I've been a fan of MG since reading Dad's Scientific American, and apparently reprints elsewhere. I've always had a problem with these logic puzzles and I never knew why. So you have solved an old childhood mystery of mine. I had the same feeling while I was reading this article, and finally had the epiphany while reading your comment, so thank you for this.
I have been looking for real-world solutions, models or explanations, and the answers given to these questions never seem to reflect reality. The true puzzle here is, as you hinted, a semantic problem more than a math problem. It is worded simply enough, but it is phrased in the language of statistics. Just as words have specific meanings to lawyers and biologists and etymologists, the phrasing has a deeply specific meaning.
To solve the puzzle, you have to decipher the phrasing. The math is ancillary. That there are so many wrong answers should be a clue to this. The convergence given more specific criteria is one that has never been explained adequately, and does help explaining why the problem does not violate simple rules of chance.
Specific to this question, I will nitpick and say it is not clear whether "one of whom is a son born on a Tuesday" indicates that *only* one is a son born on a Tuesday. If you take this exclusionary interpretation the analysis is correct.
(Otherwise this case would already have been counted in the first scenario: the older child a boy born on Tuesday)
This is only true with the exclusionary interpretation. If you concede that the question as phrased does not exclude a second son born on a Tuesday (twins or not), then the answer is 1/2. And this is the key to the puzzle. Here's where I believe the analysis trips up:
Now suppose that the older child isn't a boy born on Tuesday.
This is a false dichotomy - a fundamental assumption which does not follow from the evidence. The analysis given is based on the assumption that one child either is or is not a boy born on a Tuesday. That assumption makes the analysis correct, but the question does not include the assumption, nor does it suggest it. The only way you can come up with that assumption is
Everything depends, he points out, on why I decided to tell you about the Tuesday-birthday-boy. If I specifically selected him because he was a boy born on Tuesday (and if I would have kept quiet had neither of my children qualified)
What if I selected him because both were boys born on a Tuesday? We can't forget the lessons of other logic puzzles which are trick questions designed to mislead you. What if this is a trick question?
Of course it is all artificial anyway, which I always have a hard time reconciling. There are two answers for each of these questions - one statistician's answer, and one mathematician's answer. And I suppose a third answer, the wrong one, but depending on the person with whom you are arguing one of the first two will also be the wrong answer.
(This analysis ignores minor differences like the fact that slightly more babies are born on weekdays than on weekend days.)
I'm off-topic, you're insightful *sigh*. Anyway, to further damage my karma: Around here, separation is required because it's easier to recycle glass when it's not among other refuse. Same with tin, paper, and aluminum. Everything else goes in the landfill. Even though it takes a loss on everything but tin, the recycling center here does recycle glass, tin, paper, and aluminum. Someone, somewhere has to separate the items in order for that to happen, unless there's a magic machine that can separate them. Those are in progress, but not used here.
He has a point that the only item of value that can be sold is tin. But the purpose of recycling is to reuse materials, not turn a profit. If you are recycling everything that gets separated, individually, like around here, then his point is completely irrelevant. You separate everything, none of what you separated goes in the landfill, you're saving the recycling center money by doing part of the work for them.
It's still less expensive to get more glass from the ground, but we're lowering our footprint not running a business.
I left a citation and led with it so you could read more about it and form your own opinion. You local university probably has this sitting on the shelf, if not tucked away and available. Or you can read more online.
Notice I said correlation, not caused. Do you understand correlation? It means that as one goes up, the other goes up (or for inverse correlation down). The leap is when you think one causes the other, causation. Correlation does not imply causation, but if you have additional evidence you can suggest a strong link. Until we completely understand cognitive processing, we will never be able to prove causation, only higher levels of correlation.
This is an opinion piece, I mentioned that. It is not science. The actual science used against pornography is flawed, and this guy in his opinion suggests that because the science is flawed, there might be a better way to think about it.
If you want some additional evidence, you can study the tendency of misogynistic behavior in societies that restrict women in favor of men. More correlation, still no causation. But we can't base opinions that affect the country's population on bad science, that is certain.
"State of the art" is the current knowledge, right now. By the time something is patented an implemented in hardware it's already old. By the time it's ubiquitous it's already in hardware, and already past old. When free software takes on something, it's usually because it's either popular or important.
To put it another way, if free software took on state of the art, there would be millions of unused, useless code bases and a mond-boggling number of wasted development hours.
