Airliners pretty much since the jet age have had at least some measure of "envelope protection". In the 60s this was pretty simple - just a stick pusher to prevent stalls since stalls in many airliners can easily become unrecoverable. Airbus's envelope protection is much more sophisticated than just a stick pusher.
However when there's a systems failure the Airbus systems will automatically drop to a different control law that effectively works like basic stick and rudder flying.
So if the system is working perfectly fine, but the pilot wants to do something that the system thinks the pilot shouldn't do, then who gets to determine the end result? What if doing what the system wanted to do would lead to the system having an issue? Or if the system did not detect that one of its sensors (and the backups) had degraded because they all failed the same way?
There are a million scenarios where the system thinks it is right and the pilot knows the system is wrong but needs to do something else. Time matters in all scenarios where the plane may be in trouble.
Boeing uses fly by wire now too by the way.
Beoing may be fly-by-wire, but there is a difference between fly-by-wire and pilot vs computer being in control. You can design fly-by-wire such that the pilot still has the last say in the matter without having to have the system enter into a degraded mode first.
I know both SAS and R, and I think that for people who've never programmed, the GUI-based version of SAS wins on end-user usability because end-users can click together (simple and limited) analyses on really big datasets. This has far-reaching consequences for the learning curve.
For R there exist attempts at GUI's (like e.g. R-commander) that offer point-and-click functionality but they're more sketchy.
Others have mentioned Rstudio, and that looks like it would fit the bill just fine for those users from a cursory glance; and if they could drop the money on SAS they could certainly drop the money for commercial versions of RStudio and get the extra help.
I think that giving non-programmers access to R will result in a flood of help requests because they really do need some notion of programming to use the R language. With SAS that's more in the background because the GUI tool is relatively well done, and use of the butt-ugly, antiquated and clumsy mainframe-style SAS language can usually be avoided.
Never touched that version. I only had a single desktop license for the small company that I worked at. We had it b/c the guy I replaced knew SAS very well and sold the management on it. Management just wanted the functionality; they didn't care and had the money to spare.
I think that statisticians, real analysts and data-scientists will soon feel constrained by SAS and will prefer to use SAS to prepare a dataset for analysis, and then carry out any actual analysis in R.
If they're feeling constrained, then they'll be looking for better tools. And more likely than not, if they can do it SAS they can do it in R too. So why have two tools when you only need one?
Last but not least, R is still an in-memory analysis program, which practically limits analyses to what you can be fit in core. There are packages that try to extend R in this direction, but I consider them to be poor quality and cumbersome.
Good to know; but that will probably change as things grow. I know SAS is really good at Flat File databases, but not much more; it probably has some similar constraints.
Python on the other hand is aimed squarely at programmers, and nobody else.
R has an excellent gui in RSTudio: www.rstudio.com I would recommend it as a much better interface to R.
Looking at that website and seeing their prices they are almost certainly aiming to compete with SAS and using an Open Source product to boot. Good for them!
KDE and Qt are synonymous with C++. They prove that C++ is the best language around, because the best apps and GUI frameworks around are built using C++. KDE 5 is fast, it's stable, and it just plain great software to use, all thanks to C++.
Then there's Gnome. They're still pissing around with C, JavaScript, and their homegrown Vala poopfest. And Gnome is a total disaster these days! That's what happens when you use inferior languages instead of a professional language like C++. C++ means your code is good, which means that your libraries and apps are good. Other languages mean that your code is bad, which means that your libraries and apps are bad.
There's one lesson here and that is to use C++ if you want to have the greatest software known to humankind. C++ is where it's at, baby!
Just be aware that a Plasma takes advantage of a lot of QML usage - e.g JavaScript. But yes, C++ plus Qt is a phenominal experience.
