How hot is it? One of the things I hate about halogens is their waste heat. The power supply for a small flourescent still heats up noticeably.
I've been hoping for something like this for smallscale studio photography. Add a small control to adjust the ratio between amber and "white", and a small diffuser screen, and it'd be great as a replacement for a macro softbox.
If the cops told you specifically: hey, make a u-turn, that would be entrapment. The cops aren't telling you to break the law. They're not even suggesting it. It's a common and predictable idea that many people think of, but most people will obey the law even after getting an idea. If you can't control your impulses to stay legal, that's your problem.
Again, this has been hashed out in courts. People have already whined to judges about how the big bad cops made them crank the wheel over in defiance. They've tried the 'false imprisonment' defense for being held hostage for 15 minutes or even an hour. Judges have upheld the checkpoint: it's a public place where your privacy is limited, and you drive under a license to follow the rules and instructions of police. There are simply times when you will face the imposition of these facts.
There's no entrapment in busting someone who has already broken the law. You already possess the contraband or already chose to make a moving traffic violation, by the time a cop talks to you.
(1) "All cars subject to search" is a far cry from what this guy remembered, "All cars WILL be searched." They decide who to search and who to pass. All cars are subject to search at any time if the cops have reasonable suspicion, and a checkpoint is a chance to ask a few questions. Most cars go through just fine without search.
(2) An illegal U-turn is an illegal U-turn. You get a ticket for that, and you usually automatically meet the reasonable suspicion test. You still might not get searched, but you'll definitely be stopped and asked about your reasons for turning around. Again, they didn't tell you to make an illegal U-turn.
These have been hashed out thoroughly by the courts. Arizona was one of the earliest tests of this method (as well as the Miranda decision), and they had public announcement television spots (and signs on sight) a few times, explaining that turning around raises suspicion.
Yeah, I missed the original questioning round, but I think the slashdork crowd missed some serious chances to highlight a serious candidate.
California may be famous for its cities, but it's the agribusiness which shapes much of the policy and possibilities. How much do you know about the seasonal migrant industry? How much do you know about toxic waste from dense livestock management? How much do you know about fair water rights and the unfair political agendas of the affected populations?
On NPR, someone said that NIMBY is being replaced with BANANA (Build Almost Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody), and is destined for NOPE (Nothing On Planet Earth). Worth a chuckle, but I don't know how widespread they are.
We've long known about the Lagrangian points; they're natural pockets of orbital stability between two massive bodies, and there are at least five identified positions relative to the two bodies. There's even a popular filk to the tune of 'Home on the Range' about living in a Lagrangian satellite village; google for it if you're bored.
But this is the first mention I've seen of anyone actually parking anything there.
The reason the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines bicker amongst themselves is that they don't speak the same language. For instance, take the simple phrase
"secure the building".
The Army will post guards around the place.
The Navy will turn out the lights and lock the doors.
The Marines will kill everybody inside and set up a headquarters
The Air Force will take out a 5 year lease with an option to buy.
Any object that is floating at the surface will displace the liquid according to its weight, not its volume. If there is air inside, the whole object is more bouyant and will displace less liquid. In other words, the object will find an equilibrium between the liquid sea and the gaseous atmosphere. If you melt the air-bubbled ice, all the water content goes down and all the air content goes up, and the surface remains where it was.
Our apartment uses a smartcard-based laundry system. One machine turns cash (in big bills) into smartcard-backed credit. Each washer or dryer has a smartcard slot. While the materials say that the card should be able to endure all laundry-related conditions, including being inadvertently washed and/or dried, there are a LOT of reports of people who get a few uses from the card and then it stops working. Poof, there goes $18.30 remaining credit. My own card died too, even though we kept it in its own sleeve and away from pretty much any hazard.
It's really easy to say that a device is hardy enough for any predicted abuse, and then to ignore the evidence to the contrary as being 'unconfirmed' or 'anecdotal.' At some point of market saturation, anecdotes win over clinical trials, whether by fact or by consumer perception. It's important to really dig into anecdotal evidence of weaknesses before the whole idea has to be scrapped.
There was very little trust in the print medium when it was first developed - it was seen as unstable and subject to piracy and fraudulent copying. Authenticity was hard to guarantee: indeed,
the term "piracy" was first used by John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, to describe certain pernicious practices of early printers and booksellers. A "pirate" was someone who participated in the "unauthorized reprinting of a title recognized to belong to someone else." "Stationers" eventually emerged as the trusted practitioners who were placed in charge of various aspects of publishing - practices we would now recognize as printing, publishing, editing, and bookselling. Stationers worked out the conventional practices of making books, and thus made printing a viable economic enterprise with the elaborate complexity of producing a book eventually invisible to all but the practitioners in the trade.
