"Survival of the Human species" means something very specific. It does not mean happiness, it does not mean quality of life, it does not mean saving lives. In fact saving the weak necessarily hurts the survivability of the species.
I would say that most of the evolution went into the unusually huge, particularly thick, member that some males humans have. And that they are more attracted to that than their chest.
TO "$1-an-hour grunt worker[s]" who are ineffective, you claim. Is to get minimal or zero paid workers. Which is what they apparently already have. So you just want more of them?
So basically, that entire essay is just saying that they should expand their workforce and have multiple people look at each report
Well technically the jury decides everything, they have nearly unlimited power. But in reality the judge does this every day of his life. And I would be surprised if he did not have a bigger indirect influence on the result of a trial than the direct influence of the entire jury. The jury is just random, easily influenced, and un-intelligent citizens who have never done this before and are confused by all these rules and legal jargon. They do not know the letter of the law or how laws are interpreted; They do not understand even the basic rules of our legal system or any other. There is no possible way any average citizen could be present in a court of law and even have a clue as to what is going on, let alone come to a conclusion.
So yes, in some ways the jury will just decide if someone is insane based on their opinion. But I would imagine that most of the time their decision would be 100% based on the opinion of the judge, and to a lesser or greater extent the physician who testified to the mental state of the defendant.
"The insanity defense is based on evaluations by forensic mental health professionals with the appropriate test according to the jurisdiction. Their testimony guides the jury, but they are not allowed to testify to the accused's criminal responsibility, as this is a matter for the jury to decide." - Wikipedia
Ahh, I think I understand. Netflix has loads of data, and it is all being used all the time. Too much data for all of it to be stored in RAM. And too much being used concurrently to even just store in the currently streaming files. Also Netflix cannot just quickly steam a file completely using all of its bandwidth, since the recipient cannot receive it any faster than their connection.
So Netflix needs to quickly stream little bits of files and switch between them rapidly. So random access. And data is only used once, it is not like it is loading in a game resource that will be used over and over again, it is loading a frame from a particular video file that is then steamed to a customer and them removed as RAM space is limited.
So RAM in this context offers basically 0 benefit. But faster, random access, memory, that does not even have to be good at writing data, is really the only important feature.
I think everything is a matter of law in a court. Insanity in a court is not insanity in the real world, it is a legal concept that is defined and interpreted very differently by a judge than by a physician. I would assume that "reasonableness" would be another word that is interpreted completely differently in a court setting, and like any legal definition the interpretation would be the judges domain.
Me again, And specifically, I think you might actually be wrong in part.
"preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and"
In Canada: The criminal does not technically still have to be on your property, for you to defend your stolen property from him. So if they stole something from you when they hacked your systems, and we consider hacking synonymous with breaking and entering. It definitely might be legal to break/hack into their house; If you took something and you feared that they were about to destroy it, or simply retake it from them.
"You can shoot them... well... if you're in danger and can't get away (or even if you can in some places)."
Not sure how it works in the US, but in Canada which has far far less self defence laws, the specific law says you can do anything you need to do you get the intruder out immediately. Which would mean that the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that shooting the intruder did not speed up his removal from your property. I found it quite strange reading the Criminal Code; The right to remove an intruder actually gives you more latitude than your right to defend your life and safety from an attacker, by the letter of the law. But of course, like all Canadian laws, they stick "the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances." on the end, so that a judge can rule however he wants in a case. That being said, the letter of the law is not AT ALL the same thing as how an actual judge will rule, at least without millions in lawers. Specifically in Canada it seems to be more guilty until proven innocent, with regard to guns.
It is not liked they held them there against their will. And you always gain education and experience, there is not one specific environment that fosters it. They got invaluable experience into how corporations will treat you, as well as sweeping skills and coffee getting skills. They are far better prospects for a restaurant employee now, for example.
Why shoudl it both be paid, and produce less than 0 total work?