Ah yes, the user is wrong. Well, do as you see fit anyway, this discussion would have been useful a couple of years ago. Your side with the 'user is always wrong, lets change it anyway' has won, and now KDE (and also Gnome, with the exact same reasoning) has become irrelevant for all but a handful of users (actually, I am one of these users that still uses KDE 4 daily, mostly because kioslaves is great). Hope you enjoy your victory!
If that's the case, then why is everone - Apple and Microsoft included - copying what KDE did in KDE4? KDE is still extremely relevant and really on the forefront of the tech.
On top of that, they're still the only ones that have targetted multiple kinds of devices with a unified programming experience and able to deliver customized UIs for each device type (e.g. netbook vs desktop vs tablet...)
The TSA is probably thinking that if the battery in your gadget doesn't work, it might not actually be a battery...so, just to be on the safe side....
Most likely, this is tied to the announcement of the discovery of explosives that don't trigger the standard explosive detectors. So the battery really could be a bomb.
More likely than not they were just reviewing the laws and regulations already on the books and found this one and decided to start enforcing it.
There is nothing new about this - it has been on the books for decades.
So the thing is... this isn't really new. I can remember back long before there even WAS a TSA, back when laptops were the hot new portable device . . . And security would often ask you to power it on. And if its battery was dead, you could plug it in first. I agree it can be a bit of a problem because batteries often get used up in the course of travel, and I'd be interested to see how security actually handles it. I traveled just a few days ago, and they certainly weren't requiring EVERY passenger to demonstrate their devices.
Also: When first going through security, I very rarely have a problem with my phone being dead because, you know, I'm just STARTING to travel, not after a long day of it. (Although I won't say never. It has happened)
When the instruments are gone (somehow), the pilot would certainly rather have windows than not. It provides a very good chance of survivability where no windows means practically no chance.
I'm not getting on a plane that has no backup plan.
so you won't get on an Airbus already?
Seriously, Airbus designs their planes so that the computers override the pilots. If the pilot wants to do something that the computer doesn't think they should do, then they have to enter override codes to be allowed to do so - which means, in an emergency, that the pilots have to spend precious time overriding the computer to resolve the emergency.
So honestly this is no surprise from Airbus; just a natural evolution of their already computer controlled systems with people as a secondary system.
Slightly different beasts I think. R is a really impressive analysis tool. Python is a scripting language. The latter is quite a bit more versatile, but... probably isn't the right tool to solve the problem outlined in the OP.
However, his question was related to coming from SAS. SAS Scripting is not a general language eithers; it very much like using GNU Octave, Mathamatica, Matlab, and R - able to do some general things (open/read/write/close files) but is generally very data set oriented. So R is very much a suitable replacement.
The cost of training them to use R will be signifantly cheaper than what you are spending on the SAS licenses
And yes, while I have not used R myself, I would certainly recommend it over Python for this use case
So not having used R yourself, why do you believe it is the better and cheaper solution?
B/c I don't do much in data modeling and working with that kind of data. The SAS scripts I wrote were over 10 years ago (2002). R isn't that old. I had one time which it might have (last summer), but then forgot about it. But for me that's 1 time in >10 years. If I needed to get into doing the stuff I did with SAS again, then yes I'd be looking at using R; but that's unlikely for me.
And yes, I have seen others use it so I know how much easier it would be for me to get into using R than updating myself on SAS and getting back into that.
The real question is: should the court order such an action, and under what conditions?
Analogy alert: GS mistakenly sends me a letter by physical mail, then asks the post office (or asks a judge to order the post office) to send a mailman round, break into my house, and retrieve the letter. That clearly won't happen; worst case is that the judge would order me to surrender the letter. In case of email, is Google (under their terms & conditions and the letter of the law) allowed to "break into" my mailbox and remove the offending letter? And should they be?
You analogy would be better if the mail had been left in the mailbox, which is regulated by the USPS and Federal Law, and which the postman has rights to access.
