here's a graph showing the effect they think various potential influences
There could be a lot more, or a lot less. And they could be wrong about all. That's not to say they are. But again, it's what they think, not what they know for certain.
You can read this as "we're not sure what effect solar radiation has, but we're damn sure greenhouse gases have a large heating effect".
Even if they are, it does not mean that humans are the generator of those greenhouse gases. It could be solar interference that is causing the green house gases to rise. There is simply not enough information, and not enough understanding about all the factors.
Here's a thought: if someone presents a seemingly valid hypothesis and you aren't expert enough to assert if it is false or not, you either attempt to gain more knowledge or you reserve judgment. I know the appeal to authority thing is always in vogue, but that is not the rational reaction. Science is always wrecking accepted viewpoints. Very often those "few dissenters" prove the established majority wrong. You shouldn't dismiss arguments solely on the basis of current popularity. Climate change is still very much a science undergoing constant changes and revisions. It is very possible that many of our current theories are false. I'm not saying he's right or anything, but that is horrible, horrible argument you're making.
You always, always, evaluate the merits of the theory. If you can't and are incapable of making that judgement, then you shouldn't.
That's part of the problem with the scientific community today - they don't do that any more (if they ever did) - they merely say "this does not align with everyone else, so go take a hike".
Honestly - I've finished my 4 year CS degree, and do agree with some about the
you need this little piece of paper to get past HR to get a job interview mentality - it's there. That said, a degree in CS (whether a BA or BS in CS) is utter crap - and worth less than the piece of paper it is printed on. What I would really suggest is finding a good Software Engineering program and getting a degree in SE, or if you like do a Systems Engineering degree - but again, find a good program where the graduates actually know what Software Engineering and Systems Engineering is. (A lot of them do not, sadly enough.) The CS degress (typically out of the Math departments) are just crap, and full of useless theory; find a good program that is out of the Engineering department (with no relation to the Math department) and you should be good.
Also, as noted by others, you may see a bit of a pay cut, but that depends on the kind of jobs you look at and how you play your experience. Technically - a lot of companies simply count a 4 year degree as 4 more years of experience; but they don't give you the pay grade for it. So, if you do go for the degree, make sure to keep up with the field you've been in for the last 15 years, and then market yourself into that field with the degree; then you should come out on top - assuming you kept up with it. (I.e. don't give up your day job.)
Wasn't there something out a little while back about CFL & Flourescents causing people to sleep less as the type of light emitted ends up alterating the body's sleep clock or something? I could be wrong, but I thought there was something. If so, won't this be a problem in addition to all the other stuff listed here?
until it is affordable by people who are living below the poverty line is a ridiculous one
I was not aware that someone making $15000 a year is below the poverty line, and in fact, as of 2003 (according to HHS - it is not - for a family of two, but is on the boarder for a family of 3; and definately for a family of 4 - sad though). However, to make it more relevant - according to Bureau of Labor Statistics - the median wage for the US in 2005 was $651/week - or roughly $34,000 (rounding up); it is still very hard for someone at even that income level to justify spending $1500 on a TV - and I know quite a few people in that range of living; they find it hard to justify dropping $1500 on anything, let alone a TV.
buy an HDTV->Standard Def converter
HDTV won't make it; and no - I won't buy any damn converter to SD either. I'll simply turn off my TV if it comes to that. TV is not that important, especially with all the junk on it. For myself, I'll skip HD altogether and just go directly to a computer using a projector, which if you really wanted to get into it is a lot higher quality than any TV could ever be - but I really don't care - I just want the thing hidden in the wall with minimal equipment and hooked up only to my computer.
As to your "should raise a flag" arguments - I can say the same about you with how fanatic your about HD. You buy in to all the hype, and are more than happy to waste your money on it, give up the right to control it (HDCI, Broadcast Flag, DRM, etc.), and raise the bar of entry into the market for sending video content out to the average user. Canada is already on record as saying they won't do it (see Slashdot for that one - a while back, as far as a link goes); and it is just too costly - in terms of broadcasting, make-up, and all the other details they have to pay attention to now as well so those few who can tell the difference see it. In the mean time, I'll enjoy my cheaper version and have fun.
Also, I gave a range of TV sizes that are quite popular except at the high-end market; and my comment on my parent's B&W 13" is more or less to show how durable and usable the older technology is - I would much rather something that lasts for 30 years than something that breaks every 2 to 5.
Inflation may not be out of our control, but it is certainly not what it should be. Part of that is due to the fact that Economists since the 1950's have seen deflation as a bad thing (probably because of how many of them for a long time were in the Great Depression as children), and deflation is exactly what we need. The US Currency, etc. is getting too out of hand. By denying deflation the ability to occur on a short-term cyclic cycle (like we are doing now), we are only setting ourselves up for an even greater deflation when the larger cyclic cycle occurs - one which may make the Great Depression of the 1930's & 1940's look like a small depression.
Our real goal should be to have inflation and deflation in moderated levels to keep the monetary system under control, not keep the monetary system under control in order to control inflation and prevent deflation from happening.
