The Laplink idea was copied by Microsoft. If it has one of the more recent versions of XP, you can use a serial link.
You did not say how recent the destination machine is. If it has a serial port and XP or 98, you can just use a null modem cable. If it's a newer machine, you will have to use a null modem cable AND a serial-to-usb cable or adapter on the newer end. Further, if you are on Windows 7 or later, you will have to install Virtual PC and then XP mode (both free from Microsoft), so you can run a virtual XP window.
Then start up serial networking and transfer your data. One machine is 'host' and the other is 'client'.
Then something changes and blows the estimates out of the water. But the MBA's think since only one line in the spec changed, the schedule should stay the same.
And that's when you re-negotiate, or quit.
From my experience, it's easy to make bad estimates because bad estimates are easy to make. If it's a big project, take your worst possible guess, and multiply by 1.5.
One of the biggest reasons bad estimates are so easy to make, is that the stakeholders "forget" to include too many of the details. And even, sometimes, some of the big essential features. It's debatable how many of these things are really "forgotten", versus not known or just intentionally left out to lower the estimate.
Therefore, I go about it this way:
I write out clearly what the specs are. Often this is just a repeat of the stakeholder's own specs. I estimate each major "feature" in the specs.
My standard contract states that this is only an estimate, based on the written scope of work just described. If at any point it looks like the work will take more than 10% over the estimate, it is time to examine why and the terms must be re-negotiated.
If any significant changes or additions are made to the scope of work, the terms must be re-negotiated.
These stipulations make sure everybody is talking, and if anything goes over estimate, everybody knows why. It also makes sure that if they add more work, I get more money.
I have a third stipulation I put in every contract: single point of contact. The stakeholder(s) must appoint one person, and one person only, who is to give me instructions and discuss the specifications. Nobody else, even the CEO, is allowed to do that.
I insist on these. So far, I have not had anybody turn me down because they thought the terms were unreasonable. That last clause keeps me from getting caught between conflicting instructions from different people. Other than that one, these are SOP for many engineering contracts. I just borrowed from those.
Smith actually wrote that it was necessary for the government to intervene when monopoly or oligopoly loomed. He said that was necessary to keep everybody working within the bounds of free market.
Unfortunately, regulating greed doesn't work. You have to fix the problem. You have to have a society of people that aren't greedy. Good luck with that!
It worked pretty well with telephones for 40-50 years. Granted, significant corruption was leaking in toward the end, but for a very long time the ill effects of monolithic monopoly were kept at bay, while we kept the advantages (i.e., world's best interoperability, reasonable rates for their day).
During that time, in some countries in Europe which allowed competition in the market, you couldn't call the neighbor on one side because he was using a different phone company, and even the respective voltages were not compatible. And you couldn't call the other neighbor on the other side, because she was on yet a different company. And there were 3 times as many wires on the poles.
I am generally supportive of what the FCC is trying to do with Title II but they're going a bridge too far if they think it's appropriate to step into the middle of the relationship between States and their political subdivisions.
Just as with regulation, I am tempted to agree. But on the other hand, those State laws are pretty definitely protectionist and anti-competitive in nature. Considering that they also very definitely involve interstate commerce (the internet), I would -- very reluctantly -- have to side with the FCC on this one too.
The vast majority of the time I would be in favor of States' rights to see to their own business. But again I think this is really a necessary thing. I am just as much in favor of the cities which took a stand against monopoly pressure.
In other words, in both cases, I feel it is a case of "necessary evil". There are antitrust issues at both levels.
Posting nudes without permission of the model? Isn't.
This has zero to do specifically with "the consent of the model". It has to do with who owns copyright to the picture.
That is no small thing. Generally speaking, if you allow someone to take pictures in exchange for money, you have waived any further right to those pictures. The photographer owns them.
That can change by prior agreement (a signed contract or waiver being the classic examples). But without that, it is generally as I stated. As someone who formerly photographed models, I researched the law and I know it well.
The point being: a model very seldom has any legal rights to the pictures or videos. A photographed subject might, if not taken under commercial circumstances. But that's a different matter.
