You don't have to be a gold digger to want someone who isn't living out of a truck.
There is "living simply" and there is living as someone whose residence is parked quasi-legally at best on someone else's land or in a public area where that residence does not have ready access to sanitary facilities and is relatively exposed in terms of safety.
A reasonable woman might be more inclined to look at someone who seems to have figured that out already.
Of course, this guy would go from zero to hero as long as his plan works and he pays down loans and can afford to live more reasonably. I am not necessarily suggesting this is a bad move for him tactically, but the trade-off is that prospective partners may decide to explore other options until his situation changes.
If he does find a woman who will tolerate this rather extreme mode of living, more power to him, but good luck with that.
Depends. There was a significant amount of time postwar when tank rounds were primarily HEAT rounds, which is shaped charge explosive. Today there is a lot of design around rendering HEAT rounds less effective (due to their popularity in portable anti-tank weapons), so the tanks frequently use kinetic rounds these days.
However, HEAT rounds are still a common carry, especially for dual purpose use and are still effective against armor, depending on your target.
Of course, kinetic rounds have existed throughout, but HEAT was useful because your penetrating power is not dependent on your projectile velocity, allowing tank guns with relatively underwhelming velocity and man/jeep portable weapons to become tank killers.
I know it is a government form, just like a 1040 is. And certainly, the government can't simply hand a copy out to anyone they want. That's not the point.
The point is that the information on your form is private and personal, but not classified. Having your own copy of your own form isn't a security violation, but it is a very bad idea to have it laying around in an insecure place were someone could get it.
When I was younger, I could have probably handled it for maybe a year. It would be important, though, to ensure that there was a set time limit on how long I did something like that so that I wouldn't completely trash my life. Social suicide doesn't even begin to cover it. The chance of landing a girlfriend in that situation would be close to nil and the stress would be off the charts.
At least at Google, you'll have enough work so that you don't have to use your "residence" as much as other people do.
I'm sure they would, but SF won't let them. SF has brought this on themselves by refusing to allow sufficient development.
SF dwellers wanted to keep the quaint neighborhoods and everything, but there's a reason that those neighborhoods were bulldozed in other urban areas. They keep the maximum population density very low. That keeps prices extremely high.
I have sympathy for not wanting to live in a crowded, overbuilt urban area, but without development, even things like rent control would just force everyone to move out to the suburbs, where those house prices would skyrocket instead, and everyone would have to commute somehow.
I don't think they prevent you from using an insecure email account. The email account is simply how you'd transmit evidence of what you can be blackmailed with.
In any event, you give up some rights, but not all. All they would care about is that you declare to them anything you can be blackmailed with. If you're screwing around behind your wife's back or doing something that makes you look bad, they can bust you for not declaring it to them and decide if you are a risk or not. If they think that you're not a risk, then by default, there is nothing that goes in your insecure account that concerns them.
Of course if they suspect that you lied or didn't confess to something, *they* want you to have such an account so they can subpoena it and show you broke the law.
This made them look bad, but only due to tarnishing their image as targets who should be hard to hack. Truth is, they're political appointees and bureaucrats who aren't supposed to be experts in the field of email security.
Now IF they had let classified data leak into those accounts, then they will be joining that stoner in the hot seat. However, it does not sound like that was the case.
Apparently pot isn't bad for you, except for some rare side effects where you turn into a moron and hack Homeland Security executives when you don't have a plan to flee to Russia.
One is a political appointee, the other was an agency executive. The fact is that I expect them to not know shit, people at that level don't know squat about specific security measures for things like email. What I am concerned with is why the numerous experts that the government does have are not running the show on these execs' security.
I get that a lot of this is personal stuff that was not agency or department related. For instance the clearance application is not a government document as much as it is a personal document, but you'd think that you'd have a unit of each agency that was dedicated to making sure the senior execs and clueless appointees were in the safe zone.
Actually, I was talking more about the indirect effects.
Why did someone try to limit the sale of large containers of soda in NYC? It was perceived that it is the government's business to determine what size container you can drink soda or other beverages from. Now, in certain cases, you could argue an immediate public safety issue if you, for instance, sold certain things like dynamite in larger containers or certain chemicals, but here we're talking about something that is being based on drinks being labelled a public health crisis, or something.
