The question is not whether or not having more people searching will produce quicker results, as that is obvious. The question is whether the risks involved in having the public aid in the search are worth it. I can't imagine any official saying that those risks would be acceptible, nor should they.
If you are going to argue 'tough to argue with results', then I think you need to consider everything that lead up to that result, not just the last few minutes of it. You make it sound like the 20 hours of lockdown was completely useless. However, that 20 hours of lockdown meant that he was unable to carjack anyone (something he already did once), he was unable to kill anyone (something else he already did), he was unable to steal a car and escape (would have been instantly noticed), was unable to escape on foot (would have been instantly noticed), ha was basically forced to just stay where he was, injured and with no food, for 20 hours. Yes, he was found by an ordinary citizen after all that, and the citizen wasn't injured, but don't act like the previous 20 hours had nothing to do with that.
Are you seriously suggesting that it would have been wise for the police to encourage (or at least not discourage) the public to help look for someone they had every reason to beleive was extremely dangerous? Probably the only reason the they guy who found him in the boat isn't dead is because the bomber was too weak from being injured and hiding out all day. If the 'crowds' had been 'helping' all day there is a very good chance that there would be more bodies.
Migrating 64-bit apps from x86_64 to s390x is pretty straightforward. A recompile is definitely required as the x86 and z-series instruction sets are nothing alike.
Migrating 32-bit apps can be a little trickier, because on z there is no 32-bit addressing mode, it is either 24 (ancient and not used by linux), 31, or 64 bit.
Right. Not mention there are already different types of bulbs for other applications, such as flood and spot. Presumably those have different requirements than 'lamps'.
No, I am not arguing anything like that. Nice strawman though.
First, and most importantly, their product is not by any stretch of the imagination 'free'. Their product is advertisements, and the value of those advertisements is directly related to how many people have seen the ads. What you are arguing is that miscounting the number of people seeing the ads can cause 'no harm'.
I am pretty sure that your income is directly related to some sort of measurement, be it hours worked, pieces made, patients seen, contribution to a project, whatever. Do you consider mistakes in those measurements to result in 'no harm' to you?
The only get paid for commercials based on how many people see them. They get those numbers from Neilsen ratings, which do not include Aereo viewers. So, while Aereo is not stripping the commercials, they may as well be as far as the broadcaster is concerned. In fact, the broadcasters would probaby prefer the commercials were stripped, because as it is now the advertisers are getting free advertising.
So what advertisers accept Aereo's numbers (which, BTW, Aereo's privacy policy seems to say will not be provided)? It doesn't matter if you consider the OTA sampling 'dismally small', it is what is accepted and used by the advertising industry. Aereo's non-existent numbers are not.
'Simple logic' would seem to indicate that if people are moving from platforms where the broadcasters derive revenue (OTA statistics, and more importantly cable, where the broadcaster receives a fee for each cable subscriber) to one where they derive no revenue (Aereo), that is a definite impact and harm.
Only if that extended viewer base is measured and reported in a manner that advertisers trust, and then only if increased viewer base means increased ad views.
You're the one who is wrong. Your figures are right, but you don't know what they mean. Market cap (which the other poster had right) is the total value of all the stock (number of shares times share price). That is how much you would have to pay to 'buy the company'. Stockholder equity is assets minus liabilities and has nothing to do with how much it would cost to buy the company.
The FDIC does not 'protect their downside'. The FDIC prtotects the depositors. When the FDIC has to act, the bank has failed and is seized. The investors in the bank have lost their investment. The FDIC does not protect them at all.
This makes no sense. Do you even know what insurance is?
You don't (can't, really) insure against things that are likely to happen, you insure against things that, while extremely unlikely, would result in catastrophic financial loss if they did occur.
The presence of the FDIC (which insures depositors money, not banks) is in no way an indication that the bank is likely to fail. Quite the opposite - it is the government saying 'putting your money in the bank is safe, and even in the very unlikely chance something goes wrong we guarantee you can still get to your money'. It is not there to protect against the 'likelihood of failure', it is there to protect against the mere possibility of failure.