I would argue that the useful bits get filtered out by proprietary/paid software, and free software can then devote time to the important ones. Thanks for discovering what people *don't* want, non-free software!
Milton Diamond, The Scientist magazine, March 2010. "Porn: Good for Us?"
This opinion piece takes a look at scientific research around pornography. Higher consumption levels os correlated with lower abuse. Many studies have shown the opposite, but they tend to study abusers like rapists, find they use pornography, and say that porn is bad. You should be able to see the flawed methodology easily.
When you look at the entire population, the percentage of male porn users stays around 100% in countries where it is allowed and available, and abuse is low. In countries where it is not allowed or available, usage is obviously lower and abuse rates are higher.
People need an outlet, and if you don't want to see it you don't have to. But make your decisions based on what's best for the country, not your own moral stance. Outlawing alcohol was not intended to start the Chicago mob into overdrive, but it did, unintended consequence.
By restricting porn, you are essentially saying that men should satisfy their urges using real women instead of pictures or videos. Is that what you want Kagan? Are you that anti-female that you are calling for their abuse of a massive scale? I know it sounds like I'm twisting your words around, but given the evidence in question the law of unintended consequences makes it clear that's what you would prefer.
If I called for country-wide home schooling of kids, I would be calling for the death of America. Not every parent is capable of, nor interested in, schooling their own children, and the kids would not learn much. I don't mean for education to stop for most families, but that's what would happen. Unintended consequences, learn them.
I found their shows interesting until two episodes.
One, the recycling issue. Penn basically made the argument that recycling is unnercessary because it requires material separation by each person throwing stuff away. He highlighted this by asking people to separate garbage into 4, 6, 10, 15 different piles and pointed out that it was ridiculous. The only content of the entire episode that made sense was that recycling costs energy and the only useful recyclable material is tin. Everything else uses more energy and chemicals and time and transportation fuel than it would waste in a landfill. Not sure if that's true, but it was the only part I couldn't immediately discount. I still recycle glass, though.
The other one was the toilet seat that contains less bacteria than a dude's scrotum. They showed some "average, normal typical toilet stalls" which don't match anything I've ever seen unless the cleaning crew was just in there. You see 4 toilets and have to poop, you choose the one with the least amount of bacteria-ridden piss, clean it off, and then use toilet paper or the seat covers. You should assume that if it looks clean, the guy before you cleaned piss of the seat, because guys piss on the seat. I won't even mention the female corollaries. Three people using the same seat shouldn't cause problems, and the bacteria probably die slowly. But the suggestion was that because the clean toilets in their professional office building were clean, you don't need to use anything between you and the seat that touched the fat guy's sweaty hairy dirty unshowered ass before you, and the previous guy's piss he cleaned off the seat.
I immediately deleted anything Penn ever said from my memory, except for these I retain as examples.
Yeah it's off topic, get over it we're having a discussion here.
I buy a car and run it into the ground. This won't affect me at all. It also won't affect people who buy a car with zero down and high interest and immediately owe more than it's worth, they don't concern themselves with these things. If you have to have the latest and greatest every few years, you're going to have problems.
Electric cars are a long term investment, paying for themselves over time as gas usage is less. It's not for the buy-and-sell crowd. When they are the most common type of car on the road, this will change.
Article is garbage and author is myopic or a shill, or both.
There is, to my observation, currently a back-up effort under way in Norwegian IP blocks. Just hop on a plane and ask everyone you see if they would contribute their portion of the recovery data!/generalizing can be fun sometimes
Since you understand why the government would need the power to do this can you explain it to me? If a company is compromised, either the company or the the upstream provider could yank it offline. In most cases the upstream also has an upstream, all the way to the backbone connections.
Wouldn't it be better for the administration to simply communicate with the backbone providers? If the backbone is compromised, they should have their own kill switches - or else the governmnet can't order them to do anything anyway. I don't see what this adds, the ability is already in here.
If the administration calls up a backbone and says there is a cyberattack going on and you need to shut things down, let's think about what this means. The administrative arm of the governmnet knows something is happening and the backbone has NO IDEA? That's not possible. The backbone would learn via SANS or CERT or whatever else just like the backbone would, and if the gov knows before the backbone there is serious mismanagement going on.
Shutting it down would become a goal for the terrorists. Let's MAKE THEM TURN OFF THEIR OWN INTERNET. It worked with the WTC attacks, they hate our freedoms so we took them away ourselves. This will be no different. To turn it up to 11, anyone who is for this law is helping terrorists and qualifies for treason.