The reason for laws like that is effectively moralizing. It is today's answer to prohibition and blue laws.
However, if you add the responsibility for a health care system to the government's responsibilities, you will have the moralizing, and then some politician will add the comment that "it is costing our National Health Care system billions of dollars in unnecessary procedures."
You are of the opinion that we would take the option of simply disallowing care for those behaviors, but it's not that easy. What caused this person to have poor teeth, or more brittle bones? Do you vote to prevent care to people who drink soda? Do you prevent care to people who eat red meat?
My problem with your scenario isn't that we will not cover those things, my problem is that we *will* cover the results of those behaviors because we can't always see the root cause. And then, to alleviate those costs, we will simply outlaw or encumber activities that we *think* might cause those end results. And that regulation will fall heavily upon behaviors that are unpopular or considered morally incorrect.
Of course, you're right. We wouldn't be affecting free will, we would be affecting liberty.
Fair enough, but I don't think the piece was written to inform about the balance or blame of the hacking. Instead, it was to inform the unaware that the agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
An actual Chinese crackdown on hackers (which they could easily do) would have a real effect. So people will want to know if China was serious for reasons other than just trying to prove that they are nefarious or better/worse than the US.
Layoffs can be more disruptive than not finding the right job the first time. I agree that you should do what you need to do to pay your bills, but if you know you are walking into a viper's nest, then you need to do it with eyes open and your resume up to date for a move that you make and are not forced into.
As a hiring manager, and as someone who has looked for jobs, I feel for you.
The best way to get a job in this market is to have someone you know in a place that needs someone of your skillset. I have something like 10 people on my FB account, I have hundreds on LinkedIn. Why? Because there are recruiters camping out there to dragnet that database and offer you a job. You can also see if other people have gotten jobs in places you'd want to work, or if they are posting a job in the hopes of getting a referral bonus for you.
Some people hate LinkedIn. I'm not in love with it, but people keep asking me if I'm available to go to another job. Maybe like once every six months, I get an offer that would actually be a small step up and worth considering.
Using job boards works if you're desperate. I still regularly get pinged for shit contract jobs from people. Keep it up to date, keep it fresh, and pile on the key words. You will likely have some churn of course. The goal here is simply to get hired, work in your field for a year or so, and if you can't stand the job, get out. I never had a short contract back in the day, but if that was a possibility, it allowed me to at least be paid while I looked for another job.
One benefit of a job that the contract runs out and you're out of a job again? Not only can you simply state that your last contract ran out, but you can ask your former employers for references because you don't have to sneak around on your job hunt. They know you're leaving, they know it wasn't your fault (presumably), and so they may be happy to help out. Obviously, it helps if you make friends while you are there and do a good job.
As for getting picked up for an interview and not getting screened out, you need to write your resume to hit the hot key words in your field. Now, as a manager, and as an ethical person, I cannot advise you to lie about it. I can also tell you that if you simply lie, with nothing to back up, you'll get detected by the recruiter, you'll definitely get detected by the phone screener, and if you somehow faked it through that, you'll be torn apart in the interview.
However... don't go full retard on your ethics. Which is to say, don't disqualify yourself for a job that you probably could do, if someone gave you a shot at it. Some people hide behind "ethics" when what they really mean is that they think it is dishonest for them to attempt a job that they know they aren't perfectly suited for. It's like people playing a video game who invent all sorts of rules about how the game is to be played "honorably" or whatever, and then get beaten up by some kid who plays by the actual rules set by the game.
In other words, if you have the luxury of playing with your hand behind your back, then more power to you, but don't bitch about it when you do not have that ability and people who are actually playing the real game are dancing around you. That's your pride and ego talking. IF you are suffering from that, you need to drop it.
If you are ethical, then you need to do the following. Write the resume that needs to be written to get you a job. Which is to say, know what the keywords are put them on the resume. Then look at the resume. If you think using that resume would be a lie, then *do what it takes to make it NOT be a lie*.
