According to this article, Hans Reiser had to pay $8,000 in alimony a month to Nina. Nina was getting $96,000 a year for not working!
I don't condone any killing, legal or not, but if she had indeed cheated on him before their divorce and then got that kind of money, it's easy to see how the feeling of having been so completely beaten by someone he loved could have made him desperate.
Something seems broken with California's alimony law.
Lots of companies have job centers in both the USA and Europe. If there is a job center for a company you're interested in relatively near to your home, you could perhaps do some interviews there and get a general feeling for the company before investing more time and effort in interviewing in Europe. Let them know from the beginning that you intend to move to Europe and if they're interested in you they'll probably try to help.
I'm sure if I bundle 10,000,000 twisted pairs then I can out-bandwidth a single fiber any day, but does that mean I should say copper is faster than fiber?
Well, that depends. Do you get paid by the page view?
Given its license and code cleanliness (and maturity) I'd prefer NetBSD if it was portable enough.
From the interview:
Charles M. Hannum: [...] NetBSD today does a very poor job of setting and meeting standards. I created the mythos of NetBSD having "clean" code, and even I don't buy it any more.
FWIW I haven't read any NetBSD code so I don't have any personal opinion on it.
LWN article on ext4
on
EXT4 Is Coming
·
· Score: 5, Informative
It seems that my point is still being missed. If the problem is the money, the government could simply hand it out to the Inuits. There is no reason at all why that money needs to be made by giving polar bear hunting rights to non-Inuit people. All this policy results in is more dead polar bears and the Canadian government saving some money. Therefore, the Canadian government is trading dead polar bears for money.
By the way, as a "Southerner" I don't consider myself any more guilty of global warming than Inuits. Chances are I use up quite a lot less energy than the average Inuit, seeing as I don't live in the tundra.
And also, if hunting polar bears is that important to them, doesn't it make sense to try and avoid their extinction? They're not going to be hunting many polar bears after they go extinct.
To restate my point, if you allow Inuit communities to trade their "polar bear tags" for money it means that polar bear hunting is nothing but an economic subsidy.
Given that polar bears are now considered an endangered species, that makes a big difference.
I don't know Inuit traditions, but it is possible that the role of a polar bear is irreplaceable in some of them. If that is the case, I can understand the argument for allowing some hunting, even if I may not agree.
However, if hunting is just intended as a money making resource, then it is just looks completely irresponsible on the government's part. I'm sure the Canadian government can think of other ways of making money that do not involve hunting endangered species.
If the reason why Inuit communities are allowed to hunt polar bear is because this is deemed to be part of their traditional culture, why are they allowed to sell their "polar bear tags" to non-Inuits? Is trading their traditions for money also part of their traditional culture? Or is Inuit traditional culture just Canadian government's pretext to explain why polar bear hunting is allowed, the real reason being that it brings good money into Canadian economy?
Just wondering.
Re:That's why we need space colonisation
on
Nanotech Gone Awry?
·
· Score: 1
I did say "unforeseen" effects "accidentally" destroying all human life. Nuclear weapons work as designed, nothing unforeseen about them. An all-out nuclear confrontation might wipe out humanity (although I have serious doubts about that), but that could hardly be called accidental.
No, what I'm more worried about is bleeding edge commercial or academic research, as by its own nature it involves manipulation of imperfectly understood principles in a competitive environment where safety is not always the top priority. Accidents *will* happen, and some will be serious; it's pure statistics.
That's why we need space colonisation
on
Nanotech Gone Awry?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I'm serious. Sooner or later man will begin experimenting with technology where there is a real danger of unforeseen cascade effects accidentally destroying all life on Earth. If we're lucky the fatal accident will not happen, but I think the *risk* is unavoidable.
We're not at that technological point yet, but we're only getting closer. At least, we should make sure that if something goes badly humanity will not be completely wiped out.
Actually, TIA as the name of an intelligence agency is even funnier for Spaniards. One of the most popular comic strips in Spain, Mortadelo y Filemón, features two incompetent secret agents who work for an equally incompetent intelligence agency called... you guessed, TIA.
When I hear about the real TIA, I always wonder if they have a real version of Professor Bacterio working for them. That would be explain so many things about it.
Yeah! Rights are only for hippies and criminals! Law-abiding citizens don't need no fucking rights!
You look very well adapted to the direction your country seems to be heading for, my friend.
