Agreed. I also live in NYC and the internet service is abysmal. The only game in town if you don't live in one of the lucky places that has FiOS is Time Warner, whose lines are vastly oversold and near unusable during peak hours. There is another, smaller company around, but they have very limited service areas also.
It is ridiculous to think that one of (if not the) most densely populated areas in the country has such terrible internet service. But such is what happens when you let one company monopolize a market.
Oh, interesting. I actually have not heard of that, though I imagine I will if that is a problem. Is it from yanking straight out on the cord? Pulling the cord or the connector up or down removes it much easier and requires almost no force.
Absolutely true, the old power connectors were a nightmare, and replacing that part in the older Powerbooks was awful, as you had to remove about 80% of the components inside the book to get to it.
That being said, the MagSafe connectors are wonderful and I have never seen a model with that connector having power issues. The only issue I've seen on newer Mac laptops are broken screens, usually from dropping on concrete.
(Disclaimer: I work in an all Mac laboratory with huge ranges in the ages of all the Macs we have.)
I agree with you completely. The problem is that there are plenty of assholes with money to go around. Perhaps my overtiredness came off as sarcasm, but the idea is that as a shareholder you "own" part of the company, right? So why should you not be proportionally responsible to your ownership, within reason, to the actions of the company? Especially if the shareholders knew what was going on but kept their money in the company anyway.
It might force the aforementioned assholes to reconsider investing in companies that do Bad Things.
(Not that Green Dam is illegal, as it is most certainly legal in China, and still would be an asshole move to invest in it. The above was a digression.)
Sorry, but how is math only somewhat related to CS? Software development, sure, but CS != software engineering. Machine learning is tons of linear algebra, high level calculus, and all sorts of mathematical trickery. Same with graphics, AI, heuristics, bioinformatics, quantum computing, motion tracking, vision, etc.
It is using mathematics to derive algorithms that solve our problems.
I really don't see where math has "left" CS. As far as I'm concerned, the interesting aspects of CS are the ones that are still really just "doing math using computers".
There are way more than two sides to the discussion. Each religion has their own creation myth. Those should be taught too, so they can really make an informed choice:-)
You can create distance estimates using two cameras in stereo. I would recommend starting there. Check out a paper called "Remote Gaze Estimation with a Single Camera Based on Facial - Feature Tracking
without Special Calibration Actions" by Hirotake Yamazoe, et al. You might be able to use some of the distance estimating formulas in there.
I've always thought that this stemmed from the total and complete lack of any sort of public transportation for the vast majority of the US (and Joe Average's callous disregard for anybody else). Good luck even finding a cab that costs under $75 to take somewhere if you live outside of a city.
And in places like Wisconsin, what else is there to do but drink?
I think that whites often come to better conclusions when they are faced with difficult questions of ethics than either blacks or latinos.
Nice straw man, but not what she said. It was more akin to, given the context: "Given that rich white men have more educational experiences because they were rich, and given that many latinos grow up in poor neighbors with poor education, rich white men are better able to make decisions that require a high education." Stop trying to change the argument.
Citizens 1 to 10,000,000 introduce new bills on Tuesday, 1,000,000 of which are bills that would affect the country nation-wide. The vote for those bills all falls in the next 3 months.
How can someone learn, understand, and have an opinion on 1,000,000 different bills? Lets lower the number and say almost no one was actually submitting bills (doubtful, corporations would have entire departments submitted hundreds/day), so we'd be getting maybe 10,000/day. Could you read, interpret, and understand 10,000 bills of varying complexity and importance in a day? After all, you're expected to vote on them. If you don't, the country falls apart.
Could anyone build the infrastructure to handle that? Democracy is impractical on a wide scale because it REQUIRES a very well informed populace. Republics just require a very well informed select few. We don't all have the spare time to be politicians.
Actually she only sorta won. McDonalds settled on an appeal for an undisclosed amount of money no where near to what had been the original punitive penalty. It should also be noted that the penalty was punitive because McDonalds had continuously ignored warnings from the FDA about the temperature of their coffee. The lady was only suing for the funds to cover her medical expenses.