And the price is not as ludicrous as people say. You can get a very nice 1080p 42" television for around 1500 dollars, which will work great in 95% of homes. Considering the amount of coin that most slashdotters (and the iPod-buying public in general) drop on technology, this is certainly not an outrageous amount of money. Since HDTV media is able to be broadcast over the air or downloaded, it is not tied to the success of Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. It is here to stay and will become more and more of a factor as the general public is made aware of the large jump in quality.
$1500 for a TV is ludicrous for 95% of homes. Many slashdotters may spend a lot of money on technology, but the average household in the US does not. Expecting someone to replace their TV simply because a small percentage of people can actually see a difference and the technical specs are better does not mean that the average person can see a difference, and even if they could would care. What people do care about are things like "can I record this show?" or "can I take my recording to my friends or family members house and watch it with them there?" - neither of these are very favorable for HDTV, and the price is too expensive.
HDTV will stand a chance when a low income worker (someone who makes $15000 US) can afford to by a decently sized set (15" to 27") one less than a paycheck (roughly $217 per week after taxes, assuming 25% taxes). Until then, analog is here to stay; even then, you still have the recording issues, which may push them away as well.
And no, this slashdotter does not spend a lot of money on technology ever year. I probably spent at most $1000 last year, but that mostly included DVDs and a TV. This year I expect to buy a Wii, and two laptops (the most I've spent on technology in years); and may be next year another desktop and possibly a server; most everything else will be small stuff that won't add up to much. Most people I know that are not techies spend even less, and upgrade their TVs only when they break - i.e. cost of repair is greater than cost of replacement - with the average TV being 5 to 10 years old or better.
For example, my parents still have a Philips 13" B&W TV from the early 70's. It works better than most newer TVs, and its picture (when fed a good signal) is extremely crisp and clear. They got it from my grand parents in the early 80's when their color TV failed, and since have had one or two other TVs. The only thing that will cause it to be replaced is HDTV, and even then one of the family will likely still keep it around. (We have replaced the antennae once or twice after it broke, but that's easily solvable using the extra inputs and adapters.)
They should do it like TV: "We're gonna switch from analog to digital in 2010. Do what you need to change. If you want something else, buy it, but it's you're problem.". There needs to be standard format for media, and someone needs to put practicalty above profits for that to happen.
Did you know that that was originally suppose to be 2001? Then 2003? Then 2004? Then 2006? Then 2008? TV will never go digital except on Cable systems. It'll just keep getting pushed back. People want analog TV, despite its problems; but it has many advantages over digital TV - such as no broadcast flag, no expensive sets to watch, no limitations on recording, etc. Like it or not, analog is here to stay.
BTW, AMD64 is the official arch name implemented by AMD and Intel, x86-64 has been officially abandonned
Yes, x86-64 has been abandoned by both parties. However, Intel according to this FAQ article, and this article is using the name Intel64, which according to the second article is just the EMT64 stuff renamed and enhanced by Intel. EMT64 was basically Intel's rip-off of AMD64; and according to the second article Intel64 is EMT64 with the SSE3, HT, and other Intel specific technologies. (I could be wrong in that it is a pure name change and that stuff was in EMT64, which is highly likely; but that's just my take from the page.)
BTW, according to the articles, Intel64 was suppose to start being available in Q4 of 2006. Don't know if they met that or not.
Of course, then there is the additional stuff from Microsoft that states:
Intel64 property is defined only when it is running on an Itanium processor
Which conflicts with Intel's FAQ (see above):
Is Intel®64 the same technology used in the Itanium® 2 processor?
No. Intel®64 is an extension to Intel's processors based on the IA-32 architecture. The Itanium processor family is based on the EPIC architecture. These are two separate families of processors, based on two different architectures. The Itanium processor family is specifically designed for the most demanding mission-critical applications.
Which leaves me to wonder how Microsoft is going to differentiate between IA64 (Itanium's architecture) and Intel64 if they are referencing IA64 by the name Intel64.
BTW, your view of a naturalists assumptions is flawed. Although many will have made the assumption you predict, it is not a forgone conclusion. It is no more necessary for an evolution scientist to reject a belief in god than for a religious person to reject math or archeology. The difference is that when we both find something new, a religious persons will mold the evidence to fit within his beliefs, where a scientist will mold his beliefs to fit the new evidence.
I will not dispute the errors of others in the past with respect to the religious people you refer. However, scientists often do not mold their beliefs to fit the evidence, but also fit the evidence to meet their beliefs, most notably there is a large body of work in science, which a number of the different bodies of science rely on to support their conclusions, which was specifically drawn to show atheism, and the evidence molded to fit it, further pushed into a scientific-atheistic faith by rejecting that any other view of the same evidence is false and denying assumptions made.
While I am not familiar with all the claims of how ID proves itself, I do know that there are similar issues with the so called science as well. Sometimes putting forth the assumptions of how even a single equation is used can make a big difference, and if scientists were willing to put forth their assumptions I am sure more progress could be made between the two camps as it is often those assumptions, or reasons for them, that the religious people are challenging (whether or not they realize that that is actually the case).