With another simple search, FELL, Dr John Fell (1625-86), Bishop of Oxford 1675-86.
The term 'piracy' has been used for illicit/infringing copies of books for hundreds of years. Give up the jargon battle, it wastes time and energy. Focus on the actual root causes instead of useless trivia.
My biggest annoyance with Linux is this attitude that
all Linux users can code,
all Linux users want to code,
all Linux users know every api to code,
all Linux users want to join every devel mail list,
all Linux users know every application's architecture,
all Linux users have infinite time to solve obvious problems.
I am a software developer by trade. I know a fair amount of user interaction design principles. That doesn't mean I have the lifestyle that affords me ninety hours a week to add nothing but polish the nits out of the hundred different Linux applications I use every week.
I submit suggestions when I can. I even submit code when the problem is isolated in such a way, and the existing codebase is conducive to productive spelunking. Most software annoyances I have are conceptually easy to explain but require in-depth knowledge of the codebase before I could hope re-architect or retrofit a solution.
This isn't about selfishness or altruism, it's about specialization: people can (and do) have legitimate issues without having the capability to fix it, even in so-called Open Source projects.
Fast+Good doesn't give you time to "hire out" to achieve the best possible good. Money may be plentiful but hiring takes time. Sure, sometimes you have the best possible people on-staff already, but that's the exception, not the rule.
You've not been involved with military weapons contractors, then. They want the most lethal, most powerful, most robust, most effective weapons possible, and they want it yesterday. If the military thinks they can get both Fast and Good, then they're very willing to dismiss Cheap.
Though I agree with the sentiment, make management understand that they can ask for a quick, well done, and cheap project, but they'll only get 2 out of those 3 qualities at best, there's often a complicating component of the developer's temperament and experience.
Many experienced developers will not accept an answer of, "Okay, I want Fast and Cheap, because I don't care about quality." They might sign on to the project expecting to blast out some code, but find it hard to cut corners on quality.
Many inexperienced developers will not accept an answer of, "Okay, I want Fast and Good, because the ultimate customer won't quibble about cost." They are probably not yet capable of developing a high quality product (above a certain complexity) without considerable care.
Many developers of any experience level have trouble delivering when offered the answer, "Okay, I want Cheap and Good, because we're not in the critical path of another schedule." Work on the project will expand to fill the time available, honing and polishing and improving. Or the project will be rushed to get it out of the way to do more interesting things with other projects.
I'm just waiting for the first television or radio commercial which advertises a cheap lawyer who specializes in RIAA Infringement Claims, rather than the usual personal injury and dui chasers.
The intention of predictive models is to find underperformers and work harder to engage them before it's too late.
The reality of predictive models is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If any of the counselors, teachers, receptionists, principals, or aides approach an underperformer with a speech about how they need to buck up before they drop out, all that many kids will hear is, "they know I'm a failure, so why try?"
For a small minority of kids, this gets even worse. We have discussed the profiling it takes to predict violence. This sounds a lot like the same arguments raised which lead to flame-out sentiments like "they know I'm violent, so I've got nothing to lose."
Re:Knuth is only one foundation that won't be lost
on
Software Archaeology
·
· Score: 1
"Computer science is about computers in the same way astronomy is about telescopes" --Edsgar Dijkstra
If I wanted to hire an astronomer who had no practical skills with the hands-on tools of the trade, i.e., telescopes, then I would probably look elsewhere also.
There is vast room for theory, and even jobs which are entirely theoretical, but even theorists should get their hands dirty when they're getting started.
Some other really great reviews can be found in the previous TWO slashdot stories that headline about this very Zaurus model. One of them was even offered by the very same timothy who rubber-stamped this story.
"Give me enough" is a key element of the Law of Eventuality. Give me enough money, and I'll solve the Microsoft monopoly threat with a hostile takeover. Give me enough time and I'll clean up almost any unnatural disaster site by leveraging nature's own methods.
Give me enough simulated neurons and enough truisms and I'll make a sentient machine.
Eventually, with enough resources, anything is possible. Throwing more time and resources to a problem is rarely exciting science. Reducing the inconveniently large values of 'eventually' and 'enough' are the real problem.
The 'croup' is a serious larynx condition for young children, creating a harsh cough that sounds like it's going to rip something apart inside.
Yeah, telling your boss that Linux is quality software is one thing, but telling her that she should pitch a strategy on adopting "Kroupware" and "Killustrator" doesn't go over as well.