Whereas over here in NYC I pay $1,008/yr for transportation costs. Add in a few plane trips throughout the year to get out of the city and that might go up to just under $1,700. Substantially less than most people pay for gas + insurance (not to mention repairs, parking, etc) for a year of mild use of a car.
Though, unfortunately, this is one of the few areas of the country where the mass transit actually works well.
I don't really see anything wrong for paying a "pollution tax" on products that are particularly nasty to make. Find more environmentally friendly alternatives. I don't understand why this doesn't seem reasonable to everybody. Even if the vast majority of scientists are incorrect (which is very rare, mind you), I still don't want to breathe in pollution so you can have cheap ass plastic and lead paint ridden toys for your kid.
And, I know I am just feeding the trolls here (judging by the super reliable link given), but try looking at some research from real organizations/universities about this stuff. Tinfoil hats aren't really renown for their scientific rigor.
I don't support the death penalty, but the reason isn't because the person did something heinous and gave up their right to life in the process. It is because I don't think it is an effective deterrent and the price for error is too high.
Anyway, the right in the BoR is awkwardly worded and controversial, so much so that the SupCt did not want to touch it for more than 70 years between Miller and Heller. Miller has a very small scope, but it was a unanimous decision, and seemed to point in the direction of control being OK... sorta... kinda... in a way.
Then Heller came along and made a sweeping scope change, saying the Second Amendment was "this way, damn it" in a very weak 5-4 decision that wouldn't surprise me to get over turned once the power on the court sways back.
Also, there wasn't strong support for gun rights starting with United States v. Cruikshank (1875), which said that the Second Amendment was to stop the feds from banning guns, but the states could do what they wished. This was upheld by Presser in 1886. The main reason Heller was even given cert was because it took place in DC and not a state, though I feel as though the scope of the opinion, for being so weak, is greatly exaggerated and smacks of the kind of case to be over turned.
Thus, the US has found since the late 1800s the that feds shouldn't ban guns, but states should be more than able to. Which, going back to the OP, is what Obama supported in IL.
So your possession of assault weapons may not infringe on my rights, but that isn't exactly what the Second says, is it? It is poorly punctuated and worded, and does have confusion behind it, despite what the NRA might tell you. There is a reason it is an issue. If it said "People have the right to own fire arms" then bam, no issue. Personally, I've always found the Second A to be part of the "living document" area of the Constitution. As in, it is interpreted as it needs to be given the time that it is interpreted at. There is a lot of room for debate, and any side that says it is clear cut is ignoring an entire country's worth of history of debate about it.
No rights are absolute, as has been argued and affirmed time and time again in the Supreme Court since the dawn of our country. Your right to free speech is abridged. Slander/libel/endangerment of others (e.g. yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater) is prohibited.
If the most strongly worded right (the only place in the Constitution to use "Shall not") in the BoR can be abridged, surely the most awkwardly worded and debatable right can be abridged. There is a still substantial legal scholarly debate as to whether it pertains to militias or the general populace.
None of this is unconstitutional.
Also, I don't ever recall him actually calling for a national ban on handguns, where the hell are you pulling this from? Crazy McLimbaugh land?
Yeah man, what a failure, unable to fix a global economic crises in just a few months! Not thinking it was worth it to start a war with N.Korea!
Do you really take everything everybody says in politics at face value? You must be very confused as you try to follow it then. Politics is all about saying one thing and doing another. Empty threats, grandstanding, etc, are a large part of politics. Try following it sometime.
This was a pretty obvious grandstand to get support from people, not governments. Does he have any intention of following through? Probably not. It wouldn't surprise me if a token amount of arms were dismantled though, as a good show for the world stage. No one is dismantling all of their weapons any time soon. He wants to boost his popularity on a world stage.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I also live in NYC and the internet service is abysmal. The only game in town if you don't live in one of the lucky places that has FiOS is Time Warner, whose lines are vastly oversold and near unusable during peak hours. There is another, smaller company around, but they have very limited service areas also.
It is ridiculous to think that one of (if not the) most densely populated areas in the country has such terrible internet service. But such is what happens when you let one company monopolize a market.