So it would be more like:
GS sends you a letter by mistake. They get a court order to order the USPS to remove it from the mailbox that they put in it, which happens to be yours. The postman then looks at the contents of the mailbox, verifies it is still there, and then removes it, sending it back to the sender or as otherwise directed by the courts. If, however, you checked your mail and took the mail out and into your house, then there is nothing for the USPS to do - it is no longer in the mailbox. If, however, you keep all your mail in your mailbox then the USPS would be within their ability to remove it from the mailbox.
So, to keep all your e-mail on Google's servers (or any ISPs servers) opens up the opportunity for this to happen. To keep the opportunity from happening then you need to download your e-mail from anyone else's servers and store it locally, deleting it from the providers servers after you have your local copy.
Alternatively, you can rent your own server and host your own e-mail server; but then you get into another situation in which the service you are renting from may be required by the courts to turn over the server to the courts, or get shutdown and you've now lost everything except what you had backups for. And yes, that has happened where the FBI shutdown a hosting provider and took all the servers in order to get to one of their clients; everyone else was screwed for a while.
That will be the last time I fly commercial. The LAST thing I want to do is be couped up in an aluminum can for 1+ hours listening to half of other people's mindless drivel conversations on their phones. It's already bad enough the second the plane hits the runway on landing everyone pulls out their phones to call people. And they don't just have the "ok we just landed I'll meet you out front in 20 minutes" short talk. - No it turns into long drawn out annoying conversations hat CERTAINLY can wait until they are off the plane to have.
In-flight phones in the back of the seat have been available for years. Were in-flight calls a problem for other passengers, you'd think we would have realized it by now.
Those phones were also largely ignored because of the expense. Of course, they didn't necessarily communicate to the cell towers like your phone does either - they probably went through the plane's standard communications mechanisms (f.e sat-com, etc.) and then got routed out to a phone system on the ground.
That will be the last time I fly commercial. The LAST thing I want to do is be couped up in an aluminum can for 1+ hours listening to half of other people's mindless drivel conversations on their phones. It's already bad enough the second the plane hits the runway on landing everyone pulls out their phones to call people. And they don't just have the "ok we just landed I'll meet you out front in 20 minutes" short talk. - No it turns into long drawn out annoying conversations hat CERTAINLY can wait until they are off the plane to have.
The cost of training them to use R will be signifantly cheaper than what you are spending on the SAS licenses, which (last I knew) was a yearly purchase for each user.
And yes, while I have not used R myself, I would certainly recommend it over Python for this use case as it is very dedicated to doing the kinds of things that SAS is good at in a very efficient, friendly manner. I've seen a number of people use it to do some very neat statistical analysis, and their stuff was a lot simpler than the SAS scripts that I use to write years back.
I think the gp is thinking of large loaded trucks that have to go through a few gears just to make it through the intersection and might leave the intersection at 10-15 MPH. These trucks also usually try to avoid actually stopping when approaching the intersection, rather slowing down to a couple of MPH
Yes, and they will often blow the horn signaling that they are going to run the red light because they may not be able to stop in time either.
That said, even when driving a car, I find the counters very useful to help determine from the cross direction (e.g the direction already with the green light) when the light may change when I'm a good distance off. Sometimes they're very good predictors of the light about to go yellow so I can slow down instead.
Making them unreadable will have a great unintended consequence of pedestrians - especially smaller folks and children - unable to read them at all - you know, the very people they were put there to help protect.
This hole is easily found and defeated, provided you have two independent compilers. You don't actually have to trust either, only that they aren't jiggered in the same way.
Say you suspect compiler A. Take its source (A') and compile it with compilers A and B. Let's call the results A(A') and B(A'). Since A and B doubtless do different things, there's likely to be a whole lot of differences, so you won't be able to tell if there's a backdoor in A, although if there is it will be in A(A') and not B(A').
