The slice of silicon wafer that makes up the guts are the 'chip'. The black piece you can see with the wires sticking out of it, and with the wires inside that connect to the actual chip is the packaging.
Ok, so first we'd need to get this thing enshrined in law, like most municipal codes have the whole 'master electrician' thing enshrined in law. Otherwise, what's the point of your master IT license. So now, you have to have a master IT license to produce any computer code to be used in a governmental agency or software in any regulated industry (don't worry, though, those industries not regulated will have to use a licensed IT master soon).
Next, instead of college you (random joe out of high school) work for 3 years as an apprentice and then journeyman at a web development house writing their PHP stuff having every line reviewed by two people above you and taking vocational night courses on programming. Then you pass the test which, by necessity, can't be much more than basic programming concepts because nobody knows enough of every language in current use to pass an exhaustive test on all of them. Finally, you put on your resume that you're a licensed IT master.
Ok, now, you go out into the world... but its 3 years later... PHP jobs are becoming scarce and lets say, oh, Ruby/Rails is prime-time now for web apps. (Just to pick one at random.) What has your master IT license gotten you, or your employer? Just the right to work in the field, which you wouldn't have if you hadn't spent 3 years as an apprentice & journeyman. You still don't have the skills you need and your potential employer thinks you should because you hold a master IT license. What if you discovered programming as a possible career at age 35, when you decided, um, park ranger wasn't the life for you? Too late, you won't really work in the field until you're 38, regardless of how well and quickly you pick up the skills.
And that's not even getting into the ramifications for free software.
I'm pretty sure, reading my comment again, that I'm clear on training being based, in theory, on experience. Practically, though, a master electrician's license is all you need for all sorts of electrician's work, even though most people's experience is a narrow subset of that. I wouldn't feel comfortable bringing in a master electrician who'd worked primarily on residential new construction to handle the rewiring of a 40 year old high-rise. At the same time, if someone specifically trained and studied that type of wiring and its associated issues, a particularly intelligent person should be able to cultivate the skills to handle the job in much less than three years. So on a practical level, the multi-year apprentice/journeyman process ends up being little more than a tool to control who can enter the field.
Not only do I not think the apprenticeship method works well for the trades that currently use it, I think it would be disastrous for a trade such as IT, but I also think that a professional union would move towards that sort of seniority based system.
The thing is, many intelligent people could learn the intricacies of those varied aspects of the code quickly, and then easily pass any journeyman or even master electrician test in a matter of just a few months. But the licensing requirements mean spending over three years as a subordinate before you're even eligible for the master electrician test.
In theory, this is so that you have time to encounter all these intricacies as real world problems in the field. In reality, however, most people just get a job doing one thing, work on that job for the requisite years, and then get their license. They've never had to encounter the oddball cases in the real world, and many could probably have passed the test years earlier.
It looks to me like the out-of-context excerpts here all pertain to your use of Google's services with Chrome. All of these services state that you agree to let Google use the data you generate so I perhaps these clauses are present in Chrome's EULA to cover your use of their apps in Gears?
No, they define "Services" in 1.1:
Google's products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the "Services" in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement)
By the definition, Chrome is included in "Services"
company: "He is domain squatting"
guy: "They asked me for a price on the domain, this is entrapment. I have proof of them asking me for the domain price before I issued my price to them"
judge: "I find in favor of the defendant (the guy)"
Where have you been living? For a mere $1,200, a company can file for arbitration and stands a good chance of the arbitrator finding in favor of them.
(more likely)
company: "He is domain squatting"
guy: "They asked me for a price on the domain, this is entrapment. I have proof of them asking me for the domain price before I issued my price to them"
ICANN abritrator: You named a price, therefore you're willing to sell it, and you have no website, therefore you're a squatter. Plus, they have a trademark and you don't. Here you go, [company].
Nothing like adding a little judgmental stereotyping in there, eh? I'm a polyamorous, male, and live with my wife of 8 years, my other primary, and have a secondary in another location, all well aware of each other and all also poly. (Plus my kid, and my o.p.'s 3 kids, & some of wife & o.p.'s other relationships) My longest running relationship of spans 15 years.