Oh, interesting. I actually have not heard of that, though I imagine I will if that is a problem. Is it from yanking straight out on the cord? Pulling the cord or the connector up or down removes it much easier and requires almost no force.
Absolutely true, the old power connectors were a nightmare, and replacing that part in the older Powerbooks was awful, as you had to remove about 80% of the components inside the book to get to it.
That being said, the MagSafe connectors are wonderful and I have never seen a model with that connector having power issues. The only issue I've seen on newer Mac laptops are broken screens, usually from dropping on concrete.
(Disclaimer: I work in an all Mac laboratory with huge ranges in the ages of all the Macs we have.)
I would read this book. But spoiler alert about Scalia!
I think that what we really need here is a car analogy so the /. crowd and understand.
So it is like when a very poor driver is driving down the road...
I agree with you completely. The problem is that there are plenty of assholes with money to go around. Perhaps my overtiredness came off as sarcasm, but the idea is that as a shareholder you "own" part of the company, right? So why should you not be proportionally responsible to your ownership, within reason, to the actions of the company? Especially if the shareholders knew what was going on but kept their money in the company anyway.
It might force the aforementioned assholes to reconsider investing in companies that do Bad Things.
(Not that Green Dam is illegal, as it is most certainly legal in China, and still would be an asshole move to invest in it. The above was a digression.)
So if the company does something illegal, let the shareholders be personally responsible and serve time for the company's crime.
Problem Solved!
Sorry, but how is math only somewhat related to CS? Software development, sure, but CS != software engineering. Machine learning is tons of linear algebra, high level calculus, and all sorts of mathematical trickery. Same with graphics, AI, heuristics, bioinformatics, quantum computing, motion tracking, vision, etc.
It is using mathematics to derive algorithms that solve our problems.
I really don't see where math has "left" CS. As far as I'm concerned, the interesting aspects of CS are the ones that are still really just "doing math using computers".
Also why would you configure AFTER the make? Something tells me we just created a kidney that will crash upon use.
Hey my latency to Google is only 1.01 sec during peak hours! My internet is faster than something else!
I hope Time Warner Cable falls off a cliff.
There are way more than two sides to the discussion. Each religion has their own creation myth. Those should be taught too, so they can really make an informed choice :-)
You can create distance estimates using two cameras in stereo. I would recommend starting there. Check out a paper called "Remote Gaze Estimation with a Single Camera Based on Facial - Feature Tracking without Special Calibration Actions" by Hirotake Yamazoe, et al. You might be able to use some of the distance estimating formulas in there.
I've always thought that this stemmed from the total and complete lack of any sort of public transportation for the vast majority of the US (and Joe Average's callous disregard for anybody else). Good luck even finding a cab that costs under $75 to take somewhere if you live outside of a city.
And in places like Wisconsin, what else is there to do but drink?
What? A company based on pyramid selling wouldn't be a good place to buy my genetic tests from? No...
Where can I purchase the kool-aid you are drinking?
I think that whites often come to better conclusions when they are faced with difficult questions of ethics than either blacks or latinos.
Nice straw man, but not what she said. It was more akin to, given the context: "Given that rich white men have more educational experiences because they were rich, and given that many latinos grow up in poor neighbors with poor education, rich white men are better able to make decisions that require a high education." Stop trying to change the argument.
Here's another scenario:
Citizens 1 to 10,000,000 introduce new bills on Tuesday, 1,000,000 of which are bills that would affect the country nation-wide. The vote for those bills all falls in the next 3 months.
How can someone learn, understand, and have an opinion on 1,000,000 different bills? Lets lower the number and say almost no one was actually submitting bills (doubtful, corporations would have entire departments submitted hundreds/day), so we'd be getting maybe 10,000/day. Could you read, interpret, and understand 10,000 bills of varying complexity and importance in a day? After all, you're expected to vote on them. If you don't, the country falls apart.
Could anyone build the infrastructure to handle that? Democracy is impractical on a wide scale because it REQUIRES a very well informed populace. Republics just require a very well informed select few. We don't all have the spare time to be politicians.
She was not operating the car. It was parked and she was in the passenger seat.
