This kind of abuse of power makes my blood boil. It's an utter shame things like this are allowed to happen, and the TSA, police, and DEA agents involved should be ashamed. This should have never needed to be resolved in court.
Common sense to me would have been to record her identity, do a quick criminal background check, and if nothing came up let her go on her way (with the cash). Then if necessary, the DEA could keep a closer eye on her future travels or business dealings to watch for suspicious patterns. But to just take someone's money with no justification is ludicrous!
Yeah, I'd recommend it. Although you CAN do all the ceremony you referred to and setup a complicated build environment, etc... Vue doesn't require it and can be used fairly effectively using a simple setup.
I made a little jsFiddle for you to demonstrate. This is just including the Vue.js library on the page and using it to do stuff. No build environment or anything.
First off, his eCommerce business might be some custom software app, not an online store or informational website. So being "knee deep in frameworks" might be necessary for his business.
That said, the ADA is all about accommodating disabled persons within reason. Depending on the scope and functionality of his software, fully supporting such with a single developer on staff MIGHT be an undue burden - it all depends on the specifics of the situation and we don't know his.
Notice the usage of "Undue Burden" from the official ADA documentation below.
"The rules are also flexible for communicating effectively with customers who are blind or have low vision. For example, a restaurant can put its menu on an audio cassette or a waiter can read it to a patron. A sales clerk can find items and read their labels. In more complex transactions where a significant amount of printed information is involved, providing alternate formats will be necessary, unless doing so is an undue burden."
"It is a business's responsibility to provide a sign language, oral interpreter, or VRI service unless doing so in a particular situation would result in an undue burden, which means significant difficulty or expense. A business's overall resources determine (rather than a comparison to the fees paid by the customer needing the interpreter) what constitutes an undue burden."
TLDR: they lost 71% of their traffic overnight due to the Google update. They argue changes that large should have forewarning because people's livelihoods depend on that traffic and Google has zero transparency on the whole process.
They couldn't get answers about the drop in traffic, so they are giving up on that site and moving their staff to work on another:
"We are shutting down CCN.com. Google has made that choice for us. We are moving the entire team over to HVY.com to at least try and save modern journalism the way we see it. HVY Journalists is a news platform made by and for journalists."
I was thinking the same thing. The article states that the auction items "also appeared to include material confiscated from Palestinians and Israeli settlers who built without authorization."
Which seems to imply this wasn't targeted specifically at the Palestinians but rather anyone who built without permits. Which begs the question... who built the classrooms and why wouldn't they have gotten building permits before doing so?
Just chiming in to say that I agree with what you said. I found the released libraries to be underwhelming to the point of almost uselessness based on the descriptions. I've written stuff like that for projects back when I was in school, and if I needed such tools, making my own would likely take about as much time as implementing someone else's.
Am I the only one concerned that they are rolling this tech out without further study? To quote the IEEE:
"Millimeter waves are broadcast at frequencies between 30 and 300 gigahertz, compared to the bands below 6 GHz that were used for mobile devices in the past."
This past year the department within the US government responsible for studying toxic effects released a preliminary report showing an increase in brain and heart cancer rates within male mice exposed to 2G and 3G wireless radiation:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.htm...
That's not to mention the personal stories of cell-phone induced brain cancers that have been circulating since the 80s. For instance: my brother-in-law's dad died of brain cancer, and he was a business man who was on his cell phone almost 24/7.
Exposing the majority of the US population to higher frequency waves than the ones already under suspicion of causing cancer seems like a bad call without further study.
The biggest worry over a trade deficit that I'd have are National Security implications due to the dependance on trade with that county. To explain why that would matter, consider the following:
- Because of the much lower wages and regulatory costs, manufacturing here in the U.S. seems to have been strangled in the last few decades and mostly moved over to China.
- This has caused a shift in the way the U.S. economy works, with cheap parts / goods from China being considered a given and a transition to businesses that depend on those cheap imports.
- Once our economy wholly depends on that overseas manufacturing in China, that gives China large leverage over us because we don't have the factories here in the U.S. anymore to pick up the slack if China stopped trading with us and instead found another buyer for their goods.