Buying homeowners insurance in no way implies that it is likely your house will burn down, but that there is a non-zero chance it will burn down. If it is actually likely that it will burn down, nobody will sell you insurance for it.
Yes, states have distracted driving laws. And the only time they are used is AFTER an incident has occurred. If you are swerving, you are already breaking a law (failure to maintain lane). However, if you are swerving, the only thing that prevented you from having an accident was luck - there was no-one else there at the same time.
The purpose of these types of laws is to prevent behavior that is likely to lead to a problem BEFORE you are to the point of swerving or having an accident.
In the absense of laws stating precisely what is not legal, your wristwatch example would be reality. If you just have some generic 'no driving while distracted' law, who makes the determination of what is a distraction? The individual cop.
The comparisons are only meaningful if equal cheating produces equal effect. I would think that things like taping panel gaps would have a significantly different effect depending on body shape, size and number of gaps, etc. Same with removing interior components - if model 'A' uses lightweight components and model 'B' uses cheaper but heavier components the effect of removing them will be significantly different.
Yep, just like it would be bad to trade freedom (or expression) for security (of medical records, financial data, conversations with your attorney, etc), right?
And if you going to insist on using that quote, at least get it right. The exact phrase is 'essential liberty'. Since when has copyright infringement been an 'essential liberty'?
Many people seem to enjoy doing things outdoors, in actual sunlight, after they get done with work. So, you say, just go to work an hour earlier. Well that is OK if your employer, customers, etc also agree to that shift. But then the customers also have the same problem with their employers and customers. But since most people are fine with having an extra hour of sunlight during the after work hours most people will agree to it. Now all we have to do is agree on when exactly this shift will happen. Hmm, maybe we could just pick a date when everybody will change to these earlier hours. Now all we have to do is change all references to times (printed materials, calendars, ads, signs, etc) to reflect this new time.
Of course, when winter rolls around again that going to work and school in the dark gets old real fast, so we can just reverse this process.
Or maybe, we could pick two days a year when we simply adjust the clock to reflect what most people would want anyway.
First of all, how does a concept like copyright 'thrive'? The whole idea of that makes no sense.
What copyright does is ENFORCE the idea of artificial scarcity, which things like the internet makes even more important if the goals of copyright are to be obtained (encouraging people to produce stuff other people want).
You own the media, you license the content. You own your car, you license the right to drive it on a public highway. Strangely, when you total your car the state does not give you a new one.
I apologize for thinking you were the original poster.
As for your snide comment about 'most people in the US...' - the top selling cars in 2012 in the US were Camry, Accord, Civic, Altima, Corolla, CR-V, Escape. Remind me which of those is a 'heavy, thirsty, underpowered V8'. For more recent data, in January there were 255772 midsize cars sold, 204118 small cars sold, 74336 luxury cars sold, and (this is your 'big v8' category, which according to you is what 'most people' buy) 239 large cars. So, I guess by your estimation, 0.04% is 'most'.
I think you missed the point. You did not say (in your original post) that people don't care about who manufactured the gearbox, you said 'people don't care about the bits that make it go, they buy for looks'. Which may be true in very few cases, but certainly not for 'most people'.
People may not care about the technical details of 'the bits that make it go', but they sure as hell care about how those details manifest themselves. Things like mileage, performance, handling, warranty, comfort, price, etc are all affected primarily by 'the bits that make it go', and in aggregate make up a larger portion of the purchase decision than the looks of the car. Looks may get you interested in the car, but looks are not the primary driver behind the purchase of a car in most cases.
When you do that in a restaurant you are ordering. Amazon does not offer alternatives when you actually order, they send you whatever you purchased. When you search on Amazon you are looking at the menu, not yet ordering. Do you complain because the menu also contains items you do not want to see? And if you go to a restaurant (good ones anyway) often enough that they get to know you they WILL often offer suggestions of things they think you might be interested in, even after you order 'the usual'.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is OK if, like Watson, it also says 'I have very little confidence this answer is correct'. But it is so easy to forget that part, isn't it?
The article says nothing about computers. It says 'equipment in large manufacturing operations'.
