Despite what CSI shows tell you, fingerprints are not some magical thing left behind at every crime scene. It's tough to get a clear fingerprint, it's mutually excusive with getting DNA off a surface, actually checking the fingerprint against various databases has a backlog of days to weeks, and unless the person who did it is in one of those databases (i.e. former criminal, law enforcement, someone with a security clearance, foreigner) or matches someone you already suspect and can get a warrant to get a fingerprint on, you've got nothing. Oh, and people can wear gloves too. And even after all that, fingerprints just establish that you were at that place, but don't narrow down the time you were there, so unless the fingerprints are in a place you claim to have never been, so what if they're there?
So the concession is that the copyright holders get to shaft us in a new way, and we get nothing? A compromise would be "licensed software doesn't have the first sale doctrine, but the license cannot be modified 'at will', preventing a licensed user from using their software entitles them to a full refund, licenses must be readable by people who didn't spend their youth getting a law degree, licenses should be fully available before purchase, if a EULA isn't agreed to a user can return it for a full refund to where they bought it, etc, etc". Hell, I'd settle for a copyright length that puts things produces when my grandparents were kids into public domain. This whole notion of "we should compromise" only works when dealing with reasonable actors. Corporations are not reasonable.
He translated the problem of P versus NP out of computer science entirely and into the world of formal logic, using an area known as "finite model theory" that has produced remarkable results.
*face hits palm*
Computer science uses formal logic in it's proofs all the time (at least as formal as mathematics).
For example, choose k logical requirements at random and ask: What is the probability that there is some binary number of n digits that will satisfy them all? If the number of requirements is huge (i.e., k is large) and the number of possible solutions is tiny (i.e., n is small), then of course there will never be correct solutions, no matter how long the problem is calculated.
This too is a facepalming moment. It's akin to saying "If you flip a coin 100 times, of course it will land on heads at least once." Except that a probability of 1/(2^100) != 0.
Dunno about complete automation. Each patient is different, and it's a bit tougher than saying "pulse under 20, bad" or "O2 saturation under 90%, no more gas"(if you're getting operated on due to problems leading to hypoxemia, you want a way to override the settings) (I am neither a doctor nor an anesthesiologist, but I imagine that there's situations like that that aren't extremely rare).
Maybe something more akin to autopilot, which is fine for most of the flight, but you still want a pilot there to deal with the trouble scenarios.
If 9/11 is the best they can do, and they can't come up with anything even close in the subsequent 9 years, then they've got a very low threshold for victory. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't good, but let's face it, we do worse things to ourselves (car fatalities, cigarettes, obesity, etc). If that was bin Laden at his most cunning, he's a fucking idiot. If they think that it was a mighty blow made capable by divine will, they've got a wuss for a god. I'm more scared of dying to the Amish than I am of dying to some fundamentalist Muslim.
So if they want to call what they've done a "victory", laugh in their face and call them out for being the pussies they are. And then go about your day as if they don't matter. Because they don't.
And french fries. No matter how greasy, starchy, and all around completely lacking in nutrition they are. I'm not very far removed from my time in the public education system, and when you pay $1.50 for a meal (minus some profit), you aren't getting quality. Hell, you're lucky if you're getting actual food.
Apparently, it's describing a special car design that is unlike any car that has ever been produced. This special car could have existed (had it gotten funding), but alas, it did not, and maybe it would have even required the fundamental physics of the universe to be different.
The question then is, what's the point of the car design that was never build, tested, and might not have even been possible?
If a slave can't work, you've lost the money you spent to buy them
If an employee can't work, you can fire their ass and hire someone new. (There was no workmans comp, disability benefits, etc, back then. And especially in America, there was a large underclass of people fresh off a boat and looking for work)
The disagreement here is probably more what things each side wants to cut. I doubt many tea partiers want to cut military spending by any significant amount, but they're all for cutting out funding for anything they see as "socialism" (medicare, medicaid, social security, pretty much any social safety net, education, research and development, etc).
pro-emissions trade
If you pollute, pay for it. Yeah, I know, crazy.
pro-more complex tax system
No one is for this (well, maybe some tax accountants), but I bet that the moment we eliminate all the breaks for married couples with children, you'll get even more pissed off people.
anti-auditing the Federal Government
I'm all for it, so long as you don't support any claims of "executive privilege" in blocking some parts (regardless of if it's "your guy" in power).
pro-escalating federal budgets
Already addressed in the non-balanced budget part.
