The risk is not whether or not they can solve technical problems. The risk is that the market will not accept an aluminum body truck, for whatever reason. That is a huge risk.
Hmm, let's see just who these 'Marxists' are that are running the 'commune'. IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat, Sony, and Google. Yep, sure sounds like a bunch of Marxists to me.
Nobody ever claimed COBOL was intended to make life easy for developers. COBOL was designed so the people who actually bear responsibility for the business (and who are certainly not the developers) can verify that their business processes are implemented to their liking. These people include not only bosses, but also financial people, lawyers, auditors, etc.
To a non-programmer, what exactly about that 'for' statement implies 'loop'? It could just as easily mean 'if i is between 1 and 100 do work here'. On the other hand, the COBOL example seems pretty unambiguous.
Sigh yourself. The 'assembler' tool does not magically read your mind and spit out code. You must actually provide input to the assembler. And this input is in, wait for it, Assembler Language! Shocking, I know!
Never once have I heard of that happening. Do you also keep cheap offices empty somewhere in case your accountants 'forget' to pay the rent or taxes?
On the other hand, I have seen many cases of people deciding not to buy a service contract because it is 'too expensive', then crying like babies when they have a failure and the vendor says 'too bad'.
Your hot water heat is a closed-loop system. All of the minerals that will ever be in there were put in when it was filled. On the other hand, a water heater is constantly having new water flow through it. This water has minerals (calcium, whatever) in it. The heating makes these minerals settle out and line the bottom of the tank. Now there is a layer of stuff between the tank and the water where the flame (or element) heats the the tank, and that makes hot spots on the tank. Eventually the tank burns through, and you have a leak.
I didn't say you did 'get it right now', did I? I said the only reason you would buy a SATA cable at BB was if you needed it right now. You obviously did not need it right now, so did not buy it there.
Best Buy is not complaining that people don't buy SATA cables there, they are complaining that people don't shop there WHEN THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS SALES TAX. Which is, in fact, often.
That is a dumb example though. The only reason anyone would buy a SATA cable at BB is because they need one right now, and you pay a premium for the ability to get it right now. If you compare the price of things that people actually go to BB for (TVs, cameras, computers, etc) you find they are very close to Amazon's prices, except for that 8% (where I am) sales tax.
If your server is sending huge volumes of spam then it is actually doing something, not just sitting there being vulnerable. Fining someone for being involved in sending spam is completely different than fining someone because they could potentially be used to send spam.
If they 'literally only counted accidents that happened while someone was on the phone', as you claim, how could they possiby come to the conclusion that accident rates were four times higher when the phone was being used? By definition ALL of the accidents would be while the phone was being used, and NONE would be while the phone was not being used, which is certainly not a 4-1 ratio.
In NYS, first offense texting is a $150 fine (not too much revenue), and 5 points on your license - same a reckless driving. While not as serious as DWI it is pretty serious.
What about the potential harm because somebody does not act because the test said all was good when in fact it was not? Proper labelling does not solve anything. All proper labelling would do is let you know the test is worthless because you can not trust either positive or negative results.
Show that the level of false positives/negatives is higher with genetic testing than with conventional testing, and you might have a point.
I think you have that backwards. It is up to the company performing the tests to demonstate what the false positive/negative rates are. That is, in fact, what the FDA wants them to do.
You're probably right, no doctor would perform a mastectomy on the basis of the test. On the other hand, what if the test said you did not have the gene for breast cancer, when in fact you do? Are you and your doctor going to trust that result? If you do, you are no better off than you were before you took the test (in fact, you may be worse off if you forgo other testing). If you don't trust the result, then what have you done besides waste $99? And that is exactly what the FDA is trying to prevent - people being fleeced out of their money for 'medical advice' that has no value and may actually cause harm.
You are entirely wrong. Your statements even contradict themselves. 'How many bits of information isn't the point...gives a picture of how much they monitor.' Eh? How do you get a picture of how much monitoring by ignoring how much monitoring is done? Your version is a good example of misleading with statistics.
The statement 'over a trillion seconds of data from 1.6 million customers' tells you that there is a lot of data and it was collected from a lot of people. Even if you can't visualize a trillion you know it is an awful lot of data. Moreover, that statement implies that they collect data every second. Finally, that statement lets you know that you can not make any determination about how much data was collected from any individual driver.
Now consider your '174 hours per driver.' What does that mean? Do they sample once an hour? Do they collect 174 hours from a driver then stop collecting? Have they collected from 1 driver or many? Far from making it easy to visualize how much monitoring is done, your statement leaves the reader with no useful information at all.
By looking for the symptoms of driver inattention, like I said. Constant speed changes and sharp steering movements. The exact thing that lets any competent driver spot one of those dopes long before they can see exactly what the driver is doing.
Why? If they are collecting data by sampling every second, then they do indeed have a trillion pieces of information. Reporting as 'hours' reduces the amount of data they actually have by 3600.
Those people are easy to detect by anyone else driving. I would be very surprised if these monitors did not catch that behavior (constant speed changes, sharp steering movements, etc) and assign a very high risk to those people.
You seem to be missing a key point in your statement. Namely, at the end of the sentence it should say 'for bad drivers who are not prepared to deal with an interruption in the smooth flow of traffic'. It is 100% THOSE drivers who are at fault in accidents, NOT the thing that disrupted the flow of traffic. In other words, it is the people who are not paying attention to what is going on around them (for whatever reason) and the people who do not allow themselves time to react (the asshats otherwise known as tailgaters).
Slashdot Mirror
The risk is not whether or not they can solve technical problems. The risk is that the market will not accept an aluminum body truck, for whatever reason. That is a huge risk.
Hey genius, try removing the 'as' command and then run gcc. Let us know how well the compiler works without an assembler.