What Reddit did is in fact censorship: in response to a few people abusively posting pictures they did not own, they have effectively banned the practice, because very few if any people are going to "prove" copyright ownership before posting.
So, as I said elsewhere: they are restricting everybody over the abuses of a few. That's classic censorship. Do they have a right to do that? Maybe. Who cares?
Too be more expansive: If you think that I as a host should not have the right to throw abusive visitors out of a gathering at my place, you're a fucking idiot.
I have no opinion about that at this time, since that is neither what they did or what I wrote about.
If someone takes a picture of you anywhere, they own the picture.
No.
That is, they may own the picture, but they don't necessarily own rights to the picture.
It all hinges on "reasonable expectation of privacy". If somebody took a nude picture of you in your home, you probably have good cause to assert "reasonable expectation of privacy", and prevent (or sue somebody for) distributing that photo without your permission.
That is the primary difference between "anywhere" and "public" in this context. In many -- but not "all" -- public situations, if someone takes a picture of you, that's just too bad.
Reddits policy change seems much different than Google's. As a free market, private property type, wouldn't you agree that reddits policy change is moral in that it is an attempt to return property to its rightful owner?
No. I can see "returning property to its rightful owner" if an owner complains. But what they did is more like "prior restraint": you must prove yourself innocent before you can post anything.
I think the former is a reasonable response. I don't agree that the latter is. You punish everybody for the doings of a relative few bad actors. I don't think that's reasonable at all. There is already far too much of that today. It's like somebody is trying to make the whole world safe for children.
Well, I've got news: the only world that is 100% child-safe is also a world that is suitable only for children.
As a Libertarian, I am often dismayed by other Libertarians saying "all regulation is bad". But that's not the actual Libertarian philosophy. Which is "the minimum regulation that works". Too many have seemed to forget those all-important last 2 words.
Clear back to Adam Smith, it was clear that free market forces could lead to monopoly or oligopoly. And that's where the government's role comes in: antitrust laws keep people playing within the rules of an open, free market.
But Congress has abdicated its responsibility in recent years, in regard to antitrust. It, and its regulators, have allowed mergers that would have been laughed at 20 years ago.
As a result: giant net providers like Comcast and Verizon. They have formed an oligopoly, not a free market. As such regulation is absolutely necessary. All these people shouting "no regulation of free markets" are off their nuts. There hasn't been one.
Telcom companies have a lot more money to fight a legal battle than the FCC does. See also: Why it took ~35 years to get smoking under control even though the FDA declared smoking a major hazard to your health in the 1980's.
Laws did not "get smoking under control". Except maybe tax laws helped. Otherwise, not really.
It took social change to make it happen.
However, this is a very different issues, as this has nothing to do with personal vice. Only corporate vice, in the form of greed and corruption.
If we humans have a hard time discerning if a person is technically "obese" (as rated by the ever-popular BMI scale)...
No, "we humans" don't. Only the kind of idiot doctor who doesn't understand logic.
BMI started out as an index for use by doctors for calculating dosages. And it was pretty useful for that, though perhaps not ideal. But, they expanded its use to all kinds of different, inappropriate things. Things they should have known were inappropriate. Like obesity.
Simple example: a body-builder's BMI is off the charts. If one used it to measure obesity, they'd be so far off as to very seriously endanger someone's health. I've heard "but that's an exception"... but no, it's not. It's one end of a continuous scale, and it can be off at any point on that scale.
But I'm sure the Free Market Unicorns will force them to change their ways or die, right?
False dichotomy. Though you're no more guilty of it than many here.
Monopoly (or oligopoly, I'm grouping them here) and free market are not the same. Free markets can lead to monopoly. But once monopoly or oligopoly are achieved, there is no "free market" anymore. So they aren't even close to the same things.
That's why, clear back to Adam Smith, we've had the concept of Antitrust Laws. It is antitrust laws which are responsible for preventing monopolies from forming, and KEEPING everyone playing within a "fair playing field".
