I am curious as to why you would think a poorly written article in Computerworld points to even the slightest indication of 'incompetent project management' or 'absolute fraud'. If I write 'Bill Gates wrote the Linux kernel in PERL' does that mean that the Linux project management is completely incompent, or, more likely, absolute fraud? Or does it just mean I am an idiot?
This is an article in Computerworld written by some hack who took an IBM press release and completely rewrote it introducing all kinds of errors not present in the original (such as the idiotic units). It is not a submission to a scientifc journal or some such.
A little critical thinking goes a long way, and you seem to not have any.
Who is this 'they' you are speaking of? All of the stupid units, etc were put it by some idiot writer from Computerworld. The IBM press release says 'Such a system could provide 30-40 liters of drinkable water per square meter of receiver area per day, while still generating electricity with a more than 25 percent yield or two kilowatt hours per day'.
Do always base your assesment of a technology solely on what some hack writer says?
Not a good explanation at all, just a clumsy attempt to justify poor writing.
When the vast majority of the population talks of 'wasting food' they mean one thing - allowing otherwise edible material to become inedible. What happens AFTER it becomes inedible does not matter in the slightest. It does not matter if you put the stuff into the trash or compost, as far as being FOOD it has been wasted.
A headline of 'Seattle Passes Law to Encourage Recycling Organic Material' would actually convey what happened. You may or may not agree with such a law, but at least you know what it is.
A headline of 'Seattle Passes Law to Keep Residents From Wasting Food' tells you NOTHING about what they actually did. Are they going to restrict how many groceries a family can buy? Are they going to check your refrigerator to make sure you don't let leftovers go bad? Are they going to fine you for discard any food? The only reason to write such a stupid headline is as flamebait.
True, but is it actually 'retirement' that is causing people to die? First, many people retire because they are having health problems, so I don't think you can count them in the 'dead because retired' category. Second, retirement can be a big life change, and big life changes are stressful, and too much stress is not good for health.
Almost all 'retirement planning' focuses entirely on financial matters. There is very little done to prepare people for what their daily life will be. Couple that with the 'all old people are worthless drooling idiots who are a drain on society' ageism (such as that demonstrated by the author of this article), and you have a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Maybe if we spent a little more effort encouraging newly retired people to remain productive members of society, instead of the 'at 5PM on Sept 30th you became useless' mentality we have now that 18 month life expectancy would change for the better.
Why does retirement have to equal boredom or not having people depend on you? There are loads of service organizations, charities, and other non-profits who are quite happy to have retirees volunteer. My parents have been retired about 10 years (now in their upper 70s) and get a lot of enjoyment out of volunteering.
Um, yeah. Most companies running COBOL are doing it on NEW IBM mainframes, which they have paid millions of dollars for. These companies (banks, insurers, finance, reservation systems, retailers, etc) absolutely know the value of IT, and pay for it. What they don't 'value and fund' is someone who tells them they are doing it wrong, and they should replace perfectly functional systems with all new shiny.
If you are at a normal intersection (not a roundabout), and you cross the intersection, have you 'changed lanes'? Any sane person would say no.
Even the markings in the roundabout show you are wrong. There is not just 'left lane' and 'right lane', there are 'crossing lanes'. Yes, when you are in the inner ring and need to exit you make a lane change, into the crossing lane, not the outer ring. The major difference being a portion of the crossing lane is shared with the outer ring, but not going in the same direction, something completely unique to roundabouts.
No, they are not the same at all, and your insistance that they are says to me you don't know how to use a roundabout.
The only thing you have right is that curved or straight does not matter.
On a freeway, your major direction of travel is ALWAYS parallel with the travel lanes, even when getting ready to exit. In a roundabout, it is not. You do not 'change lanes' in a roundabout, even temporarily. You cross lanes.
Do actually know how to use a roundabout? There are NO 'lane changes' involved. You should not 'change lanes' in a roundabout, ever. There are lane CROSSINGS in a roundabout, essentially a right turn from the left lane while the right lane continues straight. Not something sane people have a lot of experience doing.
And just how to you propose to 'predict' where the other cars are going? That is the whole problem. If you are 'turning left' you are SUPPOSED to be in the left lane the whole time, but many people don't do that. They are driving in the right lane, and stay in the right (outer) lane until they exit, no matter how far they go around. If you are turning right, you are SUPPOSED to start in the right lane and stay there, but many people use the inner ring as just another opportunity to pass, especially if the first exit is more than 1/4 way around.
Where do you drive that is acceptable to do that (drive in the left lane and cross the right lane to exit)? I sure hope Googles cars are smarter than that.
If you are in the left lane on a freeway, and your exit is coming up on the right, you are supposed to merge into the right lane, then onto the slowdown lane and onto the ramp. You sure as hell aren't supposed to shoot directly across the right lane at a 45 degree angle and out the exit, bypassing the slowdown lane altogether, which is what you do in a roundabout.