"As much work for the employer as it is for the intern." So someone who is actually a professional and whose time is worth money is going to spend just as much work on you as you do for him, and on top of that he pays you.
I think it really depends. Getting experience in a field might mean watching someone work and getting a lot explained to you. It might mean doing a real job, but having a real professional spend just as long going over it, fixing all the mistakes, and showing you where you went wrong.
You spend 10s of thousands to learn from a professor, why does it make any more or less sense to pay nothing and receive nothign to learn from a real professional on the job.
What are you talking about? This ruling paves the way for any and all interns who think they did not get enough experience. If you own a business and hire interns, and do not talk to your lawyers about this ruling than you are an idiot.
Don't you normally work out your job responsibilities and payment BEFORE you start, not in some court case afterwards? If they agreed to work for nothing, how do they have ground to sue, specifically when it is widely known that their job would involve exactly what it involved, grunt work, coffee gettins, and trash removal.
Exactly, you cannot know much about IT if you think that most contractors are allowed to run any software they want with or without up to-date security. Everyone works for someone, and most of the time they are legally responsible for some minimum amount data security.
Yes, but for large institutions everything is a money issue. Adding several millions of dollars or more to the expense of keeping XP would put at least some of these large institutions over the point where they decide to migrate.
It is not like just because they have has much cash as Apple that they will simply never upgrade because they can afford the ever increasing costs of keeping XP. It does not matter how much cash they have, if upgrading makes/saves them 10 dollars they will do it.
Any many people have been stuck with XP for a long time, but still care about security vulnerabilities. Eventually, all of these people will have to update, and XPs end of life is a significant push towards that.
Slashdot Mirror
"Survival of the Human species" means something very specific. It does not mean happiness, it does not mean quality of life, it does not mean saving lives.
In fact saving the weak necessarily hurts the survivability of the species.
Which species?
And that is a strange phrase. I cannot think of any research that helps the survival of either Humans or Chimps.
Lol, that is awesome. I cannot believe they said that on stage.
I would say that most of the evolution went into the unusually huge, particularly thick, member that some males humans have. And that they are more attracted to that than their chest.
Isn't it a little sexist to think that the booth babes are there just for the enjoyment of the men?
They taught us why it is not a good idea to flavour wine with lead?
TO "$1-an-hour grunt worker[s]" who are ineffective, you claim.
Is to get minimal or zero paid workers. Which is what they apparently already have. So you just want more of them?
So basically, that entire essay is just saying that they should expand their workforce and have multiple people look at each report
Well technically the jury decides everything, they have nearly unlimited power.
But in reality the judge does this every day of his life. And I would be surprised if he did not have a bigger indirect influence on the result of a trial than the direct influence of the entire jury.
The jury is just random, easily influenced, and un-intelligent citizens who have never done this before and are confused by all these rules and legal jargon. They do not know the letter of the law or how laws are interpreted; They do not understand even the basic rules of our legal system or any other. There is no possible way any average citizen could be present in a court of law and even have a clue as to what is going on, let alone come to a conclusion.
So yes, in some ways the jury will just decide if someone is insane based on their opinion. But I would imagine that most of the time their decision would be 100% based on the opinion of the judge, and to a lesser or greater extent the physician who testified to the mental state of the defendant.
"The insanity defense is based on evaluations by forensic mental health professionals with the appropriate test according to the jurisdiction. Their testimony guides the jury, but they are not allowed to testify to the accused's criminal responsibility, as this is a matter for the jury to decide." - Wikipedia
Ahh, I think I understand.
Netflix has loads of data, and it is all being used all the time.
Too much data for all of it to be stored in RAM. And too much being used concurrently to even just store in the currently streaming files.
Also Netflix cannot just quickly steam a file completely using all of its bandwidth, since the recipient cannot receive it any faster than their connection.
So Netflix needs to quickly stream little bits of files and switch between them rapidly. So random access. And data is only used once, it is not like it is loading in a game resource that will be used over and over again, it is loading a frame from a particular video file that is then steamed to a customer and them removed as RAM space is limited.