Even worse, forcing "fairness" often gives misguided, scientifically wrong viewpoints the size and weight of thoughtful, well researched viewpoints. It is, in fact, the exact kind of argument that intelligent design proponents and global warming skeptics have recently been using.
As opposed to the "scientifically correct" view that is 100% bias against the basis of any theistic religion (I say theistic as it is an atheistic religion in itself)?
Science lost its scientific object decades ago when it declared all out that it will not seek facts objectively, but seek only facts that prove atheism true. Now, literally speaking that declaration was not literally made - but it is what the scientific community has done and said in their actions.
Science and faith need not be incompatible; but rather are not easily justifiable. As we may not understand where faith comes from, and be too prideful to admit what we do not know or what we want not to be true. As a result, we - humans - often seek out what we want to be true regardless of what the evidence before us may say, turning a blind eye to the evidence so as to prove what we want, and through group-think force the world to believe it.
Mind you, that what I just said applies to both sides of the issue.
To a certain degree, the same is true of the Wii. We're halfway through January now, and the majority of games on the horizon are Virtual Console games. That means that the hefty Gamecube library (of games most Wii owners haven't played) is holding up the value of the console.
Actually, while new games would help as well, the whole Virtual Console is probably the largest selling point of the Wii. Think about it - all the legacy games that came out when people were 5, 10, 15 years old and are now not available, or they couldn't buy them at that time, but now they are coming out for a brand new system. How many people would go back and play Metroid, Super Mario Brothers, Tetris, Mario Kart, and the numerous other games that were popular in the 80's? Or how about the obscure ones that had a small market, but were well loved in that market?
The Virtual Console is perhaps the number one reason why I will be buying a Wii when I can. New games (ExciteTruck, etc.) are a secondary thought for me as I am more interested in the games that I could not buy when I was a kid, but will now be available on the Wii.
This market is far larger than what Microsoft or Sony could compete with, if they even could - fact is, they can't as their systems have not been around so long, and their games have been so large it would not be very easy to do. (1 CD or DVD compared to the few hundred kilobytes of the older Nintendo - even the N64 - consoles.)
A couple things...(1) what I was stating earlier has nothing to do with this, and was simply saying that even if one reads it literally there are certain things we must admit - namely that even assuming a full literal reading of ages and assuming all Biblical records are accurate historically that there is still a time gap that must be admitted and the timeline provided cannot say to creation but simply to the fall of man. That is all.
However, as to your accusations:
Why there are numerous contradictions in the 2 accounts of creation [*]
There is no contraction there. If you notice the tense of the verbs. In Genesis 2 it refers to the creation of the animals in the past tense. They are still perfectly in line with each other.
Why Day 2 of creation is not called Good...
So? That has no impact on anything else.
What did the Church Father Origen write?
The things of God are higher than ours, and in creation He can do what He wills. What sense does it need to make to us? For to a fool things appear foolish and so the fool believes not; but the wise may see the error of their ways and yet accept it on faith.
Whether or not to read a passage as literal, figurative, historical, etc. has been up to debate for thousands of years. Yet, many passages hold truths in all of the methods of readings, and context often shows certain passages to be purely figurative (e.g. the parables in the four gospels). However, with respect to this conversation, my point is that there are Christians that do read some passages (justly or not) as pure figurative, and in doing so with the respect to the Genesis account, there are certain things that we must admit - namely the existence of time gaps, which are often overlooked. By doing so, we can no longer claim a fixed age of the Earth itself, but only a fixed amount of time to a certain event (namely the Fall of Man) that occurs within the Biblical record. Whether or not you or anyone on Slashdot believes it, etc. is up to the reader.
Many assume science and Christian faith are incompatible. They are not. This is one area especially where they seem incompatible and many justify them by using the ideas of Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution, yet in doing so they break the Biblical record to do so. By admitting what is there that we do not usually see (e.g. time gaps), a lot of things can fall into place. That does not mean that science is 100% correct (it has many assumptions that are not admitted), but neither is a belief in faith that does not admit its assumptions either.
Astronomers think [a] supernova's shock wave knocked the pillars down about 6,000 years ago.
Just as the the Earth was being created!
Actually, even as a Christian I must say not necessarily. Even taking the Bible literally and using a 24x7 day week in Genesis 1 & Genesis 2 there is nothing saying that it the Earth is 6,000 years old. This is because there is a time gap in the Bible - and one that is rather significant in this area - between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3. Many people read over these chapters and just assume that they are in close temporal proximity; when in fact there is no evidence suggesting that.
A lot of Christians will say the Earth is 6,000 years old based on the ages and the assumption that Adam's age was from his creation in Genesis 1 & 2 and not from the Fall of Man in Genesis 3. Since there is a time gap of unknown length between Genesis 2 & Genesis 3, this assumption can be either correct or incorrect.
What can be considered Biblically correct is that there have been roughly 6,000 years since the Fall of Man in Genesis 3. Of course, you also have to consider that the years recorded Biblically are 360 day years, not 365 day years. From my own calculations, it falls around 5600 to 5700 years at present (it's been a while since I did the calculations).