Of course this might confuse the average slashdotter (who, the stereotype says, has no women in his life), but still, monogamy and commitment are orthogonal issues.
BBB isn't a useful agency, you can report complaints to them and they can tell other people that a company has complaints against it, and that's about it. Oh, and if the company says the complaint was resolved, then they close it out. So the numbers for any company that pays attention to the BBB are pretty much useless.
Maybe this will help:
Congress shall make no law (((respecting an establishment of religion) or (prohibiting the free exercise thereof)) or (abridging (the freedom (of speech) or (of the press)) or ((the right of the people peaceably to assemble) and (to petition the government for a redress of grievances)))).
The alleged violation is "abridging (the freedom (of speech) or (of the press))". The assembly subclause is enclosed within a different area of the clause.
As it stands, even with the recent erosion in the dollar, average Americans have more material wealth than they had 50 years ago, or 30 years ago.
The average American, yes. But the US government has a lot more debt than it had 30 years ago.
NASA's budget for the 10 year period from 1963-1972, during the Apollo program, averaged $25 billion per year, with a peak of $33.5 billion in 1965, in adjusted dollars. NASA's 2008 budget is around $17 billion. 2007's appropriations for Iraq alone were $170 billion, and 2008's are around $190 billion.
Restoring NASA's budget to the average Apollo budget would run an extra $8 billion, which is really a drop in the federal budget bucket, and I'd rather they borrowed a bit for the education and technological advancement that would be required than looking for yet another place to start a war. The problem is there's nothing sexy to go up for that will turn heads. There's no oil up there, or other chemicals we can use as fuel down here. If someone were to find a cost effective way to mine rare minerals from asteroid belts, then maybe the feds would find a reason to fund NASA. (Though I don't know what treaties would have to say about that.) Then again, that's a task I'd rather leave to private industry, since if its subsidized by the government, we'll never know how cost effective it really is.
Heck, water, given the right conditions, can be made potentially explosive.
References, please.
Apply extreme heat in an enclosed environment and you can get a steam explosion. Can be a problem with sand casting of iron, which a few people also do as a hobby.
For this very reason I am working on a GPU tracking unit for my car, which will store the data encrypted on an SD card.
It will warn me about speed cameras, but in the event that one mistakenly flashes me I will have GPS data to prove it.
Unfortunately, a self-built device like this is not likely to be admissible as evidence, since you (an interested party) had control over the data at all times. The device referred to in the article transmitted its position data to a central server at (according to the manufacturer's website) 3 second intervals. The data was never controlled by the end user.
In order to be admissible, you'd probably have to rely on a third party product that had some sort of tamper-resistant scheme in place. Like adding an hash of every record, encrypted with a public key stored on board, corresponding to a private key held by the manufacturer that could be used on request to verify the records were not tampered with. Could be a good selling point.
Too bad it won't let me read page two of the article because it first starts by trying to ask me to complete a survey about their site then starts redirecting me elsewhere. I think that qualifies as irony.
I do understand what you're saying, about the creation of classes that didn't exist when the amendment was written, I'm just not sure I read it the same way. I think the ban on classes that are restricted to solely military use are related to the likelyhood of the average citizen owning a cannon in that period.
Really, it reads as though they wanted to explicitly state that the right to bear arms is an individual right, and that all arms are included, but they couldn't get the five votes to say that unless they called 'military arms' a special class that the militia wouldn't be expected to have and therefore wouldn't be reserved.
In any case, the meat and bones of the judgment appears to be this, as stated at pages 58 and 60: The weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those that 'were in common use at the time'. However, this appears to extend to 'classes' of weapons, rather than specific designs (for example, semi-automatic and automatic firearms were not around until the middle of the 19th century, and would therefore certainly not have been 'in common use at the time' and would likely be prohibited), so essentially limits the second amendment to pistols and rifles; I am unsure how this would apply to things like submachine guns, assault rifles, and sniper rifles which likely did not even exist as 'classes' at the time; they don't really say, except to say that "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service -M-16s and the like- may be banned..." which does imply in fact that assault rifles as a class do not survive the 'in common use' test.