Also, for the people actually paying attention to the arguments instead of knee-jerk reactions like this idiot above, raids and property seizure can serve two purposes: collecting evidence for the trial or preventing a criminal activity from continuing. Obviously surprise can be essential for the former, but in the latter case I believe some consideration should be given to avoiding crippling economic damage to a person that has not been declared guilty in a trial. And that's something that by many accounts hasn't historically been the case in FBI raids.
Now, I happen to live outside the U.S., so if you're happy with that it's (mostly) your problem.
Procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of procedural fairness. As a bare minimum, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings involving him, and the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings.
Was he notified before the raid? Did he get a chance to be heard and to oppose the raid before it happened? I know he will have an opportunity to do so in the trial (if there is one), but the point is that even now his livelihood has already been destroyed.
I know it's hard to sympathise with Ralsky, but this could also happen to many other people if they are sued by the RIAA or MPAA, using exactly the same legal principle.
That's why Rational Rose is such an efficient, consistent, bug-free software.
</sarcasm>
I don't know about other people's experiences, but some of the worst pieces of software I've ever used have been CASE tools (you know the type: UML, lifecycle, etc). Kinds of make you question the usefulness of those tools and processes.
Where a monopoly exists, the price of a product is likely to be higher than in a competitive market and the quantity sold less, generating monopoly profits for the seller. These profits can be increased further if the market can be segmented with different prices charged to different segements (referred to as price discrimination), charging higher prices to those segments willing and able to pay more and charging less to those whose demand is price elastic. The price discriminator might need to create rate fences that will prevent members of a higher price segment from purchasing at the prices available to members of a lower price segment. This behaviour is rational on the part of the monopolist, but is often seen by competition authorities as an abuse of a monopoly position, whether or not the monopoly itself is sanctioned.
First, shalt thou take
out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less.
*Three* shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the
counting shall be three. *Four* shalt thou not count, and neither
count thou two, excepting that thou then goest on to three. Five is
RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached,
then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade towards thy foe, who, being
naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
I'd be curious to see where you read that, as it doesn't seem to be true. The only increased cancer rates I've heard of are those of people who were actually there in 1945.
To be fair, I don't think your statement is logically incompatible with mine. I don't remember where I read that article, but I don't think when it spoke about incidence of cancer in those areas it separated those who were present at the bombings from those who weren't. It didn't occur to me that the increased incidence of cancer might be due entirely to the former, which would of course tend to show that perhaps I overestimated the long-term risks of nuclear bombings.
Slashdot Mirror
But the fortune quote I got at the bottom of the page is: "What a strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
According to this article, Hans Reiser had to pay $8,000 in alimony a month to Nina. Nina was getting $96,000 a year for not working!
I don't condone any killing, legal or not, but if she had indeed cheated on him before their divorce and then got that kind of money, it's easy to see how the feeling of having been so completely beaten by someone he loved could have made him desperate.
Something seems broken with California's alimony law.
Lots of companies have job centers in both the USA and Europe. If there is a job center for a company you're interested in relatively near to your home, you could perhaps do some interviews there and get a general feeling for the company before investing more time and effort in interviewing in Europe. Let them know from the beginning that you intend to move to Europe and if they're interested in you they'll probably try to help.
I'm sure if I bundle 10,000,000 twisted pairs then I can out-bandwidth a single fiber any day, but does that mean I should say copper is faster than fiber?
Well, that depends. Do you get paid by the page view?
I'm shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
The wealth being moved must have been created somehow, isn't it? Where do you think it comes from?
Have you found a "serious" party worth voting for?
Given its license and code cleanliness (and maturity) I'd prefer NetBSD if it was portable enough.
From the interview:
Charles M. Hannum: [...] NetBSD today does a very poor job of setting and meeting standards. I created the mythos of NetBSD having "clean" code, and even I don't buy it any more.
FWIW I haven't read any NetBSD code so I don't have any personal opinion on it.
LWN had an interesting article on ext4 not long ago.
Ok, not really. But how come Slashdot didn't report it when I said the same thing? ;)
It seems that my point is still being missed. If the problem is the money, the government could simply hand it out to the Inuits. There is no reason at all why that money needs to be made by giving polar bear hunting rights to non-Inuit people. All this policy results in is more dead polar bears and the Canadian government saving some money. Therefore, the Canadian government is trading dead polar bears for money.
By the way, as a "Southerner" I don't consider myself any more guilty of global warming than Inuits. Chances are I use up quite a lot less energy than the average Inuit, seeing as I don't live in the tundra.
