I wasn't trying to bitch you out as the submitter, but the "editors" of the site. No, not everyone knows the two points you stated, but the script kiddies^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Heditors should have known that, not you.
Right, but the distinction here is that the Email does not generally come delivered directly from the *ship*, but from some stateside server, probably part of NMCI (the Navy Marine Corps Internet). There are N firewalls between here and there, if for no other reason than the bandwidth from ship to shore is INCREDIBLY small (like: 256kbit for the entire ship, secure, classified, public, you name it). It would make a LOUSY spam relay.
First, it is entirely possible to be of Indian descent and get a high-level clearance. I know several people matching that description. You have to be a US citizen, however.
Second, it is a myth that you have to get special permission to travel abroad. You must tell your security office in advance in many cases, and frequently get a counterintelligence briefing, but they can not stop you from going.
This kind of information is practically public knowledge, and they can't reasonably expect it not to leak out. "howto document for infiltrating the NSA", my hairy backside.
I'm surprised it's not been noted here, but AT&T has apparently been having HORRIBLE computer problems with their back-end infrastructure for their GSM network. It's taking them days to provision phones, transfer numbers, etc. You probably got whacked by that.
Actually, I believe they DO owe you the dollar. Because patents are inventions that come from people, not corporations (i.e. a corporation can not be listed as an "inventor"), I believe that patent law says that they must give you some "compenstation" to assign your rights to the company. This has traditionally been a dollar (or whatever other bonus you may have received). But I don't think they can hold a gun to your head.
But hey, my employee has paid me numerous bux for my patent. In my opinion, the reason for doing so is that writing a patent, even with the help of a lawyer, takes a buttload of work. Given that, and all other deadlines, it would come dead last on my to-do list if I didn't have some extra incentive:-)
Well, he's not selling the book he's reviewing!!! I'm not sure I see the problem here. Authors of books in a particular field can't post a review of anything similar?
It was probably a debit card (i.e. a mastercard tied to his bank account). Merchants that accept credit cards at all are supposed to accept them for purchases of any size, although many try not to (they get REAMED on fees).
What is more appalling is that he took $40 out of the atm and paid a $2 service fee! Ack!
Quite the opposite. They are terrified that people will discover what shite some movies are and not go. I've read several articles in recent months that pretty much state that Hollywood relies on the first weekend bump to make back production costs, even on crapola movies. The article I read (in the WSJ) mentioned that kids text-ing their friends via cellphone to stay away from bad movies (e.g. the Hulk) was putting a real crimp in their plans.
Be that as it may, their last 6-8 quarters of financial statements do not reflect this. Drooling or not, their sales are off by billions of dollars. And Dell continues to grow. Their equipment, while technically excellent, in most cases does not warrant a 4x/$ multiple for equivalent capabilities. There will always be people who need some of the things Sun has provided; however, Sun has already sold to most of those.
Amen, brother. I'm a white-anglo-saxon-US-citizen, and I think those subsidies are disgusting (btw, I heard they were $4bn!). They make my skin crawl every time I see those "Fabric of our lives" commercials on TV (I don't know if you live in the US, but we regularly see high-production-value ads from the cotton industry on prime time TV -- as if those actually make people buy more cotton shirts!).
At any rate, it's the worst form of protectionism, and it comes even more directly on the back of the US taxpayer than the H1-B thing that people are complaining about here.
I'm not sure your post even qualifies as rational.
First of all, in your 2nd paragraph: yes, the American worker paid for the roads. But the H1-B workers don't have a get-out-of-jail-free card with respect to taxes. They pay just as much as native workers.
Next, it has not been my observation over the last 14 years of working in the industry that H1-B workers are being paid less than native workers. I'm sure it's true in a few cases, but if it were true overall, salaries in those jobs would be declining, not increasing, right? Factor in all the additional cost to an employer to hire an H1-B employee, or get them a green card, and they are MORE expensive, not LESS!
It is orders of magnitude better to have the employee here in the US as an H1-B than have the job float overseas by itself.
Not for nothing, but a customer who wants to buy their "line-up"?
Sun was great in its time, but their value proposition is rapidly vanishing. If McNeally spent more time running the company and less time honing his zingers, he would have a growing business instead of a shrinking one.
I don't think you understand how grants work. Very few grants these days are blank checks to do what you want, despite how things worked in the glory days of funding during the cold war. Most DoD grants force you to conduct your research differently and with a different slant than with a normal grant from the NSF or NIH.