And that's the thing: you can't have a fair, free market without a reasonable body of ENFORCED antitrust laws. Sadly, when businesses were deregulated, much of the antitrust enforcement went with it, which was not justified. While I do think over-regulation is harmful, antitrust laws are not "over-regulation", they are absolutely essential.
So when someone who is otherwise knowledgeable mentions "free market", it is safe to presume they mean a free market WITH reasonable and enforced antitrust laws. You can't have real capitalism without the latter.
Similar Title II regulation is what kept police from intercepting your phone calls without a warrant. It's about time there was some manner of enforcing the the same thing in regard to internet communication.
Granted, this regulation is aimed more-or-less at greedy ISP double-dipping, but the other is a potential side-effect, and a welcome one.
People are genuinely disappointed with all of the Firefox products these days.
Well, I must not be "people" then. I've used Firefox for years and while Mozilla has made a slip or two, it's my go-to browser of choice.
At least on my system, it's smaller and faster than Chrome, and it has far more useful and privacy-protecting plugins. More plugins in general, I think.
Actually, no. At the levels needed to get the desired effect, Alcohol is far more dangerous than Heroin.
That depends on so many different factors that it's a pointless thing to say. A person who has developed a tolerance for heroin might daily take what would be a near-lethal dose for others.
The main thing here, though, is that OP is misleading. TFA explains (though not very straightforwardly) that they are measuring potential harm based not only on actual exposure, but also on the proportion of the population likely to be exposed. By that measure, alcohol being highest "risk" is a foregone conclusion.
It's criminal what these streaming services are trying to pay though. unless you are a huge artist, or viral success, you're just giving your stuff away with these services.
It's hard to tell how they compare when TFA and similar articles use phrases like "80% smaller", which is almost criminally ambiguous. Sure, you can do the math yourself but you shouldn't have to. (For the record, 0.0011 is slightly more than 18% of 0.006).
Dear journalists: if you mean "18% of", say 18% of. Not "82% smaller", or the like, which could mean several different things you may not have intended.
He probably made the mistake of reading the Slashdot comments section. That would rapidly lead to the conclusion that programmers are know-nothing egomaniacs.
Ad-hominem will get you nowhere.
Billy Nye DEMONSTRATED that he knows squat about AGW by co-hosting THIS video with Al Gore... showing an experiment to "prove" CO2 warming that could never have actually worked.
While Anthony Watts also gets part of it wrong -- actual greenhouses do not actually work by "trapping infrafed radiation" -- he still demonstrates conclusively that the Nye-Gore "demonstration" was 100% a crock of made-up shit.
To publicly DEMONSTRATE his ignorance and dishonesty in that manner, then call others half-stupid, is very strong evidence that Bill Nye is a chronic sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Or just plain a liar. Choose one.
Well, I've got an advantage over you, apparently. At least I read the comments I am responding to, so I can see whether my argument is actually refuted before I even write it.
To be fair, he was just answering the question an interviewer asked him. It's not like he was writing a thesis or anything. Someone asked him his opinion, and he gave it.
Nye never studied computer science, so how the hell would he know? And why is he giving opinions about it?
My own science education, just for example, has been far better than my what my chosen career would indicate. Most of my education was in science and engineering, before I took the turn into software.
So maybe my experience isn't typical. But so what? How would Nye know, either way? At the time Nye got his degree (almost 40 years ago), you couldn't even GET a "Computer Science" degree at most Universities. And I know, because I was there, writing programs. Well, maybe not in '77 but not long after.
I used to respect Nye a lot. But ever since he started opening his mouth about AGW he has been sounding like his head has gotten so big it could be mistaken for he Goodyear Blimp.
Slashdot Mirror
The Laplink idea was copied by Microsoft. If it has one of the more recent versions of XP, you can use a serial link.
You did not say how recent the destination machine is. If it has a serial port and XP or 98, you can just use a null modem cable. If it's a newer machine, you will have to use a null modem cable AND a serial-to-usb cable or adapter on the newer end. Further, if you are on Windows 7 or later, you will have to install Virtual PC and then XP mode (both free from Microsoft), so you can run a virtual XP window.