It's a good suggestion, but these are likely random users bringing in an out of warranty computer. They ideally should be keeping their own clean images, but they didn't, and they don't want to lose their stuff. Scan and clean is the way to go here, not reimage.
America is too nice for a revolution. Sure we have unemployment, but 85% of the population is largely unaffected by anything unless American Idol gets interrupted or their cell phone doesn't work. There's no reason for people to risk that yet. The time will probably come, but it's nowhere close.
Revolting for idealism is nice, but a true revolution won't happen until it becomes a necessity.
Here's the way regulation works. Private business tries something, people hate it. Customers can't get the companies to change their ways because all of the companies are doing it - there's no competitor to jump to. So now the government has to put a stop to it. In this case we have some isolated evidence and are trying to get out in front of this whole thing before it harms people.
For the actual text of the bill, the only way to get a bill that works and makes sense is the same way industry does it. Write the bill and send it to your Congress critter. They will thank you for doing the heavy lifting and consider whether to sponsor it. If everyone sent their c.c. the same bill, they would take the hint and at least think before dismissing it. If you let them do it there will be piles of unrelated stuff in it, making it more than 10 pages long.
What about using conditional includes, which IE supports, to display a message that says "this website will look like crap until your idiotic browser is updated"? You seem to be mostly worried about layout, a better example would be one of those bugs where legit code actually hides or overwrites content. An ugly but functional website is one thing, a non-functional website is a whole different story and equally possible.
If your customer is a corporate type entity then you code to what they want and inform them support is going away so you can't be responsible for an unsupported platform. But as long as they are paying your 1.5 websites are just more profit.
Of course we don't read the articles here, so how could we have known? Maybe plagiarized is too strong, since they did give the source and they did paraphrase. But I think it qualifies.
It's even sadder because the entire argument *AGAINST* moving copyright law back to its original duration, or any of the previous durations, is that once copyright is granted you can't alter it retroactively (the "takings" clause).
Anyway, anyone making any comment in here should be reading the history of this, which started with the Berne convention and the US attempts to plug holes in its laws. Specifically, US tried to limit this to works after 1 March, 1989, and ultimately had to reverse and grant retroactive copyright.
Your anger should be directed towards the Berne convention agreements. My guess is the court saw the futility of rejecting the Berne requirements, because Congress would just have to pass another law to fulfill the US obligations. After all, that's why the law was amended in the first place. The only other option would be to pretend we didn't know the history, and try to remove those retroactive copyrights, triggering cries of the takings clause as above. So now we are truly fucked either way.
I work for a Fortune 10 company, it was Fortune 100 but then got aquired. I see absolutely no difference between when we sold outsourcing, and when we added software sales as a division.
The points you made apply, we weren't a profit center but now we are, but no change in attitude or anything else. The software development process was already in place and mature. Code reuse was emphasized, estimation was measured and tracked, everything you claim about smaller companies was there despite it being a cost center for decades. Now that software makes money for them, it's already working like it should.
If a big company is run with any competence whatsoever, the same rules apply whether it costs or whether the clients pay for it. In fact, I'm expecting apathy about coding to grow just because clients are now paying instead of the company. Less incentive to control costs rather than more now. But that won't happen because the company wants to remain competitive.
Of course, they just fired everyone who wasn't absolutely necessary over the past 3 years. So we don't have dead weight, and the same stuff gets done with fewer people. They need to find other ways to trim costs, so they are forced to look at the hard parts of consolidation and migration and shutting things down - stuff they should have started with in the first place. So naturally development is part of the "everything" they want to make cost-efficient.
That's because everyone has already seen DWTS from 2002, and want to watch Firefly instead. Or alternatively they are watching recent DWTS and there is no recent Firefly, so they buy it.
I'm goin to further argue that DWTS and other semi-live reality shows are a social phenom. They get you to watch because your friends are watching, same as a support buddy keeps you exercising. The whole point is to experience it together from your individual private homes. Firefly and other shows are not engaging in the same way (they are in different ways lest someone argue that point).
The shows that stay on are the ones that get people talking. Whether it's Survivor or Lost doesn't matter, people talk and the studios listen.
What proportion of the audience will *not* flip the channel because they see some ho non-celebrity and think, "I should watch this for a bit and see who this fresh meat is" ?