And also, if hunting polar bears is that important to them, doesn't it make sense to try and avoid their extinction? They're not going to be hunting many polar bears after they go extinct.
To restate my point, if you allow Inuit communities to trade their "polar bear tags" for money it means that polar bear hunting is nothing but an economic subsidy.
Given that polar bears are now considered an endangered species, that makes a big difference.
I don't know Inuit traditions, but it is possible that the role of a polar bear is irreplaceable in some of them. If that is the case, I can understand the argument for allowing some hunting, even if I may not agree.
However, if hunting is just intended as a money making resource, then it is just looks completely irresponsible on the government's part. I'm sure the Canadian government can think of other ways of making money that do not involve hunting endangered species.
If the reason why Inuit communities are allowed to hunt polar bear is because this is deemed to be part of their traditional culture, why are they allowed to sell their "polar bear tags" to non-Inuits? Is trading their traditions for money also part of their traditional culture? Or is Inuit traditional culture just Canadian government's pretext to explain why polar bear hunting is allowed, the real reason being that it brings good money into Canadian economy?
Just wondering.
I did say "unforeseen" effects "accidentally" destroying all human life. Nuclear weapons work as designed, nothing unforeseen about them. An all-out nuclear confrontation might wipe out humanity (although I have serious doubts about that), but that could hardly be called accidental.
No, what I'm more worried about is bleeding edge commercial or academic research, as by its own nature it involves manipulation of imperfectly understood principles in a competitive environment where safety is not always the top priority. Accidents *will* happen, and some will be serious; it's pure statistics.
I'm serious. Sooner or later man will begin experimenting with technology where there is a real danger of unforeseen cascade effects accidentally destroying all life on Earth. If we're lucky the fatal accident will not happen, but I think the *risk* is unavoidable.
We're not at that technological point yet, but we're only getting closer. At least, we should make sure that if something goes badly humanity will not be completely wiped out.
They are black holes. How much worse can it get?
Dammit, Slashdot ate the accented letter in that URL. This is the Wikipedia article about Mortadelo y Filemón.
Actually, TIA as the name of an intelligence agency is even funnier for Spaniards. One of the most popular comic strips in Spain, Mortadelo y Filemón, features two incompetent secret agents who work for an equally incompetent intelligence agency called... you guessed, TIA.
When I hear about the real TIA, I always wonder if they have a real version of Professor Bacterio working for them. That would be explain so many things about it.
Yeah! Rights are only for hippies and criminals! Law-abiding citizens don't need no fucking rights!
You look very well adapted to the direction your country seems to be heading for, my friend.
Also, for the people actually paying attention to the arguments instead of knee-jerk reactions like this idiot above, raids and property seizure can serve two purposes: collecting evidence for the trial or preventing a criminal activity from continuing. Obviously surprise can be essential for the former, but in the latter case I believe some consideration should be given to avoiding crippling economic damage to a person that has not been declared guilty in a trial. And that's something that by many accounts hasn't historically been the case in FBI raids.
Now, I happen to live outside the U.S., so if you're happy with that it's (mostly) your problem.
From the Wikipedia article on due process:
Was he notified before the raid? Did he get a chance to be heard and to oppose the raid before it happened? I know he will have an opportunity to do so in the trial (if there is one), but the point is that even now his livelihood has already been destroyed.
I know it's hard to sympathise with Ralsky, but this could also happen to many other people if they are sued by the RIAA or MPAA, using exactly the same legal principle.
That's why Rational Rose is such an efficient, consistent, bug-free software.
</sarcasm>
I don't know about other people's experiences, but some of the worst pieces of software I've ever used have been CASE tools (you know the type: UML, lifecycle, etc). Kinds of make you question the usefulness of those tools and processes.
Got any reference that supports your definition of price discrimination?
This is what Wikipedia has to say on price discrimination:
Sounds familiar?
I'd be curious to see where you read that, as it doesn't seem to be true. The only increased cancer rates I've heard of are those of people who were actually there in 1945.
To be fair, I don't think your statement is logically incompatible with mine. I don't remember where I read that article, but I don't think when it spoke about incidence of cancer in those areas it separated those who were present at the bombings from those who weren't. It didn't occur to me that the increased incidence of cancer might be due entirely to the former, which would of course tend to show that perhaps I overestimated the long-term risks of nuclear bombings.