Then start up serial networking and transfer your data. One machine is 'host' and the other is 'client'.
Then something changes and blows the estimates out of the water. But the MBA's think since only one line in the spec changed, the schedule should stay the same.
And that's when you re-negotiate, or quit.
From my experience, it's easy to make bad estimates because bad estimates are easy to make. If it's a big project, take your worst possible guess, and multiply by 1.5.
One of the biggest reasons bad estimates are so easy to make, is that the stakeholders "forget" to include too many of the details. And even, sometimes, some of the big essential features. It's debatable how many of these things are really "forgotten", versus not known or just intentionally left out to lower the estimate.
Therefore, I go about it this way:
I write out clearly what the specs are. Often this is just a repeat of the stakeholder's own specs. I estimate each major "feature" in the specs.
My standard contract states that this is only an estimate, based on the written scope of work just described. If at any point it looks like the work will take more than 10% over the estimate, it is time to examine why and the terms must be re-negotiated.
If any significant changes or additions are made to the scope of work, the terms must be re-negotiated.
These stipulations make sure everybody is talking, and if anything goes over estimate, everybody knows why. It also makes sure that if they add more work, I get more money.
I have a third stipulation I put in every contract: single point of contact. The stakeholder(s) must appoint one person, and one person only, who is to give me instructions and discuss the specifications. Nobody else, even the CEO, is allowed to do that.
I insist on these. So far, I have not had anybody turn me down because they thought the terms were unreasonable. That last clause keeps me from getting caught between conflicting instructions from different people. Other than that one, these are SOP for many engineering contracts. I just borrowed from those.
Smith actually wrote that it was necessary for the government to intervene when monopoly or oligopoly loomed. He said that was necessary to keep everybody working within the bounds of free market.
Unfortunately, regulating greed doesn't work. You have to fix the problem. You have to have a society of people that aren't greedy. Good luck with that!
It worked pretty well with telephones for 40-50 years. Granted, significant corruption was leaking in toward the end, but for a very long time the ill effects of monolithic monopoly were kept at bay, while we kept the advantages (i.e., world's best interoperability, reasonable rates for their day).
During that time, in some countries in Europe which allowed competition in the market, you couldn't call the neighbor on one side because he was using a different phone company, and even the respective voltages were not compatible. And you couldn't call the other neighbor on the other side, because she was on yet a different company. And there were 3 times as many wires on the poles.
I am generally supportive of what the FCC is trying to do with Title II but they're going a bridge too far if they think it's appropriate to step into the middle of the relationship between States and their political subdivisions.
Just as with regulation, I am tempted to agree. But on the other hand, those State laws are pretty definitely protectionist and anti-competitive in nature. Considering that they also very definitely involve interstate commerce (the internet), I would -- very reluctantly -- have to side with the FCC on this one too.
The vast majority of the time I would be in favor of States' rights to see to their own business. But again I think this is really a necessary thing. I am just as much in favor of the cities which took a stand against monopoly pressure.
In other words, in both cases, I feel it is a case of "necessary evil". There are antitrust issues at both levels.
Posting nudes without permission of the model? Isn't.
This has zero to do specifically with "the consent of the model". It has to do with who owns copyright to the picture.
That is no small thing. Generally speaking, if you allow someone to take pictures in exchange for money, you have waived any further right to those pictures. The photographer owns them.
That can change by prior agreement (a signed contract or waiver being the classic examples). But without that, it is generally as I stated. As someone who formerly photographed models, I researched the law and I know it well.
The point being: a model very seldom has any legal rights to the pictures or videos. A photographed subject might, if not taken under commercial circumstances. But that's a different matter.
What Reddit did is in fact censorship: in response to a few people abusively posting pictures they did not own, they have effectively banned the practice, because very few if any people are going to "prove" copyright ownership before posting.
So, as I said elsewhere: they are restricting everybody over the abuses of a few. That's classic censorship. Do they have a right to do that? Maybe. Who cares?
Too be more expansive: If you think that I as a host should not have the right to throw abusive visitors out of a gathering at my place, you're a fucking idiot.