You may have misunderstood my point. What I was claiming was that he's not going to find some special "untainted" color of money that distances him from the "bad" implications of his research. If the research, in his mind, is that "bad", the only way he can ethically stop the military from using it is to not do the research. It's worth noting that this is true outside the military: virtually everyone who pays you to do something has their own agenda -- commercial, charitable, you name it. Some are just more obvious than others.
But this doesn't change the fact that the DoD in the 1960's and 70's was far less demanding that the results have military application than nowadays.
This is simply the case of the military being a better (and more responsible) user of the taxpayer's dollars than they were before. The glory days are gone -- I have a hard time believing that people in the scientific community think they will come around again.
Well, first of all, they're being painted as "minty fresh" because the article is written by the Village Voice:-)
I, for one, don't condemn anyone for their anti-war/anti-defense principles, but in de Raadt's case, he took the position that he was scamming the government (very nice); in the VV article, the scientist seems to think that if he only thinks pure thoughts, his wonderous research will only be used for the True Good of the People. The former indicates that de Raadt is perhaps not as principled as he claims; the latter shows that the scientist is rather naive.
Seriously. The guy who says "don't even speculate on how my [robots] will be used for military purposes or I will hold you responsible" is doing the scientific equivalent of holding his fingers in his ears and going "la la la la I can't hear you la la la".
If he's worried about the military import of his work, he should not do the work. Picking and choosing among the money is splitting hairs beyond that point. The reason so much "interesting" tech is now funded by the military is that we live in a high-tech society -- it isn't all just a-bombs and battleships and radar any more.
I'd argue for Arthur C. Clarke as the grandmaster, but I think that is splitting hairs. I've always felt that there was a great triumverate: Clarke, Asimov,and Heinlein, with Bradbury coming in a close 4th.
You're missing the point. The system isn't watching user actions while searching to fine tune OTHER user's results, but to fine tune THAT user's results.
While you can certainly claim that one user's actions MIGHT indicate relevance for another user's queries, it's certainly true that if a user gives you a clue that the document you have returned is irrelevant, it must be irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but the distinction here is raising money for something LEGAL (running in an election) versus a CRIME (funding a terrorist organization).
...and recommend you check out all the games! Plugh!
AFAIK, no carrier has developed applications for the GPS in phones yet. But in theory, it would allow you to get localized directions, or 411, etc.
Keep in mind that it really isn't "GPS" in your phone, but a hybrid using the cell tower for help.
I wasn't trying to bitch you out as the submitter, but the "editors" of the site. No, not everyone knows the two points you stated, but the script kiddies^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Heditors should have known that, not you.
On yet another slashdot posting with absolutely zero informative content (except possibly to people who already knew what the article meant).
Right, but the distinction here is that the Email does not generally come delivered directly from the *ship*, but from some stateside server, probably part of NMCI (the Navy Marine Corps Internet). There are N firewalls between here and there, if for no other reason than the bandwidth from ship to shore is INCREDIBLY small (like: 256kbit for the entire ship, secure, classified, public, you name it). It would make a LOUSY spam relay.
First, it is entirely possible to be of Indian descent and get a high-level clearance. I know several people matching that description. You have to be a US citizen, however.
Second, it is a myth that you have to get special permission to travel abroad. You must tell your security office in advance in many cases, and frequently get a counterintelligence briefing, but they can not stop you from going.
What are you, high?
This kind of information is practically public knowledge, and they can't reasonably expect it not to leak out. "howto document for infiltrating the NSA", my hairy backside.
I'm surprised it's not been noted here, but AT&T has apparently been having HORRIBLE computer problems with their back-end infrastructure for their GSM network. It's taking them days to provision phones, transfer numbers, etc. You probably got whacked by that.
Actually, I believe they DO owe you the dollar. Because patents are inventions that come from people, not corporations (i.e. a corporation can not be listed as an "inventor"), I believe that patent law says that they must give you some "compenstation" to assign your rights to the company. This has traditionally been a dollar (or whatever other bonus you may have received). But I don't think they can hold a gun to your head.
:-)
But hey, my employee has paid me numerous bux for my patent. In my opinion, the reason for doing so is that writing a patent, even with the help of a lawyer, takes a buttload of work. Given that, and all other deadlines, it would come dead last on my to-do list if I didn't have some extra incentive
Well, he's not selling the book he's reviewing!!! I'm not sure I see the problem here. Authors of books in a particular field can't post a review of anything similar?
It was probably a debit card (i.e. a mastercard tied to his bank account). Merchants that accept credit cards at all are supposed to accept them for purchases of any size, although many try not to (they get REAMED on fees).
What is more appalling is that he took $40 out of the atm and paid a $2 service fee! Ack!
