I guess being diagnosed by a shrink at the age of 12 (this was around 1989) with ADD simply by me looking up when the madman snapped his fingers after giving me a puzzle to complete.
He'd already decided to diagnose you. If you hadn't looked up, he would have called it an example of hyperfocusing, the other half of ADD. Sounds like a charlatan's trick.
2) I'll happily put this on my own guns after the police have used it for five years on theirs, and have come to accept it as a reliable technology.
I'm with you on this. When every gun used by every agent of the government in my state (police, military, federal agents, etc) use this technology, I'll consider using it as well.
The big question, of course, is: Did they keep within the law? If their maneuvers passed the bounds of law, then they're in for a bit of hurt. Unfortunately, the taxpayers would like to see them in a whole world of hurt, but good lawyers will get the penalties and back taxes reduced to a relative pittance and, in the long run, they'll have still saved money.
When you have enough money, breaking the law can make good business sense.
I'm a programmer, and there's little worse than having someone in Marketing or Sales come to me to ask for a specific task to be done in a specific way, because half way through the project I'll generally figure out what it was they were trying to accomplish and have to start from scratch to deliver a product that actually meets their needs. Because they know some of how things work on the back end, they try to solve a problem themselves and then send it to IT for implementation. What I prefer is that they present us with their problem or need and we can go over, with them, several possible deliverable solutions and their relative merits, time to deliver, and cost to deliver.
Reading this, I can now see that it could actually be worse. They could be versed in programming languages we don't use and come to us with solutions that use their own personal hammer, not the full tool set we possess.
Open articles.
Ctrl-F "Controling"
No results.
Close tab.
Nothing of value.
(They did start another study for control for genetic factors, but those aren't the most important)
Article says
The long-term associations held even after the researchers took other common factors into account.
"These findings imply that basic childhood skills, independent of how smart you are, how long you stay in school, or the social class you started off in, will be important throughout your life," say Ritchie and Bates.
Which implies that they controlled for socioeconomic status. However, the actual paper appears to be behind a paywall. Therefore I don't know what's in it, beyond what this article tells me.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you can't use it if it isn't exposed to the internet. Look into VPNs and how they work. It should provide you with a serious Homer Simpsonesque DOH moment.
If I can get to something through an internet based connection to a VPN, it is exposed to the internet. It has an added layer of security, yes, but it is still exposed.
And yet the same people wrote a constitution that put serious limits on what the government could do. Apparently this "banding together" thing wasn't supposed to be government mandated fed by enforced collection of property from the civil population.
"Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" - Article I, Section 8.
That's exactly how the government funding was designed, yes. That's what taxes are.
Because Socialism is as bad as all that. But targeted application of certain social programs is not the same thing as Socialism, but that's what we're being sold as by the right. Universal health care, paid for by an income/wealth based tax on everyone, isn't the same thing as paying everyone the same amount and giving them the same service.
The founding fathers also recognized that we're all in this together, and the only way we'll succeed is to work together.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Our country was built by individuals banding together to accomplish tasks that no individual can accomplish alone. We encourage both the individual *and* the group. You can see it in the most recent recession. People who had perfectly good homes and perfectly good jobs and ample savings who were not what anyone would consider leveraged beyond their means (which is to say, with a fairly small mortgage payment) were pushed out into the cold when markets tumbled, their jobs vanished and no replacements could be found, and their equity turned negative so they couldn't even sell their house.
There are some things that make more sense when we demand them as a collective service. Health care, which was once a very individual thing, is now so complicated and filled with so many new possibilities for advanced treatments that very few individuals can afford anything but the most basic of services.
If a company requires an employee to get a device at their own cost, how long before we see someone sue their company for the cost of contract termination fees when they lose their job before their cellphone contract is up?
waive/wv/
Verb
Refrain from insisting on or using (a right or claim): "waive all rights to the money".
Refrain from applying or enforcing (a rule, restriction, or fee): "her tuition fees would be waived".
Synonyms
relinquish - renounce - abdicate - give up - forgo
So, a brain waive interface would be a television.
Maybe the OP was using the voice to text input method, which isn't exactly stellar for transcription, either.
So if I go home and eat my lunch... no taxes since you don't get taxed on food (maybe in California, you guys are nutjobs;)..
The ingredients of the food you ate at home were purchased with your earnings, which was subject to income tax. If the company is giving out a nontrivial amount of free meals then the value of those meals should be added to the "income" field of your W-2 form. Even though they didn't pay you the cash, you did derive benefit from it.