Experience will be the hardest thing. You can't pretend to have a job when you didn't. Volunteering and such can help with that. Get references. Realize that you will not be paid well, and may well start at a shit position.
That said, key words are the easiest, conceptually anyhow. Look at the key words and then teach yourself everything you can about them. In this, you cannot simply open a book and skim it and consider yourself an expert. You must have memorized the book, backward and forward. Then done everything you can with it.
Use of keywords in the right places *should* at least get you some phone screens, and your actual knowledge of the stock questions should get yo
I think it is safe to say that the interpretation of the Constitution that is in effect now is well beyond what could be imagined in 1789. It's clear that they meant for it to be adaptable, but I suspect that many of the framers would have had a large issue with the way certain clauses like the Interstate Commerce clause have been used.
It is an open question whether it is better to have used those loopholes or not. Clearly, this world does not resemble that of the 13 colonies.
And so, in light of the interpretive mood of the courts, we can quite legitimately state that the word "limited" is not confined by what the framers intended or could imagine at the time, but rather it is only confined by the current definition of the word in it's most convenient form.
Thus, "lifetime plus one billion years" is technically "limited", but almost certainly not what was intended.
Also, you could read that line as meaning that the "exclusive right" is *how* the framers intended the "progress of science and useful arts" to be accomplished. Therefore, anything that accomplishes that limitation is, by definition, progressing science and arts. That means that the operative part is the creation of the copyrights and patents, and that the other verbiage is why they created it, but that reasoning does not trump the existence of copyright or patents as long as those are "limited" in some way.
And no, I don't like my own interpretation, but I could see a judge writing it.
Again. Lots of stuff matters. What makes the cut for a site like this?
The motto is just that. The way it is defined, you could slap it on any news site. That's not why I come to Slashdot. There are better pure news sites out there.
Things like guns and gender equality in tech posts are clickbait to make people really angry so they post in the comments.
However, I'm willing to deal with clickbait like the gender equality pieces as long as they remain focused.
This article was just: toddlers get killed by guns.
I wouldn't even care, but it seems like this is a growing trend here.
Sure, I hear that all the time. But what about plain old "kids who have been shot by guns recently" contributes to making Slashdot a place I'd go to over say, CNN or Salon or Fox News, or DailyKos?
News for Nerds may not just be tech, but seriously, these sorts of articles are all over sites that have nothing at all to do with nerds.
Your argument is like saying that nerds are humans, therefore any news that concerns humans is News for Nerds. Therefore, we should just cut and paste the AP wire into Slashdot.
More to the point, does every single article everywhere have to talk about guns?
Why are you eating a veggie "burger" if you don't care for anything that resembles meat? Just slap some tofu on a bun or jam some spinach in there or something.
Do you actually have a craving for vegetarian matter processed and formed into a hamburger shape?
True. Although there are other places to talk about those things. Not as many places to talk about things that are more associated with Slashdot.
I don't complain when truly big news stories bubble up here, but I have to admit, I am wondering why I am reading bland gun control articles here when I could be going twenty other places to read the same article.
It's not like I am going to read about Linux kernel mods on Salon.com.
I believe this advance actually makes linear accelerators better. I looked at the wording and they seem to focus on linear accelerators, which strongly implies to me that this is not as useful for loops.
Of course, that might mean that existing linear accelerators will be better, but that won't help with your LHCs out there.
Art actually seems to reflect more intention than anything else.
Someone can put up a urinal and sign it, and it will become art. It was intended as art to have some sort of message. I would explain that message, but you are not worthy of Dada, so I will now explain how you are all cows instead. And tricycles. Potato.
Ahem.
A video game can be created with the intention of being art, and so it becomes art. You may think it is rather shitty, but that's just your opinion, man.
I don't think it should be free market controlled. I just don't think it should be government controlled.
There needs to be a third way.
The free market's treatment of health care reflects the reality that to make profit on it, you must let people die. Attempting to save everyone from every condition is never going to be profitable. It may never even be *possible* profit or not.