I'm a grammar fascist as much as the next really annoying guy, but two points:
One, he was emulating an older form of English. Specifically, "The Charge of the Light Brigade," by Lord Tennyson. I wouldn't nitpick grammar or spelling on anything before around 1900, as English had few formal references and strict rules in those times.
Two, the style above may have been more of a contraction, and not an attempt at a possessive. "Our's not" is the poem-styled contraction of "Ours is not," referring to "Our place is not..." The poet chose to use "Our's" instead of trying to wrap a tongue around the spelling or extra syllable in "Ours's" or "Ours is."
Poetic license allows you to bend the rules, rhyming on 'I' when grammar requires 'me,' or dropping troublesome syllables to achieve natural scance and meter.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been hoping for something like this for smallscale studio photography. Add a small control to adjust the ratio between amber and "white", and a small diffuser screen, and it'd be great as a replacement for a macro softbox.
cpanflute foo.tar.gz ; rpmbuild --rebuild foo-*.src.rpm
If the cops told you specifically: hey, make a u-turn, that would be entrapment. The cops aren't telling you to break the law. They're not even suggesting it. It's a common and predictable idea that many people think of, but most people will obey the law even after getting an idea. If you can't control your impulses to stay legal, that's your problem.
Again, this has been hashed out in courts. People have already whined to judges about how the big bad cops made them crank the wheel over in defiance. They've tried the 'false imprisonment' defense for being held hostage for 15 minutes or even an hour. Judges have upheld the checkpoint: it's a public place where your privacy is limited, and you drive under a license to follow the rules and instructions of police. There are simply times when you will face the imposition of these facts.
There's no entrapment in busting someone who has already broken the law. You already possess the contraband or already chose to make a moving traffic violation, by the time a cop talks to you.
(1) "All cars subject to search" is a far cry from what this guy remembered, "All cars WILL be searched." They decide who to search and who to pass. All cars are subject to search at any time if the cops have reasonable suspicion, and a checkpoint is a chance to ask a few questions. Most cars go through just fine without search.
(2) An illegal U-turn is an illegal U-turn. You get a ticket for that, and you usually automatically meet the reasonable suspicion test. You still might not get searched, but you'll definitely be stopped and asked about your reasons for turning around. Again, they didn't tell you to make an illegal U-turn.
These have been hashed out thoroughly by the courts. Arizona was one of the earliest tests of this method (as well as the Miranda decision), and they had public announcement television spots (and signs on sight) a few times, explaining that turning around raises suspicion.
California may be famous for its cities, but it's the agribusiness which shapes much of the policy and possibilities. How much do you know about the seasonal migrant industry? How much do you know about toxic waste from dense livestock management? How much do you know about fair water rights and the unfair political agendas of the affected populations?
On NPR, someone said that NIMBY is being replaced with BANANA (Build Almost Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody), and is destined for NOPE (Nothing On Planet Earth). Worth a chuckle, but I don't know how widespread they are.
We've long known about the Lagrangian points; they're natural pockets of orbital stability between two massive bodies, and there are at least five identified positions relative to the two bodies. There's even a popular filk to the tune of 'Home on the Range' about living in a Lagrangian satellite village; google for it if you're bored.
But this is the first mention I've seen of anyone actually parking anything there.
Reminds me of the old military joke,
The Army will post guards around the place.
The Navy will turn out the lights and lock the doors.
The Marines will kill everybody inside and set up a headquarters
The Air Force will take out a 5 year lease with an option to buy.
Any object that is floating at the surface will displace the liquid according to its weight, not its volume. If there is air inside, the whole object is more bouyant and will displace less liquid. In other words, the object will find an equilibrium between the liquid sea and the gaseous atmosphere. If you melt the air-bubbled ice, all the water content goes down and all the air content goes up, and the surface remains where it was.
Think, McBride. If I checked in my NUMA code under your copyright, I'd get sued. You wouldn't want that to happen, would you? ... Would you!?
Look, your stock's down. :poke: Ha hah, don't be so gullible, McBride.
It's really easy to say that a device is hardy enough for any predicted abuse, and then to ignore the evidence to the contrary as being 'unconfirmed' or 'anecdotal.' At some point of market saturation, anecdotes win over clinical trials, whether by fact or by consumer perception. It's important to really dig into anecdotal evidence of weaknesses before the whole idea has to be scrapped.
From http://www.ninch.org/forum/price.report.html:
With another simple search, FELL, Dr John Fell (1625-86), Bishop of Oxford 1675-86.
Same goes for hacker vs cracker.