However, that the above does not negate Creationism. It does, however, admit that the Earth itself is of unknown age. For all we know Adam & Eve (and any kids they may have had prior to the Fall of Man, which is possible Biblically) could have lived in the Garden of Eden for millennia or just a few days. Fact of the matter is, we don't know the true age, but we do know that it has been roughly 6,000 years since Adam & Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.
Assuming Astronomers are correct about this, then there could be one of two significant things going on: (1) Assuming the original posters timeline, it could correlate to the Fall of Man; or (2) Assuming another poster's statement of "it was 1000 to 2000 years ago" it could be the turn from BC to AD & possibly correlate to the events in Matthew through John, more specifically the death of Christ on the cross. Now this is just speculation and could be way off.
Yes, the world of civil engineering has seen a lot of progress in the past few decades. Not only have most cities quietly replaced all their utility lines with magnetically isolated counterparts, but they've begun trials of new "wireless", or should I say "pipeless" sewer lines, capable of transmitting waste without the need to run lines underground. While these PASN's (Pipeless Area Sewer Networks) will be of great use to engineers and architects, I'm personally more excited about the potential for consumer level, personal "pipeless" systems. Being able to remove wastes from my body without having to utilize my built-in plumbing will better fit my lifestyle, and I'll have to wash my hands a whole lot less.
Isn't this what Star Trek uses? Honestly, outside of Star Trek Enterprise you never see a bathroom with a toilet. Some friends had a book with blue-prints for some of the various ships, and ships that carried 5,000+ people would have like 2 toilets. I always figured they had a reverse-replicator put-in at birth (or upon joining the Federation) that would take all the excrements and turn it back into energy to be put back into the system, perhaps to replicate other food (or may be that's where they got their anti-matter from)...any how...it would be neat to see it...and better to have it...
Or here's an idea - get DARPA funding to build a replicator and de-replicator. The replicator is added to the esophagus so that nutrients can be given to people (soldiers) on scheduled intervals. This would cut down on the need to supply/prepare/cook food for the armies. Then the de-replicator would be added to the anus and urinary tracks, converting the excrements back to energy, which is then used by the replicator to produce the nutrients, creating a cyclic cycle and relieving the need to have waste facilities. People with such systems could go decades without eating. Don't forget to credit Star Trek as prior art when filing the patents.
Of course, you're overlooking all the overhead of monitoring the code long enough to determine which on-the-fly optimisations are worth performing
Except sometimes there is no overhead to optimising: Simply use the appropriate compiler for your CPU's feature set. E.g 64-bit or SIMD machine code could come out at no extra cost.
That depends on what kind of optimizations you want to be doing. If you are doing static optimization - then yes it is at no extra cost to compiling, however, then it kills your compile time. If you are doing dynamic optimization then it comes at cost to your run time. Either way, optimization is a killer in a VM or JIT environment and compiling can be doubly so depending on what kind of optimization you are doing. Nothing is free.
The nice thing about non-VM/JIT languages is that you get the optimization at compile time and can get as deep as you like, which is of no concern to the end-user as the program is not being compiled on the fly (JIT or otherwise) for the user so the program will be consistent in speed all the time, not just after a few minutes while it compiles itself or after enough time that it has had the ability to optimize itself for your current use, which could be erratic enough as to worsen the overall use of the program depending on your use of the program.
VM's & JIT languages, OTOH, suffer performance when they are compiled or optimized. If the optimization is at compile time, then it takes that much longer for the user to be able to run that part of the program. Sure the user may not hit it often, but it hurts that much more when they do. Alternatively, the program will gradually increase in optimization as the program runs, thus it will take a long time (cycle wise at the very least) for the program to run at its peak. Sure, the program comes up, but the user will have to wait for the unoptimized program to be optimized before getting the true experience of the program - if they ever really use it long enough, which they might not; and if their usage is erratic enough while running the program (e.g. not performing the same tasks enough) then the program will remain in a degraded performance all the time. In either case, you will likely turn users away from the program because it will seem sluggish at best for a while when compared to a pre-compiled, pre-optimized program that just starts and runs full-blast.
I'll take Ada, Cobol, Pascal, Modulus, D, C, C++, ObjC, and others over.Net or Java any day, and my computer will be better for it.
Just nitpicking, I agree with most of your post: I could see them having a century's worth of re-released games if they did it on a weekly basis, but a daily basis feels unlikely. After all, how long have they been making games so far? 25 years? During that time, I doubt that games have been coming out at a rate of 4 per day.
But Nintendo's not just doing their own old consoles. They also (if my understanding is correct) releasing the backlog from all the Sega, Atari, Turbo Graphix, and a number of other consoles as well - essentially, their backlog is nearly everything that is not Sony/Microsoft. That's a ton of stuff. Who knows when it would run out, but it would take a really, really long time to do so.
Personally, I hope they release it a lot quicker and not necessarily do any changes to it. Hopefully any emulator/hardware in the Wii can be programmed to mitigate the differences easily enough. I don't need anything new in it (I'd love to have the original ExciteBike, for example, and be able to play it on the Wii, or Zelda, or Sonic series, etc.) - the game itself would likely be enough. Of course, they could release the original as the 'classic' and then come out a while later with an 'update for Wii' version and sell it twice to the people that really wanted to have it new and updated. But any how...we'll see how they do it and what they actually do release. It'll be interesting needless to say.