Actually she only sorta won. McDonalds settled on an appeal for an undisclosed amount of money no where near to what had been the original punitive penalty. It should also be noted that the penalty was punitive because McDonalds had continuously ignored warnings from the FDA about the temperature of their coffee. The lady was only suing for the funds to cover her medical expenses.
Whereas over here in NYC I pay $1,008/yr for transportation costs. Add in a few plane trips throughout the year to get out of the city and that might go up to just under $1,700. Substantially less than most people pay for gas + insurance (not to mention repairs, parking, etc) for a year of mild use of a car.
Though, unfortunately, this is one of the few areas of the country where the mass transit actually works well.
I don't really see anything wrong for paying a "pollution tax" on products that are particularly nasty to make. Find more environmentally friendly alternatives. I don't understand why this doesn't seem reasonable to everybody. Even if the vast majority of scientists are incorrect (which is very rare, mind you), I still don't want to breathe in pollution so you can have cheap ass plastic and lead paint ridden toys for your kid.
And, I know I am just feeding the trolls here (judging by the super reliable link given), but try looking at some research from real organizations/universities about this stuff. Tinfoil hats aren't really renown for their scientific rigor.
I don't support the death penalty, but the reason isn't because the person did something heinous and gave up their right to life in the process. It is because I don't think it is an effective deterrent and the price for error is too high.
Anyway, the right in the BoR is awkwardly worded and controversial, so much so that the SupCt did not want to touch it for more than 70 years between Miller and Heller. Miller has a very small scope, but it was a unanimous decision, and seemed to point in the direction of control being OK... sorta... kinda... in a way.
Then Heller came along and made a sweeping scope change, saying the Second Amendment was "this way, damn it" in a very weak 5-4 decision that wouldn't surprise me to get over turned once the power on the court sways back.
Also, there wasn't strong support for gun rights starting with United States v. Cruikshank (1875), which said that the Second Amendment was to stop the feds from banning guns, but the states could do what they wished. This was upheld by Presser in 1886. The main reason Heller was even given cert was because it took place in DC and not a state, though I feel as though the scope of the opinion, for being so weak, is greatly exaggerated and smacks of the kind of case to be over turned.
Thus, the US has found since the late 1800s the that feds shouldn't ban guns, but states should be more than able to. Which, going back to the OP, is what Obama supported in IL.
So your possession of assault weapons may not infringe on my rights, but that isn't exactly what the Second says, is it? It is poorly punctuated and worded, and does have confusion behind it, despite what the NRA might tell you. There is a reason it is an issue. If it said "People have the right to own fire arms" then bam, no issue. Personally, I've always found the Second A to be part of the "living document" area of the Constitution. As in, it is interpreted as it needs to be given the time that it is interpreted at. There is a lot of room for debate, and any side that says it is clear cut is ignoring an entire country's worth of history of debate about it.
It is a troll because 1) it was posted to cause stupid fighting no one cares about and 2) is completely off topic.
Seems like a troll to me. Also, it is false, as another poster has pointed out, but that is beside the point. Still a troll.
No rights are absolute, as has been argued and affirmed time and time again in the Supreme Court since the dawn of our country. Your right to free speech is abridged. Slander/libel/endangerment of others (e.g. yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater) is prohibited.
If the most strongly worded right (the only place in the Constitution to use "Shall not") in the BoR can be abridged, surely the most awkwardly worded and debatable right can be abridged. There is a still substantial legal scholarly debate as to whether it pertains to militias or the general populace.
None of this is unconstitutional.
Also, I don't ever recall him actually calling for a national ban on handguns, where the hell are you pulling this from? Crazy McLimbaugh land?
Yeah man, what a failure, unable to fix a global economic crises in just a few months! Not thinking it was worth it to start a war with N.Korea!
Do you really take everything everybody says in politics at face value? You must be very confused as you try to follow it then. Politics is all about saying one thing and doing another. Empty threats, grandstanding, etc, are a large part of politics. Try following it sometime.
This was a pretty obvious grandstand to get support from people, not governments. Does he have any intention of following through? Probably not. It wouldn't surprise me if a token amount of arms were dismantled though, as a good show for the world stage. No one is dismantling all of their weapons any time soon. He wants to boost his popularity on a world stage.