But, from page 8 of the decision (page 11 of the pdf):
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
In the section you cite, at the bottom of page 55 (58 of the pdf), the comparison is made of small arms against tanks and bombers. It implies that the second amendment will not be extended to allowing citizens to keep and bear tanks and bombers. In the section I cite, they clearly indicate that modern advances may be bearable arms, though again the section you cite modifies this. Bearable arms appear to be something that an average citizen might reasonably have, such as a handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle, semi-automatic or manually operated, but would not include a specifically military weapon such as a fully automatic machine gun.
In this I think they err, as on page 8 (11 of the pdf) when they define "arms" they state, "the term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity." However, before and after this sentence in this section they give numerous examples of "arms" that encompass all weapons and armor of offense and defense, regardless of military design and intent.
I have a mid sized SUV because I regularly tow, carry at least 3 passengers, and have to pull my tow load into and out of muddy off-road environments often enough for it to be worth my while. Of course, that probably makes me one of the 1% or so who actually purchased and use an SUV for its original design intent, but still, I don't think I can see a rally car doing any of that.
Of course, I only drive it 15 miles each way, to and from work on a daily basis, so while I could upgrade to a fuel efficient compact car for commuting and cut my fuel use in half, that still wouldn't save enough to pay for itself. The difference would barely pay back the added insurance fees.
And I think that risks of massive die-offs of humans would be a really good reason to take some serious effort against climate change.
You are a strange nihilist.
I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatist. In the longest term sense, I want to see myself and my progeny excel. Failing that, I want to see myself and my progeny survive. Failing even that, I at least want to see my race excel, and failing that, ultimately survive to eventually excel.
At the same time I acknowledge that on that road we run the risk of one or more cataclysmic events that will shape our species in the centuries and millennia to come, though I strongly encourage measures that will limit the damage to our race, and our planet. We can control a portion of the risk factor, but not all of it, and I hope that we can control enough of it to matter. I think one of the most important things we as a species can do over the next hundred years is form colonies not bound to Earth, and over the next two hundred years to form colonies not bound to our sun.
No, NULL is a pointer, and a pointer is an unsigned integer. You can't assign the value of "valueless" to an integer. You can assign zero. In the vast majority of systems, the comparison of "NULL == 0" is true, and thus of course "NULL == NULL" is also true.
Null can be implemented as a pointer, but doesn't have to be. In SQL the expected behavior of NULL is to match nothing, except statements like 'WHERE x IS NULL' or IFNULL().
Even if ALL the humans die off, we're just another species. People always seem to imply that the end of the human race is the end of the world, but it isn't. SOMETHING will live on.
Oh, I quite agree. The same logic even applies to some future AI we create that gains sentience and wipes out the human race. In either case, our race is gone but other life lives on.
Its just that, as a human, I'm fairly attached to my race and don't want to see it wiped out.
I can't think of any language or system offhand in which NULL implies zero. What are you referring to?
NULL, zero, NaN, and undef are all distinct constructs which are not completely interchangable, though some computing languages allow you to interchange some of them.
As far as I'm aware:
zero is a value, none. None is not the same as nothing.
NaN is a theoretical value, there's a value out there but because the conditions that got you to this point in the calculation are the result of taking an unknown to an unknown level, you can't define what it is, let alone that it is a number.
NULL is valueless, empty, nothing. It might be used in the context of a null set, in which case the set is empty, but this isn't the same as a set which contains a single entry that is a zero, it is simply outright empty. If you ask if 0 == 0, the result is true, if you ask if NULL == 0, the answer is false, because the NULL is nothingness. If you ask if NULL == NULL, the answer is still false, because neither value can match anything.
undef is a placeholder of something that will probably get a value at some point, but currently doesn't have one. Until it does, its value can probably be considered NULL.