I have no opinion about that at this time, since that is neither what they did or what I wrote about.
If someone takes a picture of you anywhere, they own the picture.
No.
That is, they may own the picture, but they don't necessarily own rights to the picture.
It all hinges on "reasonable expectation of privacy". If somebody took a nude picture of you in your home, you probably have good cause to assert "reasonable expectation of privacy", and prevent (or sue somebody for) distributing that photo without your permission.
That is the primary difference between "anywhere" and "public" in this context. In many -- but not "all" -- public situations, if someone takes a picture of you, that's just too bad.
Reddits policy change seems much different than Google's. As a free market, private property type, wouldn't you agree that reddits policy change is moral in that it is an attempt to return property to its rightful owner?
No. I can see "returning property to its rightful owner" if an owner complains. But what they did is more like "prior restraint": you must prove yourself innocent before you can post anything.
I think the former is a reasonable response. I don't agree that the latter is. You punish everybody for the doings of a relative few bad actors. I don't think that's reasonable at all. There is already far too much of that today. It's like somebody is trying to make the whole world safe for children.
Well, I've got news: the only world that is 100% child-safe is also a world that is suitable only for children.
Exactly. Thank you.
As a Libertarian, I am often dismayed by other Libertarians saying "all regulation is bad". But that's not the actual Libertarian philosophy. Which is "the minimum regulation that works". Too many have seemed to forget those all-important last 2 words.
Clear back to Adam Smith, it was clear that free market forces could lead to monopoly or oligopoly. And that's where the government's role comes in: antitrust laws keep people playing within the rules of an open, free market.
But Congress has abdicated its responsibility in recent years, in regard to antitrust. It, and its regulators, have allowed mergers that would have been laughed at 20 years ago.
As a result: giant net providers like Comcast and Verizon. They have formed an oligopoly, not a free market. As such regulation is absolutely necessary. All these people shouting "no regulation of free markets" are off their nuts. There hasn't been one.
What's this mean for the gone wild boards... verified posters only?
Should we be happy that these organizations have chosen censorship as a response to abuse?
After all, they're not liable. They really shouldn't much care.
Telcom companies have a lot more money to fight a legal battle than the FCC does. See also: Why it took ~35 years to get smoking under control even though the FDA declared smoking a major hazard to your health in the 1980's.
Laws did not "get smoking under control". Except maybe tax laws helped. Otherwise, not really.
It took social change to make it happen.
However, this is a very different issues, as this has nothing to do with personal vice. Only corporate vice, in the form of greed and corruption.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Richard Feynman.
There is no other single, concise thing I could say that conveys more.
"Consensus" is not science. The history of science has been the history of OVERTURNING consensus. That's what it does best.
If we humans have a hard time discerning if a person is technically "obese" (as rated by the ever-popular BMI scale)...
No, "we humans" don't. Only the kind of idiot doctor who doesn't understand logic.
BMI started out as an index for use by doctors for calculating dosages. And it was pretty useful for that, though perhaps not ideal. But, they expanded its use to all kinds of different, inappropriate things. Things they should have known were inappropriate. Like obesity.
Simple example: a body-builder's BMI is off the charts. If one used it to measure obesity, they'd be so far off as to very seriously endanger someone's health. I've heard "but that's an exception"... but no, it's not. It's one end of a continuous scale, and it can be off at any point on that scale.
But I'm sure the Free Market Unicorns will force them to change their ways or die, right?
False dichotomy. Though you're no more guilty of it than many here.
Monopoly (or oligopoly, I'm grouping them here) and free market are not the same. Free markets can lead to monopoly. But once monopoly or oligopoly are achieved, there is no "free market" anymore. So they aren't even close to the same things.
That's why, clear back to Adam Smith, we've had the concept of Antitrust Laws. It is antitrust laws which are responsible for preventing monopolies from forming, and KEEPING everyone playing within a "fair playing field".