Thing is, since A' is the source for a compiler, A(A') and B(A') are compilers, and since both A and B compile the same language they should do the same thing, agreeing with the language semantics of A' - assuming, of course, that there's nothing underhanded going on. Therefore, we can use these newly compiled compilers to compile A', getting (A(A'))A' and (B(A'))A'. These should be identical, since they were compiled by compilers that ostensibly do the same thing. If they're not, you've found a problem, and you can use (B(A'))A' instead of A in the future.
IIRC per bulding GCC, I believe GCC does some of that as part of its build process - it builds a version of itself to build itself so the executable you finally get is built by itself not the system compiler. It's been a while, but I believe its doing that even if you are not doing cross-platform builds.
Sure you don't have a second compiler to compare against, but it's a pretty good guarantee that the compiler is what the code said it is.
My read of this is that they applied as a charity, but the IRS's definition of a charity requires that you be serving a distinct, disadvantaged group of people. A quick look at the software that Yorba produces (http://yorba.org), does not lead me to believe that their software would particularly benefit any specific disadvantaged groups more than other people.
So by the rules that the IRS is working on, it does appear that they do not qualify as a charity. And to be honest, this is a correct definition, they are not running a charity. Now there is a valid question about whether there should be a method for them to run a non-profit without being taxes, but they are not a charity.
There are many kinds of Charitable organizations. But 501(c)3 does not necessarily mean a Charity as you describe, though it does allow you to take donations.
Most of the 501(c) organizations are pretty specific in what they may serve; 501(c)3 is the exception in that it is a lot more general.
The Wikipedia Article on 501(c) organizations is actually pretty good. Of course, you can also go directly to the IRS information too, but I find the Wikipedia article to be easier to read.
And this is why we need Namecoin and other decentralized DNS solutions to take such matters out of the hands of the lawmakers.
http://namecoin.info/
It won't take it out of the hands of lawmakers. It may make it harder to regulate, but they'll find a way - even if it is requiring all ISPs and Back bone providers to block it.
It's naive to think that just because its decentralized it is beyond the reach of government (or even corporations for that matter).
Speaking scientifically, NOBODY understands nonlinear systems with moderate amounts of feedback, as soon as you have about 10 or more nonlinear elements (e.g. transistors).
BRAINS are 100 BILLION non-linear elements with even more feedback links (something like 10000 per Neuron). So, speaking as an electrical engineer or as a mathematician, this is a completely opaque system.
Now, put a few billions of these systems on a planet, have them interact and then make some wild mathematical claims about their "rational" behaviour. THAT is Economics.
Auf Deutsch. Hokus-Pokus "science".
There's a reason that there is no Nobel prize for Economics....and it's that it's not a recognized science.
Can you spend the company money on whatever you want, like a new house or a boat for yourself? No. That's embezzlement. The money belongs to the company until it is paid out to you. You may be able to make that decision, but the company exists as a separate entity from you for legal and tax purposes. That separate entity doesn't have a religion any more than it has a favorite color. It is not a person.
Legal purposes yes; tax purposes...well, depends on the kind of company. Many LLCs and partner based companies can simply have their taxes split among the owners and filed with the owners personal returns. This is especially true when you have a single-owner LLC, or just a few partners in the partnership because it's easier to do than filing the entity on its own. My wife (a CPA) opts to file my LLC with our personal taxes for that reason. So it's a legal benefit for the time being more than a tax benefit (though we do get some tax benefits for it too).
The SCOTUS ruling applying to corporations such as mine where the owners and the corporate entity are nearly indistiguishable applies to these exact cases - which make up a good majority of the businesses in the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not how it works at all.
Airliners pretty much since the jet age have had at least some measure of "envelope protection". In the 60s this was pretty simple - just a stick pusher to prevent stalls since stalls in many airliners can easily become unrecoverable. Airbus's envelope protection is much more sophisticated than just a stick pusher.
However when there's a systems failure the Airbus systems will automatically drop to a different control law that effectively works like basic stick and rudder flying.
So if the system is working perfectly fine, but the pilot wants to do something that the system thinks the pilot shouldn't do, then who gets to determine the end result? What if doing what the system wanted to do would lead to the system having an issue? Or if the system did not detect that one of its sensors (and the backups) had degraded because they all failed the same way?
