I love it when HR (presumably) writes the specs for a tech job. Something like: "We need a UNIX sys admin that can handle our DB2 farm as well as a Solaris hosted SAN etc. Must have strong MS Word skills." What am I writing essays or keeping the servers running? I think what it ends up being is the HR person is reasonably good at Office so figures any computer person must be a Office God to be properly qualified.
Good point and people buying in this case would be driving about twice as much drunk as the people just driving one way from the pub. A pub is more likely to take your keys and get/have conveniently located taxis than a random grocery store, vending machine or beer store depending on how socialist alcohol is in your country.
I don't think short term car companies would go bankrupt because the military industry/national pride will make companies subsidize the automotive industry as much as needed. Heck look how much the aerospace industry has been subsidized by most countries even when they've been even less profitable than car companies over the years. Both industries if you factor in the bailouts and tax subsidizes over the years I'd be surprised if they show much of a profit. They've amassed a massive book value but actual money returned to shareholders less money that come from government... very little if any they exist because they stroke the egos and equip the military's of their host nations. Not that they aren't necessary just they aren't good businesses. A fantastic business shouldn't need tax incentives or bailouts to exist. These do every 5 years or so.
Not to mention liability issues: using standards and getting exploited anyways is much different than trying to roll your own and being the only one vulnerable to the attack... "the buck stops... hopefully somewhere else".
But doesn't that also mean that your user authentication process will be 1000 slower (at least for the CPU part of the process)? I'm assuming the user types their password and the hash gets sent over the wire. Hashing might be a bigger part of the type with Blake on a non-Intel piece of hardware (say a smart phone) since the instruction set might not be there, and definitely the CPU horsepower isn't.
Sixth Sense, Armaggedon, Unbreakable all turned a nice profit. I think it is more of a matter of hit an miss. Sly Stallone would be a better example in this regard. Rambo and Rockie... each had some good and some bad one (and all were cold war era propaganda), then Get Carter, D-Tox, (agruably Judge Dredd but it turned a profit), Shade etc. But then back again with another Rambo and the Expandables series (which also has Bruce Willis though not a very major part). This is the argument for the actor being a brand they generally get a few years run where they are really popular then a bunch of years where their not. Sometimes they come back to popularity but sometimes they drop off into B movie land (Segal and Van Damme come to mind).
Which is probably why Tom Cruise got cast as Jack Reacher even though Jack Reacher is supposed to be 6'5" 250 from the books. Short well known dwarf beats out someone realistically capable of winning a 3 on 1 fight.
It does but for a few. The thing is there are probably thousands of people that sing as good as a pop star (not that that is a high bar) but it is a network affect kind of thing. People generally don't buy Mary down the streets album because she has a good voice (oh she might sell 100 CDs but she won't get near the charts) but they'll buy a MJ album because they know and others know what to expect from it, there is a whole marketing team behind the artist (in this case behind the coffin) etc.
I think the industry will shrink but few to none self publishers will reach true celebrity status (I mean stadium gigs) and there will be few or maybe even less mainstream artists even though it is much easier to get started now. The reason being there is only so many people that a large portion of the world can be exposed to in sufficient frequency to make them a true brand. Also the truly skilled people behind the actors, singers etc are just as rare as they've always been (if for no other reason than because of existing business arrangements with network shows, radio stations etc).
While a good sound bite I suspect (hope) Romney meant corporations are collections of people and you can't restrict a collections rights without restricted the individuals right to join and partake in collective actions. Think churches: generally random nutjob preaching on the street is considered a nuisance but put a nutjob in front of 200 people in a building and call it an easter service and it becomes okay (a large part due to the fact that the collective chose to join and go to see the said nutjob rather than having it crammed down their throat from 10ft outside of their office window.
I think a bigger argument against "corporate rights" is the tendency for some companies to put a lot of pressure on employees to vote "the right way". Suggesting and explaining why you think something is better than another once is okay but pretty much preaching and threatening layoffs if the wrong guy gets into office is another thing (though I guess at least for private companies there is no obligation to have purely financial motivations for keeping your company going).
I wonder how much of the case that is with used cars. I'd think a lot of people that buy used cars could have bought a new car but opted to save ~40% for something 2 years old. Similarly I think a lot of people that sell there used cars could have kept using them (and avoided a new purchase) had there not been an efficient secondary market. How much the two factors cheap alternatives pushing new cars prices down, and efficient markets pushing existing owners back into the new car market years before their car is worn out counter act each other I don't know.