Now, I don't deny global warming is happening, but I don't think its the end of life, just life as we know it. Some of the problems you note we can adapt to, and if I'm lucky it will mean the social norm will change when temps are warmer up here in NY so I don't have to wear a button down shirt and pants to work every day.
Warmer temperatures induce melting of arctic and greenland icesheets. If this continues far enough, it may reduce the salinity of the north Atlantic to the point that the oceanic conveyor shuts down; If this happens, Europe freezes. There is evidence that this is already in progress; Measurements have indicated that the columns of cold, dense saltwater from the surface that need to sink to the ocean floor are not getting as far down as they should.
That one's so 2004, 2006 data contradicted it. (Unfortunately, most of the citations are scientific subscription-only, the AP stories are long archived and I can't find them now.)
Increasing temperatures over equatorial oceans drive increased humidity and increased storm formation, resulting in an increased number of more powerful hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones. Rising humidity in tropical regions is also extending the range of tropical disease-carrying insects northwards.
Hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones we can adapt to. And won't these phenomena put more liquid into the air to come down as rain elsewhere? Tropical diseases we can immunize for, and those we can't we'll have to evolve for. (Yep, it'll really suck for a few decades.)
The addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is altering the equilibrium acidity of the oceans...
Unfortunately true, also true though is that species reactions to the phoenomenon vary widely, and while many species will die off, it is very likely that many will be able to adapt successfully, spawning new species which can exist in the environment.
Underneath the permafrost in much of the north are unimaginably massive deposits of methane calthrates... If rising temperatures induce a massive decomposition (blowout) of calthrates, the result would be catastrophic beyond measure...
Fascinating, and doing a little reading it seems the methane already being released currently dwarfs our greenhouse gas emissions a hundredfold. Might this mean the anti-global-warming nuts have one thing right, not that global warming isn't happening (because it obviously is), but that we aren't releasing enough on our own to make a difference?
There is a now famous picture, showing an image of a Himalayan ice pack taken circa 1910 alongside an image taken today; The ice has all but disappeared. If reduced snow accumulation and increased melting takes place, many borderline parts of the world will be tipped into being outright deserts due to reduced river flow. Guess what feeds the world's rivers?
Here's where that extra water vapor in the air from earlier comes in. Honestly, at the warmest point between the end of the Karoo Ice Age and the start of the Quaternary glaciation, were there any peaks with permanent ice pack? Besides, the portion that is 'permanent ice pack' doesn't actually add anything to the rivers, though it does help more snow to stick to the peak that does. I'm not convinced the loss of the permanent ice on the mountain peaks will have a devastating effect on the downstream rivers.
When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the weather was hot and sticky and plants were pretty much everywhere. As they died off and geologic-scale processes entombed their carbon, temperatures dropped and we entered an ice age. Now we're putting all their carbon back into the air. I think the most likely result will be a return to that hot, sticky environment, and a loss of millions o
Slashdot Mirror
Truthiness is a creation of Steven Colbert of the Colbert Report, and was Merriam-Webster's 2006 word of the year
The slice of silicon wafer that makes up the guts are the 'chip'. The black piece you can see with the wires sticking out of it, and with the wires inside that connect to the actual chip is the packaging.
Ok, so first we'd need to get this thing enshrined in law, like most municipal codes have the whole 'master electrician' thing enshrined in law. Otherwise, what's the point of your master IT license. So now, you have to have a master IT license to produce any computer code to be used in a governmental agency or software in any regulated industry (don't worry, though, those industries not regulated will have to use a licensed IT master soon).
Next, instead of college you (random joe out of high school) work for 3 years as an apprentice and then journeyman at a web development house writing their PHP stuff having every line reviewed by two people above you and taking vocational night courses on programming. Then you pass the test which, by necessity, can't be much more than basic programming concepts because nobody knows enough of every language in current use to pass an exhaustive test on all of them. Finally, you put on your resume that you're a licensed IT master.