The government's handling of the care is less based on the need to profit, but ultimately has it's own pitfalls. People vote themselves more benefits until it is too late. And then they get scared and either elect people who promise Reform Now! or they elect people who protect their entitlements to the last gasp, even if it pulls down the country into anarchy.
Even when the government health care works, it encourages the government to force you to take steps like eating a certain way or doing certain things which may well be healthy, but reduces our free will.
I really think that a non-government non-profit medical cooperative should be formed which covers medical care with no profit whatsoever, and everyone can sign up for. The plan would have to have certain limits which would accept that some people are simply going to die or live under certain limitations, but it's charter is to remain as common sense as possible about care while making patient quality of life the first concern.
We can even elect the management, but we should not be letting general legislators be in charge of that budget. And there should be no links between the government and that entity. Information sharing with the government would be both forbidden and unnecessary.
Which makes me wonder if they are collecting the right data as to why people didn't use it.
For me, I was sort of aware it was there, but it never really did anything. I was at first apprehensive that I'd have to turn it off, because it would send me crap I didn't care about. But for the most part, it did nothing but sit there doing nothing. In that case, all I could complain about was the waste of memory, but if they saw that no one was going to the notification center, perhaps they skipped the step where they actually determine "Why?".
Sometimes I think Google is too inclined to write something, and then not support their product at all with a launch or good data collection. They just throw it out there, and if it doesn't stick, it gets pulled back without even an attempt to fix it.
Their behavior makes me extremely apprehensive about using any of their products that I think are interesting, but I am afraid I'll get used to and they'll end the product.
Presumably this was not an academic exercise in the history of electrical engineering or hobbyists. These people know who Forrest Mimms is because they have a shared experience of reading and using his books. Sort of like someone who knows who J.R.R. Tolkien is because they all read his books too.
In other words, they did interact with his works, and that is why they know who he is. You apparently have not and so you don't.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to be a gold digger to want someone who isn't living out of a truck.
There is "living simply" and there is living as someone whose residence is parked quasi-legally at best on someone else's land or in a public area where that residence does not have ready access to sanitary facilities and is relatively exposed in terms of safety.
A reasonable woman might be more inclined to look at someone who seems to have figured that out already.
Of course, this guy would go from zero to hero as long as his plan works and he pays down loans and can afford to live more reasonably. I am not necessarily suggesting this is a bad move for him tactically, but the trade-off is that prospective partners may decide to explore other options until his situation changes.
If he does find a woman who will tolerate this rather extreme mode of living, more power to him, but good luck with that.
Depends. There was a significant amount of time postwar when tank rounds were primarily HEAT rounds, which is shaped charge explosive. Today there is a lot of design around rendering HEAT rounds less effective (due to their popularity in portable anti-tank weapons), so the tanks frequently use kinetic rounds these days.
However, HEAT rounds are still a common carry, especially for dual purpose use and are still effective against armor, depending on your target.
Of course, kinetic rounds have existed throughout, but HEAT was useful because your penetrating power is not dependent on your projectile velocity, allowing tank guns with relatively underwhelming velocity and man/jeep portable weapons to become tank killers.
I know it is a government form, just like a 1040 is. And certainly, the government can't simply hand a copy out to anyone they want. That's not the point.
The point is that the information on your form is private and personal, but not classified. Having your own copy of your own form isn't a security violation, but it is a very bad idea to have it laying around in an insecure place were someone could get it.
When I was younger, I could have probably handled it for maybe a year. It would be important, though, to ensure that there was a set time limit on how long I did something like that so that I wouldn't completely trash my life. Social suicide doesn't even begin to cover it. The chance of landing a girlfriend in that situation would be close to nil and the stress would be off the charts.
At least at Google, you'll have enough work so that you don't have to use your "residence" as much as other people do.
I'm sure they would, but SF won't let them. SF has brought this on themselves by refusing to allow sufficient development.
SF dwellers wanted to keep the quaint neighborhoods and everything, but there's a reason that those neighborhoods were bulldozed in other urban areas. They keep the maximum population density very low. That keeps prices extremely high.
I have sympathy for not wanting to live in a crowded, overbuilt urban area, but without development, even things like rent control would just force everyone to move out to the suburbs, where those house prices would skyrocket instead, and everyone would have to commute somehow.
