The nukes were on Russian ships, the emplacement was paid for by Russia, and all the money came from Russia as well. I doubt Castro had much to say in how the crisis was resolved. Castro approved the plan to install them, but that's about as far as his involvement went. Everything else was decided directly between Moscow and Washington. You can check out the wikipedia page with the timelines for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis
I don't think he was crazy. I don't think he was a communist either. I just think he was someone who, like a lot of folks, started out the right way but somewhere ended up missing a turn and then took the road down to Hell - paved, as always, with numerous good intentions.
In The Netherlands, you can get methadone free of charge and on prescription if you're addicted, but when you get it, you have to drink it right at the spot where you get it - you get it in a disposable cup. They aren't handing out packages of pills.
No they don't. At least, not in the entire EU and certainly not for all toys. I just read an article about how the Dutch Food and Wares Safety Inspection holds a lot of inspections, specifically aimed at protecting children from bad toys. Most of the well known manufacturers are very afraid of having bad toys on sale, but a lot of smaller ones aren't equipped or motivated to check out all the stuff they buy externally themselves. So the Inspection does it for them. One of the things they look for is how easy it is to break up a toy. If it is easy enough to break it up, it has to be removed from the market if it breaks into bits smaller than will fit into the throat of a small child. And magnets were a point they especially looked for, given their lethality and the fact it is hard to notice for parents that something that small has gone missing.
Not sure the bans work, but the reverse certainly works to kill more young drivers (not just car drivers: also pedestrians, bikers and motorists). In the UK the number of traffic casualties increased by 16% in 15 years (uncited newsreport). Not sure that that would be due solely to more equipment usage though.
Another study I found (http://www.swov.nl/rapport/R-2010-05.pdf - it's in Dutch though) cites the following items for bikers: - an increase of 40% in traffic accidents when comparing people who never use equipment while riding a bike, with people who do; - about 10% of all accidents and 9% of all accidents with injuries are preceded by use of equipment while riding a bike.
All in all not too shocking. I'm wondering whether a ban would help. I guess "getting some brains" would do more, but that would probably solve almost every traffic accident:)
Interesting question for lawyers: would having faith in an obviously non-performing automated solution classify as good faith belief? And how many errors would it take for it to become demonstrably not a good faith belief?
every possible combination of notes permissible under the rules of standard musical notation
That's quite a lot of combinations. Are you sure you don't want to guess every possible permutation of all 1024-bit keys first? That sounds much easier.
I started 3 years ago at 38. Even when it turned out to be painful because 6 months later the credit crisis struck, I still never regretted it for a second. I've almost recouped my loss from that period and the future does look bright. It did wonders for my resume and career, even if at some point I might be forced to get a regular job again.
Seriously: it's not a great time to start this, but if you have some money (6 months of net income at the very least, more likely 12) and someone willing to hire you, then go for it. The fact that *I* made this choice makes everything so much easier to live with.
You're being smart. Trying to become a manager when you don't love being that, is silly. Because people who say "everyone should become a manager" tend to forget one simple truth: we do not need all that many managers. It only works of 19 out of every 20 people die somewhere along the way. But that doesn't happen. So what happens to everyone else? Well, they usually keep on doing usefull work. In technology. The whole nonsense about "everyone goes into management" is just that: nonsense.
If we had problems that could be solved by shooting the messenger, we'd be out of messengers by now. Not withstanding that, people still try it every day. I mean, it's even a saying "to shoot the messenger", it's so common.
But people still think that someday the messenger will be appreciated for his bad tidings. This will never happen.
Jesus Christ got crucified too, and that's a serious risk for this guy as well. In the metaphorical sense, true, but it could still get pretty unpleasant. He really should quit tresspassing because it does not improve the disclosure, is no longer needed and finally, provides anyone who knows about it with a pretty big lever against him to shut him up. Don't give them more ammo than they already have.
Email bombs can, and will, in this case be dealt with by calling the police about a stalker who has threatened to hack the database. Only a small twist of the truth and off he goes.
Don't annoy them. Just call the Visa/Mastercard fraud hotlines and explain the issue. They are MUCH more qualified to solve this (as opposed to: publish this) than most people here.