I love how the 3 LOFR books were 3 movies but the Hobbit somehow becomes 3 movies too. With all the names and such in the Simarillion I can see 6 movies mostly a narration by, I don't know Samuel L Jackson "I'm sicking of tired of all these rings on this m*f*ing plain".
Someone scored low:) Come on who doesn't want their entire reasoning capability summarized by one number? How else are we supposed to brag? "My spatial reasoning is better than 95% of people" "Oh yeah my verbal comparison scores are through the roof".
I agree. But there seems to be a tendency to try to find a reason for the unreasonable. Sure he killed a bunch of people but did you know his dad beat him? Oh he's a rapist but he was abused as a child. While environment can be correlated (and even somewhat causal) to behaviours at some level the fact that some people run to a church or group counseling session where as others become nutjobs seems to me to imply that at some level individuals maintain responsibility for their actions.
'Does he have friends he communicates with online? Was there a fight with somebody?'
Who cares? Lots of people have lots of shit in their life they don't go off on a shooting spree at a school they don't go to. How about blaming it on being bat-shit crazy and having access to guns?
Regardless I think most would agree that copyright infringement is against the law and some level of punitative punishment is warranted. I don't get way people seem to be in the habit of comparing downloading a song to iTunes pricing. "It was only 100 songs which I could have bought for $99 on iTunes. Why are they fining my $5000?" Well because they only caught you with $99 of songs but realistically you almost certainly downloaded and uploaded far far more than that and even if you didn't there needs to be punishment not just "make it even". It isn't a contractor that did shoddy work and the homeowner needs be compensated for the amount needed to make it right, it is the actual nature of pirating that you are purposefully violating someones copyright that needs to be punished.
Anyways I'm not sure what the fair price for things like music violations is but I'd put it somewhere >> than the cost of purchasing the song and than the current maximum allowed by copyright law. Maybe $100 per song up to a certain percentage of a persons networth? If you can't pay the $100 per song amount because your networth is too low then you get banned from the internet for a while(extremely hard to enforce I admit)? Not sure how to make it effective you don't want poor people being able to get away with infringing just because they can't pay the fines but you also don't want to be filling jails with them because they just had to get that new 50 cent album (why doesn't his albums go for that price? more like 50 cent (+ $16).
I guess a good thing about any distributed power generation is though if a roof gets ripped off that house is probably not being used and need the power on its roof anyways. The panels do sit a few inches off of the roof for a solar installations I've saw (including my own roof). They are mounted pretty secure but I'm not sure how well they would hold up in a true tropical storm. They are also covered in glass which could easily get damaged by blowing debris
Also it takes about 1.5 years of use for a solar panel to payback the energy needed to make it so moving everyone over quickly is impossible as we already have brownouts in a lot of places and pulling 1.5 years worth of power for a significant percentage of people to install would be hard (1.5 years doesn't even count battery/capacitive/thermal storage needed to spread the energy through the day) and since China leads the industry the power would likely being drawn from coal fired plants run in a country with a history of polluting.
Every little bit helps but ultimately I think the solution is people shouldn't live 100km from work and live in spaces where they have 600+ sqft per person in livable space. People live the way they want and then look for a quick fix on how they can make it sustainable rather than using sustainability as a criteria for how they chose to live.
I still don't see the due process violation the law specifies what the award should be. She could have chosen not to infringe she didn't so she gets what the law says. I don't see how that isn't being treated fairly. The law needs to change but a judge following the law in sentencing isn't doing anything wrong.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law": but there was a trial and Jammie was found guilty so how was due process violated? I can see an argument that the damages awarded were assessive but that is what appeals are for not a argument that due process wasn't followed.
No the thing is I have a traffic limit after which they charge me. So: wasting traffic still matters to me since it effectively costs me 50c per GB (both for upload and download which essentially makes being a nice guy with torrents cost me double)
Is it the ISPs that rank low that are doing the throttling though? I seem to recall that in Canada there was a bit of a fiasco (and I'm sure it is the same in the US) where the small landline ISPs lease bandwidth from the big provider and the big provider throttles them. So the little guy can offer unlimited internet where the big guy doesn't but as punishment the little guy can't get more than 20Mbps vs 150Mbps for the customers of the big provider (plus traffic shaping to prevent "abuse" by those unlimited customers on a 20Mbps plan when they use things like torrents).