pro-earmarks
Again, I bet a whole bunch of tea partiers would start bitching if farm subsidies, local pork projects, and other such things were actually eliminated. But sure, let's complain about the current ruling party, even when they tend to be from states that get less from the feds than they give.
pro-tax increases
I'm all for tax increases on the incredibly wealthy (And for short term capital gains). I have no sympathy for those making over $1 million/yr. Maybe if someone, through their own actual labor or skills, could produce that much, I might shed a tear, but the vast majority of them are corporate executives, trust fund babies, investment bankers, etc. Hell, even high paid doctors don't often make more than $500,000 a year (and I'd call that reasonable), so either we've got some number of gods among men with skills we can barely conceive of, or we've got a bunch of highly paid twats who need to stop bitching just because they'll be slightly less wealthy.
Also, for those of you who don't work based off government contracts: If you can't justify a project as coming under something defined in the contract, you don't do it. It's not about laziness, incompetence, or greed, it's because the government is full of rules lawyers that will start to jump up and down and demand to know why you spent $X on something not in the contract. Working for $Unnamed_government_contractor, I will say that one thing they make very clear is that you do not charge time from one project to a different project.
It's boneheaded to not have redundancy, but that's a problem in the requirements, and the requirements are set up by Virginia (probably in negotiations between a nontechnical government bureaucrat and a nontechnical NG bureaucrat, whose shared knowledge of networks is limited to looking up funny cat pictures).
Most people are not interested in a scientific career, regardless of gender (or race, creed, height, and handedness).
Regardless, science is considered "unattractive" by many people, and it's a lot easier in our (and basically every) culture for a guy to get what he wants in life through means other than attractiveness (money, power, fame, etc) than it is for a female.
Why would they need to do anything that overt? Most people today already willingly attach themselves to a GPS enabled device that they send out half their communications on.
The sad fact about prison is that the people who really deserve to be there (the socio-paths etc) tend to influence the non-socio paths into socio-paths so when they get out of prison they already have contacts on the outside to go commit crime.
Also businesses who will, under no circumstances, hire felons, or even anyone who's been arrested (if they ask/can find it out). We take away every decent (and most shitty) jobs from people who may have only criminals for support, and we expect them to lead a squeaky clean life? I know if I couldn't find a job and couldn't get some assistance, I'd be stealing (or insert other illegal act here) for survival at least. And if you're in a spot where they'll put you away anyway, might as well go big. Yet we wonder why recidivism rates are as high as they are.
Though there's a decent reason for moving to new languages, namely that as older programmers retire or move on (or get fired/promoted), it's a lot easier to get some new college grad up to speed on a system written in a language that isn't relegated to the history books of computer science. I've been (still am) that recent college grad, and even though working on a ten year old pile of Java converted from an even older pile of C++ written by someone who retired before you arrive isn't fun, it's a much better prospect than learning a whole new (yet very, very old) language as you try to figure things out.
The only real difference between 20 (or 30 or 40) years ago and now is that students don't need to trudge over to a lab and sit at a terminal to write their program that they hope won't run up against a memory ceiling. Now you can do it from the comfort of your dorm room and if your system complains about using too much memory on anything before a Junior or Senior level class, you're doing it wrong.
They'd be what's commonly referred to as a "sucker". But to answer your question, I doubt that gold is really "worth" US$1225/oz. The market on that has been driven up by fears, speculation, self-fulfilling projections, and a lot of advertising to people who think that gold has never lost value (didn't people say that about houses?). But back in reality, gold has a few uses (in some electronics and the like), but for the most part it's just a shiny somewhat rare metal.
And NASA got cut because the public at large only wanted to go to the moon as a pissing contest with Russia. Once we got there and walked around, all the average person could see was a large chunk of money going to old news. It's not all that different today, except that we don't have a lot of money going to NASA, so cutting it further cripples it, and sure, there are criticisms to be made of what NASA does/has to do (politicians from every state sticking their hand in the pork barrel doesn't help), but if we want to expand the boundaries of our knowledge of the universe, NASA is one of the best places to put our dollar.
Slashdot Mirror
...Bloc who's only point of existence is to destroy Canada. How they ever became a national party is beyond me!
Because people don't like the French? Or even worse, the pseudo-French.