Having creditcard information stored in the clear in a database, without a VERY clear need to do so, can lead to pretty severe repercussions for the company. Like being unable to do business anymore. If they are doing that they are clueless to start with, IMO. You might want to report them anonymously to both Visa and Mastercard.
But whatever you do: I would not press this matter too much. And most certainly, do NOT attempt further checks or intrusions, they will get you jailed if something goes wrong. You really don't want to share lawyers with some guys that *also* found the flaw and tried to sell the creditcard numbers. Getting cleared of that might take a looooooong time.
But a few months ago I had the same question as OP and with aid of this site resolved it to "Canon Powershot S95 or Panasonic Lumix LX-5". Given that the S100 has been released, I'd say the choice should be easy:)
Or spend a bit less and buy a casio exilim until you decide you want better pictures than that. It still beats any smartphone hands down.
He just wants to take some pictures of family and friends. That screams "compact". Now the canon S100 has been released, you can get an S95 much cheaper. If you like fiddling with settings, you can always sell it for about the same on ebay and get a DSLR.
I have a Canon s95 as well and for the question that was asked (just taking pictures) it's a great camera. I bought it a few months ago when I needed a compact camera. Checked all the reviews and stuff.
As for the flash: my default is "off". I rarely need it on the s95. Even in a dark theater, most pictures are better without flash. I recently went to a show and most of the flashed images are too light. And I don't like postprocessing. The no-flash images were quite nice, but ofcourse with fast movements of players you get blur. Which has its own charm because it gives a more dynamic picture. But ymmv on that. For daytime pictures or pictures in a well-lit room, no need for flash on this camera at all. Iso 400 still looks great for family pictures.
A photographer looked at my pictures recently because he wanted to buy a small camera too (parttime photographer/IT worker) and he's now going to buy one too. It's small, fast enough, has nice tricks (love the support for panorama shots and the HDR because I don't want to buy a software package for it) and a very decent lens and sensor for a compact camera. The s100 has just been released and the specs are even better (lens-wise).
And also: check out www.dpreview.com - really nice site. Also check the galleries and see what people actually use to shoot with.
Otoh: the original question could probably be served with a Casio Exilim just as well as anything more expensive. Only when you get interested in photography will it be worth the money to buy a better one. The zoom on the exilim actually gives you some nice depth of field as well.
Sure, you could make the control window into a sort of tree. Default it would be "open a window" access which would do for most apps. But I'm sure there are more refinements. It's just that the basic idea isn't all that hard to come up with - so why hasn't this been implemented yet. It's really weird.
If MS starts to include Paint.Net instead of Paint, that would really hurt picture editors. Although I actually use both because pbrush fires up faster and is usefull to paste screenshots into:)
Too true! Capability computing has for so long been neglected but it could solve many of the current security issues.
For instance: I would love to grant any new app the following rights: - interact with my screen - interact with folder X and subfolders (read-only) in the program location - interact with folder X and subfolders (read-write) in the data location - interact with folder X in the registry (read-write)
For games additional rights would be: - interact with my graphics card directly - interact with my soundcard directly
Actually, there isn't a single reason why programs shouldn't be sandboxed like that as a default, and only getting additional rights when specifically requested and granted by the OS. Combine that with transparent redirects and most programs should run okay. Sandboxie (http://www.sandboxie.com/index.php) already does it so how hard would it be for the Windows engineer to incorporate something like that into the OS?
I only had one gripe with LotR, and that was how they portrayed Denethor. To portray him as insane in the way they did in the movie where he jumped of the cliff was much more of a cliché than what was described in the book, where he immolated himself. Basically, they changed "buddhist monk burning himself in protest" into "raging loon immolating himself by accident". I thought that was a wholly unnecessary, even counterproductive, change to the story.
However, it was a fantastic achievement to film it like it was done. And I'm nitpicking.