I wasn't referring to their technical prowess, but to their ability to actually *sell* something (to someone other than you, of course :-)
I'm sorry, but being head of the Newton group is not necessarially a mark in your favor.
Quite the opposite. They are terrified that people will discover what shite some movies are and not go. I've read several articles in recent months that pretty much state that Hollywood relies on the first weekend bump to make back production costs, even on crapola movies. The article I read (in the WSJ) mentioned that kids text-ing their friends via cellphone to stay away from bad movies (e.g. the Hulk) was putting a real crimp in their plans.
Bravo for those kids with cellphones, I say!
Be that as it may, their last 6-8 quarters of financial statements do not reflect this. Drooling or not, their sales are off by billions of dollars. And Dell continues to grow. Their equipment, while technically excellent, in most cases does not warrant a 4x/$ multiple for equivalent capabilities. There will always be people who need some of the things Sun has provided; however, Sun has already sold to most of those.
Amen, brother. I'm a white-anglo-saxon-US-citizen, and I think those subsidies are disgusting (btw, I heard they were $4bn!). They make my skin crawl every time I see those "Fabric of our lives" commercials on TV (I don't know if you live in the US, but we regularly see high-production-value ads from the cotton industry on prime time TV -- as if those actually make people buy more cotton shirts!).
At any rate, it's the worst form of protectionism, and it comes even more directly on the back of the US taxpayer than the H1-B thing that people are complaining about here.
I'm not sure your post even qualifies as rational.
First of all, in your 2nd paragraph: yes, the American worker paid for the roads. But the H1-B workers don't have a get-out-of-jail-free card with respect to taxes. They pay just as much as native workers.
Next, it has not been my observation over the last 14 years of working in the industry that H1-B workers are being paid less than native workers. I'm sure it's true in a few cases, but if it were true overall, salaries in those jobs would be declining, not increasing, right? Factor in all the additional cost to an employer to hire an H1-B employee, or get them a green card, and they are MORE expensive, not LESS!
It is orders of magnitude better to have the employee here in the US as an H1-B than have the job float overseas by itself.
Hahaha.... "is" dropping? that assumed it ever was high to begin with. That's what you get when you run a website like a hobby.
Not for nothing, but a customer who wants to buy their "line-up"?
Sun was great in its time, but their value proposition is rapidly vanishing. If McNeally spent more time running the company and less time honing his zingers, he would have a growing business instead of a shrinking one.
I don't think you understand how grants work. Very few grants these days are blank checks to do what you want, despite how things worked in the glory days of funding during the cold war. Most DoD grants force you to conduct your research differently and with a different slant than with a normal grant from the NSF or NIH.
You may have misunderstood my point. What I was claiming was that he's not going to find some special "untainted" color of money that distances him from the "bad" implications of his research. If the research, in his mind, is that "bad", the only way he can ethically stop the military from using it is to not do the research. It's worth noting that this is true outside the military: virtually everyone who pays you to do something has their own agenda -- commercial, charitable, you name it. Some are just more obvious than others.
But this doesn't change the fact that the DoD in the 1960's and 70's was far less demanding that the results have military application than nowadays.
This is simply the case of the military being a better (and more responsible) user of the taxpayer's dollars than they were before. The glory days are gone -- I have a hard time believing that people in the scientific community think they will come around again.
Well, first of all, they're being painted as "minty fresh" because the article is written by the Village Voice :-)
I, for one, don't condemn anyone for their anti-war/anti-defense principles, but in de Raadt's case, he took the position that he was scamming the government (very nice); in the VV article, the scientist seems to think that if he only thinks pure thoughts, his wonderous research will only be used for the True Good of the People. The former indicates that de Raadt is perhaps not as principled as he claims; the latter shows that the scientist is rather naive.
Seriously. The guy who says "don't even speculate on how my [robots] will be used for military purposes or I will hold you responsible" is doing the scientific equivalent of holding his fingers in his ears and going "la la la la I can't hear you la la la".
If he's worried about the military import of his work, he should not do the work. Picking and choosing among the money is splitting hairs beyond that point. The reason so much "interesting" tech is now funded by the military is that we live in a high-tech society -- it isn't all just a-bombs and battleships and radar any more.
I'd argue for Arthur C. Clarke as the grandmaster, but I think that is splitting hairs. I've always felt that there was a great triumverate: Clarke, Asimov,and Heinlein, with Bradbury coming in a close 4th.
You're missing the point. The system isn't watching user actions while searching to fine tune OTHER user's results, but to fine tune THAT user's results.
While you can certainly claim that one user's actions MIGHT indicate relevance for another user's queries, it's certainly true that if a user gives you a clue that the document you have returned is irrelevant, it must be irrelevant.