The question is not whether or not having more people searching will produce quicker results, as that is obvious. The question is whether the risks involved in having the public aid in the search are worth it. I can't imagine any official saying that those risks would be acceptible, nor should they.
If you are going to argue 'tough to argue with results', then I think you need to consider everything that lead up to that result, not just the last few minutes of it. You make it sound like the 20 hours of lockdown was completely useless. However, that 20 hours of lockdown meant that he was unable to carjack anyone (something he already did once), he was unable to kill anyone (something else he already did), he was unable to steal a car and escape (would have been instantly noticed), was unable to escape on foot (would have been instantly noticed), ha was basically forced to just stay where he was, injured and with no food, for 20 hours. Yes, he was found by an ordinary citizen after all that, and the citizen wasn't injured, but don't act like the previous 20 hours had nothing to do with that.
Are you seriously suggesting that it would have been wise for the police to encourage (or at least not discourage) the public to help look for someone they had every reason to beleive was extremely dangerous? Probably the only reason the they guy who found him in the boat isn't dead is because the bomber was too weak from being injured and hiding out all day. If the 'crowds' had been 'helping' all day there is a very good chance that there would be more bodies.
Migrating 64-bit apps from x86_64 to s390x is pretty straightforward. A recompile is definitely required as the x86 and z-series instruction sets are nothing alike.
Migrating 32-bit apps can be a little trickier, because on z there is no 32-bit addressing mode, it is either 24 (ancient and not used by linux), 31, or 64 bit.
Energy Star is a US government (EPA) program, not a company . You don't pay to get the 'branding'.
Right. Not mention there are already different types of bulbs for other applications, such as flood and spot. Presumably those have different requirements than 'lamps'.
No, I am not arguing anything like that. Nice strawman though.
First, and most importantly, their product is not by any stretch of the imagination 'free'. Their product is advertisements, and the value of those advertisements is directly related to how many people have seen the ads. What you are arguing is that miscounting the number of people seeing the ads can cause 'no harm'.
I am pretty sure that your income is directly related to some sort of measurement, be it hours worked, pieces made, patients seen, contribution to a project, whatever. Do you consider mistakes in those measurements to result in 'no harm' to you?
The only get paid for commercials based on how many people see them. They get those numbers from Neilsen ratings, which do not include Aereo viewers. So, while Aereo is not stripping the commercials, they may as well be as far as the broadcaster is concerned. In fact, the broadcasters would probaby prefer the commercials were stripped, because as it is now the advertisers are getting free advertising.
So what advertisers accept Aereo's numbers (which, BTW, Aereo's privacy policy seems to say will not be provided)? It doesn't matter if you consider the OTA sampling 'dismally small', it is what is accepted and used by the advertising industry. Aereo's non-existent numbers are not.
'Simple logic' would seem to indicate that if people are moving from platforms where the broadcasters derive revenue (OTA statistics, and more importantly cable, where the broadcaster receives a fee for each cable subscriber) to one where they derive no revenue (Aereo), that is a definite impact and harm.
Only if that extended viewer base is measured and reported in a manner that advertisers trust, and then only if increased viewer base means increased ad views.
You're the one who is wrong. Your figures are right, but you don't know what they mean. Market cap (which the other poster had right) is the total value of all the stock (number of shares times share price). That is how much you would have to pay to 'buy the company'. Stockholder equity is assets minus liabilities and has nothing to do with how much it would cost to buy the company.
The FDIC does not 'protect their downside'. The FDIC prtotects the depositors. When the FDIC has to act, the bank has failed and is seized. The investors in the bank have lost their investment. The FDIC does not protect them at all.
This makes no sense. Do you even know what insurance is?
You don't (can't, really) insure against things that are likely to happen, you insure against things that, while extremely unlikely, would result in catastrophic financial loss if they did occur.
The presence of the FDIC (which insures depositors money, not banks) is in no way an indication that the bank is likely to fail. Quite the opposite - it is the government saying 'putting your money in the bank is safe, and even in the very unlikely chance something goes wrong we guarantee you can still get to your money'. It is not there to protect against the 'likelihood of failure', it is there to protect against the mere possibility of failure.
