You are operating a server, behind the firewall, on their infrastructure, in their facility. You, (un)fortunately, don't make the rules. What you're doing sounds great and the lengths you've gone to make it happen are commendable. But I can't imagine any decent business being run while allowing any employee to run any server they want behind their firewalls without at least some oversight. You're going to have to follow their rules, sorry.
If entertainment item x costs:
1,000,000 dollars: 0 people purchase, 1,000,000 pirate
100 dollars: 1000 people purchase, 999,000 pirate
10 dollars: 500,000 people purchase, 500,000 pirate
1 dollar: 950,000 people purchase, 50,000 pirate
1 cent: 999,950 people purchase, 50 people pirate
What's the right scheme? Who is "at fault" for the pirating? One could argue that if you price it too high, it's your own fault. Make it more reasonable (read: cheaper), to a certain level of course, and you'll maximize profits while lowering the rate of piracy. Once you're at that sweet spot, I'd argue it's the pirates fault. But then again, you'll never get 0 people copying even if the item is FREE. Sometimes it's just easier to copy your friends song off his computer than it is to go to a website, sign up, and download it.
People, and the industry, need to realize, that you will never have 0 piracy. Ever. It will not happen. Find the best way to maximize profits without screwing your paying customer and just deal with the residual piracy. But sitting there with your fingers in your ears going "NANANANNAANA" won't make the pirates go away, and it won't make you more profit.
By the way, piracy isn't theft, it's just making a copy that you weren't licensed to. Think mix tapes.
Just throwing this out there, but archaeologists are probably making discoveries _all_the_time_. You just hear about the ones that news sources pick up as, well, news worthy. Kinda like ones that show us we were here thousands of years before we previously thought. Nothing odd about that, in my opinion.
Interesting tangent (not really). How about we keep talking about the topic at hand? I was merely pointing out that if you're that afraid of a small statistical chance there are more obvious things to be afraid of.
Unless you're just trolling of course. But that would never happen on/., right?
And the odds of that happening are extremely small. If it does happen, or looks like it might, you get evacuated from the area. By comparison, coal plants _continuously_ emit radiation among many other unsavory products. It's cleaner and safer to live near a nuclear plant than a coal plant. Not to mention it won't smell nearly as bad. You won't get soot spread on your property. etc. etc.
Sure, when the shit hits the fan, it's probably safer to have a coal plant burning up, but if you're that worried about safety and the statistics thereof, you're more likely to die in a car accident any day of the week.
"Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels."
"The only thing different about Obama is that his worshipers bought his load of BS hook, line, and sinker. He is a career politician who will say or do whatever it takes to further himself."
News flash, it's the same on the other side of the isle. If you're willing to do what it takes to get elected, you're probably not worth voting for.
If you want to believe that someone with no education in Nuclear Physics would be the person to determine risks at a nuclear power facility, and the "core" in particular, please, be my guest.
"Dr Josef Oehmen studied Mechanical Engineering at the Technical University Munich and received a PhD, also in Mechanical Engineering, from the ETH Zurich. While working in industry, he obtained an MBA degree. He is currently employed as a Research Scientist at MIT. His major researchinterest lies in risk management along the engineering value chain and the application of lean principles to the product design process. J. Oehmen is a reviewer for several international journals and member of the supervisory board of a start-up in the field of climate protection."
Not a nuclear anything, just a PhD holder writing an article about a field he's not a part of.
To that I will not disagree, but there are Pro-Nuke shills and Anti's screaming on both sides, this one looks more aligned with the Pro side. The article basically states that nothing bad will happen and no radiation will leak. The gas that was vented has a half-life measured in mere seconds, blah blah blah. Meanwhile, US naval ships 100 miles off the coast are being moved due to detected radiation and people are being admitted to hospitals for exposure.
This article states "nothing to see here, move along" when it's obvious there _is_ something going on.
In short, this is just another fluff article written by a non-expert and people are gobbling it up like it's 100% fact. I mean look how it's being waved like a flag of truth and unbiased information when clearly it's already off the mark.
Note: I'm all for nuclear power and nuclear reactors. This situation is basically unprecedented and it's not surprising they are having serious problems. But I'd still take a nuclear reactor in my back yard over any of the fossil fuel plants _any_ day, anywhere.