Slashdot Mirror
I love it when HR (presumably) writes the specs for a tech job. Something like: "We need a UNIX sys admin that can handle our DB2 farm as well as a Solaris hosted SAN etc. Must have strong MS Word skills." What am I writing essays or keeping the servers running? I think what it ends up being is the HR person is reasonably good at Office so figures any computer person must be a Office God to be properly qualified.
Good point and people buying in this case would be driving about twice as much drunk as the people just driving one way from the pub. A pub is more likely to take your keys and get/have conveniently located taxis than a random grocery store, vending machine or beer store depending on how socialist alcohol is in your country.
But far more accidental shooting injuries perhaps.
I don't think short term car companies would go bankrupt because the military industry/national pride will make companies subsidize the automotive industry as much as needed. Heck look how much the aerospace industry has been subsidized by most countries even when they've been even less profitable than car companies over the years. Both industries if you factor in the bailouts and tax subsidizes over the years I'd be surprised if they show much of a profit. They've amassed a massive book value but actual money returned to shareholders less money that come from government ... very little if any they exist because they stroke the egos and equip the military's of their host nations. Not that they aren't necessary just they aren't good businesses. A fantastic business shouldn't need tax incentives or bailouts to exist. These do every 5 years or so.
Not to mention liability issues: using standards and getting exploited anyways is much different than trying to roll your own and being the only one vulnerable to the attack ... "the buck stops ... hopefully somewhere else".
But doesn't that also mean that your user authentication process will be 1000 slower (at least for the CPU part of the process)? I'm assuming the user types their password and the hash gets sent over the wire. Hashing might be a bigger part of the type with Blake on a non-Intel piece of hardware (say a smart phone) since the instruction set might not be there, and definitely the CPU horsepower isn't.
Decent cellphone with a good data plan.
Sixth Sense, Armaggedon, Unbreakable all turned a nice profit. I think it is more of a matter of hit an miss. Sly Stallone would be a better example in this regard. Rambo and Rockie ... each had some good and some bad one (and all were cold war era propaganda), then Get Carter, D-Tox, (agruably Judge Dredd but it turned a profit), Shade etc. But then back again with another Rambo and the Expandables series (which also has Bruce Willis though not a very major part). This is the argument for the actor being a brand they generally get a few years run where they are really popular then a bunch of years where their not. Sometimes they come back to popularity but sometimes they drop off into B movie land (Segal and Van Damme come to mind).
Which is probably why Tom Cruise got cast as Jack Reacher even though Jack Reacher is supposed to be 6'5" 250 from the books. Short well known dwarf beats out someone realistically capable of winning a 3 on 1 fight.
It does but for a few. The thing is there are probably thousands of people that sing as good as a pop star (not that that is a high bar) but it is a network affect kind of thing. People generally don't buy Mary down the streets album because she has a good voice (oh she might sell 100 CDs but she won't get near the charts) but they'll buy a MJ album because they know and others know what to expect from it, there is a whole marketing team behind the artist (in this case behind the coffin) etc.
I think the industry will shrink but few to none self publishers will reach true celebrity status (I mean stadium gigs) and there will be few or maybe even less mainstream artists even though it is much easier to get started now. The reason being there is only so many people that a large portion of the world can be exposed to in sufficient frequency to make them a true brand. Also the truly skilled people behind the actors, singers etc are just as rare as they've always been (if for no other reason than because of existing business arrangements with network shows, radio stations etc).
While a good sound bite I suspect (hope) Romney meant corporations are collections of people and you can't restrict a collections rights without restricted the individuals right to join and partake in collective actions. Think churches: generally random nutjob preaching on the street is considered a nuisance but put a nutjob in front of 200 people in a building and call it an easter service and it becomes okay (a large part due to the fact that the collective chose to join and go to see the said nutjob rather than having it crammed down their throat from 10ft outside of their office window.
I think a bigger argument against "corporate rights" is the tendency for some companies to put a lot of pressure on employees to vote "the right way". Suggesting and explaining why you think something is better than another once is okay but pretty much preaching and threatening layoffs if the wrong guy gets into office is another thing (though I guess at least for private companies there is no obligation to have purely financial motivations for keeping your company going).
Have you arrested ... cardiac arrested in my case.
I wonder how much of the case that is with used cars. I'd think a lot of people that buy used cars could have bought a new car but opted to save ~40% for something 2 years old. Similarly I think a lot of people that sell there used cars could have kept using them (and avoided a new purchase) had there not been an efficient secondary market. How much the two factors cheap alternatives pushing new cars prices down, and efficient markets pushing existing owners back into the new car market years before their car is worn out counter act each other I don't know.