There are a million scenarios where the system thinks it is right and the pilot knows the system is wrong but needs to do something else. Time matters in all scenarios where the plane may be in trouble.
Boeing uses fly by wire now too by the way.
Beoing may be fly-by-wire, but there is a difference between fly-by-wire and pilot vs computer being in control. You can design fly-by-wire such that the pilot still has the last say in the matter without having to have the system enter into a degraded mode first.
I know both SAS and R, and I think that for people who've never programmed, the GUI-based version of SAS wins on end-user usability because end-users can click together (simple and limited) analyses on really big datasets. This has far-reaching consequences for the learning curve.
For R there exist attempts at GUI's (like e.g. R-commander) that offer point-and-click functionality but they're more sketchy.
Others have mentioned Rstudio, and that looks like it would fit the bill just fine for those users from a cursory glance; and if they could drop the money on SAS they could certainly drop the money for commercial versions of RStudio and get the extra help.
I think that giving non-programmers access to R will result in a flood of help requests because they really do need some notion of programming to use the R language. With SAS that's more in the background because the GUI tool is relatively well done, and use of the butt-ugly, antiquated and clumsy mainframe-style SAS language can usually be avoided.
Never touched that version. I only had a single desktop license for the small company that I worked at. We had it b/c the guy I replaced knew SAS very well and sold the management on it. Management just wanted the functionality; they didn't care and had the money to spare.
I think that statisticians, real analysts and data-scientists will soon feel constrained by SAS and will prefer to use SAS to prepare a dataset for analysis, and then carry out any actual analysis in R.
If they're feeling constrained, then they'll be looking for better tools. And more likely than not, if they can do it SAS they can do it in R too. So why have two tools when you only need one?
Last but not least, R is still an in-memory analysis program, which practically limits analyses to what you can be fit in core. There are packages that try to extend R in this direction, but I consider them to be poor quality and cumbersome.
Good to know; but that will probably change as things grow. I know SAS is really good at Flat File databases, but not much more; it probably has some similar constraints.
Python on the other hand is aimed squarely at programmers, and nobody else.
Very true, and I never said otherwise.
R has an excellent gui in RSTudio: www.rstudio.com I would recommend it as a much better interface to R.
Looking at that website and seeing their prices they are almost certainly aiming to compete with SAS and using an Open Source product to boot. Good for them!
KDE and Qt are synonymous with C++. They prove that C++ is the best language around, because the best apps and GUI frameworks around are built using C++. KDE 5 is fast, it's stable, and it just plain great software to use, all thanks to C++.
Then there's Gnome. They're still pissing around with C, JavaScript, and their homegrown Vala poopfest. And Gnome is a total disaster these days! That's what happens when you use inferior languages instead of a professional language like C++. C++ means your code is good, which means that your libraries and apps are good. Other languages mean that your code is bad, which means that your libraries and apps are bad.
There's one lesson here and that is to use C++ if you want to have the greatest software known to humankind. C++ is where it's at, baby!
Just be aware that a Plasma takes advantage of a lot of QML usage - e.g JavaScript. But yes, C++ plus Qt is a phenominal experience.
Ah yes, the user is wrong. Well, do as you see fit anyway, this discussion would have been useful a couple of years ago. Your side with the 'user is always wrong, lets change it anyway' has won, and now KDE (and also Gnome, with the exact same reasoning) has become irrelevant for all but a handful of users (actually, I am one of these users that still uses KDE 4 daily, mostly because kioslaves is great). Hope you enjoy your victory!
If that's the case, then why is everone - Apple and Microsoft included - copying what KDE did in KDE4? KDE is still extremely relevant and really on the forefront of the tech.
On top of that, they're still the only ones that have targetted multiple kinds of devices with a unified programming experience and able to deliver customized UIs for each device type (e.g. netbook vs desktop vs tablet...)