The potential infrastructure available to deployment in the US vs Japan is vastly different. Japan has a population density of 836 people per square mile. That's over 1 person per acre. The US has a population density of 86 per square mile. The difference is a factor of ten. That dramatically reduces the cost per person to deploy, because every mile of fiber can reach many, many more people. In the US, it only becomes cost effective to deliver high speed services in very limited areas. In Japan you can reach a much greater percentage of the population with high speed services.
And did we really actually send them? Wouldn't it be enough to simply *say* we sent them? In fact, it might be even better that way, because then they'd be mucking about with their radar for weeks trying to figure out how to detect something that wasn't even there!
"We reject the view,... that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."
I reject the view that your works have been published in a medium where copyright is applicable if the medium is specifically designed to have its own safeguards against copying. Such safeguards are their own form of copy prevention and, if used, should be considered a replacement, not augmentation, of the copyright protections afforded by law.
As I'm sure you're aware, there are no studies specifically compare stopping in traffic to lane-splitting, and thus no numbers. (unless you have a reference to some that I'm not aware of) But anecdotally, even the pro-splitting websites I see caution riders to be attentive because drivers aren't expecting you and won't necessarily notice you. As for blame, I don't actually care who causes the accidents, because that isn't relevant, the actual accident rate is what matters. The individual causes are helpful in reducing the incidence of accidents by knowing who to target for education, but ultimately the accident rate is what it is regardless who is at fault. The end result is that the practice has an elevated risk. Of course, knowing of the elevated risk can help riders make intelligent choices about the risk in a given situation and determine what the best and safest course of action is.
In short, I'm not saying "motorcyclists are teh evil when they lane split", I'm saying the practice has certain risk factors that need to be evaluated when deciding whether to lane split.
I actually don't care whether they'll get to their destination faster than me, though that seems to be a commonly held belief among the motorcyclists replying here.
50 * 50 *.3% = 2500 *.003 = 7.5, so yes 7-8 emails per day. 3% would be 75 false positives per day.
Incidentally, the 70% success rate if every person got one spam for every good email means the company would still receive 750 spams per day, or 15 per person per day.
From the article, "The end result was a system capable of detecting spam 70 percent of the time, with a 0.3 percent false positive rate." The summary dropped an instance of the word "percent". I wasn't sure how to read it either so I specifically looked for the source of the 0.3 in the original.
Precisely, this is exactly what I'm trying to convey. As long as you are aware of the risk factors involved then you can mitigate those risks by engaging in the practice in as safe a manner as possible, just like any risky practice (such as the very act of driving itself). The question of whether it is legal or not is not nearly as relevant as the question you must ask yourself every time you engage in it: Is it safe, this time. If traffic is stopped and you have what looks like a pretty clear path between two lanes and proceed at a safe, modest speed, then the risks are as minimal as they're likely to get. If traffic is moving just fast enough for people to be irrationally jockeying for lanes and the weather is inclement, the risks are high and it probably isn't worth it. Just like when I go out in the morning to drive to work, if I see hail and snow coming down I'm pretty likely to ask myself is it safe, this time, and answer no.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean the decision to actually do it is obvious.
No, you're taking my comments to an illogical extreme. Technically speaking, any driving is questionably safe, but we're speaking of something which is well out of the norm. I'm used to seeing other cars passing me, it happens tens, even hundreds of times per drive on a highway, and I'm used to passing other cars, I do it tens, even hundreds of times per drive on a highway. With the familiarity of the event comes a particular measure of safety because I'm trained by rote to watch for it and be aware of it. The event becomes almost a situational reflex.
If someone makes a blatantly unsafe driving maneuver like changing lanes without signaling and without being aware that another vehicle is beside them, then the drivers around them have every right to be upset, and that person will likely be at fault for any resulting accidents. If traffic is moving slowly and a vehicle appears in an unexpected spot, such as out of a marked lane, then the vehicle in the spot where vehicles are not typically expected to be needs to be particularly vigilant. That extra vigilance is precisely because other drivers do not expect him to be there, and are monitoring the locations of the vehicles in the lanes around them.
In particular, in my personal experience as an automobile driver, I tend to track the locations of the vehicles around me and have a pretty good idea of where each one is at any given point in time even if I haven't specifically looked at them in the past few seconds. When a motorcycle comes up between two lanes they are traveling at a speed substantially higher than the rest of the vehicles around me and so can travel quite a bit farther than the other cars around me (all traveling at about the same speed) before my mental picture catches and includes them.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess being diagnosed by a shrink at the age of 12 (this was around 1989) with ADD simply by me looking up when the madman snapped his fingers after giving me a puzzle to complete.
