They do test, but the window period can be as high as three months with plain ELISA, down to a month if you spend extra for Western blot, and that means that when someone comes out positive, all his/her partners within that period have to be tested as well as their respective partners. It happened in 2004 (5 infected) and 2009 (16 infected).
Back on topic: I haven't gotten anything from the web *ever*, perhaps for the simple discipline of not authorizing ActiveX components, applets and other gimmicks.
But that's me; I guess less computer-literate *and* porn hungry guys make easier targets - "Yes, Ok, Yes, show me the movies already!".
It depends strongly on the nature of *all* the documents. As posted above, what if there's info that compromises undercover operatives, recruiters, etc? IF that were the case, I'd *hate* to have that bomb on my hands and try to decide what to release and what to shred and deny knowledge of.
And to prove your point.. It's 8:44PM here now. I've been at the office since 9AM... So almost a 12 hour day...
Listen to the AC. Get the hell out of that cycle. NOW. Your efforts are probably seen as more of a personal habit / quirk than a valuable contribution to the company. I'm 36 and speaking out of a few years' experience.
OTOH, I hold doors open regardless of gender (not the whole "stand aside, let them in first" act but just keeping a hand on the door until they can catch it).
Chivalry is just the self-interested (but foolish) cousin of kindness, and I don't think having balls instead of a pussy between the legs makes someone less worthy of my help.
Oh, where are my mod points now. RIght, they're waiting for the next high ratio of Apple and Idle stories.
Yes, so often they are rude out of haste. They tend to be overworked and have a sense of "get the important done, delegate the rest" floating inside their skull the whole time.
On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded. Rather than test every aircraft with a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable, and then subclassify them by what devices you can use on what craft, it's a damn sight easier to go the 'Better Safe Than Sorry' approach and blanket-ban.
If anything, the older aircraft would be less subject to EM interference, since they'd have fewer electronics, and those electronics would probably be much hardier than modern IC-based gear.
I guess the GP meant "too old to be properly shielded, modern enough to have lots of electronics", not a DC-3;). The problem with electronic gizmos hit when planes already had a lot of electronic instruments. Indeed, Wikipedia tells me the Boeing 737-400 started flying in 1985 and had a full glass cockpit.
those electronics would probably be much hardier than modern IC-based gear.
If anything, a PCB with discrete components has longer exposed copper (a requisite for EM induction) than an IC measuring 4x4 mm doing the same function. "They don't make them like they used to" is wholly untrue in this field.
There's a reason they were never tested; it was inconceivable that anything short of a nuclear blast could possibly interfere with them.
They're hard to mess with from outside the cigar tube; they weren't designed to deal with random EMF inside it, other than their own.
As for "a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable"...are pilots really so superstitious that they think an iPad emits a different sort of aircraft-confounding rays than a ThinkPad or a Palmcorder?
Of course they're revising their safety standards, and they start with a popular device. Just to nitpick, the switching DC-DC converter in a laptop and the little inverter for the CCFL backlight can be some noisy buggers.
Man, he was being sarcastic, most likely portraying the effective behaviour of the market. Though, to be fair consumers aren't too aware of the magnitude of the problem, let alone internalize the connection between how cheap they get their stuff and some ecological issue with "a huge dam or something".
The question of exactly how legal it is to use Adobe Flash in the course of developing Gnash is a frequent topic on the Gnash mailing lists. Here I'll discuss the situation in the EU.
In this subject I'll avoid the term reverse engineering since it means different things to different people.
The relevant legislation in the EU is the Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs. Council directives are generally implemented also in national law, although the European Court of Justice has held that directives are binding on member states (i.e., EU countries) even if they have not (yet) added them into national law.
The relevant part of the directive is Article 5, paragraph 3:
The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without the authorization of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.
In short, so long as you are allowed to use Adobe Flash, you can use it to observe and study to understand its behavior.
So first we must insure that we have the right to use Adobe Flash. This is easy, because usage of Adobe Flash is free under the Flash EULA.
Now the observant reader might point out that the EULA specifically prohibits using Adobe Flash in order to create a competing product (such as Gnash). However, the above-quoted article from the directive says that the study and observation may take place without the authorization of the rightholder. This means that Adobe cannot bindingly prohibit such activites in its licensing agreements.
bjacques's blog at gnashdev.org
I don't know if you can explicitly forfeit a right by accepting a private agreement (the EULA) and then claim that it was never valid. AFAIK, most rights can be waived. Any European lawyers in the house?
Long ago "data" was just the plural of "datum" (single fact or piece of information), and in that sense "many" would be adequate. But when using it as a mass noun (as is the case here) it would be a mass noun (measureable and singular like "water"), and you'd talk about "much data".
Yes, that'd might hit them hard enough to get them to care, but we'd have the threat of job loss and thus the "too big to fail" argument (again). Could be a good thing in the long run, but very unpopular.
Only on/. a science fiction reference when discussing oceanography/ecology is considered informative. I guess that's *chuckle* part of the *snort* greatness:)
Slashdot Mirror
How do I turn this damn thing off?!