I don't think they prevent you from using an insecure email account. The email account is simply how you'd transmit evidence of what you can be blackmailed with.
In any event, you give up some rights, but not all. All they would care about is that you declare to them anything you can be blackmailed with. If you're screwing around behind your wife's back or doing something that makes you look bad, they can bust you for not declaring it to them and decide if you are a risk or not. If they think that you're not a risk, then by default, there is nothing that goes in your insecure account that concerns them.
Of course if they suspect that you lied or didn't confess to something, *they* want you to have such an account so they can subpoena it and show you broke the law.
This made them look bad, but only due to tarnishing their image as targets who should be hard to hack. Truth is, they're political appointees and bureaucrats who aren't supposed to be experts in the field of email security.
Now IF they had let classified data leak into those accounts, then they will be joining that stoner in the hot seat. However, it does not sound like that was the case.
Apparently pot isn't bad for you, except for some rare side effects where you turn into a moron and hack Homeland Security executives when you don't have a plan to flee to Russia.
It's Reefer Madness!
One is a political appointee, the other was an agency executive. The fact is that I expect them to not know shit, people at that level don't know squat about specific security measures for things like email. What I am concerned with is why the numerous experts that the government does have are not running the show on these execs' security.
I get that a lot of this is personal stuff that was not agency or department related. For instance the clearance application is not a government document as much as it is a personal document, but you'd think that you'd have a unit of each agency that was dedicated to making sure the senior execs and clueless appointees were in the safe zone.
Actually, I was talking more about the indirect effects.
Why did someone try to limit the sale of large containers of soda in NYC? It was perceived that it is the government's business to determine what size container you can drink soda or other beverages from. Now, in certain cases, you could argue an immediate public safety issue if you, for instance, sold certain things like dynamite in larger containers or certain chemicals, but here we're talking about something that is being based on drinks being labelled a public health crisis, or something.
The reason for laws like that is effectively moralizing. It is today's answer to prohibition and blue laws.
However, if you add the responsibility for a health care system to the government's responsibilities, you will have the moralizing, and then some politician will add the comment that "it is costing our National Health Care system billions of dollars in unnecessary procedures."
You are of the opinion that we would take the option of simply disallowing care for those behaviors, but it's not that easy. What caused this person to have poor teeth, or more brittle bones? Do you vote to prevent care to people who drink soda? Do you prevent care to people who eat red meat?
My problem with your scenario isn't that we will not cover those things, my problem is that we *will* cover the results of those behaviors because we can't always see the root cause. And then, to alleviate those costs, we will simply outlaw or encumber activities that we *think* might cause those end results. And that regulation will fall heavily upon behaviors that are unpopular or considered morally incorrect.
Of course, you're right. We wouldn't be affecting free will, we would be affecting liberty.
Fair enough, but I don't think the piece was written to inform about the balance or blame of the hacking. Instead, it was to inform the unaware that the agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
An actual Chinese crackdown on hackers (which they could easily do) would have a real effect. So people will want to know if China was serious for reasons other than just trying to prove that they are nefarious or better/worse than the US.
Layoffs can be more disruptive than not finding the right job the first time. I agree that you should do what you need to do to pay your bills, but if you know you are walking into a viper's nest, then you need to do it with eyes open and your resume up to date for a move that you make and are not forced into.
As a hiring manager, and as someone who has looked for jobs, I feel for you.
The best way to get a job in this market is to have someone you know in a place that needs someone of your skillset. I have something like 10 people on my FB account, I have hundreds on LinkedIn. Why? Because there are recruiters camping out there to dragnet that database and offer you a job. You can also see if other people have gotten jobs in places you'd want to work, or if they are posting a job in the hopes of getting a referral bonus for you.
Some people hate LinkedIn. I'm not in love with it, but people keep asking me if I'm available to go to another job. Maybe like once every six months, I get an offer that would actually be a small step up and worth considering.
