Except that even those who survive against all odds (such as the bridge jumpers or gun to the head) express regret and don't do it again, even when they are worse off than ever with disabilities related to their attempt.
Given that practically everyone who somehow survives expresses regret for the attempt and how few try it again, it seems likely that it's a bad decision.
Note we're not talking about people with terminal medical conditions here.
In the beginning, Postgress set out with correctness as the primary goal. Whatever it did, it had to do it correctly. It started life on the slow and resource hungry side. MySQL set out to be fast and more or less correct in the common case. Back in the '90s that made a lot of sense for small servers.
In the decades since, servers have gotten bigger and Postgress got fast and efficient while still being correct. Why would I want to incur a performance penalty in the surrounding software to check behind the database to make sure it didn't just scrag my data?
I have never actually NEEDED to update the BIOS on any desktop or laptop gear. I only needed to do it once on server hardware that had just come out. If this is becoming a common end user procedure, there are larger problems.
Typically the switch or jumper not being flipped also prevents erasing the existing BIOS, so the consequence of the failure is you reboot and it's just like it was before.
The big problem happens when first, the system is badly designed for flash updates such that there isn't a second copy of the BIOS to boot from (or at least a recovery image) and power is lost in the middle of the procedure.
We're coming up on an election year. Since a lot of politicians have been extra naughty, they're having to work hard pretending to care if the commoners live or die.
I have no idea other than that they are a big financial institution and so get a pass from the old boy network. It certainly should be considered libel under current law.
The whole concept of "identity theft" is daft. Nobody gets their identity stolen. They continue to be who they always were. What actually happens is that the bank gets defrauded and then the credit agencies commit libel. But our system of laws for some reason gives them a pass on that whole evidence thing that should stop them from harassing a third party (the so called victim of identity theft).
The solution is actually simple. Require the banks to ACTUALLY present evidence before attempting to collect on a debt and nail the credit agencies to the wall when they publish disparaging credit information with zero evidence of it's accuracy (that is, with wanton disregard for the truth).
The government already has all of your data. It might as well use it for something actually helpful to you.
Private insurance has already created billing paperwork MORE complex than government billing, so no loss there.
The big difference is that the back end costs would be incurred by the one entity that has actual power to demand that medical suppliers quit ripping off their customers.
For those who don't recall Caldera also put out the screwy RedHat derivative/clone that attempted to create a 'registry' for Linux. I once witnessed a Caldera representative visiting a Linux enthusiasts group unable to give away 5 free install CDs. Yes, it really was that bad.
It's not deliberate. It was a long and slow process. But nevertheless it must be reversed at some point for courts and legal contracts to have relevance.
We're already at the point where the reasonable man just clicks agree and gets on with his life and on the criminal side, just does as he was taught in kindergarten and hopes for the best.
Since most people are not lawyers, it makes sense to assume the common meaning unless it is known to have been negotiated by lawyers on both sides.
Since I believe they can make that prediction, it informs me that it's a 'problem' they don't want to solve. In other words, a political talking point, not an engineering problem.
The options are limited but getting rid of the boiler room environment and doing away with the burn 'em and churn 'em productivity metrics would help a lot. The losses of productivity would probably be paid for in better customer satisfaction and lower training costs.
Not really. If it' cleartext, you know it's cleartext and have the appropriate security expectations. If it's encrypted, you have a different set of expectations which are not met if the key is actually shared in common.
Often it's better to know you have no security than it is to tyhink you are highly secure when you are actually quite vulnerable.
You're not supposed to need council to enter into an agreement. Most can't actually afford it for every agreement they might enter.
The key to the problem you posted is that the other party clearly did not intend the magic definitions. That would suggest that the first party intended to defy the contract from the start, so the interpretation goes to the other party. Surely the surrounding words would be indicative. For example, if the phrase "ain't no" appears in the contract, it is clearly not meant to be legalese.
The judgement can be made based on whether the parties used lawyers to negotiate the contract. It can be based on the reasonable expectation as well. For example, for the typical boilerplate most often thrust under a customer's nose to sign, the reasonable expectation is that they have no lawyer present and so the plain English meanings apply. It's the other party's lawyer's duty to recognize that. Contracts are not supposed to be filled with tricks and traps.
Or they can make arrangements for interruptable circuits with large customers. Or they could use peaking plants to ease the transition.
Or , given that the future clearly holds more solar and more wind, they could put in flywheel storage to ease the transition and other fluctuations in generation.
If you offset the panels from the roof by a few inches, the cooling demands will likely go down. The sun will heat the panels rather than the roof and convection will carry that heat away.
Solar water heating is often a hybrid approach where a large preheat tank is solar heated and feeds into an on-demand heater to get it up to full temperature.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that even those who survive against all odds (such as the bridge jumpers or gun to the head) express regret and don't do it again, even when they are worse off than ever with disabilities related to their attempt.
If that's what you see when you look around, move and get new friends.
Or it could be that what goes around comes around and you've been an asshole to everyone.
Do have plenty of powerpoints explaining the 1040 long form. That might actually put them into a coma if they look at it.