In other words, how did the talentless celebrities become celebrities? They were attractive, that's all it takes. Plenty of attractive people out there who aren't in a show yet, so I don't see a barrier.
"My team knows Windows" is not going to cut it either.
Who would say this? Lots of people know Linux like they know Windows, but your team has a lot of work to do before they can know Windows like someone can know Linux. If Linux is broken, you can go fix the code and not have to wait for vendor support, you don't have the option in Windows. My point is that no large company would roll their own if they could avoid it - they would go to the vendor for support, whether it's open source or not.
Wrong. You need to solve the problem. If you trust the vendors more than you trust yourself, go directly to fail. Even under ideal circumstances the "blame the vendor" excuse only works for about 15 seconds. Your employer does not view the vendor as the "last line of defense" -- you are. In the event of catastrophic meltdown, the vendor will probably survive (regardless of fault). Will you?
Of course I will. Have you ever had to deal with a client who has a contractual SLA? Whether it's down or not is the client's only concern, they don't care who is at fault. They want it fixed. They may blame you for picking a vendor that screwed up, rather than for you screwing up, but they want it fixed now. That is why you want to blame the vendor. It pushes most of the incompetence off on someone else, and you can say "we will switch vendors" if your client goes apeshit.
MSDN freebies aside, the average Windows PC has about $500-$1000 of software on board: Windows, Office, CALs (Exchange, MSSQL, Windows itself). There is SOME money to be saved on open source licensing, but the real savings are elsewhere...
I should have specifically mentioned this as a percentage, not absolute dollars, and exclude copyright infringement. Including copyright infringement I'd say Microsoft has more freebies being used. The average PC does not have Exchange nor MSSQL, and the value might be $500-$1000 but the cost to the user is nowhere near that. That's my whole point. I got offers to upgrade my productivity suite (aka Office) for maybe $100 when I bought a $300 computer. That would have been $120 for Windows Vista and Office. Value of maybe $500, cost $120. And free Works, and free other stuff I don't remember. That's my point.
Regarding your wrap-up I'll just leave this. The post I was replying to was:
What if I don't need support? That's why Red Hat and other liberated software companies will probably never see 1 billion. Bottom Line: A lot of us are cheapasses.;-)
And I replied with "Lots of individuals don't need support, but large businesses do." I also countered "They give the software away free" with "Microsoft does too" along with my own opinion that it's all ultimately just support costs, that's why OEM deals are such great deals. The OEM has to support the customer instead of Microsoft.
To someone who follows mainstream politics, and in my own words, the Libertarian Party seems horribly fragmented. There is no way to vote for the party, because each candidate has their own take on what is part of the philosophy.
I've read the definitions and distinctions between someone who has libertarian views (lower case) and is part of the Libertarian party. That there's even a distinction between the two suggests that the name was poorly chosen, or the philosohpy adapted/bastardized.
That there remains a core movement which maintains that distinction, on both sides of the issue, should be a clear warning signal that the members cannot even agree. People with similar viewpoints get into a semantic war and remain separated by a non-existent schism.
To rephrase, there isn't a party to vote for, and voters often use mental shortcuts like appearance and eloquence to choose their candidates which makes the liklihood of purely philosophical reasons. You want Libertarians to win? Foolproof plan. Get a clean-looking, well-spoken sock puppet with an attractive wife (or attractive daughter who puts herself out in the spotlight by volunteering, visiting whomever from the pet project of the future first lady, does interviews, whatever). Then just keep them from saying ridiculous stuff (stuff that can and will be ridiculed). Instant win.
I appreciate your passion, but you're missing one point. These treaties will push the burden of enforcement from the copyright holder more onto the governments. So part of what you're suggesting is to waste government money, taxpayer money. Civil disobedience is necessary in many cases, but we have to be preventative as well, if nothing else so that we can say "we told you so".
The message to future elections has to be "You wasted our money and we tried to stop you, and we hate you for it." Hurt the machine, but avoid hurting yourself if possible. At some point we will be the machine, but we're not there yet.
The article has steps to reproduce this, but does anyone have a video or animated gif or something for those of us who are interested, but not this interested?
I just copied the text to illustrate the steps involved, for those unfamiliar with how articles work the article has more information along with the links.
See Gemini in action
You can run Gemini on your own computer: just follow these simple instructions.
First, install Golly, a Game of Life simulator, by downloading and unzipping this folder from SourceForge. This will give you a folder called golly-2.1-win, which contains a number of sub-folders.