Using job boards works if you're desperate. I still regularly get pinged for shit contract jobs from people. Keep it up to date, keep it fresh, and pile on the key words. You will likely have some churn of course. The goal here is simply to get hired, work in your field for a year or so, and if you can't stand the job, get out. I never had a short contract back in the day, but if that was a possibility, it allowed me to at least be paid while I looked for another job.
One benefit of a job that the contract runs out and you're out of a job again? Not only can you simply state that your last contract ran out, but you can ask your former employers for references because you don't have to sneak around on your job hunt. They know you're leaving, they know it wasn't your fault (presumably), and so they may be happy to help out. Obviously, it helps if you make friends while you are there and do a good job.
As for getting picked up for an interview and not getting screened out, you need to write your resume to hit the hot key words in your field. Now, as a manager, and as an ethical person, I cannot advise you to lie about it. I can also tell you that if you simply lie, with nothing to back up, you'll get detected by the recruiter, you'll definitely get detected by the phone screener, and if you somehow faked it through that, you'll be torn apart in the interview.
However... don't go full retard on your ethics. Which is to say, don't disqualify yourself for a job that you probably could do, if someone gave you a shot at it. Some people hide behind "ethics" when what they really mean is that they think it is dishonest for them to attempt a job that they know they aren't perfectly suited for. It's like people playing a video game who invent all sorts of rules about how the game is to be played "honorably" or whatever, and then get beaten up by some kid who plays by the actual rules set by the game.
In other words, if you have the luxury of playing with your hand behind your back, then more power to you, but don't bitch about it when you do not have that ability and people who are actually playing the real game are dancing around you. That's your pride and ego talking. IF you are suffering from that, you need to drop it.
If you are ethical, then you need to do the following. Write the resume that needs to be written to get you a job. Which is to say, know what the keywords are put them on the resume. Then look at the resume. If you think using that resume would be a lie, then *do what it takes to make it NOT be a lie*.
Experience will be the hardest thing. You can't pretend to have a job when you didn't. Volunteering and such can help with that. Get references. Realize that you will not be paid well, and may well start at a shit position.
That said, key words are the easiest, conceptually anyhow. Look at the key words and then teach yourself everything you can about them. In this, you cannot simply open a book and skim it and consider yourself an expert. You must have memorized the book, backward and forward. Then done everything you can with it.
Use of keywords in the right places *should* at least get you some phone screens, and your actual knowledge of the stock questions should get yo
I think it is safe to say that the interpretation of the Constitution that is in effect now is well beyond what could be imagined in 1789. It's clear that they meant for it to be adaptable, but I suspect that many of the framers would have had a large issue with the way certain clauses like the Interstate Commerce clause have been used.
It is an open question whether it is better to have used those loopholes or not. Clearly, this world does not resemble that of the 13 colonies.
And so, in light of the interpretive mood of the courts, we can quite legitimately state that the word "limited" is not confined by what the framers intended or could imagine at the time, but rather it is only confined by the current definition of the word in it's most convenient form.
Thus, "lifetime plus one billion years" is technically "limited", but almost certainly not what was intended.
Also, you could read that line as meaning that the "exclusive right" is *how* the framers intended the "progress of science and useful arts" to be accomplished. Therefore, anything that accomplishes that limitation is, by definition, progressing science and arts. That means that the operative part is the creation of the copyrights and patents, and that the other verbiage is why they created it, but that reasoning does not trump the existence of copyright or patents as long as those are "limited" in some way.
And no, I don't like my own interpretation, but I could see a judge writing it.
Or something. This is why I am not a lawyer.
Again. Lots of stuff matters. What makes the cut for a site like this?
The motto is just that. The way it is defined, you could slap it on any news site. That's not why I come to Slashdot. There are better pure news sites out there.
Things like guns and gender equality in tech posts are clickbait to make people really angry so they post in the comments.
However, I'm willing to deal with clickbait like the gender equality pieces as long as they remain focused.
This article was just: toddlers get killed by guns.
I wouldn't even care, but it seems like this is a growing trend here.
Well, it did kill ReiserFS. Won't somebody think of the file systems?!
Sure, I hear that all the time. But what about plain old "kids who have been shot by guns recently" contributes to making Slashdot a place I'd go to over say, CNN or Salon or Fox News, or DailyKos?