Given that practically everyone who somehow survives expresses regret for the attempt and how few try it again, it seems likely that it's a bad decision.
Note we're not talking about people with terminal medical conditions here.
Nah, some people just give a shit about people who are not themselves.
But they can certainly contribute to the bad decision.
In the beginning, Postgress set out with correctness as the primary goal. Whatever it did, it had to do it correctly. It started life on the slow and resource hungry side. MySQL set out to be fast and more or less correct in the common case. Back in the '90s that made a lot of sense for small servers.
In the decades since, servers have gotten bigger and Postgress got fast and efficient while still being correct. Why would I want to incur a performance penalty in the surrounding software to check behind the database to make sure it didn't just scrag my data?
One million pennies is $10,000 or less than the CEO spends on lunch.
Not claiming corporations aren't penny wise and pound foolish, just laying out the magnitude.
I have never actually NEEDED to update the BIOS on any desktop or laptop gear. I only needed to do it once on server hardware that had just come out. If this is becoming a common end user procedure, there are larger problems.
Typically the switch or jumper not being flipped also prevents erasing the existing BIOS, so the consequence of the failure is you reboot and it's just like it was before.
The big problem happens when first, the system is badly designed for flash updates such that there isn't a second copy of the BIOS to boot from (or at least a recovery image) and power is lost in the middle of the procedure.
But nobody cares about the mid-terms so it amounts to every 4.
We're coming up on an election year. Since a lot of politicians have been extra naughty, they're having to work hard pretending to care if the commoners live or die.
I have no idea other than that they are a big financial institution and so get a pass from the old boy network. It certainly should be considered libel under current law.
The whole concept of "identity theft" is daft. Nobody gets their identity stolen. They continue to be who they always were. What actually happens is that the bank gets defrauded and then the credit agencies commit libel. But our system of laws for some reason gives them a pass on that whole evidence thing that should stop them from harassing a third party (the so called victim of identity theft).
The solution is actually simple. Require the banks to ACTUALLY present evidence before attempting to collect on a debt and nail the credit agencies to the wall when they publish disparaging credit information with zero evidence of it's accuracy (that is, with wanton disregard for the truth).
The government already has all of your data. It might as well use it for something actually helpful to you.
Private insurance has already created billing paperwork MORE complex than government billing, so no loss there.
The big difference is that the back end costs would be incurred by the one entity that has actual power to demand that medical suppliers quit ripping off their customers.
For those who don't recall Caldera also put out the screwy RedHat derivative/clone that attempted to create a 'registry' for Linux. I once witnessed a Caldera representative visiting a Linux enthusiasts group unable to give away 5 free install CDs. Yes, it really was that bad.
Well yeah, they finally finished writing the game.
It's not deliberate. It was a long and slow process. But nevertheless it must be reversed at some point for courts and legal contracts to have relevance.
We're already at the point where the reasonable man just clicks agree and gets on with his life and on the criminal side, just does as he was taught in kindergarten and hopes for the best.
Since most people are not lawyers, it makes sense to assume the common meaning unless it is known to have been negotiated by lawyers on both sides.
Since I believe they can make that prediction, it informs me that it's a 'problem' they don't want to solve. In other words, a political talking point, not an engineering problem.
The options are limited but getting rid of the boiler room environment and doing away with the burn 'em and churn 'em productivity metrics would help a lot. The losses of productivity would probably be paid for in better customer satisfaction and lower training costs.
Not really. If it' cleartext, you know it's cleartext and have the appropriate security expectations. If it's encrypted, you have a different set of expectations which are not met if the key is actually shared in common.
Often it's better to know you have no security than it is to tyhink you are highly secure when you are actually quite vulnerable.
You're not supposed to need council to enter into an agreement. Most can't actually afford it for every agreement they might enter.
The key to the problem you posted is that the other party clearly did not intend the magic definitions. That would suggest that the first party intended to defy the contract from the start, so the interpretation goes to the other party. Surely the surrounding words would be indicative. For example, if the phrase "ain't no" appears in the contract, it is clearly not meant to be legalese.
The judgement can be made based on whether the parties used lawyers to negotiate the contract. It can be based on the reasonable expectation as well. For example, for the typical boilerplate most often thrust under a customer's nose to sign, the reasonable expectation is that they have no lawyer present and so the plain English meanings apply. It's the other party's lawyer's duty to recognize that. Contracts are not supposed to be filled with tricks and traps.
Perhaps they need to upgrade?
Or they can make arrangements for interruptable circuits with large customers. Or they could use peaking plants to ease the transition.
Or , given that the future clearly holds more solar and more wind, they could put in flywheel storage to ease the transition and other fluctuations in generation.
And the sun doesn't just blink off, especially across the whole state.
If you offset the panels from the roof by a few inches, the cooling demands will likely go down. The sun will heat the panels rather than the roof and convection will carry that heat away.
Solar water heating is often a hybrid approach where a large preheat tank is solar heated and feeds into an on-demand heater to get it up to full temperature.