At which point you return it, or (check your CC terms), dispute it if they decline to accept a return on a defective product, or after properly documenting everything, file a an action in small claims (this presumes you were not reinstalling it for spite, but instead, actually having problems).
Wouldn't the correct response be to limit testing to those cows older than the longest incubation period and require accurate test labeling (not tested; tested and passed; presumably you don't need a tested and failed) on cow meat products?
I like dark. I was purely basing my commentary on the expressed desires of the OP. For all I know, the kid gets nightmares easily. I honestly don't know why OP doesn't want dark, but no reason not to humor them.
Niven's stuff may work, depending on your definition of dark.
I can't think of any of Frank Herbert's work that isn't dark (or at least twisted) though the Jorj X McKie ones may just be a bit odd (I Arthur C Clark's work? Certainly some classics, although, a bit slow in places.
Something that some of my team mates have been advocating/adopting is using Git at the personal level, on top of Perforce. It seems to be working well for them and hasn't interfered with those of us who still use perforce raw (keep in mind, this is while literally working on the same files).
Could check that by having some honeypot addresses that are just never shared but should get hit by dictionary attacks more frequently than the uniques.
Really? Or perhaps your a developer allowed to use software under certain (pre cleared) licenses and incorporate source from software under a subset of those licenses in your projects.
IANAL The key is 'material facts' in dispute. If a fact, in all it's possible permutations (in your example, signed, signed under duress, contract of adhesion, didn't sign, etc.), doesn't impact the law of the case (the contract's terms are illegal), then it isn't actually material, even if it's disputed.
I'm not sure I care, so long as they ask first. Specifically, call me up and ask me if it's ok for them to check where I am. If I answer, it makes both of our lives simple (well, assuming they follow my directions as to the checking part, who knows, I may not know where I am and be quite happy for them to tell me). If I don't answer, then likely I want to be found as the damned phone is pretty much attached to me. But, if I don't want to be found, the phone will be sitting at home, amusing my cat (or I do want to be found but my kidnapper read this post).
How does the experience with JAWS compare to the linearization that Lynx (or other text mode browsers) apply to a page?
I ask because JAWS is absurdly expensive, and pretty much, beyond basic standards compliance, I'm not going to write for the idiosyncrasies of a client I can't test with (isn't free).
So long as it has a valid ACM accreditation, it doesn't matter that much on a resume basis. What can matter a LOT are referrals, so if you have a particular company in mind, you may want to go to a school that has a lot of it's alumni working at that company.
This presumes of course you come out of your collegiate experience competent and can make it past the phone screens and interview loops. Theory is wonderful, and honestly, you shouldn't be taking classes to learn particular languages, you generally need to be able to pick those up on your own (and quickly), after you have been introduced to the art and have one or two intro languages under your belt.
Sure, pretty much not going to happen with chemical batteries. However, there are other options for energy storage, a flywheel for instance, can store quite a bit of energy for a grid, can be charged quickly, reliably discharged at variable load all while being non toxic and easy to recycle if it becomes obsolete.
Have you looked at the images? All of those images ARE on what the map says is a road. Of course, it looks like the road ends about 2ft in front of the garage doors, so it's possible the map is wrong. It's also possible that the paved 'driveway' is encroaching onto the road.
Considering the horrid mess that is title search, I'd be very surprised if anyone could demonstrate for less than a few hundred dollars that where the google van was was private property (and not overlapping a county easement).
Feel free to calculate the lifespan and diameter of a 1kg black hole (way above the mass the LHC could pump into a singularity)...
The radius of a 1kg blackhole is around 2.96988553 x 10^-27 meters, for comparison, the radius of a hydrogen atom is around 2.5 x 10^-11 meters. So it's not going to be able to fit much down it's gullet. Not sure on the exact lifetime, but for benchmarking, a 1s blackhole needs a mass of 2.28 x 10^5 kg, so it's not going to have much time to fit anything down it's gullet...
I wasn't guessing, they specified the combined failure rate, which in that population would lead to 1000 wrong statements if everyone was tested. Even in the case where the type 1 error rate was 100%, the type 2 error rate would still need to be around.1% to account for the rest of the errors (though at that point, testing guilty would be an 100% indication of innocence).
Given a population of 100 thousand, a 'reliability' of 99.9% and the knowledge that there is precisely 1 person who is actually guilty lets box this out:
1 Guilty 99,999 Innocent
If you test the guilty party, there is a 0.1% chance of a type 2 error (actually guilty, test indicates he's innocent) If you test a non guilty person, there is a 0.1% chance of a type 1 error (actually innocent, test indicates he's guilty) If you have a person and the test indicates they are guilty, the chance that they are actually guilty is only 1%, that is 99% of the time, he will be innocent.