Despite what CSI shows tell you, fingerprints are not some magical thing left behind at every crime scene. It's tough to get a clear fingerprint, it's mutually excusive with getting DNA off a surface, actually checking the fingerprint against various databases has a backlog of days to weeks, and unless the person who did it is in one of those databases (i.e. former criminal, law enforcement, someone with a security clearance, foreigner) or matches someone you already suspect and can get a warrant to get a fingerprint on, you've got nothing. Oh, and people can wear gloves too. And even after all that, fingerprints just establish that you were at that place, but don't narrow down the time you were there, so unless the fingerprints are in a place you claim to have never been, so what if they're there?
So the concession is that the copyright holders get to shaft us in a new way, and we get nothing? A compromise would be "licensed software doesn't have the first sale doctrine, but the license cannot be modified 'at will', preventing a licensed user from using their software entitles them to a full refund, licenses must be readable by people who didn't spend their youth getting a law degree, licenses should be fully available before purchase, if a EULA isn't agreed to a user can return it for a full refund to where they bought it, etc, etc". Hell, I'd settle for a copyright length that puts things produces when my grandparents were kids into public domain. This whole notion of "we should compromise" only works when dealing with reasonable actors. Corporations are not reasonable.
He translated the problem of P versus NP out of computer science entirely and into the world of formal logic, using an area known as "finite model theory" that has produced remarkable results.
*face hits palm*
Computer science uses formal logic in it's proofs all the time (at least as formal as mathematics).
For example, choose k logical requirements at random and ask: What is the probability that there is some binary number of n digits that will satisfy them all? If the number of requirements is huge (i.e., k is large) and the number of possible solutions is tiny (i.e., n is small), then of course there will never be correct solutions, no matter how long the problem is calculated.
This too is a facepalming moment. It's akin to saying "If you flip a coin 100 times, of course it will land on heads at least once." Except that a probability of 1/(2^100) != 0.
Dunno about complete automation. Each patient is different, and it's a bit tougher than saying "pulse under 20, bad" or "O2 saturation under 90%, no more gas"(if you're getting operated on due to problems leading to hypoxemia, you want a way to override the settings) (I am neither a doctor nor an anesthesiologist, but I imagine that there's situations like that that aren't extremely rare).
Maybe something more akin to autopilot, which is fine for most of the flight, but you still want a pilot there to deal with the trouble scenarios.
I also hear that Cheech and Chong burn all sorts of things in response to, well, everything.
It's a victory mosque.
If 9/11 is the best they can do, and they can't come up with anything even close in the subsequent 9 years, then they've got a very low threshold for victory. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't good, but let's face it, we do worse things to ourselves (car fatalities, cigarettes, obesity, etc). If that was bin Laden at his most cunning, he's a fucking idiot. If they think that it was a mighty blow made capable by divine will, they've got a wuss for a god. I'm more scared of dying to the Amish than I am of dying to some fundamentalist Muslim.
So if they want to call what they've done a "victory", laugh in their face and call them out for being the pussies they are. And then go about your day as if they don't matter. Because they don't.
And french fries. No matter how greasy, starchy, and all around completely lacking in nutrition they are. I'm not very far removed from my time in the public education system, and when you pay $1.50 for a meal (minus some profit), you aren't getting quality. Hell, you're lucky if you're getting actual food.
Apparently, it's describing a special car design that is unlike any car that has ever been produced. This special car could have existed (had it gotten funding), but alas, it did not, and maybe it would have even required the fundamental physics of the universe to be different.
/Obligatory car analogy
The question then is, what's the point of the car design that was never build, tested, and might not have even been possible?
If a slave can't work, you've lost the money you spent to buy them
If an employee can't work, you can fire their ass and hire someone new. (There was no workmans comp, disability benefits, etc, back then. And especially in America, there was a large underclass of people fresh off a boat and looking for work)
Nebraska: Making Iowa look interesting since 1854.
non-balanced budget
The disagreement here is probably more what things each side wants to cut. I doubt many tea partiers want to cut military spending by any significant amount, but they're all for cutting out funding for anything they see as "socialism" (medicare, medicaid, social security, pretty much any social safety net, education, research and development, etc).
pro-emissions trade
If you pollute, pay for it. Yeah, I know, crazy.
pro-more complex tax system
No one is for this (well, maybe some tax accountants), but I bet that the moment we eliminate all the breaks for married couples with children, you'll get even more pissed off people.
anti-auditing the Federal Government
I'm all for it, so long as you don't support any claims of "executive privilege" in blocking some parts (regardless of if it's "your guy" in power).
pro-escalating federal budgets
Already addressed in the non-balanced budget part.