- MUCH more importantly though, is the affect this dependance on a foreign nation would have on us if China decided to do things that we find reprehensible in the world. Think about what Russia did with Crimea. Now imagine China doing something similar. With Russia we were able to slap strong economic sanctions on them... but if our economy is strongly intertwined that makes taking any strong stance against that nation extremely difficult. I don't think anyone wants their future and safety dependent on strangers from a different society that have different cultural values.
The municipal ISPs I've heard of (from AMA's on Reddit and such) still have to create a peering contract with Comcast/AT&T because those companies own the lines. And granted, RIGHT NOW, it's not that expensive to peer with them. However, it's my understanding the new FCC just relaxed the rules on how much Comcast can charge businesses that need to use their lines???
"The two specific items to be voted on Thursday include a plan to make it easier for broadband providers to charge other businesses higher prices to connect to the main arteries of their networks." - From a pre-vote article. The vote passed. It includes a link to the document.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/technology/ajit%2Dpai%2Df...
Ok, so assuming the monopolies aren't just going to let you steal away their business by creating a municipal ISP that uses their lines... You could try and lay your own lines to get around this. However, that's the exact problem Google ran into. Google required cities pass ordinances that allowed them to move Comcast/AT&T lines on the utility poles so that Google could add their own, but the existing ISPs sued saying that the cities did not have the right and won in court. This means Google had to wait for Comcast techs to come out and move the lines for each and every pole, a process which could take months and the ISPs were dragging out just to make Google's life miserable. This battle over the utility poles is something you can research.
So, assuming we're not better than Google, and that laying new lines will be a regulation nightmare, we're left with the option of renting the existing ISP's lines... of which I already stated I don't think would work either because the same anti-regulation mentality that caused the FCC to deregulate NN has also caused them to deregulate pricing protections for business peering.
Google tried to roll out becoming an ISP and the costs were too great for the potential revenue they'd make back. You should read the article below, but not only is laying new cables down costly (which isn't helped when AT&T and Comcast use the legal system to stop Google), but many Americans buy their internet as part of a package that includes TV and/or phone service too. Meaning to be a serious competitor that can get enough customers to be profitable, you have to also offer TV and phone service to compete with the incumbents.
If becoming a successful ISP is too difficult for Google... then who is going to be able to do it? Who is going to provide the competition to the monopolies of Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner?
In a system where preventing a monopoly (and ensuring consumer protection) through competition isn't possible, then that's where regulation is needed.
If you feel there is a better way, I'd be interested to hear about it.
To prove a random number is truly random you would have to prove the random number generator that gave it to you is truly random.
If the output was plotted (from the minimum possible output to the maximum) and run a sufficient number of times, I would expect the chart of the output to have a very good distribution, and not have any serious hotspots.
To prove this, my solution would probably go something like:
Probability of number N being output = 1 / MaxPossibleNumber
Then I would run a test a sufficient number of times (depends on what MaxPossibleNumber is) such that as the amount of numbers generated approaches infinity, the percentage of times any particular number is output approaches 1/MaxNumber.
The harder part would be making sure sequences of numbers don't repeat. In addition to looking at the total distribution, I think I would also want to log the order in which the numbers were generated and then run an algorithm that looks for sequence repeats.
I am NOT familiar with how random number generators work, so this is a naive solution off the top of my head and could be completely wrong, but w/e.
Can confirm. I both recently sold my home, and used to be a licensed real estate appraiser before switching to Software Dev.
Our house in the not-super-desirable area of NE Portland was worth ~$265k when we looked at the data in late February/March of this year (strong data supporting that number). When we finally put it on the market in the beginning of May, it sold in 1 day, with multiple offers, for a sales price of $312k.
Yes, that's a $47k increase in value in just over 2 months. When spring hit, real estate prices went bonkers in Portland this year. Also, we bought the house for $160k ~five years ago.
Common sense to me would have been to record her identity, do a quick criminal background check, and if nothing came up let her go on her way (with the cash). Then if necessary, the DEA could keep a closer eye on her future travels or business dealings to watch for suspicious patterns. But to just take someone's money with no justification is ludicrous!