Then you could define a 9D volume with those scores and start up the "brain size" war, brilliant Pinky.
I love how the 3 LOFR books were 3 movies but the Hobbit somehow becomes 3 movies too. With all the names and such in the Simarillion I can see 6 movies mostly a narration by, I don't know Samuel L Jackson "I'm sicking of tired of all these rings on this m*f*ing plain".
Someone scored low :) Come on who doesn't want their entire reasoning capability summarized by one number? How else are we supposed to brag? "My spatial reasoning is better than 95% of people" "Oh yeah my verbal comparison scores are through the roof".
I agree. But there seems to be a tendency to try to find a reason for the unreasonable. Sure he killed a bunch of people but did you know his dad beat him? Oh he's a rapist but he was abused as a child. While environment can be correlated (and even somewhat causal) to behaviours at some level the fact that some people run to a church or group counseling session where as others become nutjobs seems to me to imply that at some level individuals maintain responsibility for their actions.
'Does he have friends he communicates with online? Was there a fight with somebody?'
Who cares? Lots of people have lots of shit in their life they don't go off on a shooting spree at a school they don't go to. How about blaming it on being bat-shit crazy and having access to guns?
Regardless I think most would agree that copyright infringement is against the law and some level of punitative punishment is warranted. I don't get way people seem to be in the habit of comparing downloading a song to iTunes pricing. "It was only 100 songs which I could have bought for $99 on iTunes. Why are they fining my $5000?" Well because they only caught you with $99 of songs but realistically you almost certainly downloaded and uploaded far far more than that and even if you didn't there needs to be punishment not just "make it even". It isn't a contractor that did shoddy work and the homeowner needs be compensated for the amount needed to make it right, it is the actual nature of pirating that you are purposefully violating someones copyright that needs to be punished.
Anyways I'm not sure what the fair price for things like music violations is but I'd put it somewhere >> than the cost of purchasing the song and than the current maximum allowed by copyright law. Maybe $100 per song up to a certain percentage of a persons networth? If you can't pay the $100 per song amount because your networth is too low then you get banned from the internet for a while(extremely hard to enforce I admit)? Not sure how to make it effective you don't want poor people being able to get away with infringing just because they can't pay the fines but you also don't want to be filling jails with them because they just had to get that new 50 cent album (why doesn't his albums go for that price? more like 50 cent (+ $16).
You have lots of sunshine to power your roof.
I guess a good thing about any distributed power generation is though if a roof gets ripped off that house is probably not being used and need the power on its roof anyways. The panels do sit a few inches off of the roof for a solar installations I've saw (including my own roof). They are mounted pretty secure but I'm not sure how well they would hold up in a true tropical storm. They are also covered in glass which could easily get damaged by blowing debris
Also it takes about 1.5 years of use for a solar panel to payback the energy needed to make it so moving everyone over quickly is impossible as we already have brownouts in a lot of places and pulling 1.5 years worth of power for a significant percentage of people to install would be hard (1.5 years doesn't even count battery/capacitive/thermal storage needed to spread the energy through the day) and since China leads the industry the power would likely being drawn from coal fired plants run in a country with a history of polluting.
Every little bit helps but ultimately I think the solution is people shouldn't live 100km from work and live in spaces where they have 600+ sqft per person in livable space. People live the way they want and then look for a quick fix on how they can make it sustainable rather than using sustainability as a criteria for how they chose to live.
I still don't see the due process violation the law specifies what the award should be. She could have chosen not to infringe she didn't so she gets what the law says. I don't see how that isn't being treated fairly. The law needs to change but a judge following the law in sentencing isn't doing anything wrong.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law": but there was a trial and Jammie was found guilty so how was due process violated? I can see an argument that the damages awarded were assessive but that is what appeals are for not a argument that due process wasn't followed.
No the thing is I have a traffic limit after which they charge me. So: wasting traffic still matters to me since it effectively costs me 50c per GB (both for upload and download which essentially makes being a nice guy with torrents cost me double)
I no longer feel bad about my 150Mbps connection :)
Is it the ISPs that rank low that are doing the throttling though? I seem to recall that in Canada there was a bit of a fiasco (and I'm sure it is the same in the US) where the small landline ISPs lease bandwidth from the big provider and the big provider throttles them. So the little guy can offer unlimited internet where the big guy doesn't but as punishment the little guy can't get more than 20Mbps vs 150Mbps for the customers of the big provider (plus traffic shaping to prevent "abuse" by those unlimited customers on a 20Mbps plan when they use things like torrents).