On hist, Loskcher?
TFA describes the opposite and it's even better - to have the proxy answer requests while I sleep ;)
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - "Arse tickling dildos"
They do test, but the window period can be as high as three months with plain ELISA, down to a month if you spend extra for Western blot, and that means that when someone comes out positive, all his/her partners within that period have to be tested as well as their respective partners. It happened in 2004 (5 infected) and 2009 (16 infected).
Back on topic: I haven't gotten anything from the web *ever*, perhaps for the simple discipline of not authorizing ActiveX components, applets and other gimmicks.
But that's me; I guess less computer-literate *and* porn hungry guys make easier targets - "Yes, Ok, Yes, show me the movies already!".
It depends strongly on the nature of *all* the documents. As posted above, what if there's info that compromises undercover operatives, recruiters, etc? IF that were the case, I'd *hate* to have that bomb on my hands and try to decide what to release and what to shred and deny knowledge of.
Much in the same way that teens and twentysomethings in call centers are "executives".
I'm sure there's a BP joke waiting in there, but it beats me
This is the ultimate form of "GIT OFF MY LAND!!"
Just as with music. In all three statements.
Do you mean Daniel Kish? I just learned about him and human echolocation from a post above.
And to prove your point.. It's 8:44PM here now. I've been at the office since 9AM... So almost a 12 hour day...
Listen to the AC. Get the hell out of that cycle. NOW. Your efforts are probably seen as more of a personal habit / quirk than a valuable contribution to the company. I'm 36 and speaking out of a few years' experience.
OTOH, I hold doors open regardless of gender (not the whole "stand aside, let them in first" act but just keeping a hand on the door until they can catch it).
Chivalry is just the self-interested (but foolish) cousin of kindness, and I don't think having balls instead of a pussy between the legs makes someone less worthy of my help.
Oh, where are my mod points now. RIght, they're waiting for the next high ratio of Apple and Idle stories.
Yes, so often they are rude out of haste. They tend to be overworked and have a sense of "get the important done, delegate the rest" floating inside their skull the whole time.
On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded. Rather than test every aircraft with a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable, and then subclassify them by what devices you can use on what craft, it's a damn sight easier to go the 'Better Safe Than Sorry' approach and blanket-ban.
If anything, the older aircraft would be less subject to EM interference, since they'd have fewer electronics, and those electronics would probably be much hardier than modern IC-based gear.
I guess the GP meant "too old to be properly shielded, modern enough to have lots of electronics", not a DC-3 ;). The problem with electronic gizmos hit when planes already had a lot of electronic instruments. Indeed, Wikipedia tells me the Boeing 737-400 started flying in 1985 and had a full glass cockpit.
those electronics would probably be much hardier than modern IC-based gear.
If anything, a PCB with discrete components has longer exposed copper (a requisite for EM induction) than an IC measuring 4x4 mm doing the same function. "They don't make them like they used to" is wholly untrue in this field.
There's a reason they were never tested; it was inconceivable that anything short of a nuclear blast could possibly interfere with them.
They're hard to mess with from outside the cigar tube; they weren't designed to deal with random EMF inside it, other than their own.
As for "a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable"...are pilots really so superstitious that they think an iPad emits a different sort of aircraft-confounding rays than a ThinkPad or a Palmcorder?
Of course they're revising their safety standards, and they start with a popular device. Just to nitpick, the switching DC-DC converter in a laptop and the little inverter for the CCFL backlight can be some noisy buggers.
Man, he was being sarcastic, most likely portraying the effective behaviour of the market. Though, to be fair consumers aren't too aware of the magnitude of the problem, let alone internalize the connection between how cheap they get their stuff and some ecological issue with "a huge dam or something".
Thanks for the heads-up. I'm forwarding this to these guys
This is interesting:
bjacques's blog at gnashdev.org I don't know if you can explicitly forfeit a right by accepting a private agreement (the EULA) and then claim that it was never valid. AFAIK, most rights can be waived. Any European lawyers in the house?
Perhaps you [we] could donate to Gnash ? You know, they might get there someday.
Long ago "data" was just the plural of "datum" (single fact or piece of information), and in that sense "many" would be adequate. But when using it as a mass noun (as is the case here) it would be a mass noun (measureable and singular like "water"), and you'd talk about "much data".
Yes, that'd might hit them hard enough to get them to care, but we'd have the threat of job loss and thus the "too big to fail" argument (again). Could be a good thing in the long run, but very unpopular.
Only on /. a science fiction reference when discussing oceanography/ecology is considered informative. I guess that's *chuckle* part of the *snort* greatness :)
640 B should be enough for any planet.
* ducks *
I laughed for the better part of a minute - thanks :)
OTOH, more than once I've wanted to do that, and tell them to use it for a week or so until they run into the bug again
Doh! I forgot about the other, bigger transmitter. Brain glitch - happens from time to time. ;)
Anyway, I still don't get who the "tools with headsets" are and why wish them such ill. I must be really sleepy.