News for Nerds may not just be tech, but seriously, these sorts of articles are all over sites that have nothing at all to do with nerds.
Your argument is like saying that nerds are humans, therefore any news that concerns humans is News for Nerds. Therefore, we should just cut and paste the AP wire into Slashdot.
More to the point, does every single article everywhere have to talk about guns?
Why are you eating a veggie "burger" if you don't care for anything that resembles meat? Just slap some tofu on a bun or jam some spinach in there or something.
Do you actually have a craving for vegetarian matter processed and formed into a hamburger shape?
Its more about focus than audience.
Yes, I'm of an age to have children now. However, there is no lack of places where I can read this sort of article.
Where else would I go to if I just wanted to aggregate tech news?
You don't have to answer that. I may find out myself if this gets too silly.
Seriously. At least the articles about the gender imbalance in tech are actually talking about tech jobs. What does this have to do with tech?
True. Although there are other places to talk about those things. Not as many places to talk about things that are more associated with Slashdot.
I don't complain when truly big news stories bubble up here, but I have to admit, I am wondering why I am reading bland gun control articles here when I could be going twenty other places to read the same article.
It's not like I am going to read about Linux kernel mods on Salon.com.
We already have ion engines. They just aren't all that useful in a gravity well, but pretty efficient outside of one.
I believe this advance actually makes linear accelerators better. I looked at the wording and they seem to focus on linear accelerators, which strongly implies to me that this is not as useful for loops.
Of course, that might mean that existing linear accelerators will be better, but that won't help with your LHCs out there.
Art actually seems to reflect more intention than anything else.
Someone can put up a urinal and sign it, and it will become art. It was intended as art to have some sort of message. I would explain that message, but you are not worthy of Dada, so I will now explain how you are all cows instead. And tricycles. Potato.
Ahem.
A video game can be created with the intention of being art, and so it becomes art. You may think it is rather shitty, but that's just your opinion, man.
I don't think it should be free market controlled. I just don't think it should be government controlled.
There needs to be a third way.
The free market's treatment of health care reflects the reality that to make profit on it, you must let people die. Attempting to save everyone from every condition is never going to be profitable. It may never even be *possible* profit or not.
The government's handling of the care is less based on the need to profit, but ultimately has it's own pitfalls. People vote themselves more benefits until it is too late. And then they get scared and either elect people who promise Reform Now! or they elect people who protect their entitlements to the last gasp, even if it pulls down the country into anarchy.
Even when the government health care works, it encourages the government to force you to take steps like eating a certain way or doing certain things which may well be healthy, but reduces our free will.
I really think that a non-government non-profit medical cooperative should be formed which covers medical care with no profit whatsoever, and everyone can sign up for. The plan would have to have certain limits which would accept that some people are simply going to die or live under certain limitations, but it's charter is to remain as common sense as possible about care while making patient quality of life the first concern.
We can even elect the management, but we should not be letting general legislators be in charge of that budget. And there should be no links between the government and that entity. Information sharing with the government would be both forbidden and unnecessary.
Which makes me wonder if they are collecting the right data as to why people didn't use it.
For me, I was sort of aware it was there, but it never really did anything. I was at first apprehensive that I'd have to turn it off, because it would send me crap I didn't care about. But for the most part, it did nothing but sit there doing nothing. In that case, all I could complain about was the waste of memory, but if they saw that no one was going to the notification center, perhaps they skipped the step where they actually determine "Why?".
Sometimes I think Google is too inclined to write something, and then not support their product at all with a launch or good data collection. They just throw it out there, and if it doesn't stick, it gets pulled back without even an attempt to fix it.
Their behavior makes me extremely apprehensive about using any of their products that I think are interesting, but I am afraid I'll get used to and they'll end the product.
Presumably this was not an academic exercise in the history of electrical engineering or hobbyists. These people know who Forrest Mimms is because they have a shared experience of reading and using his books. Sort of like someone who knows who J.R.R. Tolkien is because they all read his books too.
In other words, they did interact with his works, and that is why they know who he is. You apparently have not and so you don't.