I think it is interesting that everyone seems to be assuming that the fight for first/second is between the Wii and whichever of the other two win out. In the article above as well as the other slashdot comments already posted there is a base assumption that the Wii is going to do quite well. It is as if everyone is acknowledging that the Wii already has a certain segment of the market sewn up and that gives the advantage in the three way battle for the rest of it. Now, that could be completely wrong, but I think it is very interesting to see that unspoken assumption in so much of what I read.
I am really not surprised - but then again, I am very much in the camp of Nintendo will take the lead, and Microsoft & Sony will duke it out for second. Why? Because Nintendo realized that the market is not the 10 percent of gamers that make up nearly 100 percent of the hard core gamer market - they realized that there is another 90 percent of the market that is just not tapped - from the kindergarten kids to the elderly - not just the kids in their late teens and early twenties.
The Wii was made to reach all gamers, and be good enough for the hard core games but not with top notch specs. They're pulling from their backlog (which as registered will be larger than PS+PS2+PS3+xBox+xBox360 combined as, if I remember the statements right, they could release titles daily and go on for a century and still have titles to release) and adding new stuff that is truly innovative, fun, and entertaining.
I'll get a Wii - heck, even my wife wants to get me one so that we can play it together and have a lot of fun. We've been playing my old 2nd generation NES (the SNES form-factor styled NES) for quite a while now and love it. And with titles like ExciteTruck and and backwards compatibility, I'm all for the Wii.
So if anyone ever wonders why Wii is being thought to be in 1st place - it's because Nintendo did the job, and did it right. They remembered who their real market was and made a product for that market. Finally - the world can have fun gaming again, and it won't be on a PS3 or xBox 360.
There must be some reason (I hope) but the security model that they're describing in TFA seems horribly flawed. It depends purely on the security of some black-box hardware modules embedded at different points in the system.
Basically, what they're saying is that there's no end-to-end encryption of your "PIN block" (PIN+Account number, don't ask me why they're transmitted together instead of separately with some random transaction identifier). Instead, the ATM encrypts it for the next machine in the network, where it's decrypted and re-encrypted inside an (assumedly secure) hardware module. Then it's passed to the next link in the chain, ad infinium.
No it's not. Think about it - it's the same issue with Trusted Computing - if you have the PIN encrypted with the receivers public key, then think about how hard it would be to change the system if the private key was compromised. Or, if you negotiated the use of a public key, then it would still leave it open to attack. By having the multiple nodes where the encryption is applied, then the end-node where the user inputs their card data does not have to know anything about the receiving node at the very end of the chain.
While this system provides an ability for a single node or account to be compromised, the integrity of the system as a whole - all the other nodes and accounts - are safe. It would take a tremendous amount of work to compromise the entire system. So this design is, for the entire system, a lot safer and smarter.
(Trusted Computing has the same kind of issue as one the hardware key is cracked, anything can happen. Their goal was to make it difficult to do, but each system is identifiable by only a single, unchangeable key that is locked in the hardware; so once it is cracked, anything the system used that key for is compromised. Thus, Trusted Computing fails even there; though it fails for other reasons too.)
True - it may only apply to Florida at present; however, that does not keep it so. The US legal system, however, draws from all states in the formation of the laws with regards to precedence, so there is no stopping a lawyer, in say NY, from citing the case and arguing on it for such a use.
In any case it won't automatically happen. Someone with a case or controversy pertaining to the archival laws must come before the court and argue that they were meant to apply to IMs. Then they have to win and that ruling has to be upheld. Until that happens or the law is changed there is no reason for fear.
True - it is not automatic completely; that does not mean, however, that companies that here this won't assume it, especially within the boundaries of Florida where it is more likely to be substantiated, in order to keep from it being an issue should someone try to argue it.
True also that it usually must be upheld twice to truly set precedence. However, that second ruling could be as simple as an appeal not overturning it, thus upholding it. So, if the one party is smart and appeals it (why won't they?!) but loses the appeal, it becomes precedence. That, however, will set up exactly the issue I rose.
(although I wonder why you call it such an issue since all corporate IM servers support logging and archival and implementing that on other protocols is routine and trivial)
The tools necessary to do it may be trivial to some degree - it partially depends on the protocol being used - the largest concern would be the amount of space needed to store all of that data. Companies are already some what overwhelmed with trying to make sure they store the e-mail and similar data properly for the correct amount of time - and it costs a lot of money to do so. (Tapes/CD/DVDs/whatever is not cheap, and storing them is even less cheap.)
It would be a real stretch to apply this case as precedent for the purpose of proving that the laws regarding archiving electronic communication apply to IMs because most of the tests that generated this ruling would not apply to such a case. To wit, whereas it is clear that the defendant should reasonably have understood that propositioning a 13 year old girl over the internet was illegal, it is far less clear that a corporation should think that the lack of archival of chat traffic runs afoul of the law.
It would not be a stretch by any lawyers imagination. Once a precedence is set, it is set; and can be hard to overturn.