Slashdot Mirror
The nukes were on Russian ships, the emplacement was paid for by Russia, and all the money came from Russia as well. I doubt Castro had much to say in how the crisis was resolved. Castro approved the plan to install them, but that's about as far as his involvement went. Everything else was decided directly between Moscow and Washington. You can check out the wikipedia page with the timelines for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis
I don't think he was crazy. I don't think he was a communist either. I just think he was someone who, like a lot of folks, started out the right way but somewhere ended up missing a turn and then took the road down to Hell - paved, as always, with numerous good intentions.
In The Netherlands, you can get methadone free of charge and on prescription if you're addicted, but when you get it, you have to drink it right at the spot where you get it - you get it in a disposable cup. They aren't handing out packages of pills.
No they don't. At least, not in the entire EU and certainly not for all toys. I just read an article about how the Dutch Food and Wares Safety Inspection holds a lot of inspections, specifically aimed at protecting children from bad toys. Most of the well known manufacturers are very afraid of having bad toys on sale, but a lot of smaller ones aren't equipped or motivated to check out all the stuff they buy externally themselves. So the Inspection does it for them. One of the things they look for is how easy it is to break up a toy. If it is easy enough to break it up, it has to be removed from the market if it breaks into bits smaller than will fit into the throat of a small child. And magnets were a point they especially looked for, given their lethality and the fact it is hard to notice for parents that something that small has gone missing.
Don't worry, I've modded you up!
Oh, wait...
Actually, drinking and driving does kill people :)
(or perhaps you meant coffee? you wuss - I always have a bottle of Vodka in the cupholder :))
Not sure the bans work, but the reverse certainly works to kill more young drivers (not just car drivers: also pedestrians, bikers and motorists). In the UK the number of traffic casualties increased by 16% in 15 years (uncited newsreport). Not sure that that would be due solely to more equipment usage though.
Another study I found (http://www.swov.nl/rapport/R-2010-05.pdf - it's in Dutch though) cites the following items for bikers:
- an increase of 40% in traffic accidents when comparing people who never use equipment while riding a bike, with people who do;
- about 10% of all accidents and 9% of all accidents with injuries are preceded by use of equipment while riding a bike.
All in all not too shocking. I'm wondering whether a ban would help. I guess "getting some brains" would do more, but that would probably solve almost every traffic accident :)
Interesting question for lawyers: would having faith in an obviously non-performing automated solution classify as good faith belief? And how many errors would it take for it to become demonstrably not a good faith belief?
every possible combination of notes permissible under the rules of standard musical notation
That's quite a lot of combinations. Are you sure you don't want to guess every possible permutation of all 1024-bit keys first? That sounds much easier.
I started 3 years ago at 38. Even when it turned out to be painful because 6 months later the credit crisis struck, I still never regretted it for a second. I've almost recouped my loss from that period and the future does look bright. It did wonders for my resume and career, even if at some point I might be forced to get a regular job again.
Seriously: it's not a great time to start this, but if you have some money (6 months of net income at the very least, more likely 12) and someone willing to hire you, then go for it. The fact that *I* made this choice makes everything so much easier to live with.
You're being smart. Trying to become a manager when you don't love being that, is silly. Because people who say "everyone should become a manager" tend to forget one simple truth: we do not need all that many managers. It only works of 19 out of every 20 people die somewhere along the way. But that doesn't happen. So what happens to everyone else? Well, they usually keep on doing usefull work. In technology. The whole nonsense about "everyone goes into management" is just that: nonsense.
If we had problems that could be solved by shooting the messenger, we'd be out of messengers by now. Not withstanding that, people still try it every day. I mean, it's even a saying "to shoot the messenger", it's so common.
But people still think that someday the messenger will be appreciated for his bad tidings. This will never happen.
Jesus Christ got crucified too, and that's a serious risk for this guy as well. In the metaphorical sense, true, but it could still get pretty unpleasant. He really should quit tresspassing because it does not improve the disclosure, is no longer needed and finally, provides anyone who knows about it with a pretty big lever against him to shut him up. Don't give them more ammo than they already have.
Email bombs can, and will, in this case be dealt with by calling the police about a stalker who has threatened to hack the database. Only a small twist of the truth and off he goes.
Don't annoy them. Just call the Visa/Mastercard fraud hotlines and explain the issue. They are MUCH more qualified to solve this (as opposed to: publish this) than most people here.