Next, get a copy of Gemini by downloading and unzipping this document from Google Docs. Save the resulting file, which is called gemini.rle, inside the golly-2.1-win/Patterns sub-folder.
Now double-click "Golly" in the golly-2.1-win folder to start the software. The program icon should be a yellow square with patterns of blue dots on it.
Go to File/Open Pattern and select the Gemini file. You should end up with a white diagonal line, going from top-left to bottom-right, on a black background.
You'll need to choose an algorithm with which to run the Game of Life. Simply go to Control/Set Algorithm and choose "HashLife".
Next, set the speed at which the simulation will run. To do this, press the "+" key four times. In the blue bar at the top, you should see "Step = 8^0" change to "Step = 8^4".
Now you're all set: just click the play button in the top-left corner to start the simulation.
If you hover your mouse over the top-left corner of the screen, Golly will give you controls allowing you to zoom in and out, and to move around. All the interesting stuff is at the top-left and bottom-right of the white diagonal line, and you'll need to zoom in a few steps.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been a fan of MG since reading Dad's Scientific American, and apparently reprints elsewhere. I've always had a problem with these logic puzzles and I never knew why. So you have solved an old childhood mystery of mine. I had the same feeling while I was reading this article, and finally had the epiphany while reading your comment, so thank you for this.
I have been looking for real-world solutions, models or explanations, and the answers given to these questions never seem to reflect reality. The true puzzle here is, as you hinted, a semantic problem more than a math problem. It is worded simply enough, but it is phrased in the language of statistics. Just as words have specific meanings to lawyers and biologists and etymologists, the phrasing has a deeply specific meaning.
To solve the puzzle, you have to decipher the phrasing. The math is ancillary. That there are so many wrong answers should be a clue to this. The convergence given more specific criteria is one that has never been explained adequately, and does help explaining why the problem does not violate simple rules of chance.
Specific to this question, I will nitpick and say it is not clear whether "one of whom is a son born on a Tuesday" indicates that *only* one is a son born on a Tuesday. If you take this exclusionary interpretation the analysis is correct.
This is only true with the exclusionary interpretation. If you concede that the question as phrased does not exclude a second son born on a Tuesday (twins or not), then the answer is 1/2. And this is the key to the puzzle. Here's where I believe the analysis trips up:
This is a false dichotomy - a fundamental assumption which does not follow from the evidence. The analysis given is based on the assumption that one child either is or is not a boy born on a Tuesday. That assumption makes the analysis correct, but the question does not include the assumption, nor does it suggest it. The only way you can come up with that assumption is
What if I selected him because both were boys born on a Tuesday? We can't forget the lessons of other logic puzzles which are trick questions designed to mislead you. What if this is a trick question?
Of course it is all artificial anyway, which I always have a hard time reconciling. There are two answers for each of these questions - one statistician's answer, and one mathematician's answer. And I suppose a third answer, the wrong one, but depending on the person with whom you are arguing one of the first two will also be the wrong answer.
I'm off-topic, you're insightful *sigh*. Anyway, to further damage my karma: Around here, separation is required because it's easier to recycle glass when it's not among other refuse. Same with tin, paper, and aluminum. Everything else goes in the landfill. Even though it takes a loss on everything but tin, the recycling center here does recycle glass, tin, paper, and aluminum. Someone, somewhere has to separate the items in order for that to happen, unless there's a magic machine that can separate them. Those are in progress, but not used here.
He has a point that the only item of value that can be sold is tin. But the purpose of recycling is to reuse materials, not turn a profit. If you are recycling everything that gets separated, individually, like around here, then his point is completely irrelevant. You separate everything, none of what you separated goes in the landfill, you're saving the recycling center money by doing part of the work for them.
It's still less expensive to get more glass from the ground, but we're lowering our footprint not running a business.
I left a citation and led with it so you could read more about it and form your own opinion. You local university probably has this sitting on the shelf, if not tucked away and available. Or you can read more online.
Notice I said correlation, not caused. Do you understand correlation? It means that as one goes up, the other goes up (or for inverse correlation down). The leap is when you think one causes the other, causation. Correlation does not imply causation, but if you have additional evidence you can suggest a strong link. Until we completely understand cognitive processing, we will never be able to prove causation, only higher levels of correlation.
This is an opinion piece, I mentioned that. It is not science. The actual science used against pornography is flawed, and this guy in his opinion suggests that because the science is flawed, there might be a better way to think about it.