Are you really willing to condemn someone on a 1% chance that they are actually guilty?
Are you sure they would exist? Consider for a moment a distribution of mass such that it's impacts within the ecliptic cancel out (in the same way that a spherical shell's gravity can be neglected within the shell and treated as a point mass at the center of the shell when outside of the shell), but that causes the discrepancies we are observing outside of ecliptic. Are you CERTAIN such a distribution of a mass can't exist?
Really? So all those weather simulations follow QED? The majority of supposedly physical models are gross approximations of both boundary conditions and the internal structure of the model that are only moderately accurate for making predictions about the behavior of a system one level up from the grid's scale, and are computationally prohibitive two levels up to the point where to even get the boundary conditions of the model you have to already know what the high level emergent behavior of the real system is. Heck, even protein folding models are staggering simplifications, we just run them enough times with enough noise that we can identify interesting molecules for further study.
I'd argue that thanks to gaming and mathematical explorations, decidedly non physical (even to the level that CFD can be said to be physical) models are the norm rather than the exception.
Your effectively arguing mysticism here, specifically, sympathetic magic of the "As above, so below" sort. It is contraindicated by our own simulations, such as Life that have no similarity with our own physics but produce interesting results. An sentient living in a 'Life' universe has no means of testing our universes quantum physics, even if though they could, in theory, come up with the idea and test it's internal consistency.
A has no recourse but the law. A has no control, no agreement, no contact with B.
C has contact with B, and makes a decision. D has contact with C, and makes a decision. . . .
So, the only one who got into this mess with no interaction with the next entity up the chain is A. A is also the actual owner of the item, and therefor, in reasonable society, A is the only one entitled to the item.
Slashdot Mirror
At which point you return it, or (check your CC terms), dispute it if they decline to accept a return on a defective product, or after properly documenting everything, file a an action in small claims (this presumes you were not reinstalling it for spite, but instead, actually having problems).
Wouldn't the correct response be to limit testing to those cows older than the longest incubation period and require accurate test labeling (not tested; tested and passed; presumably you don't need a tested and failed) on cow meat products?
That should take the wind out of their sails...
I like dark. I was purely basing my commentary on the expressed desires of the OP. For all I know, the kid gets nightmares easily. I honestly don't know why OP doesn't want dark, but no reason not to humor them.
Heinlein's juveniles aren't dark.
Niven's stuff may work, depending on your definition of dark.
I can't think of any of Frank Herbert's work that isn't dark (or at least twisted) though the Jorj X McKie ones may just be a bit odd (I Arthur C Clark's work? Certainly some classics, although, a bit slow in places.
And a random smattering of alternate suggestions:
Greg Bear
Peter F Hamilton
David Weber
Louis McMaster Bujold
David Brin
Something that some of my team mates have been advocating/adopting is using Git at the personal level, on top of Perforce. It seems to be working well for them and hasn't interfered with those of us who still use perforce raw (keep in mind, this is while literally working on the same files).
Could check that by having some honeypot addresses that are just never shared but should get hit by dictionary attacks more frequently than the uniques.
I like it. But I'm crazy, YMMV.
Really? Or perhaps your a developer allowed to use software under certain (pre cleared) licenses and incorporate source from software under a subset of those licenses in your projects.
IANAL The key is 'material facts' in dispute. If a fact, in all it's possible permutations (in your example, signed, signed under duress, contract of adhesion, didn't sign, etc.), doesn't impact the law of the case (the contract's terms are illegal), then it isn't actually material, even if it's disputed.
I'm not sure I care, so long as they ask first. Specifically, call me up and ask me if it's ok for them to check where I am. If I answer, it makes both of our lives simple (well, assuming they follow my directions as to the checking part, who knows, I may not know where I am and be quite happy for them to tell me). If I don't answer, then likely I want to be found as the damned phone is pretty much attached to me. But, if I don't want to be found, the phone will be sitting at home, amusing my cat (or I do want to be found but my kidnapper read this post).
How does the experience with JAWS compare to the linearization that Lynx (or other text mode browsers) apply to a page?
I ask because JAWS is absurdly expensive, and pretty much, beyond basic standards compliance, I'm not going to write for the idiosyncrasies of a client I can't test with (isn't free).
This is a bad joke, right? "Standards compliant" has been, for a very long time, synonymous with "Does bad things in IE".
You do realize that 'delete' is idempotent, right?