Not saying the guy isn't smart, but read the disclaimer at the top. He works for MIT, sure, but he's no nuclear physicist. In fact, it's basically stated that his "nuclear credentials" are based on his _father's_ expertise, NOT his. Essentially "my dad was a nuclear physicist so I'll write like I'm an expert too!". Again, he's smart and accomplished, but I'd submit he's sorely under qualified to make _any_ statements about the situation at hand.
Just pointing this out, but from the comments on that article he's not nearly qualified to make any real comment on the situation at the nuclear plants:
"Dr Josef Oehmen studied Mechanical Engineering at the Technical University Munich and received a PhD, also in Mechanical Engineering, from the ETH Zurich. While working in industry, he obtained an MBA degree. He is currently employed as a Research Scientist at MIT. His major researchinterest lies in risk management along the engineering value chain and the application of lean principles to the product design process. J. Oehmen is a reviewer for several international journals and member of the supervisory board of a start-up in the field of climate protection."
He's a smart and accomplished individual, but not anything close to resembling an expert in nuclear physics let alone able to comment on the specifics and construction of the plants that are experiencing serious issues.
I would go out and get an eReader _today_ if all books were 99 cents. At that price, I would purchase on impulse any time I finished a book. Don't like the book I just got? Get another one from another author. I could buy a few and sample until I find the set I wanna go with. Maybe a few books for different moods, etc.
The problem with books as entertainment right now is that they are an investment. Maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't even really read as a hobby, it's more of a time killer in the car, at work, or in bed if I can't sleep. Charging me $9.99 for a book is basically telling me not to bother unless I "know" I'm going to like it (friends/family reviews).
But again, make eBooks 99 cents and the investment aspect is gone and people like me who just want to kill time with them will start purchasing them.
Scary thought.. Assuming they can get the kinks out and make it equitable while also being fair..
The recording industry could then open up servers that only those connecting from "taxed" ISPs can go and download every song held by them and potentially the other industries? While you're at their site downloading, there could be advertisements for upcoming shows, merchandise, etc. They might actually make a profit off it.
The only problem I see now is, how will iTunes (not that I use it) survive this? Who would buy a song if they "already paid" via their internet bill and went to site x to get it for "free"?
Until any email to _any_ government agency (applications for services, jobs, taxes, etc, etc, etc) _requires_ you use this service..
Until any company wishing to do business with the government is _forced_ to use this service to keep their contract..
There are ways to make sure it's not a "dud", if they are willing to make the laws, and it sounds like they are.
Look, if you're a danger to society, you should be removed from that society. Don't put people that you've removed from society because they were a danger back into it if you think they still pose a threat. It's just illogical. Plus, if it's a mental disease, prison wasn't the answer in the first place. A mental institution/facility would be more appropriate, don't you think? Only release when rehabilitated enough to no longer pose a threat and/or are "cured".
If you're a danger to society, go to prison. If you're no longer a danger, go free. This gray area of "you're free... but..." is just insulting on so many levels.
Tell that to the guy who blew the whistle and leaked the information. WikiLeaks merely made available what information was given to it. You know, kind of like how whistle blowers used to hand information over to journalists? There are people doing bad things, people willing to take risks to make those bad things come out in the open and then people willing to have a website that shows the bad things that people leaked. You're mad at the wrong people.
Students really should be hog tied and gagged. This will stop them from using their bodies as weapons (fists, feet, teeth, sheer mass pushing another mass, etc). Also, put each child into a little divider/cubicle so none of them can give "evil glances" that might emotionally harm another student. Completely immobilize and segregate each child, no harm can be passed from one to another!
A bomb sniffing dog is better than any human/machine combo, they are also a lot cheaper. Metal detectors get the obvious knives/guns/etc. Xray machines look at baggage (allow the dogs to sniff that too). What have we left out? Besides the billion dollar security industry profits?
Entirely agree. Good point. Locking the cockpit was a good and most likely effective post-9/11 change. I'd support keeping those in place. Everything else however...
