X or X's eve is the night before X.
X night follows X day.
So if New Year's Day is on 1 January, that means that New Year's Eve is the night before, i.e. 31 December, and New Year's Night is the night from 1 January to 2 January.
I seem to remember from a while back (maybe a couple of years) some research that addressed this.
Researchers in Australia looked at ethnically Chinese kids in Australia and in Singapore, so genetically almost identical populations. The kids in Singapore spent much more time indoors, whereas the kids in Australia spent at least two (IIRR) hours per day at school outdoors.
It seems that exposure to natural light, most likely to UV spectrum, signals to the eye when to stop growing. In the absence of this signal, a kid's eyes continue to grow after the skull has stopped growing. The result is that the eye bulges, increasing the distance between the lens and the retina, giving rise to myopia.
The eyes of the kids in Australia were getting enough light to stop growing, the eyes of the kids in Singapore were not getting enough light and continue to grow.
But doesn't the exchange simply reverse the trades once it is discovered that there was some manipulation like this?
There's little point in trying to push a stock into a nose dive like that. The billions you make will last for seconds before they evaporate.
On the other hand, I see little point to "Syrian Electronic Barmy Army Woz 'Ere" type graffiti
If you really cannot find a pattern in your problem's data, then reframe the problem until you can find a pattern. And write your program in such a way that data falling outside the pattern is handled elegantly.
"My supervisor is the entity of Apple as a whole and therefore, I am here to help you directly. I am the end of the line for this matter."
"no further information pertaining to the issue is available, I do apologize however any further correspondence regarding the issue will not be addressed."
And just to put a cherry on top, she ends with this.
"Your experience is very important to us and we truly appreciate your continued devotion to the iTunes Store. Have a wonderful day."
Apple's left hand (iTunes store) apparently cannot talk to its right hand (the iPad and Mac store), even though the left hand and right hand need each other.
What I'm asking for here on Slashdot is for any advice on how to proceed, or for examples or links to stories about people having successfully persuaded Apple or another big corporation to take a more customer-friendly approach.
Pavement is the material itself, such as asphalt, concrete, etc. The word "pave" means to cover a surface. Sidewalk, road, driveway, and such refer to the use of the paved area. You don't typically call your house "bricks" or "wood" or whatever it may be constructed from, so why call a sidewalk "pavement".
In British English, the terms "pavement" and "paved" also tend to have a strong sense of a surface being covered with "paving stones" as opposed to being covered by a continuously poured material such as tarmac, asphalt or concrete, a process known as "metalling". So the pavements are paved, and the roadway is metalled.
We adopted metalling for the roadway long before using it on the pavements, and it is still very common to find pavements that are flagged (i.e., covered with big flagstones) .
But we also use "footpath" and sometimes "causeway" (pronounced kz.i in some areas) for the bit reserved for pedestrians.
To look at the car example, it would be like saying that we are going to take cars away from everybody except those who do hit and runs. We'll let them keep their cars and give them more targets when people start walking in the road since nobody else has cars, so they don't expect to be hit. Oh, and we'll also remove all stoplights and speed limits. See how well it works out for society.
The idea that you take the [cars|guns] away from reasonable people and expressly allow the unreasonable people to keep their [cars|guns], and to furthermore remove all restrictions on the use of those [cars|guns] is just ridiculous, and not at all what understood from errandum's post.
You already have gun control, and have the legal mechanisms:
This is just like the mechanisms that you have in place to try to prevent people from driving cars when should not do so
But your legal system does not have the practical means to enforce the legal mechanisms.
Fix your gun control system first: take the guns out of the hands of the unreasonable people.
Not only that, but I find that using those programs is really useful for planning.
What you really don't want, when showing constellations to kids, is to spend ages looking around for something interesting in the sky. A few in the class might have the patience for it, but not the rest. And if you can'tshow them the Plough, Cassiopeia and Orion quickly enough, they'll start shouting to see Uranus.
If anyone's interested, here's the text of the law she's charged under:
(c) The owner or lessee of a facility where a motion picture is being exhibited, the authorized agent or employee of that owner or lessee, or the licensor of the motion picture being exhibited or his or her agent or employee, who alerts law enforcement authorities of an alleged violation of this Section is not liable in any civil action arising out of measures taken by that owner, lessee, licensor, agent, or employee in the course of subsequently detaining a person that the owner, lessee, licensor, agent, or employee, in good faith believed to have violated this Section while awaiting the arrival of law enforcement authorities, unless the plaintiff in such an action shows by clear and convincing evidence that such measures were manifestly unreasonable or the period of detention was unreasonably long.
Not only does the law appear applicable to this case, but the theater management is immune from any resulting civil action. That's a really bad law.
I read section (c) as protecting, from civil suit, that particular employee who called the cops. I did not read that as protecting the owner of the cinema, who has instructed the employees to take those measures.
I am not a lawyer, and not a US citizen... I'm English, and in English law we have a thing known as "vicarious liability" which, unless I'm mistaken (and I may well be) means that an employee following a company policy is not held personally liable for the errors in that policy.
Rather, the law would hold responsible the employer who requires the employee to enforce unreasonable policies including, but not limited to, calling the cops if anybody sings "Happy Birthday" or so much as takes a photograph which may include a small portion of a copyrighted work.
"Congress has mandated that, by 2012, all containers bound for the US be inspected overseas."
Eh, what'll it matter. It'll only be in effect for a few months.
I'm sure it's easier to bribe officials or otherwise get around the inspections in somewhere like Namibia, Pakistan or the Philipines, rather than at the US port.
Good enough and affordable ALWAYS wins against excellent but unaffordable.
Also, never forget that in the USA and increasingly in the rest of the world, marketing trumps engineering.
Finally, the USA is the home of the "quantity beats quality" mantra.
You make very good points, but fail to address the fact that the vast majority of people are not concerned with the long term effects, certainly not in the future.
Most of us are thinking about our own lives and futures, about those of our immediate family and of our direct offspring.
It is little comfort to somebody in a dead end job that "CEOs will see that racial hiring practises are detrimental to productivity".
To say "your great-great grandchildren will live in a more just society" butters no parsnips.
You get one shot at this life, that's it. Gone are the days (if they ever really existed) when you could say to the poor "be virtuous, you shall have treasure in heaven".
Everybody is playing a short term game, now.
My short term game involves doing my job, keeping my head above water and keeping my kids on the path to independence in both mind and body (i.e., intellectually curious and able to bring home the bacon). I'm on a 20-year programme.
The average politician is looking to prolong his trip on the gravy train beyond the next election. He's on a three-year programme.
What's your programme? K.