Ok, now, you go out into the world... but its 3 years later... PHP jobs are becoming scarce and lets say, oh, Ruby/Rails is prime-time now for web apps. (Just to pick one at random.) What has your master IT license gotten you, or your employer? Just the right to work in the field, which you wouldn't have if you hadn't spent 3 years as an apprentice & journeyman. You still don't have the skills you need and your potential employer thinks you should because you hold a master IT license. What if you discovered programming as a possible career at age 35, when you decided, um, park ranger wasn't the life for you? Too late, you won't really work in the field until you're 38, regardless of how well and quickly you pick up the skills.
And that's not even getting into the ramifications for free software.
Not only do I not think the apprenticeship method works well for the trades that currently use it, I think it would be disastrous for a trade such as IT, but I also think that a professional union would move towards that sort of seniority based system.
In theory, this is so that you have time to encounter all these intricacies as real world problems in the field. In reality, however, most people just get a job doing one thing, work on that job for the requisite years, and then get their license. They've never had to encounter the oddball cases in the real world, and many could probably have passed the test years earlier.
No, they define "Services" in 1.1:
By the definition, Chrome is included in "Services"
Where have you been living? For a mere $1,200, a company can file for arbitration and stands a good chance of the arbitrator finding in favor of them.
Nah, each of them has one or more additional significant others.
Nothing like adding a little judgmental stereotyping in there, eh? I'm a polyamorous, male, and live with my wife of 8 years, my other primary, and have a secondary in another location, all well aware of each other and all also poly. (Plus my kid, and my o.p.'s 3 kids, & some of wife & o.p.'s other relationships) My longest running relationship of spans 15 years.
Of course this might confuse the average slashdotter (who, the stereotype says, has no women in his life), but still, monogamy and commitment are orthogonal issues.
My favorite is "I live in a (blue|red) state, so my vote doesn't matter, the state will go with (blue|red) candidate regardless, so I won't vote."
BBB isn't a useful agency, you can report complaints to them and they can tell other people that a company has complaints against it, and that's about it. Oh, and if the company says the complaint was resolved, then they close it out. So the numbers for any company that pays attention to the BBB are pretty much useless.
Maybe this will help: Congress shall make no law (((respecting an establishment of religion) or (prohibiting the free exercise thereof)) or (abridging (the freedom (of speech) or (of the press)) or ((the right of the people peaceably to assemble) and (to petition the government for a redress of grievances)))). The alleged violation is "abridging (the freedom (of speech) or (of the press))". The assembly subclause is enclosed within a different area of the clause.
NASA's budget for the 10 year period from 1963-1972, during the Apollo program, averaged $25 billion per year, with a peak of $33.5 billion in 1965, in adjusted dollars. NASA's 2008 budget is around $17 billion. 2007's appropriations for Iraq alone were $170 billion, and 2008's are around $190 billion.
Restoring NASA's budget to the average Apollo budget would run an extra $8 billion, which is really a drop in the federal budget bucket, and I'd rather they borrowed a bit for the education and technological advancement that would be required than looking for yet another place to start a war. The problem is there's nothing sexy to go up for that will turn heads. There's no oil up there, or other chemicals we can use as fuel down here. If someone were to find a cost effective way to mine rare minerals from asteroid belts, then maybe the feds would find a reason to fund NASA. (Though I don't know what treaties would have to say about that.) Then again, that's a task I'd rather leave to private industry, since if its subsidized by the government, we'll never know how cost effective it really is.
Apply extreme heat in an enclosed environment and you can get a steam explosion. Can be a problem with sand casting of iron, which a few people also do as a hobby.
Unfortunately, a self-built device like this is not likely to be admissible as evidence, since you (an interested party) had control over the data at all times. The device referred to in the article transmitted its position data to a central server at (according to the manufacturer's website) 3 second intervals. The data was never controlled by the end user.