He'd already decided to diagnose you. If you hadn't looked up, he would have called it an example of hyperfocusing, the other half of ADD. Sounds like a charlatan's trick.
I'm with you on this. When every gun used by every agent of the government in my state (police, military, federal agents, etc) use this technology, I'll consider using it as well.
The big question, of course, is: Did they keep within the law? If their maneuvers passed the bounds of law, then they're in for a bit of hurt. Unfortunately, the taxpayers would like to see them in a whole world of hurt, but good lawyers will get the penalties and back taxes reduced to a relative pittance and, in the long run, they'll have still saved money. When you have enough money, breaking the law can make good business sense.
Of course not, but they'll just put it on the powerpoint they present to lawmakers about how piracy is hitting their bottom line.
There aren't enough of you for a boycott to make any difference.
Besides, they've already presumed that if you're not buying, it is because you're infringing.
I'm a programmer, and there's little worse than having someone in Marketing or Sales come to me to ask for a specific task to be done in a specific way, because half way through the project I'll generally figure out what it was they were trying to accomplish and have to start from scratch to deliver a product that actually meets their needs. Because they know some of how things work on the back end, they try to solve a problem themselves and then send it to IT for implementation. What I prefer is that they present us with their problem or need and we can go over, with them, several possible deliverable solutions and their relative merits, time to deliver, and cost to deliver. Reading this, I can now see that it could actually be worse. They could be versed in programming languages we don't use and come to us with solutions that use their own personal hammer, not the full tool set we possess.
Open articles. Ctrl-F "Controling" No results. Close tab.
Nothing of value.
(They did start another study for control for genetic factors, but those aren't the most important)
Article says
The long-term associations held even after the researchers took other common factors into account. "These findings imply that basic childhood skills, independent of how smart you are, how long you stay in school, or the social class you started off in, will be important throughout your life," say Ritchie and Bates.
Which implies that they controlled for socioeconomic status. However, the actual paper appears to be behind a paywall. Therefore I don't know what's in it, beyond what this article tells me.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you can't use it if it isn't exposed to the internet. Look into VPNs and how they work. It should provide you with a serious Homer Simpsonesque DOH moment.
If I can get to something through an internet based connection to a VPN, it is exposed to the internet. It has an added layer of security, yes, but it is still exposed.
Why is a build management tool doing exposed in the internet?
What's the point of building automation if you have to be in the building to use it?
And yet the same people wrote a constitution that put serious limits on what the government could do. Apparently this "banding together" thing wasn't supposed to be government mandated fed by enforced collection of property from the civil population.
"Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" - Article I, Section 8.
That's exactly how the government funding was designed, yes. That's what taxes are.
Because Socialism is as bad as all that. But targeted application of certain social programs is not the same thing as Socialism, but that's what we're being sold as by the right. Universal health care, paid for by an income/wealth based tax on everyone, isn't the same thing as paying everyone the same amount and giving them the same service.
The founding fathers also recognized that we're all in this together, and the only way we'll succeed is to work together. "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Our country was built by individuals banding together to accomplish tasks that no individual can accomplish alone. We encourage both the individual *and* the group. You can see it in the most recent recession. People who had perfectly good homes and perfectly good jobs and ample savings who were not what anyone would consider leveraged beyond their means (which is to say, with a fairly small mortgage payment) were pushed out into the cold when markets tumbled, their jobs vanished and no replacements could be found, and their equity turned negative so they couldn't even sell their house. There are some things that make more sense when we demand them as a collective service. Health care, which was once a very individual thing, is now so complicated and filled with so many new possibilities for advanced treatments that very few individuals can afford anything but the most basic of services.
If a company requires an employee to get a device at their own cost, how long before we see someone sue their company for the cost of contract termination fees when they lose their job before their cellphone contract is up?
What if space is matter and there's no such thing as a vacuum?
That's it! All we have to do is dephlogisticate a large quantity of rocket fuel and we'll reach the aether!
waive /wv/
Verb
Refrain from insisting on or using (a right or claim): "waive all rights to the money".
Refrain from applying or enforcing (a rule, restriction, or fee): "her tuition fees would be waived".
Synonyms
relinquish - renounce - abdicate - give up - forgo
So, a brain waive interface would be a television.
