put the correct character in, at least during the preview!
Well...really - NADA to see here, now please move along...
Note: sorry about the 'i' instead of "Ã" (i+ascent). For reason
Glad your thinking of your family first, but realize this - a certification is nothing to fall back on. All it does is please a PHB. In the long run, it won't help you in your career, and it won't test you in any meaningful way. So save your money if you can. It won't make one lick of difference in how much money you make.
That said, there is one certification I would recommend - the GIAC Secure Programming certification. Not so much for your employer as to train you and help you realize what you need to do to write secure programs. So it would be well worth it. They do have it for Java too.
Java has certainly come along way since its start; however, it is still a slow beast. Though that is probably more due to its engineered/layering approach to programming than anything else any more but the bytecode nature doesn't help either - and never will. (I.e. the more layers you add the slower it goes, typically and irregardless of language.)
That's only true if it supports the platform you work on. For example, Sun's JVM is not very platform friendly at the moment. Sure it supports the native OS/processor sets for the standard proprietary OS's (Windows/x86, HP-UX, Solaris, etc.) - but once you run Linux, you're pretty much stuck to the x86 processor series in 32-bit mode. So for those of us running a 64-bit mode or other processors, the open sourcing of Java will make a great big difference. We can finally get native support.
And if you really cared, then you would take it home for leftovers regardless and just learn to palette it. I do so when I can. (So far I've only had one occasion where there was enough for leftovers but I wouldn't have been able to palette it in any manner; of course, I was barely able to palette it in the restaurant, and was pretty disappointed about that too - the whole gagging effect thing was a problem.)
Of course the big problem is that the poor today are more caught up in the "must have it now" portion of the culture than they should be (not true 50 years ago), and tend to make worse decisions as a result. Instead we should be encouraging them to make the right decisions and help them do so.
No. Buy, certainly. I'm interested in owning, not renting. And that is pretty universal for anything I purchase.
There are no leasing/renting terms that could convince me to do so. I want control of my budget, and renting everything is the antithesis of that.
And no, paying for a service - such as a cell phone - is more than merely 'renting/leasing' since there is a lot of backend support that is required to support it and connect to others to make that service useful; versus renting music or movies where the only backend support is what is required to hold everything, which I can easily do myself for my own collection - be it secondary or tertiary storage.
To answer your first question - yes and no. Yes, I do believe there need to be protections, but those protections do not (cannot, and should not) relate to physical property; nor do I believe they should be eternal or used simply as defensive mechanisms. (The very fact most companies get them for defensive purposes shows just how utterly broken the system is!) And to see why as well as how to to grant those protection one must first look at the intent behind them - all four categories - copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secret.
First, trademark goes a bit out of the field here as it is more around brand recognition and ensure that a competitor cannot dilute the brand or use it without permission to make gain on what is rightfully your, building upon what you did. So it is really in its own ballpark.
The other three (copyright, patent, and trade secret) break down into two groups - (i) keep a secret (trade secret), and (ii) make it public (copyright, patents), and with the intent such as to either enable one to keep a secret (category 'i') and thus not draw any benefit (or minimal benefit) from the public (usually to build upon something until someone wishes to draw such benefit), or to enable one to make it public (category 'ii') by being granted a limited period of exclusivity during which the producer can recoup costs and make some profits.
As Trade Secret is mostly about keeping it within the confides of "corporate walls" (or whatever organization you are working in), for this discussion it's not very relevant other than to say you won't draw public benefit (e.g. sales) from it easily, but the most you can do if it is broken is sue the people that broke it, possibly getting them criminally charged (though I don't know about that one) all namely due to breach of contract because you should have had Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreements in place for protection.
So we're really concerned with the public category (copyrights and patents), which according to law (U.S.) break down into two categories: tangible (patents) vs intangible (copyrights), so it really is a case of never the twain shall meet, as much as some are trying to change that by getting some things (e.g. software) under patents protection, though (IMHO) they should then lose any copyright protection they would have otherwise been granted.
In either case, I think we could easily reach compromise by relating the length of the period granted to a business plan for (a) recouping costs and (b) obtaining some profit - a given percentage above R&D cost. However, the administrative overhead would have to be managed and could be a problem on its own; but it would be about the only way to really do it. The business plan would have to be submitted and approved; and the underlying idea is that something that is actually valuable to the public would recoup the costs and pay the granted profits quickly - thus pushing it out to the public quickly - and something that is not valuable would stagnate into obsolescence, likely being turned over to the public when the owner does not with to go through the administrative processes any further since it would eventually either (a) find value and thus end quickly or (b) not earn enough to make it worth it to continue in the process. One tenant should be that the rights could not be sold off to another, or at least that if sold the new owner must continue the same business plan put forth by the initial innovator. (I.e. it would kill off patent-trolls and the likes.) The business p
What new license? Public Domain means no license; you can do what you want.
"Public Domain" is still a license - it is just a license to do what you please with, and one provided by law - so you don't have to write it yourself.Since he had a prior license, it is a "new" license.
Now, the prices there got that way because people would go in an offer $10k+ over the asking price just to seal the deal, but also because communities changed zoning laws to protect their way of life too - in the end, developers couldn't buy 20 acres and create quarter acre lots to put houses on - they could only put somewhere between 1 and 4 houses on it instead per zoning. So there are a number of factors.
But in the end, housing prices are ultimately determined by what people can afford. The typical price of a house should be around 3 times your annual salary; in Northern VA it was at something like 5 or 6 times. Now salaries did go up there too (average household is around $90k/anum, thus average sale should be around $270k), but not enough to support everyone buying $500k+ homes, which was the starting point for a house (of any size) just a couple years ago (it has since come down into the $300k range).
Tried WinPooch (0.6.6). Neat idea, but has a ways to go. Perhaps b/c of design issues with clamav - it has to reload the clamav database between each scan - but even after those were supposedly fixed (clamav 0.93?) WinPooch would still take over the CPU and make the system unusable. Would really like to see it finished as it would really complement ClamAV well on Windows, but the CPU hogging needs to be fixed. (This on both Win2k and WinXP.)