How many places, other than roundabouts, is it legal (or wise) to start in the left lane, and CROSS (not merge into) the right lane to get off at your exit? But that is exactly what you are supposed to do in a roundabout.
Huh? Here are the actual rules for roundabouts in NYS:
If you are going one exit (ie a right turn), you start in the right lane of the approach road, go in the outer circle of the roundabout, and exit in the right lane of the exit road.
If you are going two exits (ie straight thru), you start in either lane of the approach road. If you start in the right lane you stay in the outer ring and exit right. If you start in the left lane you cross the outer ring, travel in the inner ring, and cross the outer ring at your exit, exitting in the left lane.
If you are going more than two exists (a left turn), you start in the left lane of the approach road, cross the outer ring and travel in the inner ring, cross the inner ring at your exit, and exit in the left lane.
Not quite what you said. When they first started using roundabouts several years ago many people had no idea what to do. Some idiots still think the outer ring is some kind of racetrack or something.
Un, salary in no way precludes non-profit status, where did you get that idea? The people making the salaries have to declare that as income, same as everyone else.
Yes, they COLLECT about a billion dollars, but they don't KEEP it - it goes to the teams. What is so difficult to understand about that?
Answer this question: if the money is not going directly to the teams, where is it going? Who do you suppose are the owners and/or investors in the NFL?
Do you think the cashier at Walmart should be taxed on all the money he handles each day, just because it went through his hands?
Not this stupid thing again. Yes, 'The NFL' is non-profit. However, 'The NFL' does not keep any of the money, the money goes to the teams, which are NOT non-profit and do pay taxes.
If you are really serious about it, buy the IBM zPDT (Personal Development Tool). Let's you run z/OS, z/VM, and z/VSE on a PC (legally). A little pricey (about $5K for the tool, and $900/yr subscription for the software), but comes with a whole bunch of mainframe environments and tools.
I would genuinely like to know how you, as an 'experienced kernel developer', know, using only the information you said (backtrace, etc), that the reason the USB stack is trying to write to NULL is NOT because something stomped all over storage, possibly including the storage stack.
Slashdot Mirror
I am curious as to why you would think a poorly written article in Computerworld points to even the slightest indication of 'incompetent project management' or 'absolute fraud'. If I write 'Bill Gates wrote the Linux kernel in PERL' does that mean that the Linux project management is completely incompent, or, more likely, absolute fraud? Or does it just mean I am an idiot?
This is an article in Computerworld written by some hack who took an IBM press release and completely rewrote it introducing all kinds of errors not present in the original (such as the idiotic units). It is not a submission to a scientifc journal or some such.
A little critical thinking goes a long way, and you seem to not have any.
Who is this 'they' you are speaking of? All of the stupid units, etc were put it by some idiot writer from Computerworld. The IBM press release says 'Such a system could provide 30-40 liters of drinkable water per square meter of receiver area per day, while still generating electricity with a more than 25 percent yield or two kilowatt hours per day'.
Do always base your assesment of a technology solely on what some hack writer says?
Not a good explanation at all, just a clumsy attempt to justify poor writing.
When the vast majority of the population talks of 'wasting food' they mean one thing - allowing otherwise edible material to become inedible. What happens AFTER it becomes inedible does not matter in the slightest. It does not matter if you put the stuff into the trash or compost, as far as being FOOD it has been wasted.
A headline of 'Seattle Passes Law to Encourage Recycling Organic Material' would actually convey what happened. You may or may not agree with such a law, but at least you know what it is.
A headline of 'Seattle Passes Law to Keep Residents From Wasting Food' tells you NOTHING about what they actually did. Are they going to restrict how many groceries a family can buy? Are they going to check your refrigerator to make sure you don't let leftovers go bad? Are they going to fine you for discard any food? The only reason to write such a stupid headline is as flamebait.
True, but is it actually 'retirement' that is causing people to die? First, many people retire because they are having health problems, so I don't think you can count them in the 'dead because retired' category. Second, retirement can be a big life change, and big life changes are stressful, and too much stress is not good for health.
Almost all 'retirement planning' focuses entirely on financial matters. There is very little done to prepare people for what their daily life will be. Couple that with the 'all old people are worthless drooling idiots who are a drain on society' ageism (such as that demonstrated by the author of this article), and you have a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Maybe if we spent a little more effort encouraging newly retired people to remain productive members of society, instead of the 'at 5PM on Sept 30th you became useless' mentality we have now that 18 month life expectancy would change for the better.
Bruce Cockburn (Jimmy covered it).
Why does retirement have to equal boredom or not having people depend on you? There are loads of service organizations, charities, and other non-profits who are quite happy to have retirees volunteer. My parents have been retired about 10 years (now in their upper 70s) and get a lot of enjoyment out of volunteering.