In order to be admissible, you'd probably have to rely on a third party product that had some sort of tamper-resistant scheme in place. Like adding an hash of every record, encrypted with a public key stored on board, corresponding to a private key held by the manufacturer that could be used on request to verify the records were not tampered with. Could be a good selling point.
Too bad it won't let me read page two of the article because it first starts by trying to ask me to complete a survey about their site then starts redirecting me elsewhere. I think that qualifies as irony.
Really, it reads as though they wanted to explicitly state that the right to bear arms is an individual right, and that all arms are included, but they couldn't get the five votes to say that unless they called 'military arms' a special class that the militia wouldn't be expected to have and therefore wouldn't be reserved.
But, from page 8 of the decision (page 11 of the pdf):
In the section you cite, at the bottom of page 55 (58 of the pdf), the comparison is made of small arms against tanks and bombers. It implies that the second amendment will not be extended to allowing citizens to keep and bear tanks and bombers. In the section I cite, they clearly indicate that modern advances may be bearable arms, though again the section you cite modifies this. Bearable arms appear to be something that an average citizen might reasonably have, such as a handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle, semi-automatic or manually operated, but would not include a specifically military weapon such as a fully automatic machine gun.
In this I think they err, as on page 8 (11 of the pdf) when they define "arms" they state, "the term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity." However, before and after this sentence in this section they give numerous examples of "arms" that encompass all weapons and armor of offense and defense, regardless of military design and intent.
Of course, I only drive it 15 miles each way, to and from work on a daily basis, so while I could upgrade to a fuel efficient compact car for commuting and cut my fuel use in half, that still wouldn't save enough to pay for itself. The difference would barely pay back the added insurance fees.
I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatist. In the longest term sense, I want to see myself and my progeny excel. Failing that, I want to see myself and my progeny survive. Failing even that, I at least want to see my race excel, and failing that, ultimately survive to eventually excel.
At the same time I acknowledge that on that road we run the risk of one or more cataclysmic events that will shape our species in the centuries and millennia to come, though I strongly encourage measures that will limit the damage to our race, and our planet. We can control a portion of the risk factor, but not all of it, and I hope that we can control enough of it to matter. I think one of the most important things we as a species can do over the next hundred years is form colonies not bound to Earth, and over the next two hundred years to form colonies not bound to our sun.
Its just that, as a human, I'm fairly attached to my race and don't want to see it wiped out.
NULL, zero, NaN, and undef are all distinct constructs which are not completely interchangable, though some computing languages allow you to interchange some of them.
As far as I'm aware:
That one's so 2004, 2006 data contradicted it. (Unfortunately, most of the citations are scientific subscription-only, the AP stories are long archived and I can't find them now.)
Hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones we can adapt to. And won't these phenomena put more liquid into the air to come down as rain elsewhere? Tropical diseases we can immunize for, and those we can't we'll have to evolve for. (Yep, it'll really suck for a few decades.)
Unfortunately true, also true though is that species reactions to the phoenomenon vary widely, and while many species will die off, it is very likely that many will be able to adapt successfully, spawning new species which can exist in the environment.
Fascinating, and doing a little reading it seems the methane already being released currently dwarfs our greenhouse gas emissions a hundredfold. Might this mean the anti-global-warming nuts have one thing right, not that global warming isn't happening (because it obviously is), but that we aren't releasing enough on our own to make a difference?
Here's where that extra water vapor in the air from earlier comes in. Honestly, at the warmest point between the end of the Karoo Ice Age and the start of the Quaternary glaciation, were there any peaks with permanent ice pack? Besides, the portion that is 'permanent ice pack' doesn't actually add anything to the rivers, though it does help more snow to stick to the peak that does. I'm not convinced the loss of the permanent ice on the mountain peaks will have a devastating effect on the downstream rivers.
When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the weather was hot and sticky and plants were pretty much everywhere. As they died off and geologic-scale processes entombed their carbon, temperatures dropped and we entered an ice age. Now we're putting all their carbon back into the air. I think the most likely result will be a return to that hot, sticky environment, and a loss of millions o