Most likely, this is tied to the announcement of the discovery of explosives that don't trigger the standard explosive detectors. So the battery really could be a bomb.
More likely than not they were just reviewing the laws and regulations already on the books and found this one and decided to start enforcing it.
There is nothing new about this - it has been on the books for decades.
So the thing is... this isn't really new. I can remember back long before there even WAS a TSA, back when laptops were the hot new portable device . . . And security would often ask you to power it on. And if its battery was dead, you could plug it in first. I agree it can be a bit of a problem because batteries often get used up in the course of travel, and I'd be interested to see how security actually handles it. I traveled just a few days ago, and they certainly weren't requiring EVERY passenger to demonstrate their devices. Also: When first going through security, I very rarely have a problem with my phone being dead because, you know, I'm just STARTING to travel, not after a long day of it. (Although I won't say never. It has happened)
Mod parent up as informative!
When the instruments are gone (somehow), the pilot would certainly rather have windows than not. It provides a very good chance of survivability where no windows means practically no chance.
I'm not getting on a plane that has no backup plan.
so you won't get on an Airbus already?
Seriously, Airbus designs their planes so that the computers override the pilots. If the pilot wants to do something that the computer doesn't think they should do, then they have to enter override codes to be allowed to do so - which means, in an emergency, that the pilots have to spend precious time overriding the computer to resolve the emergency.
So honestly this is no surprise from Airbus; just a natural evolution of their already computer controlled systems with people as a secondary system.
They also look out the window to realize when the instruments are wrong. As didn't really happen with the South Korean plane crash at SFO.
No the instruments were right in that case; the pilots failed to use them properly.
Slightly different beasts I think. R is a really impressive analysis tool. Python is a scripting language. The latter is quite a bit more versatile, but ... probably isn't the right tool to solve the problem outlined in the OP.
However, his question was related to coming from SAS. SAS Scripting is not a general language eithers; it very much like using GNU Octave, Mathamatica, Matlab, and R - able to do some general things (open/read/write/close files) but is generally very data set oriented. So R is very much a suitable replacement.
The cost of training them to use R will be signifantly cheaper than what you are spending on the SAS licenses And yes, while I have not used R myself, I would certainly recommend it over Python for this use case
So not having used R yourself, why do you believe it is the better and cheaper solution?
B/c I don't do much in data modeling and working with that kind of data. The SAS scripts I wrote were over 10 years ago (2002). R isn't that old. I had one time which it might have (last summer), but then forgot about it. But for me that's 1 time in >10 years. If I needed to get into doing the stuff I did with SAS again, then yes I'd be looking at using R; but that's unlikely for me.
And yes, I have seen others use it so I know how much easier it would be for me to get into using R than updating myself on SAS and getting back into that.
It's not even that. The military is getting their budget cut the same as every other government agency. A more accurate statement would be:
"Still, I guess there are budget hawks who need to get re-elected, so something had to give."
Well that is not fair, the military's budget is so colossal that they should be cut at a much higher rate than everything else.
The militar budget is a very small fraction of the entire budget - something like 4%.
If you want to talk about colossal budgets then look at entitlements - Healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc - which compromise over 50%.
The real question is: should the court order such an action, and under what conditions? Analogy alert: GS mistakenly sends me a letter by physical mail, then asks the post office (or asks a judge to order the post office) to send a mailman round, break into my house, and retrieve the letter. That clearly won't happen; worst case is that the judge would order me to surrender the letter. In case of email, is Google (under their terms & conditions and the letter of the law) allowed to "break into" my mailbox and remove the offending letter? And should they be?
You analogy would be better if the mail had been left in the mailbox, which is regulated by the USPS and Federal Law, and which the postman has rights to access.