Slashdot Mirror
You are operating a server, behind the firewall, on their infrastructure, in their facility. You, (un)fortunately, don't make the rules. What you're doing sounds great and the lengths you've gone to make it happen are commendable. But I can't imagine any decent business being run while allowing any employee to run any server they want behind their firewalls without at least some oversight. You're going to have to follow their rules, sorry.
One person's legit is another person's extortion.
If entertainment item x costs:
1,000,000 dollars: 0 people purchase, 1,000,000 pirate
100 dollars: 1000 people purchase, 999,000 pirate
10 dollars: 500,000 people purchase, 500,000 pirate
1 dollar: 950,000 people purchase, 50,000 pirate
1 cent: 999,950 people purchase, 50 people pirate
What's the right scheme? Who is "at fault" for the pirating? One could argue that if you price it too high, it's your own fault. Make it more reasonable (read: cheaper), to a certain level of course, and you'll maximize profits while lowering the rate of piracy. Once you're at that sweet spot, I'd argue it's the pirates fault. But then again, you'll never get 0 people copying even if the item is FREE. Sometimes it's just easier to copy your friends song off his computer than it is to go to a website, sign up, and download it.
People, and the industry, need to realize, that you will never have 0 piracy. Ever. It will not happen. Find the best way to maximize profits without screwing your paying customer and just deal with the residual piracy. But sitting there with your fingers in your ears going "NANANANNAANA" won't make the pirates go away, and it won't make you more profit.
By the way, piracy isn't theft, it's just making a copy that you weren't licensed to. Think mix tapes.
Just throwing this out there, but archaeologists are probably making discoveries _all_the_time_. You just hear about the ones that news sources pick up as, well, news worthy. Kinda like ones that show us we were here thousands of years before we previously thought. Nothing odd about that, in my opinion.
Interesting tangent (not really). How about we keep talking about the topic at hand? I was merely pointing out that if you're that afraid of a small statistical chance there are more obvious things to be afraid of.
Unless you're just trolling of course. But that would never happen on /., right?
And the odds of that happening are extremely small. If it does happen, or looks like it might, you get evacuated from the area. By comparison, coal plants _continuously_ emit radiation among many other unsavory products. It's cleaner and safer to live near a nuclear plant than a coal plant. Not to mention it won't smell nearly as bad. You won't get soot spread on your property. etc. etc.
Sure, when the shit hits the fan, it's probably safer to have a coal plant burning up, but if you're that worried about safety and the statistics thereof, you're more likely to die in a car accident any day of the week.
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
"Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels."
"The only thing different about Obama is that his worshipers bought his load of BS hook, line, and sinker. He is a career politician who will say or do whatever it takes to further himself."
News flash, it's the same on the other side of the isle. If you're willing to do what it takes to get elected, you're probably not worth voting for.
If you want to believe that someone with no education in Nuclear Physics would be the person to determine risks at a nuclear power facility, and the "core" in particular, please, be my guest.
From a comment in the original posting:
"Dr Josef Oehmen studied Mechanical Engineering at the Technical University Munich and received a PhD, also in Mechanical Engineering, from the ETH Zurich. While working in industry, he obtained an MBA degree. He is currently employed as a Research Scientist at MIT. His major researchinterest lies in risk management along the engineering value chain and the application of lean principles to the product design process. J. Oehmen is a reviewer for several international journals and member of the supervisory board of a start-up in the field of climate protection."
Not a nuclear anything, just a PhD holder writing an article about a field he's not a part of.
To that I will not disagree, but there are Pro-Nuke shills and Anti's screaming on both sides, this one looks more aligned with the Pro side. The article basically states that nothing bad will happen and no radiation will leak. The gas that was vented has a half-life measured in mere seconds, blah blah blah. Meanwhile, US naval ships 100 miles off the coast are being moved due to detected radiation and people are being admitted to hospitals for exposure.
This article states "nothing to see here, move along" when it's obvious there _is_ something going on.
In short, this is just another fluff article written by a non-expert and people are gobbling it up like it's 100% fact. I mean look how it's being waved like a flag of truth and unbiased information when clearly it's already off the mark.
Note: I'm all for nuclear power and nuclear reactors. This situation is basically unprecedented and it's not surprising they are having serious problems. But I'd still take a nuclear reactor in my back yard over any of the fossil fuel plants _any_ day, anywhere.