I am not saying that the "defendant should reasonably have understood that propositioning a 13 year old girl...was illegal" - it certainly is, and I do hate to see something like this. However, the judge should have been wiser in their ruling.
The difference between "email" and "instant messaging" is a technical one, not a difference of substance.
True - the difference is technical, however, that is still a very large difference. While I agree that the judge is correct from the substance point of view, the technical point of view makes it a far different matter with far different reaching consequences.
There are probably far more serious consequences of such a ruling too, and because of that Judges have to take into account both the substance/spirit AND the technical aspects of the laws they are ruling on. In this case, that technical aspect makes a major change in a lot of laws that affect pretty much every company all of Florida, if not the entirety of the United States as well.
Since judges can decide that 'e-mail' is vague enough to consider any and all forms of electronic message transmission covered by that term, somehow laws that specify 'e-mail' are somehow delegitimized?
I think you've painted yourself into a corner with that argument.
Actually, the stronger issue is that companies are required to maintain e-mail records for X number of years - in case of court cases, audits, etc. This ruling now makes companies accountable for maintaining IM traffic (and possibly other similar data) as well. THAT will be of grave issue.
Actually, Flash content can be completely 508-compliant... *if* designed properly.
Keyboard Nav and ScreenReader compatibility is present; it has to be factored into your Flash design work (just as with any other development environment)
Yes - the FAQ for Flash8/9 does support that. However, reading the release notes for the versions back through Flash6 reveals that screen readers were first supported in Flash6 - and even then only with a "Microsoft Active Accessibility-compatible screen reader", meaning that it is only available on Windows (even though Flash6 supported both Windows and Mac). There is no references in the release notes of 7, 8, or 9 as to any change in this status.
Thus, I will maintain my statement that by using Flash you are "alienat[ing] your users that require 508 compliance" - though I'll amend it to say: "unless they are using Flash6 or newer, and are running Microsoft Windows". There are a lot of people out there that do not run Windows and still require 508 Compliance.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, as noted by others, you may see a bit of a pay cut, but that depends on the kind of jobs you look at and how you play your experience. Technically - a lot of companies simply count a 4 year degree as 4 more years of experience; but they don't give you the pay grade for it. So, if you do go for the degree, make sure to keep up with the field you've been in for the last 15 years, and then market yourself into that field with the degree; then you should come out on top - assuming you kept up with it. (I.e. don't give up your day job.)
Hope that helps.
Wasn't there something out a little while back about CFL & Flourescents causing people to sleep less as the type of light emitted ends up alterating the body's sleep clock or something? I could be wrong, but I thought there was something. If so, won't this be a problem in addition to all the other stuff listed here?
HDTV won't make it; and no - I won't buy any damn converter to SD either. I'll simply turn off my TV if it comes to that. TV is not that important, especially with all the junk on it. For myself, I'll skip HD altogether and just go directly to a computer using a projector, which if you really wanted to get into it is a lot higher quality than any TV could ever be - but I really don't care - I just want the thing hidden in the wall with minimal equipment and hooked up only to my computer.
As to your "should raise a flag" arguments - I can say the same about you with how fanatic your about HD. You buy in to all the hype, and are more than happy to waste your money on it, give up the right to control it (HDCI, Broadcast Flag, DRM, etc.), and raise the bar of entry into the market for sending video content out to the average user. Canada is already on record as saying they won't do it (see Slashdot for that one - a while back, as far as a link goes); and it is just too costly - in terms of broadcasting, make-up, and all the other details they have to pay attention to now as well so those few who can tell the difference see it. In the mean time, I'll enjoy my cheaper version and have fun.
Also, I gave a range of TV sizes that are quite popular except at the high-end market; and my comment on my parent's B&W 13" is more or less to show how durable and usable the older technology is - I would much rather something that lasts for 30 years than something that breaks every 2 to 5.
Our real goal should be to have inflation and deflation in moderated levels to keep the monetary system under control, not keep the monetary system under control in order to control inflation and prevent deflation from happening.
HDTV will stand a chance when a low income worker (someone who makes $15000 US) can afford to by a decently sized set (15" to 27") one less than a paycheck (roughly $217 per week after taxes, assuming 25% taxes). Until then, analog is here to stay; even then, you still have the recording issues, which may push them away as well.
And no, this slashdotter does not spend a lot of money on technology ever year. I probably spent at most $1000 last year, but that mostly included DVDs and a TV. This year I expect to buy a Wii, and two laptops (the most I've spent on technology in years); and may be next year another desktop and possibly a server; most everything else will be small stuff that won't add up to much. Most people I know that are not techies spend even less, and upgrade their TVs only when they break - i.e. cost of repair is greater than cost of replacement - with the average TV being 5 to 10 years old or better.
For example, my parents still have a Philips 13" B&W TV from the early 70's. It works better than most newer TVs, and its picture (when fed a good signal) is extremely crisp and clear. They got it from my grand parents in the early 80's when their color TV failed, and since have had one or two other TVs. The only thing that will cause it to be replaced is HDTV, and even then one of the family will likely still keep it around. (We have replaced the antennae once or twice after it broke, but that's easily solvable using the extra inputs and adapters.)