Having creditcard information stored in the clear in a database, without a VERY clear need to do so, can lead to pretty severe repercussions for the company. Like being unable to do business anymore. If they are doing that they are clueless to start with, IMO. You might want to report them anonymously to both Visa and Mastercard.
But whatever you do: I would not press this matter too much. And most certainly, do NOT attempt further checks or intrusions, they will get you jailed if something goes wrong. You really don't want to share lawyers with some guys that *also* found the flaw and tried to sell the creditcard numbers. Getting cleared of that might take a looooooong time.
I can recommend dpreview.com.
But a few months ago I had the same question as OP and with aid of this site resolved it to "Canon Powershot S95 or Panasonic Lumix LX-5". Given that the S100 has been released, I'd say the choice should be easy :)
Or spend a bit less and buy a casio exilim until you decide you want better pictures than that. It still beats any smartphone hands down.
He just wants to take some pictures of family and friends. That screams "compact". Now the canon S100 has been released, you can get an S95 much cheaper. If you like fiddling with settings, you can always sell it for about the same on ebay and get a DSLR.
I have a Canon s95 as well and for the question that was asked (just taking pictures) it's a great camera. I bought it a few months ago when I needed a compact camera. Checked all the reviews and stuff.
As for the flash: my default is "off". I rarely need it on the s95. Even in a dark theater, most pictures are better without flash. I recently went to a show and most of the flashed images are too light. And I don't like postprocessing. The no-flash images were quite nice, but ofcourse with fast movements of players you get blur. Which has its own charm because it gives a more dynamic picture. But ymmv on that. For daytime pictures or pictures in a well-lit room, no need for flash on this camera at all. Iso 400 still looks great for family pictures.
A photographer looked at my pictures recently because he wanted to buy a small camera too (parttime photographer/IT worker) and he's now going to buy one too. It's small, fast enough, has nice tricks (love the support for panorama shots and the HDR because I don't want to buy a software package for it) and a very decent lens and sensor for a compact camera. The s100 has just been released and the specs are even better (lens-wise).
And also: check out www.dpreview.com - really nice site. Also check the galleries and see what people actually use to shoot with.
Otoh: the original question could probably be served with a Casio Exilim just as well as anything more expensive. Only when you get interested in photography will it be worth the money to buy a better one. The zoom on the exilim actually gives you some nice depth of field as well.
Sales persons are angels in disguise. Really :)
I think the name should have tipped you off :)
I read that as a joke on the Republicans. You know, the Sith :)
Sure, you could make the control window into a sort of tree. Default it would be "open a window" access which would do for most apps. But I'm sure there are more refinements. It's just that the basic idea isn't all that hard to come up with - so why hasn't this been implemented yet. It's really weird.
If MS starts to include Paint.Net instead of Paint, that would really hurt picture editors. Although I actually use both because pbrush fires up faster and is usefull to paste screenshots into :)
Too true! Capability computing has for so long been neglected but it could solve many of the current security issues.
For instance: I would love to grant any new app the following rights:
- interact with my screen
- interact with folder X and subfolders (read-only) in the program location
- interact with folder X and subfolders (read-write) in the data location
- interact with folder X in the registry (read-write)
For games additional rights would be:
- interact with my graphics card directly
- interact with my soundcard directly
Actually, there isn't a single reason why programs shouldn't be sandboxed like that as a default, and only getting additional rights when specifically requested and granted by the OS. Combine that with transparent redirects and most programs should run okay. Sandboxie (http://www.sandboxie.com/index.php) already does it so how hard would it be for the Windows engineer to incorporate something like that into the OS?
Priceless :)
I'm seeing a Monthy Python sketch in the making :)
I only had one gripe with LotR, and that was how they portrayed Denethor. To portray him as insane in the way they did in the movie where he jumped of the cliff was much more of a cliché than what was described in the book, where he immolated himself. Basically, they changed "buddhist monk burning himself in protest" into "raging loon immolating himself by accident". I thought that was a wholly unnecessary, even counterproductive, change to the story.
However, it was a fantastic achievement to film it like it was done. And I'm nitpicking.