If you want some additional evidence, you can study the tendency of misogynistic behavior in societies that restrict women in favor of men. More correlation, still no causation. But we can't base opinions that affect the country's population on bad science, that is certain.
"State of the art" is the current knowledge, right now. By the time something is patented an implemented in hardware it's already old. By the time it's ubiquitous it's already in hardware, and already past old. When free software takes on something, it's usually because it's either popular or important.
To put it another way, if free software took on state of the art, there would be millions of unused, useless code bases and a mond-boggling number of wasted development hours.
I would argue that the useful bits get filtered out by proprietary/paid software, and free software can then devote time to the important ones. Thanks for discovering what people *don't* want, non-free software!
Milton Diamond, The Scientist magazine, March 2010. "Porn: Good for Us?"
This opinion piece takes a look at scientific research around pornography. Higher consumption levels os correlated with lower abuse. Many studies have shown the opposite, but they tend to study abusers like rapists, find they use pornography, and say that porn is bad. You should be able to see the flawed methodology easily.
When you look at the entire population, the percentage of male porn users stays around 100% in countries where it is allowed and available, and abuse is low. In countries where it is not allowed or available, usage is obviously lower and abuse rates are higher.
People need an outlet, and if you don't want to see it you don't have to. But make your decisions based on what's best for the country, not your own moral stance. Outlawing alcohol was not intended to start the Chicago mob into overdrive, but it did, unintended consequence.
By restricting porn, you are essentially saying that men should satisfy their urges using real women instead of pictures or videos. Is that what you want Kagan? Are you that anti-female that you are calling for their abuse of a massive scale? I know it sounds like I'm twisting your words around, but given the evidence in question the law of unintended consequences makes it clear that's what you would prefer.
If I called for country-wide home schooling of kids, I would be calling for the death of America. Not every parent is capable of, nor interested in, schooling their own children, and the kids would not learn much. I don't mean for education to stop for most families, but that's what would happen. Unintended consequences, learn them.
I found their shows interesting until two episodes.
One, the recycling issue. Penn basically made the argument that recycling is unnercessary because it requires material separation by each person throwing stuff away. He highlighted this by asking people to separate garbage into 4, 6, 10, 15 different piles and pointed out that it was ridiculous. The only content of the entire episode that made sense was that recycling costs energy and the only useful recyclable material is tin. Everything else uses more energy and chemicals and time and transportation fuel than it would waste in a landfill. Not sure if that's true, but it was the only part I couldn't immediately discount. I still recycle glass, though.
The other one was the toilet seat that contains less bacteria than a dude's scrotum. They showed some "average, normal typical toilet stalls" which don't match anything I've ever seen unless the cleaning crew was just in there. You see 4 toilets and have to poop, you choose the one with the least amount of bacteria-ridden piss, clean it off, and then use toilet paper or the seat covers. You should assume that if it looks clean, the guy before you cleaned piss of the seat, because guys piss on the seat. I won't even mention the female corollaries. Three people using the same seat shouldn't cause problems, and the bacteria probably die slowly. But the suggestion was that because the clean toilets in their professional office building were clean, you don't need to use anything between you and the seat that touched the fat guy's sweaty hairy dirty unshowered ass before you, and the previous guy's piss he cleaned off the seat.
I immediately deleted anything Penn ever said from my memory, except for these I retain as examples.
Yeah it's off topic, get over it we're having a discussion here.
I buy a car and run it into the ground. This won't affect me at all. It also won't affect people who buy a car with zero down and high interest and immediately owe more than it's worth, they don't concern themselves with these things. If you have to have the latest and greatest every few years, you're going to have problems.
Electric cars are a long term investment, paying for themselves over time as gas usage is less. It's not for the buy-and-sell crowd. When they are the most common type of car on the road, this will change.
Article is garbage and author is myopic or a shill, or both.
There is, to my observation, currently a back-up effort under way in Norwegian IP blocks. Just hop on a plane and ask everyone you see if they would contribute their portion of the recovery data! /generalizing can be fun sometimes
Since you understand why the government would need the power to do this can you explain it to me? If a company is compromised, either the company or the the upstream provider could yank it offline. In most cases the upstream also has an upstream, all the way to the backbone connections.
Wouldn't it be better for the administration to simply communicate with the backbone providers? If the backbone is compromised, they should have their own kill switches - or else the governmnet can't order them to do anything anyway. I don't see what this adds, the ability is already in here.