Idempotence simply requires that:
f(STATE) == f(f(STATE))
It doesn't require that:
STATE == f(STATE)
So Idempotent actions can cause state changes, such as deleting an item.
So long as it has a valid ACM accreditation, it doesn't matter that much on a resume basis. What can matter a LOT are referrals, so if you have a particular company in mind, you may want to go to a school that has a lot of it's alumni working at that company.
This presumes of course you come out of your collegiate experience competent and can make it past the phone screens and interview loops. Theory is wonderful, and honestly, you shouldn't be taking classes to learn particular languages, you generally need to be able to pick those up on your own (and quickly), after you have been introduced to the art and have one or two intro languages under your belt.
Sure, pretty much not going to happen with chemical batteries. However, there are other options for energy storage, a flywheel for instance, can store quite a bit of energy for a grid, can be charged quickly, reliably discharged at variable load all while being non toxic and easy to recycle if it becomes obsolete.
Have you looked at the images? All of those images ARE on what the map says is a road. Of course, it looks like the road ends about 2ft in front of the garage doors, so it's possible the map is wrong. It's also possible that the paved 'driveway' is encroaching onto the road.
Considering the horrid mess that is title search, I'd be very surprised if anyone could demonstrate for less than a few hundred dollars that where the google van was was private property (and not overlapping a county easement).
Feel free to calculate the lifespan and diameter of a 1kg black hole (way above the mass the LHC could pump into a singularity)...
The radius of a 1kg blackhole is around 2.96988553 x 10^-27 meters, for comparison, the radius of a hydrogen atom is around 2.5 x 10^-11 meters. So it's not going to be able to fit much down it's gullet. Not sure on the exact lifetime, but for benchmarking, a 1s blackhole needs a mass of 2.28 x 10^5 kg, so it's not going to have much time to fit anything down it's gullet...
In other words, not a problem at all..
I wasn't guessing, they specified the combined failure rate, which in that population would lead to 1000 wrong statements if everyone was tested. Even in the case where the type 1 error rate was 100%, the type 2 error rate would still need to be around .1% to account for the rest of the errors (though at that point, testing guilty would be an 100% indication of innocence).
Given a population of 100 thousand, a 'reliability' of 99.9% and the knowledge that there is precisely 1 person who is actually guilty lets box this out:
1 Guilty
99,999 Innocent
If you test the guilty party, there is a 0.1% chance of a type 2 error (actually guilty, test indicates he's innocent)
If you test a non guilty person, there is a 0.1% chance of a type 1 error (actually innocent, test indicates he's guilty)
If you have a person and the test indicates they are guilty, the chance that they are actually guilty is only 1%, that is 99% of the time, he will be innocent.
Are you really willing to condemn someone on a 1% chance that they are actually guilty?
Are you sure they would exist? Consider for a moment a distribution of mass such that it's impacts within the ecliptic cancel out (in the same way that a spherical shell's gravity can be neglected within the shell and treated as a point mass at the center of the shell when outside of the shell), but that causes the discrepancies we are observing outside of ecliptic. Are you CERTAIN such a distribution of a mass can't exist?
Really? So all those weather simulations follow QED? The majority of supposedly physical models are gross approximations of both boundary conditions and the internal structure of the model that are only moderately accurate for making predictions about the behavior of a system one level up from the grid's scale, and are computationally prohibitive two levels up to the point where to even get the boundary conditions of the model you have to already know what the high level emergent behavior of the real system is. Heck, even protein folding models are staggering simplifications, we just run them enough times with enough noise that we can identify interesting molecules for further study.
I'd argue that thanks to gaming and mathematical explorations, decidedly non physical (even to the level that CFD can be said to be physical) models are the norm rather than the exception.
Your effectively arguing mysticism here, specifically, sympathetic magic of the "As above, so below" sort. It is contraindicated by our own simulations, such as Life that have no similarity with our own physics but produce interesting results. An sentient living in a 'Life' universe has no means of testing our universes quantum physics, even if though they could, in theory, come up with the idea and test it's internal consistency.
i chose to accept it under GPL3, since the license I received said I could use GPL2 or later.
A has no recourse but the law. A has no control, no agreement, no contact with B.
C has contact with B, and makes a decision.
D has contact with C, and makes a decision.
.
.
.
So, the only one who got into this mess with no interaction with the next entity up the chain is A. A is also the actual owner of the item, and therefor, in reasonable society, A is the only one entitled to the item.
I've submitted a project request to SourceForge for a GPLV3 fork of atscap-1.1rc9t. We'll see how it goes.