Maybe the OP was using the voice to text input method, which isn't exactly stellar for transcription, either.
So if I go home and eat my lunch ... no taxes since you don't get taxed on food (maybe in California, you guys are nutjobs ;)..
The ingredients of the food you ate at home were purchased with your earnings, which was subject to income tax. If the company is giving out a nontrivial amount of free meals then the value of those meals should be added to the "income" field of your W-2 form. Even though they didn't pay you the cash, you did derive benefit from it.
The potential infrastructure available to deployment in the US vs Japan is vastly different. Japan has a population density of 836 people per square mile. That's over 1 person per acre. The US has a population density of 86 per square mile. The difference is a factor of ten. That dramatically reduces the cost per person to deploy, because every mile of fiber can reach many, many more people. In the US, it only becomes cost effective to deliver high speed services in very limited areas. In Japan you can reach a much greater percentage of the population with high speed services.
And did we really actually send them? Wouldn't it be enough to simply *say* we sent them? In fact, it might be even better that way, because then they'd be mucking about with their radar for weeks trying to figure out how to detect something that wasn't even there!
I reject the view that your works have been published in a medium where copyright is applicable if the medium is specifically designed to have its own safeguards against copying. Such safeguards are their own form of copy prevention and, if used, should be considered a replacement, not augmentation, of the copyright protections afforded by law.
As I'm sure you're aware, there are no studies specifically compare stopping in traffic to lane-splitting, and thus no numbers. (unless you have a reference to some that I'm not aware of) But anecdotally, even the pro-splitting websites I see caution riders to be attentive because drivers aren't expecting you and won't necessarily notice you. As for blame, I don't actually care who causes the accidents, because that isn't relevant, the actual accident rate is what matters. The individual causes are helpful in reducing the incidence of accidents by knowing who to target for education, but ultimately the accident rate is what it is regardless who is at fault. The end result is that the practice has an elevated risk. Of course, knowing of the elevated risk can help riders make intelligent choices about the risk in a given situation and determine what the best and safest course of action is.
In short, I'm not saying "motorcyclists are teh evil when they lane split", I'm saying the practice has certain risk factors that need to be evaluated when deciding whether to lane split.
I actually don't care whether they'll get to their destination faster than me, though that seems to be a commonly held belief among the motorcyclists replying here.
50 * 50 * .3% = 2500 * .003 = 7.5, so yes 7-8 emails per day. 3% would be 75 false positives per day.
Incidentally, the 70% success rate if every person got one spam for every good email means the company would still receive 750 spams per day, or 15 per person per day.
From the article, "The end result was a system capable of detecting spam 70 percent of the time, with a 0.3 percent false positive rate." The summary dropped an instance of the word "percent". I wasn't sure how to read it either so I specifically looked for the source of the 0.3 in the original.
Precisely, this is exactly what I'm trying to convey. As long as you are aware of the risk factors involved then you can mitigate those risks by engaging in the practice in as safe a manner as possible, just like any risky practice (such as the very act of driving itself). The question of whether it is legal or not is not nearly as relevant as the question you must ask yourself every time you engage in it: Is it safe, this time. If traffic is stopped and you have what looks like a pretty clear path between two lanes and proceed at a safe, modest speed, then the risks are as minimal as they're likely to get. If traffic is moving just fast enough for people to be irrationally jockeying for lanes and the weather is inclement, the risks are high and it probably isn't worth it. Just like when I go out in the morning to drive to work, if I see hail and snow coming down I'm pretty likely to ask myself is it safe, this time, and answer no.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean the decision to actually do it is obvious.
If someone makes a blatantly unsafe driving maneuver like changing lanes without signaling and without being aware that another vehicle is beside them, then the drivers around them have every right to be upset, and that person will likely be at fault for any resulting accidents. If traffic is moving slowly and a vehicle appears in an unexpected spot, such as out of a marked lane, then the vehicle in the spot where vehicles are not typically expected to be needs to be particularly vigilant. That extra vigilance is precisely because other drivers do not expect him to be there, and are monitoring the locations of the vehicles in the lanes around them.
In particular, in my personal experience as an automobile driver, I tend to track the locations of the vehicles around me and have a pretty good idea of where each one is at any given point in time even if I haven't specifically looked at them in the past few seconds. When a motorcycle comes up between two lanes they are traveling at a speed substantially higher than the rest of the vehicles around me and so can travel quite a bit farther than the other cars around me (all traveling at about the same speed) before my mental picture catches and includes them.
Why would I intentionally block someone's bike?