If the administration calls up a backbone and says there is a cyberattack going on and you need to shut things down, let's think about what this means. The administrative arm of the governmnet knows something is happening and the backbone has NO IDEA? That's not possible. The backbone would learn via SANS or CERT or whatever else just like the backbone would, and if the gov knows before the backbone there is serious mismanagement going on.
Shutting it down would become a goal for the terrorists. Let's MAKE THEM TURN OFF THEIR OWN INTERNET. It worked with the WTC attacks, they hate our freedoms so we took them away ourselves. This will be no different. To turn it up to 11, anyone who is for this law is helping terrorists and qualifies for treason.
It's a good suggestion, but these are likely random users bringing in an out of warranty computer. They ideally should be keeping their own clean images, but they didn't, and they don't want to lose their stuff. Scan and clean is the way to go here, not reimage.
I agree with you in general, but my response was in context of the parent post to my post.
America is too nice for a revolution. Sure we have unemployment, but 85% of the population is largely unaffected by anything unless American Idol gets interrupted or their cell phone doesn't work. There's no reason for people to risk that yet. The time will probably come, but it's nowhere close.
Revolting for idealism is nice, but a true revolution won't happen until it becomes a necessity.
Here's the way regulation works. Private business tries something, people hate it. Customers can't get the companies to change their ways because all of the companies are doing it - there's no competitor to jump to. So now the government has to put a stop to it. In this case we have some isolated evidence and are trying to get out in front of this whole thing before it harms people.
For the actual text of the bill, the only way to get a bill that works and makes sense is the same way industry does it. Write the bill and send it to your Congress critter. They will thank you for doing the heavy lifting and consider whether to sponsor it. If everyone sent their c.c. the same bill, they would take the hint and at least think before dismissing it. If you let them do it there will be piles of unrelated stuff in it, making it more than 10 pages long.
What about using conditional includes, which IE supports, to display a message that says "this website will look like crap until your idiotic browser is updated"? You seem to be mostly worried about layout, a better example would be one of those bugs where legit code actually hides or overwrites content. An ugly but functional website is one thing, a non-functional website is a whole different story and equally possible.
If your customer is a corporate type entity then you code to what they want and inform them support is going away so you can't be responsible for an unsupported platform. But as long as they are paying your 1.5 websites are just more profit.
The true alternate version is on the author's blog, which shows that this is just a paraphrase of the author's own blog post.
http://provelo.co.uk/2010/05/sketchup-7-1-for-architectural-visualization/
Of course we don't read the articles here, so how could we have known? Maybe plagiarized is too strong, since they did give the source and they did paraphrase. But I think it qualifies.
It's even sadder because the entire argument *AGAINST* moving copyright law back to its original duration, or any of the previous durations, is that once copyright is granted you can't alter it retroactively (the "takings" clause).
Anyway, anyone making any comment in here should be reading the history of this, which started with the Berne convention and the US attempts to plug holes in its laws. Specifically, US tried to limit this to works after 1 March, 1989, and ultimately had to reverse and grant retroactive copyright.
Your anger should be directed towards the Berne convention agreements. My guess is the court saw the futility of rejecting the Berne requirements, because Congress would just have to pass another law to fulfill the US obligations. After all, that's why the law was amended in the first place. The only other option would be to pretend we didn't know the history, and try to remove those retroactive copyrights, triggering cries of the takings clause as above. So now we are truly fucked either way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act
I work for a Fortune 10 company, it was Fortune 100 but then got aquired. I see absolutely no difference between when we sold outsourcing, and when we added software sales as a division.
The points you made apply, we weren't a profit center but now we are, but no change in attitude or anything else. The software development process was already in place and mature. Code reuse was emphasized, estimation was measured and tracked, everything you claim about smaller companies was there despite it being a cost center for decades. Now that software makes money for them, it's already working like it should.
If a big company is run with any competence whatsoever, the same rules apply whether it costs or whether the clients pay for it. In fact, I'm expecting apathy about coding to grow just because clients are now paying instead of the company. Less incentive to control costs rather than more now. But that won't happen because the company wants to remain competitive.
Of course, they just fired everyone who wasn't absolutely necessary over the past 3 years. So we don't have dead weight, and the same stuff gets done with fewer people. They need to find other ways to trim costs, so they are forced to look at the hard parts of consolidation and migration and shutting things down - stuff they should have started with in the first place. So naturally development is part of the "everything" they want to make cost-efficient.