And that's the thing: you can't have a fair, free market without a reasonable body of ENFORCED antitrust laws. Sadly, when businesses were deregulated, much of the antitrust enforcement went with it, which was not justified. While I do think over-regulation is harmful, antitrust laws are not "over-regulation", they are absolutely essential.
So when someone who is otherwise knowledgeable mentions "free market", it is safe to presume they mean a free market WITH reasonable and enforced antitrust laws. You can't have real capitalism without the latter.
I doubt it will become unpopular.
Similar Title II regulation is what kept police from intercepting your phone calls without a warrant. It's about time there was some manner of enforcing the the same thing in regard to internet communication.
Granted, this regulation is aimed more-or-less at greedy ISP double-dipping, but the other is a potential side-effect, and a welcome one.
There must be a million jokes to be made with that title.
Like maybe, In Other News:
"Microscopic Rabbits Caused the Irish Potato Famine"
and
Forrest Whittaker Is Really A Mutant Hamster
People are genuinely disappointed with all of the Firefox products these days.
Well, I must not be "people" then. I've used Firefox for years and while Mozilla has made a slip or two, it's my go-to browser of choice.
At least on my system, it's smaller and faster than Chrome, and it has far more useful and privacy-protecting plugins. More plugins in general, I think.
No complaints here.
Actually, no. At the levels needed to get the desired effect, Alcohol is far more dangerous than Heroin.
That depends on so many different factors that it's a pointless thing to say. A person who has developed a tolerance for heroin might daily take what would be a near-lethal dose for others.
The main thing here, though, is that OP is misleading. TFA explains (though not very straightforwardly) that they are measuring potential harm based not only on actual exposure, but also on the proportion of the population likely to be exposed. By that measure, alcohol being highest "risk" is a foregone conclusion.
It's criminal what these streaming services are trying to pay though. unless you are a huge artist, or viral success, you're just giving your stuff away with these services.
It's hard to tell how they compare when TFA and similar articles use phrases like "80% smaller", which is almost criminally ambiguous. Sure, you can do the math yourself but you shouldn't have to. (For the record, 0.0011 is slightly more than 18% of 0.006).
Dear journalists: if you mean "18% of", say 18% of. Not "82% smaller", or the like, which could mean several different things you may not have intended.
The Matrix did it too.
He probably made the mistake of reading the Slashdot comments section. That would rapidly lead to the conclusion that programmers are know-nothing egomaniacs.
Ad-hominem will get you nowhere.
Billy Nye DEMONSTRATED that he knows squat about AGW by co-hosting THIS video with Al Gore... showing an experiment to "prove" CO2 warming that could never have actually worked.
While Anthony Watts also gets part of it wrong -- actual greenhouses do not actually work by "trapping infrafed radiation" -- he still demonstrates conclusively that the Nye-Gore "demonstration" was 100% a crock of made-up shit.
To publicly DEMONSTRATE his ignorance and dishonesty in that manner, then call others half-stupid, is very strong evidence that Bill Nye is a chronic sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Or just plain a liar. Choose one.
Well, I've got an advantage over you, apparently. At least I read the comments I am responding to, so I can see whether my argument is actually refuted before I even write it.
To be fair, he was just answering the question an interviewer asked him. It's not like he was writing a thesis or anything. Someone asked him his opinion, and he gave it.
Nye never studied computer science, so how the hell would he know? And why is he giving opinions about it?
My own science education, just for example, has been far better than my what my chosen career would indicate. Most of my education was in science and engineering, before I took the turn into software.
So maybe my experience isn't typical. But so what? How would Nye know, either way? At the time Nye got his degree (almost 40 years ago), you couldn't even GET a "Computer Science" degree at most Universities. And I know, because I was there, writing programs. Well, maybe not in '77 but not long after.
I used to respect Nye a lot. But ever since he started opening his mouth about AGW he has been sounding like his head has gotten so big it could be mistaken for he Goodyear Blimp.
No, that's rather convoluted logic. It's appointment for "good Behavior".
Yes, of course it means you can't get rid of them unless they misbehave. That's what it says.
But "appointed for life" implies (incorrectly) that you can't get rid of them AT ALL. That's just wrong.