pro-earmarks
Again, I bet a whole bunch of tea partiers would start bitching if farm subsidies, local pork projects, and other such things were actually eliminated. But sure, let's complain about the current ruling party, even when they tend to be from states that get less from the feds than they give.
pro-tax increases
I'm all for tax increases on the incredibly wealthy (And for short term capital gains). I have no sympathy for those making over $1 million/yr. Maybe if someone, through their own actual labor or skills, could produce that much, I might shed a tear, but the vast majority of them are corporate executives, trust fund babies, investment bankers, etc. Hell, even high paid doctors don't often make more than $500,000 a year (and I'd call that reasonable), so either we've got some number of gods among men with skills we can barely conceive of, or we've got a bunch of highly paid twats who need to stop bitching just because they'll be slightly less wealthy.
Also, for those of you who don't work based off government contracts: If you can't justify a project as coming under something defined in the contract, you don't do it. It's not about laziness, incompetence, or greed, it's because the government is full of rules lawyers that will start to jump up and down and demand to know why you spent $X on something not in the contract. Working for $Unnamed_government_contractor, I will say that one thing they make very clear is that you do not charge time from one project to a different project.
It's boneheaded to not have redundancy, but that's a problem in the requirements, and the requirements are set up by Virginia (probably in negotiations between a nontechnical government bureaucrat and a nontechnical NG bureaucrat, whose shared knowledge of networks is limited to looking up funny cat pictures).
Most people are not interested in a scientific career, regardless of gender (or race, creed, height, and handedness).
Regardless, science is considered "unattractive" by many people, and it's a lot easier in our (and basically every) culture for a guy to get what he wants in life through means other than attractiveness (money, power, fame, etc) than it is for a female.
Why would they need to do anything that overt? Most people today already willingly attach themselves to a GPS enabled device that they send out half their communications on.
The sad fact about prison is that the people who really deserve to be there (the socio-paths etc) tend to influence the non-socio paths into socio-paths so when they get out of prison they already have contacts on the outside to go commit crime.
Also businesses who will, under no circumstances, hire felons, or even anyone who's been arrested (if they ask/can find it out). We take away every decent (and most shitty) jobs from people who may have only criminals for support, and we expect them to lead a squeaky clean life? I know if I couldn't find a job and couldn't get some assistance, I'd be stealing (or insert other illegal act here) for survival at least. And if you're in a spot where they'll put you away anyway, might as well go big. Yet we wonder why recidivism rates are as high as they are.
Though there's a decent reason for moving to new languages, namely that as older programmers retire or move on (or get fired/promoted), it's a lot easier to get some new college grad up to speed on a system written in a language that isn't relegated to the history books of computer science. I've been (still am) that recent college grad, and even though working on a ten year old pile of Java converted from an even older pile of C++ written by someone who retired before you arrive isn't fun, it's a much better prospect than learning a whole new (yet very, very old) language as you try to figure things out.
They even have Klingon language camp
The first camp entirely situated in parents' basements!
Imagine the productivity boost for society if everyone in an office could actually type properly.
They would be able to send out twice as many pointless memos!
Since they were at a relative's house, I think the real question is why they're being left alone with that relative.
Several high-power professor types go "off the grid" on a backcountry rafting rafting trip.
I remember that movie!
Sweden is kind of a cruel place to live: amazingly hot women, yet their climate never gets warm enough to let them run around in bikinis.
The only real difference between 20 (or 30 or 40) years ago and now is that students don't need to trudge over to a lab and sit at a terminal to write their program that they hope won't run up against a memory ceiling. Now you can do it from the comfort of your dorm room and if your system complains about using too much memory on anything before a Junior or Senior level class, you're doing it wrong.
They'd be what's commonly referred to as a "sucker". But to answer your question, I doubt that gold is really "worth" US$1225 /oz. The market on that has been driven up by fears, speculation, self-fulfilling projections, and a lot of advertising to people who think that gold has never lost value (didn't people say that about houses?). But back in reality, gold has a few uses (in some electronics and the like), but for the most part it's just a shiny somewhat rare metal.
And NASA got cut because the public at large only wanted to go to the moon as a pissing contest with Russia. Once we got there and walked around, all the average person could see was a large chunk of money going to old news. It's not all that different today, except that we don't have a lot of money going to NASA, so cutting it further cripples it, and sure, there are criticisms to be made of what NASA does/has to do (politicians from every state sticking their hand in the pork barrel doesn't help), but if we want to expand the boundaries of our knowledge of the universe, NASA is one of the best places to put our dollar.