That's because everyone has already seen DWTS from 2002, and want to watch Firefly instead. Or alternatively they are watching recent DWTS and there is no recent Firefly, so they buy it.
I'm goin to further argue that DWTS and other semi-live reality shows are a social phenom. They get you to watch because your friends are watching, same as a support buddy keeps you exercising. The whole point is to experience it together from your individual private homes. Firefly and other shows are not engaging in the same way (they are in different ways lest someone argue that point).
The shows that stay on are the ones that get people talking. Whether it's Survivor or Lost doesn't matter, people talk and the studios listen.
What proportion of the audience will *not* flip the channel because they see some ho non-celebrity and think, "I should watch this for a bit and see who this fresh meat is" ?
In other words, how did the talentless celebrities become celebrities? They were attractive, that's all it takes. Plenty of attractive people out there who aren't in a show yet, so I don't see a barrier.
They're just messing with you man, let it go. They figured you'd get a good chuckle out of it.
.jpg is used when lossy compression is ok, while .gif is better for lossless stuff?
Who would say this? Lots of people know Linux like they know Windows, but your team has a lot of work to do before they can know Windows like someone can know Linux. If Linux is broken, you can go fix the code and not have to wait for vendor support, you don't have the option in Windows. My point is that no large company would roll their own if they could avoid it - they would go to the vendor for support, whether it's open source or not.
Of course I will. Have you ever had to deal with a client who has a contractual SLA? Whether it's down or not is the client's only concern, they don't care who is at fault. They want it fixed. They may blame you for picking a vendor that screwed up, rather than for you screwing up, but they want it fixed now. That is why you want to blame the vendor. It pushes most of the incompetence off on someone else, and you can say "we will switch vendors" if your client goes apeshit.
I should have specifically mentioned this as a percentage, not absolute dollars, and exclude copyright infringement. Including copyright infringement I'd say Microsoft has more freebies being used. The average PC does not have Exchange nor MSSQL, and the value might be $500-$1000 but the cost to the user is nowhere near that. That's my whole point. I got offers to upgrade my productivity suite (aka Office) for maybe $100 when I bought a $300 computer. That would have been $120 for Windows Vista and Office. Value of maybe $500, cost $120. And free Works, and free other stuff I don't remember. That's my point.
Regarding your wrap-up I'll just leave this. The post I was replying to was:
And I replied with "Lots of individuals don't need support, but large businesses do." I also countered "They give the software away free" with "Microsoft does too" along with my own opinion that it's all ultimately just support costs, that's why OEM deals are such great deals. The OEM has to support the customer instead of Microsoft.
To someone who follows mainstream politics, and in my own words, the Libertarian Party seems horribly fragmented. There is no way to vote for the party, because each candidate has their own take on what is part of the philosophy.
I've read the definitions and distinctions between someone who has libertarian views (lower case) and is part of the Libertarian party. That there's even a distinction between the two suggests that the name was poorly chosen, or the philosohpy adapted/bastardized.
That there remains a core movement which maintains that distinction, on both sides of the issue, should be a clear warning signal that the members cannot even agree. People with similar viewpoints get into a semantic war and remain separated by a non-existent schism.
To rephrase, there isn't a party to vote for, and voters often use mental shortcuts like appearance and eloquence to choose their candidates which makes the liklihood of purely philosophical reasons. You want Libertarians to win? Foolproof plan. Get a clean-looking, well-spoken sock puppet with an attractive wife (or attractive daughter who puts herself out in the spotlight by volunteering, visiting whomever from the pet project of the future first lady, does interviews, whatever). Then just keep them from saying ridiculous stuff (stuff that can and will be ridiculed). Instant win.
I appreciate your passion, but you're missing one point. These treaties will push the burden of enforcement from the copyright holder more onto the governments. So part of what you're suggesting is to waste government money, taxpayer money. Civil disobedience is necessary in many cases, but we have to be preventative as well, if nothing else so that we can say "we told you so".
The message to future elections has to be "You wasted our money and we tried to stop you, and we hate you for it." Hurt the machine, but avoid hurting yourself if possible. At some point we will be the machine, but we're not there yet.
The article has steps to reproduce this, but does anyone have a video or animated gif or something for those of us who are interested, but not this interested?
I just copied the text to illustrate the steps involved, for those unfamiliar with how articles work the article has more information along with the links.