So RAM in this context offers basically 0 benefit.
But faster, random access, memory, that does not even have to be good at writing data, is really the only important feature.
Maybe if he was using a golf cart instead of a porsche it would be a better analogy.
How does that make sense. Sure SSD is very similar to RAM physically, but it is still like a thousand times shower, is it not?
Isn't that sort of short for a PC?
I think everything is a matter of law in a court.
Insanity in a court is not insanity in the real world, it is a legal concept that is defined and interpreted very differently by a judge than by a physician. I would assume that "reasonableness" would be another word that is interpreted completely differently in a court setting, and like any legal definition the interpretation would be the judges domain.
Me again,
And specifically, I think you might actually be wrong in part.
"preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and"
In Canada:
The criminal does not technically still have to be on your property, for you to defend your stolen property from him.
So if they stole something from you when they hacked your systems, and we consider hacking synonymous with breaking and entering. It definitely might be legal to break/hack into their house; If you took something and you feared that they were about to destroy it, or simply retake it from them.
"You can shoot them... well... if you're in danger and can't get away (or even if you can in some places)."
Not sure how it works in the US, but in Canada which has far far less self defence laws, the specific law says you can do anything you need to do you get the intruder out immediately. Which would mean that the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that shooting the intruder did not speed up his removal from your property. I found it quite strange reading the Criminal Code; The right to remove an intruder actually gives you more latitude than your right to defend your life and safety from an attacker, by the letter of the law. But of course, like all Canadian laws, they stick "the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances." on the end, so that a judge can rule however he wants in a case.
That being said, the letter of the law is not AT ALL the same thing as how an actual judge will rule, at least without millions in lawers. Specifically in Canada it seems to be more guilty until proven innocent, with regard to guns.
It is not liked they held them there against their will.
And you always gain education and experience, there is not one specific environment that fosters it. They got invaluable experience into how corporations will treat you, as well as sweeping skills and coffee getting skills. They are far better prospects for a restaurant employee now, for example.
Why shoudl it both be paid, and produce less than 0 total work?
"As much work for the employer as it is for the intern." So someone who is actually a professional and whose time is worth money is going to spend just as much work on you as you do for him, and on top of that he pays you.
I think it really depends.
Getting experience in a field might mean watching someone work and getting a lot explained to you.
It might mean doing a real job, but having a real professional spend just as long going over it, fixing all the mistakes, and showing you where you went wrong.
You spend 10s of thousands to learn from a professor, why does it make any more or less sense to pay nothing and receive nothign to learn from a real professional on the job.
What are you talking about?
This ruling paves the way for any and all interns who think they did not get enough experience.
If you own a business and hire interns, and do not talk to your lawyers about this ruling than you are an idiot.
Don't you normally work out your job responsibilities and payment BEFORE you start, not in some court case afterwards?
If they agreed to work for nothing, how do they have ground to sue, specifically when it is widely known that their job would involve exactly what it involved, grunt work, coffee gettins, and trash removal.
Except decent video quality is nice to have.
But Windows 7 is a great choice.
And besides in a year there will be Windows 9, and if their previous history is any judge it might actually be a decent OS.
Exactly, you cannot know much about IT if you think that most contractors are allowed to run any software they want with or without up to-date security.
Everyone works for someone, and most of the time they are legally responsible for some minimum amount data security.
Yes, but for large institutions everything is a money issue. Adding several millions of dollars or more to the expense of keeping XP would put at least some of these large institutions over the point where they decide to migrate.
It is not like just because they have has much cash as Apple that they will simply never upgrade because they can afford the ever increasing costs of keeping XP. It does not matter how much cash they have, if upgrading makes/saves them 10 dollars they will do it.
It would be pretty hard to do worse than Win8.
Any many people have been stuck with XP for a long time, but still care about security vulnerabilities. Eventually, all of these people will have to update, and XPs end of life is a significant push towards that.