Hmm, let's see just who these 'Marxists' are that are running the 'commune'. IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat, Sony, and Google. Yep, sure sounds like a bunch of Marxists to me.
Where is your music? Is it on a DLNA server? If so, all of the navigation comes from the server, not the client.
People on cellphones talk louder, for one thing. And hearing only half of a conversation is way more distracting and annoying than hearing both sides.
Nobody ever claimed COBOL was intended to make life easy for developers. COBOL was designed so the people who actually bear responsibility for the business (and who are certainly not the developers) can verify that their business processes are implemented to their liking. These people include not only bosses, but also financial people, lawyers, auditors, etc.
To a non-programmer, what exactly about that 'for' statement implies 'loop'? It could just as easily mean 'if i is between 1 and 100 do work here'. On the other hand, the COBOL example seems pretty unambiguous.
Sigh yourself. The 'assembler' tool does not magically read your mind and spit out code. You must actually provide input to the assembler. And this input is in, wait for it, Assembler Language! Shocking, I know!
Never once have I heard of that happening. Do you also keep cheap offices empty somewhere in case your accountants 'forget' to pay the rent or taxes?
On the other hand, I have seen many cases of people deciding not to buy a service contract because it is 'too expensive', then crying like babies when they have a failure and the vendor says 'too bad'.
Your hot water heat is a closed-loop system. All of the minerals that will ever be in there were put in when it was filled. On the other hand, a water heater is constantly having new water flow through it. This water has minerals (calcium, whatever) in it. The heating makes these minerals settle out and line the bottom of the tank. Now there is a layer of stuff between the tank and the water where the flame (or element) heats the the tank, and that makes hot spots on the tank. Eventually the tank burns through, and you have a leak.
I didn't say you did 'get it right now', did I? I said the only reason you would buy a SATA cable at BB was if you needed it right now. You obviously did not need it right now, so did not buy it there.
Best Buy is not complaining that people don't buy SATA cables there, they are complaining that people don't shop there WHEN THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS SALES TAX. Which is, in fact, often.
That is a dumb example though. The only reason anyone would buy a SATA cable at BB is because they need one right now, and you pay a premium for the ability to get it right now. If you compare the price of things that people actually go to BB for (TVs, cameras, computers, etc) you find they are very close to Amazon's prices, except for that 8% (where I am) sales tax.
If your server is sending huge volumes of spam then it is actually doing something, not just sitting there being vulnerable. Fining someone for being involved in sending spam is completely different than fining someone because they could potentially be used to send spam.
How are they at all analogues? Emitted radiation can be directly measured, "vulnerability" can not.
If they 'literally only counted accidents that happened while someone was on the phone', as you claim, how could they possiby come to the conclusion that accident rates were four times higher when the phone was being used? By definition ALL of the accidents would be while the phone was being used, and NONE would be while the phone was not being used, which is certainly not a 4-1 ratio.
It is not illegal to text while your car is not moving in NYS.
In NYS, first offense texting is a $150 fine (not too much revenue), and 5 points on your license - same a reckless driving. While not as serious as DWI it is pretty serious.
What about the potential harm because somebody does not act because the test said all was good when in fact it was not? Proper labelling does not solve anything. All proper labelling would do is let you know the test is worthless because you can not trust either positive or negative results.
Show that the level of false positives/negatives is higher with genetic testing than with conventional testing, and you might have a point.
I think you have that backwards. It is up to the company performing the tests to demonstate what the false positive/negative rates are. That is, in fact, what the FDA wants them to do.
You're probably right, no doctor would perform a mastectomy on the basis of the test. On the other hand, what if the test said you did not have the gene for breast cancer, when in fact you do? Are you and your doctor going to trust that result? If you do, you are no better off than you were before you took the test (in fact, you may be worse off if you forgo other testing). If you don't trust the result, then what have you done besides waste $99? And that is exactly what the FDA is trying to prevent - people being fleeced out of their money for 'medical advice' that has no value and may actually cause harm.
You are entirely wrong. Your statements even contradict themselves. 'How many bits of information isn't the point...gives a picture of how much they monitor.' Eh? How do you get a picture of how much monitoring by ignoring how much monitoring is done? Your version is a good example of misleading with statistics.
The statement 'over a trillion seconds of data from 1.6 million customers' tells you that there is a lot of data and it was collected from a lot of people. Even if you can't visualize a trillion you know it is an awful lot of data. Moreover, that statement implies that they collect data every second. Finally, that statement lets you know that you can not make any determination about how much data was collected from any individual driver.
Now consider your '174 hours per driver.' What does that mean? Do they sample once an hour? Do they collect 174 hours from a driver then stop collecting? Have they collected from 1 driver or many? Far from making it easy to visualize how much monitoring is done, your statement leaves the reader with no useful information at all.
By looking for the symptoms of driver inattention, like I said. Constant speed changes and sharp steering movements. The exact thing that lets any competent driver spot one of those dopes long before they can see exactly what the driver is doing.
Why? If they are collecting data by sampling every second, then they do indeed have a trillion pieces of information. Reporting as 'hours' reduces the amount of data they actually have by 3600.
Those people are easy to detect by anyone else driving. I would be very surprised if these monitors did not catch that behavior (constant speed changes, sharp steering movements, etc) and assign a very high risk to those people.
You seem to be missing a key point in your statement. Namely, at the end of the sentence it should say 'for bad drivers who are not prepared to deal with an interruption in the smooth flow of traffic'. It is 100% THOSE drivers who are at fault in accidents, NOT the thing that disrupted the flow of traffic. In other words, it is the people who are not paying attention to what is going on around them (for whatever reason) and the people who do not allow themselves time to react (the asshats otherwise known as tailgaters).