So it would be more like:
GS sends you a letter by mistake. They get a court order to order the USPS to remove it from the mailbox that they put in it, which happens to be yours. The postman then looks at the contents of the mailbox, verifies it is still there, and then removes it, sending it back to the sender or as otherwise directed by the courts. If, however, you checked your mail and took the mail out and into your house, then there is nothing for the USPS to do - it is no longer in the mailbox. If, however, you keep all your mail in your mailbox then the USPS would be within their ability to remove it from the mailbox.
So, to keep all your e-mail on Google's servers (or any ISPs servers) opens up the opportunity for this to happen. To keep the opportunity from happening then you need to download your e-mail from anyone else's servers and store it locally, deleting it from the providers servers after you have your local copy.
Alternatively, you can rent your own server and host your own e-mail server; but then you get into another situation in which the service you are renting from may be required by the courts to turn over the server to the courts, or get shutdown and you've now lost everything except what you had backups for. And yes, that has happened where the FBI shutdown a hosting provider and took all the servers in order to get to one of their clients; everyone else was screwed for a while.
That will be the last time I fly commercial. The LAST thing I want to do is be couped up in an aluminum can for 1+ hours listening to half of other people's mindless drivel conversations on their phones. It's already bad enough the second the plane hits the runway on landing everyone pulls out their phones to call people. And they don't just have the "ok we just landed I'll meet you out front in 20 minutes" short talk. - No it turns into long drawn out annoying conversations hat CERTAINLY can wait until they are off the plane to have.
In-flight phones in the back of the seat have been available for years. Were in-flight calls a problem for other passengers, you'd think we would have realized it by now.
Those phones were also largely ignored because of the expense. Of course, they didn't necessarily communicate to the cell towers like your phone does either - they probably went through the plane's standard communications mechanisms (f.e sat-com, etc.) and then got routed out to a phone system on the ground.
That will be the last time I fly commercial. The LAST thing I want to do is be couped up in an aluminum can for 1+ hours listening to half of other people's mindless drivel conversations on their phones. It's already bad enough the second the plane hits the runway on landing everyone pulls out their phones to call people. And they don't just have the "ok we just landed I'll meet you out front in 20 minutes" short talk. - No it turns into long drawn out annoying conversations hat CERTAINLY can wait until they are off the plane to have.
TSA is nearly enough for me to do that already.
The cost of training them to use R will be signifantly cheaper than what you are spending on the SAS licenses, which (last I knew) was a yearly purchase for each user.
And yes, while I have not used R myself, I would certainly recommend it over Python for this use case as it is very dedicated to doing the kinds of things that SAS is good at in a very efficient, friendly manner. I've seen a number of people use it to do some very neat statistical analysis, and their stuff was a lot simpler than the SAS scripts that I use to write years back.
I think the gp is thinking of large loaded trucks that have to go through a few gears just to make it through the intersection and might leave the intersection at 10-15 MPH. These trucks also usually try to avoid actually stopping when approaching the intersection, rather slowing down to a couple of MPH
Yes, and they will often blow the horn signaling that they are going to run the red light because they may not be able to stop in time either.
That said, even when driving a car, I find the counters very useful to help determine from the cross direction (e.g the direction already with the green light) when the light may change when I'm a good distance off. Sometimes they're very good predictors of the light about to go yellow so I can slow down instead.
Making them unreadable will have a great unintended consequence of pedestrians - especially smaller folks and children - unable to read them at all - you know, the very people they were put there to help protect.
This hole is easily found and defeated, provided you have two independent compilers. You don't actually have to trust either, only that they aren't jiggered in the same way.
Say you suspect compiler A. Take its source (A') and compile it with compilers A and B. Let's call the results A(A') and B(A'). Since A and B doubtless do different things, there's likely to be a whole lot of differences, so you won't be able to tell if there's a backdoor in A, although if there is it will be in A(A') and not B(A').