BTW, according to the articles, Intel64 was suppose to start being available in Q4 of 2006. Don't know if they met that or not.
Of course, then there is the additional stuff from Microsoft that states: Which conflicts with Intel's FAQ (see above): Which leaves me to wonder how Microsoft is going to differentiate between IA64 (Itanium's architecture) and Intel64 if they are referencing IA64 by the name Intel64.
While I am not familiar with all the claims of how ID proves itself, I do know that there are similar issues with the so called science as well. Sometimes putting forth the assumptions of how even a single equation is used can make a big difference, and if scientists were willing to put forth their assumptions I am sure more progress could be made between the two camps as it is often those assumptions, or reasons for them, that the religious people are challenging (whether or not they realize that that is actually the case).
Science lost its scientific object decades ago when it declared all out that it will not seek facts objectively, but seek only facts that prove atheism true. Now, literally speaking that declaration was not literally made - but it is what the scientific community has done and said in their actions.
Science and faith need not be incompatible; but rather are not easily justifiable. As we may not understand where faith comes from, and be too prideful to admit what we do not know or what we want not to be true. As a result, we - humans - often seek out what we want to be true regardless of what the evidence before us may say, turning a blind eye to the evidence so as to prove what we want, and through group-think force the world to believe it.
Mind you, that what I just said applies to both sides of the issue.
The Virtual Console is perhaps the number one reason why I will be buying a Wii when I can. New games (ExciteTruck, etc.) are a secondary thought for me as I am more interested in the games that I could not buy when I was a kid, but will now be available on the Wii.
This market is far larger than what Microsoft or Sony could compete with, if they even could - fact is, they can't as their systems have not been around so long, and their games have been so large it would not be very easy to do. (1 CD or DVD compared to the few hundred kilobytes of the older Nintendo - even the N64 - consoles.)
However, as to your accusations: There is no contraction there. If you notice the tense of the verbs. In Genesis 2 it refers to the creation of the animals in the past tense. They are still perfectly in line with each other.
So? That has no impact on anything else.
The things of God are higher than ours, and in creation He can do what He wills. What sense does it need to make to us? For to a fool things appear foolish and so the fool believes not; but the wise may see the error of their ways and yet accept it on faith.
Whether or not to read a passage as literal, figurative, historical, etc. has been up to debate for thousands of years. Yet, many passages hold truths in all of the methods of readings, and context often shows certain passages to be purely figurative (e.g. the parables in the four gospels). However, with respect to this conversation, my point is that there are Christians that do read some passages (justly or not) as pure figurative, and in doing so with the respect to the Genesis account, there are certain things that we must admit - namely the existence of time gaps, which are often overlooked. By doing so, we can no longer claim a fixed age of the Earth itself, but only a fixed amount of time to a certain event (namely the Fall of Man) that occurs within the Biblical record. Whether or not you or anyone on Slashdot believes it, etc. is up to the reader.
Many assume science and Christian faith are incompatible. They are not. This is one area especially where they seem incompatible and many justify them by using the ideas of Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution, yet in doing so they break the Biblical record to do so. By admitting what is there that we do not usually see (e.g. time gaps), a lot of things can fall into place. That does not mean that science is 100% correct (it has many assumptions that are not admitted), but neither is a belief in faith that does not admit its assumptions either.
A lot of Christians will say the Earth is 6,000 years old based on the ages and the assumption that Adam's age was from his creation in Genesis 1 & 2 and not from the Fall of Man in Genesis 3. Since there is a time gap of unknown length between Genesis 2 & Genesis 3, this assumption can be either correct or incorrect.
What can be considered Biblically correct is that there have been roughly 6,000 years since the Fall of Man in Genesis 3. Of course, you also have to consider that the years recorded Biblically are 360 day years, not 365 day years. From my own calculations, it falls around 5600 to 5700 years at present (it's been a while since I did the calculations).
However, that the above does not negate Creationism. It does, however, admit that the Earth itself is of unknown age. For all we know Adam & Eve (and any kids they may have had prior to the Fall of Man, which is possible Biblically) could have lived in the Garden of Eden for millennia or just a few days. Fact of the matter is, we don't know the true age, but we do know that it has been roughly 6,000 years since Adam & Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.
Assuming Astronomers are correct about this, then there could be one of two significant things going on: (1) Assuming the original posters timeline, it could correlate to the Fall of Man; or (2) Assuming another poster's statement of "it was 1000 to 2000 years ago" it could be the turn from BC to AD & possibly correlate to the events in Matthew through John, more specifically the death of Christ on the cross. Now this is just speculation and could be way off.
Or here's an idea - get DARPA funding to build a replicator and de-replicator. The replicator is added to the esophagus so that nutrients can be given to people (soldiers) on scheduled intervals. This would cut down on the need to supply/prepare/cook food for the armies. Then the de-replicator would be added to the anus and urinary tracks, converting the excrements back to energy, which is then used by the replicator to produce the nutrients, creating a cyclic cycle and relieving the need to have waste facilities. People with such systems could go decades without eating. Don't forget to credit Star Trek as prior art when filing the patents.