Um, yeah. Most companies running COBOL are doing it on NEW IBM mainframes, which they have paid millions of dollars for. These companies (banks, insurers, finance, reservation systems, retailers, etc) absolutely know the value of IT, and pay for it. What they don't 'value and fund' is someone who tells them they are doing it wrong, and they should replace perfectly functional systems with all new shiny.
Yes, I am American. Here is the New York DOT information.
If you are at a normal intersection (not a roundabout), and you cross the intersection, have you 'changed lanes'? Any sane person would say no.
Even the markings in the roundabout show you are wrong. There is not just 'left lane' and 'right lane', there are 'crossing lanes'. Yes, when you are in the inner ring and need to exit you make a lane change, into the crossing lane, not the outer ring. The major difference being a portion of the crossing lane is shared with the outer ring, but not going in the same direction, something completely unique to roundabouts.
No, they are not the same at all, and your insistance that they are says to me you don't know how to use a roundabout.
The only thing you have right is that curved or straight does not matter.
On a freeway, your major direction of travel is ALWAYS parallel with the travel lanes, even when getting ready to exit. In a roundabout, it is not. You do not 'change lanes' in a roundabout, even temporarily. You cross lanes.
Do actually know how to use a roundabout? There are NO 'lane changes' involved. You should not 'change lanes' in a roundabout, ever. There are lane CROSSINGS in a roundabout, essentially a right turn from the left lane while the right lane continues straight. Not something sane people have a lot of experience doing.
And just how to you propose to 'predict' where the other cars are going? That is the whole problem. If you are 'turning left' you are SUPPOSED to be in the left lane the whole time, but many people don't do that. They are driving in the right lane, and stay in the right (outer) lane until they exit, no matter how far they go around. If you are turning right, you are SUPPOSED to start in the right lane and stay there, but many people use the inner ring as just another opportunity to pass, especially if the first exit is more than 1/4 way around.
Where do you drive that is acceptable to do that (drive in the left lane and cross the right lane to exit)? I sure hope Googles cars are smarter than that.
If you are in the left lane on a freeway, and your exit is coming up on the right, you are supposed to merge into the right lane, then onto the slowdown lane and onto the ramp. You sure as hell aren't supposed to shoot directly across the right lane at a 45 degree angle and out the exit, bypassing the slowdown lane altogether, which is what you do in a roundabout.
They are just a counter balance to the excessive hype that comes from Google and its fanboys.
How many places, other than roundabouts, is it legal (or wise) to start in the left lane, and CROSS (not merge into) the right lane to get off at your exit? But that is exactly what you are supposed to do in a roundabout.
Huh? Here are the actual rules for roundabouts in NYS:
If you are going one exit (ie a right turn), you start in the right lane of the approach road, go in the outer circle of the roundabout, and exit in the right lane of the exit road.
If you are going two exits (ie straight thru), you start in either lane of the approach road. If you start in the right lane you stay in the outer ring and exit right. If you start in the left lane you cross the outer ring, travel in the inner ring, and cross the outer ring at your exit, exitting in the left lane.
If you are going more than two exists (a left turn), you start in the left lane of the approach road, cross the outer ring and travel in the inner ring, cross the inner ring at your exit, and exit in the left lane.
Not quite what you said. When they first started using roundabouts several years ago many people had no idea what to do. Some idiots still think the outer ring is some kind of racetrack or something.
Un, salary in no way precludes non-profit status, where did you get that idea? The people making the salaries have to declare that as income, same as everyone else.
Yes, they COLLECT about a billion dollars, but they don't KEEP it - it goes to the teams. What is so difficult to understand about that?
Answer this question: if the money is not going directly to the teams, where is it going? Who do you suppose are the owners and/or investors in the NFL?
Do you think the cashier at Walmart should be taxed on all the money he handles each day, just because it went through his hands?
Not users, commentators. I don't see what is so hilarious about someone observing someone with a product and mis-identifying the product.
Not this stupid thing again. Yes, 'The NFL' is non-profit. However, 'The NFL' does not keep any of the money, the money goes to the teams, which are NOT non-profit and do pay taxes.
Are you seriously trying to claim an IBM mainframe is not a 'modern computer'? What possible definition of 'modern' are you using?
If you are really serious about it, buy the IBM zPDT (Personal Development Tool). Let's you run z/OS, z/VM, and z/VSE on a PC (legally). A little pricey (about $5K for the tool, and $900/yr subscription for the software), but comes with a whole bunch of mainframe environments and tools.
CICS is not a database layer, it is a transaction manager. The database layer is IMS or DB2. And CICS is callable from languages other than COBOL.
tease:
gently pull or comb (something tangled, especially wool or hair) into separate strands.
I would genuinely like to know how you, as an 'experienced kernel developer', know, using only the information you said (backtrace, etc), that the reason the USB stack is trying to write to NULL is NOT because something stomped all over storage, possibly including the storage stack.