Thing is, since A' is the source for a compiler, A(A') and B(A') are compilers, and since both A and B compile the same language they should do the same thing, agreeing with the language semantics of A' - assuming, of course, that there's nothing underhanded going on. Therefore, we can use these newly compiled compilers to compile A', getting (A(A'))A' and (B(A'))A'. These should be identical, since they were compiled by compilers that ostensibly do the same thing. If they're not, you've found a problem, and you can use (B(A'))A' instead of A in the future.
IIRC per bulding GCC, I believe GCC does some of that as part of its build process - it builds a version of itself to build itself so the executable you finally get is built by itself not the system compiler. It's been a while, but I believe its doing that even if you are not doing cross-platform builds.
Sure you don't have a second compiler to compare against, but it's a pretty good guarantee that the compiler is what the code said it is.
Seems the stance changed/clarified since I last read up on it... http://www.slashgear.com/hp-wi...
My read of this is that they applied as a charity, but the IRS's definition of a charity requires that you be serving a distinct, disadvantaged group of people. A quick look at the software that Yorba produces (http://yorba.org), does not lead me to believe that their software would particularly benefit any specific disadvantaged groups more than other people.
So by the rules that the IRS is working on, it does appear that they do not qualify as a charity. And to be honest, this is a correct definition, they are not running a charity. Now there is a valid question about whether there should be a method for them to run a non-profit without being taxes, but they are not a charity.
There are many kinds of Charitable organizations. But 501(c)3 does not necessarily mean a Charity as you describe, though it does allow you to take donations. Most of the 501(c) organizations are pretty specific in what they may serve; 501(c)3 is the exception in that it is a lot more general.
The Wikipedia Article on 501(c) organizations is actually pretty good. Of course, you can also go directly to the IRS information too, but I find the Wikipedia article to be easier to read.
And this is why we need Namecoin and other decentralized DNS solutions to take such matters out of the hands of the lawmakers.
http://namecoin.info/
It won't take it out of the hands of lawmakers. It may make it harder to regulate, but they'll find a way - even if it is requiring all ISPs and Back bone providers to block it.
It's naive to think that just because its decentralized it is beyond the reach of government (or even corporations for that matter).
That's us, the potato of evil.
The potato of evil eyes
It should be noted the the Nobel prize in economics was invented by a bunch of economists that thought such a thing should exist.
It is separate from the other Nobels. Sharing only a name. Administratively it is run by an independent group.
To their credit: Sociologists, Psychologists, Astrologers and other 'scientists' haven't funded their own Nobels...yet.
It is also not officially a Nobel prize.
Speaking scientifically, NOBODY understands nonlinear systems with moderate amounts of feedback, as soon as you have about 10 or more nonlinear elements (e.g. transistors). BRAINS are 100 BILLION non-linear elements with even more feedback links (something like 10000 per Neuron). So, speaking as an electrical engineer or as a mathematician, this is a completely opaque system.
Now, put a few billions of these systems on a planet, have them interact and then make some wild mathematical claims about their "rational" behaviour. THAT is Economics.
Auf Deutsch. Hokus-Pokus "science".
There's a reason that there is no Nobel prize for Economics....and it's that it's not a recognized science.
Can you spend the company money on whatever you want, like a new house or a boat for yourself? No. That's embezzlement. The money belongs to the company until it is paid out to you. You may be able to make that decision, but the company exists as a separate entity from you for legal and tax purposes. That separate entity doesn't have a religion any more than it has a favorite color. It is not a person.
Legal purposes yes; tax purposes...well, depends on the kind of company. Many LLCs and partner based companies can simply have their taxes split among the owners and filed with the owners personal returns. This is especially true when you have a single-owner LLC, or just a few partners in the partnership because it's easier to do than filing the entity on its own. My wife (a CPA) opts to file my LLC with our personal taxes for that reason. So it's a legal benefit for the time being more than a tax benefit (though we do get some tax benefits for it too).
The SCOTUS ruling applying to corporations such as mine where the owners and the corporate entity are nearly indistiguishable applies to these exact cases - which make up a good majority of the businesses in the USA.