I am a software developer by trade. I know a fair amount of user interaction design principles. That doesn't mean I have the lifestyle that affords me ninety hours a week to add nothing but polish the nits out of the hundred different Linux applications I use every week.
I submit suggestions when I can. I even submit code when the problem is isolated in such a way, and the existing codebase is conducive to productive spelunking. Most software annoyances I have are conceptually easy to explain but require in-depth knowledge of the codebase before I could hope re-architect or retrofit a solution.
This isn't about selfishness or altruism, it's about specialization: people can (and do) have legitimate issues without having the capability to fix it, even in so-called Open Source projects.
Fast+Good doesn't give you time to "hire out" to achieve the best possible good. Money may be plentiful but hiring takes time. Sure, sometimes you have the best possible people on-staff already, but that's the exception, not the rule.
You've not been involved with military weapons contractors, then. They want the most lethal, most powerful, most robust, most effective weapons possible, and they want it yesterday. If the military thinks they can get both Fast and Good, then they're very willing to dismiss Cheap.
Though I agree with the sentiment, make management understand that they can ask for a quick, well done, and cheap project, but they'll only get 2 out of those 3 qualities at best, there's often a complicating component of the developer's temperament and experience.
Many experienced developers will not accept an answer of, "Okay, I want Fast and Cheap, because I don't care about quality." They might sign on to the project expecting to blast out some code, but find it hard to cut corners on quality.
Many inexperienced developers will not accept an answer of, "Okay, I want Fast and Good, because the ultimate customer won't quibble about cost." They are probably not yet capable of developing a high quality product (above a certain complexity) without considerable care.
Many developers of any experience level have trouble delivering when offered the answer, "Okay, I want Cheap and Good, because we're not in the critical path of another schedule." Work on the project will expand to fill the time available, honing and polishing and improving. Or the project will be rushed to get it out of the way to do more interesting things with other projects.
I'm just waiting for the first television or radio commercial which advertises a cheap lawyer who specializes in RIAA Infringement Claims, rather than the usual personal injury and dui chasers.
The intention of predictive models is to find underperformers and work harder to engage them before it's too late.
The reality of predictive models is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If any of the counselors, teachers, receptionists, principals, or aides approach an underperformer with a speech about how they need to buck up before they drop out, all that many kids will hear is, "they know I'm a failure, so why try?"
For a small minority of kids, this gets even worse. We have discussed the profiling it takes to predict violence. This sounds a lot like the same arguments raised which lead to flame-out sentiments like "they know I'm violent, so I've got nothing to lose."
If I wanted to hire an astronomer who had no practical skills with the hands-on tools of the trade, i.e., telescopes, then I would probably look elsewhere also.
There is vast room for theory, and even jobs which are entirely theoretical, but even theorists should get their hands dirty when they're getting started.
Sharp Zaurus SL-C750 English Conversion
New Sharp Zaurus SL-C760/C750 Linux PDAs
I think he might have enough kick-backs from slashvertisements to actually buy a couple of these units.
"Give me enough" is a key element of the Law of Eventuality. Give me enough money, and I'll solve the Microsoft monopoly threat with a hostile takeover. Give me enough time and I'll clean up almost any unnatural disaster site by leveraging nature's own methods.
Give me enough simulated neurons and enough truisms and I'll make a sentient machine.
Eventually, with enough resources, anything is possible. Throwing more time and resources to a problem is rarely exciting science. Reducing the inconveniently large values of 'eventually' and 'enough' are the real problem.
The 'croup' is a serious larynx condition for young children, creating a harsh cough that sounds like it's going to rip something apart inside.
Yeah, telling your boss that Linux is quality software is one thing, but telling her that she should pitch a strategy on adopting "Kroupware" and "Killustrator" doesn't go over as well.
I would have expected a monopoly suit against Starbucks(R), but not Seattle's Best Coffee!
I'm a grammar fascist as much as the next really annoying guy, but two points:
One, he was emulating an older form of English. Specifically, "The Charge of the Light Brigade," by Lord Tennyson. I wouldn't nitpick grammar or spelling on anything before around 1900, as English had few formal references and strict rules in those times.
Two, the style above may have been more of a contraction, and not an attempt at a possessive. "Our's not" is the poem-styled contraction of "Ours is not," referring to "Our place is not..." The poet chose to use "Our's" instead of trying to wrap a tongue around the spelling or extra syllable in "Ours's" or "Ours is."
Poetic license allows you to bend the rules, rhyming on 'I' when grammar requires 'me,' or dropping troublesome syllables to achieve natural scance and meter.