Not saying the guy isn't smart, but read the disclaimer at the top. He works for MIT, sure, but he's no nuclear physicist. In fact, it's basically stated that his "nuclear credentials" are based on his _father's_ expertise, NOT his. Essentially "my dad was a nuclear physicist so I'll write like I'm an expert too!". Again, he's smart and accomplished, but I'd submit he's sorely under qualified to make _any_ statements about the situation at hand.
Just pointing this out, but from the comments on that article he's not nearly qualified to make any real comment on the situation at the nuclear plants:
"Dr Josef Oehmen studied Mechanical Engineering at the Technical University Munich and received a PhD, also in Mechanical Engineering, from the ETH Zurich. While working in industry, he obtained an MBA degree. He is currently employed as a Research Scientist at MIT. His major researchinterest lies in risk management along the engineering value chain and the application of lean principles to the product design process. J. Oehmen is a reviewer for several international journals and member of the supervisory board of a start-up in the field of climate protection."
He's a smart and accomplished individual, but not anything close to resembling an expert in nuclear physics let alone able to comment on the specifics and construction of the plants that are experiencing serious issues.
I would go out and get an eReader _today_ if all books were 99 cents. At that price, I would purchase on impulse any time I finished a book. Don't like the book I just got? Get another one from another author. I could buy a few and sample until I find the set I wanna go with. Maybe a few books for different moods, etc.
The problem with books as entertainment right now is that they are an investment. Maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't even really read as a hobby, it's more of a time killer in the car, at work, or in bed if I can't sleep. Charging me $9.99 for a book is basically telling me not to bother unless I "know" I'm going to like it (friends/family reviews).
But again, make eBooks 99 cents and the investment aspect is gone and people like me who just want to kill time with them will start purchasing them.
Scary thought.. Assuming they can get the kinks out and make it equitable while also being fair..
The recording industry could then open up servers that only those connecting from "taxed" ISPs can go and download every song held by them and potentially the other industries? While you're at their site downloading, there could be advertisements for upcoming shows, merchandise, etc. They might actually make a profit off it.
The only problem I see now is, how will iTunes (not that I use it) survive this? Who would buy a song if they "already paid" via their internet bill and went to site x to get it for "free"?
Until any email to _any_ government agency (applications for services, jobs, taxes, etc, etc, etc) _requires_ you use this service..
Until any company wishing to do business with the government is _forced_ to use this service to keep their contract..
There are ways to make sure it's not a "dud", if they are willing to make the laws, and it sounds like they are.
No, it's not the same as parole. Parole ends.... The scarlet letter never comes off....
Simple answer, punishing boogymen gets people elected/paid.
Look, if you're a danger to society, you should be removed from that society. Don't put people that you've removed from society because they were a danger back into it if you think they still pose a threat. It's just illogical. Plus, if it's a mental disease, prison wasn't the answer in the first place. A mental institution/facility would be more appropriate, don't you think? Only release when rehabilitated enough to no longer pose a threat and/or are "cured".
If you're a danger to society, go to prison. If you're no longer a danger, go free. This gray area of "you're free... but..." is just insulting on so many levels.
Tell that to the guy who blew the whistle and leaked the information. WikiLeaks merely made available what information was given to it. You know, kind of like how whistle blowers used to hand information over to journalists? There are people doing bad things, people willing to take risks to make those bad things come out in the open and then people willing to have a website that shows the bad things that people leaked. You're mad at the wrong people.
No, now they will spin this as an attack against our economy too.
Insightful? This was a joke. Fanboi-ism at it's finest!
Students really should be hog tied and gagged. This will stop them from using their bodies as weapons (fists, feet, teeth, sheer mass pushing another mass, etc). Also, put each child into a little divider/cubicle so none of them can give "evil glances" that might emotionally harm another student. Completely immobilize and segregate each child, no harm can be passed from one to another!
A bomb sniffing dog is better than any human/machine combo, they are also a lot cheaper. Metal detectors get the obvious knives/guns/etc. Xray machines look at baggage (allow the dogs to sniff that too). What have we left out? Besides the billion dollar security industry profits?
Entirely agree. Good point. Locking the cockpit was a good and most likely effective post-9/11 change. I'd support keeping those in place. Everything else however...