Buying homeowners insurance in no way implies that it is likely your house will burn down, but that there is a non-zero chance it will burn down. If it is actually likely that it will burn down, nobody will sell you insurance for it.
Yes, states have distracted driving laws. And the only time they are used is AFTER an incident has occurred. If you are swerving, you are already breaking a law (failure to maintain lane). However, if you are swerving, the only thing that prevented you from having an accident was luck - there was no-one else there at the same time.
The purpose of these types of laws is to prevent behavior that is likely to lead to a problem BEFORE you are to the point of swerving or having an accident.
In the absense of laws stating precisely what is not legal, your wristwatch example would be reality. If you just have some generic 'no driving while distracted' law, who makes the determination of what is a distraction? The individual cop.
The comparisons are only meaningful if equal cheating produces equal effect. I would think that things like taping panel gaps would have a significantly different effect depending on body shape, size and number of gaps, etc. Same with removing interior components - if model 'A' uses lightweight components and model 'B' uses cheaper but heavier components the effect of removing them will be significantly different.
Yep, just like it would be bad to trade freedom (or expression) for security (of medical records, financial data, conversations with your attorney, etc), right?
And if you going to insist on using that quote, at least get it right. The exact phrase is 'essential liberty'. Since when has copyright infringement been an 'essential liberty'?
Many people seem to enjoy doing things outdoors, in actual sunlight, after they get done with work. So, you say, just go to work an hour earlier. Well that is OK if your employer, customers, etc also agree to that shift. But then the customers also have the same problem with their employers and customers. But since most people are fine with having an extra hour of sunlight during the after work hours most people will agree to it. Now all we have to do is agree on when exactly this shift will happen. Hmm, maybe we could just pick a date when everybody will change to these earlier hours. Now all we have to do is change all references to times (printed materials, calendars, ads, signs, etc) to reflect this new time.
Of course, when winter rolls around again that going to work and school in the dark gets old real fast, so we can just reverse this process.
Or maybe, we could pick two days a year when we simply adjust the clock to reflect what most people would want anyway.
This is insightful? Seriously?
First of all, how does a concept like copyright 'thrive'? The whole idea of that makes no sense.
What copyright does is ENFORCE the idea of artificial scarcity, which things like the internet makes even more important if the goals of copyright are to be obtained (encouraging people to produce stuff other people want).
You own the media, you license the content. You own your car, you license the right to drive it on a public highway. Strangely, when you total your car the state does not give you a new one.
I apologize for thinking you were the original poster.
As for your snide comment about 'most people in the US...' - the top selling cars in 2012 in the US were Camry, Accord, Civic, Altima, Corolla, CR-V, Escape. Remind me which of those is a 'heavy, thirsty, underpowered V8'. For more recent data, in January there were 255772 midsize cars sold, 204118 small cars sold, 74336 luxury cars sold, and (this is your 'big v8' category, which according to you is what 'most people' buy) 239 large cars. So, I guess by your estimation, 0.04% is 'most'.
I think you missed the point. You did not say (in your original post) that people don't care about who manufactured the gearbox, you said 'people don't care about the bits that make it go, they buy for looks'. Which may be true in very few cases, but certainly not for 'most people'.
People may not care about the technical details of 'the bits that make it go', but they sure as hell care about how those details manifest themselves. Things like mileage, performance, handling, warranty, comfort, price, etc are all affected primarily by 'the bits that make it go', and in aggregate make up a larger portion of the purchase decision than the looks of the car. Looks may get you interested in the car, but looks are not the primary driver behind the purchase of a car in most cases.
I've had a Lenovo drive that does that for quite a while now.
When you do that in a restaurant you are ordering. Amazon does not offer alternatives when you actually order, they send you whatever you purchased. When you search on Amazon you are looking at the menu, not yet ordering. Do you complain because the menu also contains items you do not want to see? And if you go to a restaurant (good ones anyway) often enough that they get to know you they WILL often offer suggestions of things they think you might be interested in, even after you order 'the usual'.