The nice thing about non-VM/JIT languages is that you get the optimization at compile time and can get as deep as you like, which is of no concern to the end-user as the program is not being compiled on the fly (JIT or otherwise) for the user so the program will be consistent in speed all the time, not just after a few minutes while it compiles itself or after enough time that it has had the ability to optimize itself for your current use, which could be erratic enough as to worsen the overall use of the program depending on your use of the program.
VM's & JIT languages, OTOH, suffer performance when they are compiled or optimized. If the optimization is at compile time, then it takes that much longer for the user to be able to run that part of the program. Sure the user may not hit it often, but it hurts that much more when they do. Alternatively, the program will gradually increase in optimization as the program runs, thus it will take a long time (cycle wise at the very least) for the program to run at its peak. Sure, the program comes up, but the user will have to wait for the unoptimized program to be optimized before getting the true experience of the program - if they ever really use it long enough, which they might not; and if their usage is erratic enough while running the program (e.g. not performing the same tasks enough) then the program will remain in a degraded performance all the time. In either case, you will likely turn users away from the program because it will seem sluggish at best for a while when compared to a pre-compiled, pre-optimized program that just starts and runs full-blast.
I'll take Ada, Cobol, Pascal, Modulus, D, C, C++, ObjC, and others over
Personally, I hope they release it a lot quicker and not necessarily do any changes to it. Hopefully any emulator/hardware in the Wii can be programmed to mitigate the differences easily enough. I don't need anything new in it (I'd love to have the original ExciteBike, for example, and be able to play it on the Wii, or Zelda, or Sonic series, etc.) - the game itself would likely be enough. Of course, they could release the original as the 'classic' and then come out a while later with an 'update for Wii' version and sell it twice to the people that really wanted to have it new and updated. But any how...we'll see how they do it and what they actually do release. It'll be interesting needless to say.
The Wii was made to reach all gamers, and be good enough for the hard core games but not with top notch specs. They're pulling from their backlog (which as registered will be larger than PS+PS2+PS3+xBox+xBox360 combined as, if I remember the statements right, they could release titles daily and go on for a century and still have titles to release) and adding new stuff that is truly innovative, fun, and entertaining.
I'll get a Wii - heck, even my wife wants to get me one so that we can play it together and have a lot of fun. We've been playing my old 2nd generation NES (the SNES form-factor styled NES) for quite a while now and love it. And with titles like ExciteTruck and and backwards compatibility, I'm all for the Wii.
So if anyone ever wonders why Wii is being thought to be in 1st place - it's because Nintendo did the job, and did it right. They remembered who their real market was and made a product for that market. Finally - the world can have fun gaming again, and it won't be on a PS3 or xBox 360.
While this system provides an ability for a single node or account to be compromised, the integrity of the system as a whole - all the other nodes and accounts - are safe. It would take a tremendous amount of work to compromise the entire system. So this design is, for the entire system, a lot safer and smarter.
(Trusted Computing has the same kind of issue as one the hardware key is cracked, anything can happen. Their goal was to make it difficult to do, but each system is identifiable by only a single, unchangeable key that is locked in the hardware; so once it is cracked, anything the system used that key for is compromised. Thus, Trusted Computing fails even there; though it fails for other reasons too.)
True - it may only apply to Florida at present; however, that does not keep it so. The US legal system, however, draws from all states in the formation of the laws with regards to precedence, so there is no stopping a lawyer, in say NY, from citing the case and arguing on it for such a use.
True - it is not automatic completely; that does not mean, however, that companies that here this won't assume it, especially within the boundaries of Florida where it is more likely to be substantiated, in order to keep from it being an issue should someone try to argue it.
True also that it usually must be upheld twice to truly set precedence. However, that second ruling could be as simple as an appeal not overturning it, thus upholding it. So, if the one party is smart and appeals it (why won't they?!) but loses the appeal, it becomes precedence. That, however, will set up exactly the issue I rose.
The tools necessary to do it may be trivial to some degree - it partially depends on the protocol being used - the largest concern would be the amount of space needed to store all of that data. Companies are already some what overwhelmed with trying to make sure they store the e-mail and similar data properly for the correct amount of time - and it costs a lot of money to do so. (Tapes/CD/DVDs/whatever is not cheap, and storing them is even less cheap.)
It would not be a stretch by any lawyers imagination. Once a precedence is set, it is set; and can be hard to overturn.
I am not saying that the "defendant should reasonably have understood that propositioning a 13 year old girl...was illegal" - it certainly is, and I do hate to see something like this. However, the judge should have been wiser in their ruling.
For example - see my other post.
There are probably far more serious consequences of such a ruling too, and because of that Judges have to take into account both the substance/spirit AND the technical aspects of the laws they are ruling on. In this case, that technical aspect makes a major change in a lot of laws that affect pretty much every company all of Florida, if not the entirety of the United States as well.
Thus, I will maintain my statement that by using Flash you are "alienat[ing] your users that require 508 compliance" - though I'll amend it to say: "unless they are using Flash6 or newer, and are running Microsoft Windows". There are a lot of people out there that do not run Windows and still require 508 Compliance.