The kids going over there are working for a salary and, eventually, will be sent back to their home country. It's easy to explain with two examples.
#1. Euro-kid goes to India and works for 2 years. He makes a "mediocre" wage (1/10th what he'd make back home). He banks it all and lives on cheap rice, curry and lentils. After 2 years he goes home with $X (or whatever his currency is). $X is 1/10 that he'd make in 2 years at home under the same conditions.
#2. Indian guy goes to the US and works for 2 years. He makes a "mediocre" wage for a US job (still 10x what he'd make back home). Banks it all, eats rice, curry and lentils. After 2 years he, goes home. He now has 10x the money he'd have after 2 years of working in India.
The effective difference is 100x between the two.
Work visas are only good for making money in a wealthy country and then going home to a poor country. They suck for working in a poor country and then going home to a wealthy country.
Great..... And you could have done that back in the 80's, too. I'm talking the 1880's.
What you're talking about is NOT "Globalization". You've only been hitting the 1st world countries.
Globalization is about exploiting the 3rd world countries. Go and live there for a few years and see if your attitude doesn't change.
Smackdown VI "The Final Smackdown"
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
I don't know what you mean by smackdown.
It means I've destroyed your position, your supporting statements and your "logic". It means total defeat for you.
It is the !!! SMACKDOWN !!!
Nothing you say has shown anything, other than you have a fetish for.
It's called "logic", not "fetish".
Again, your position is that globalization is like the Industrial Revolution because they didn't have QA or manufacturing theory 100 years ago.
While I say that globalization is only like the Industrial Revolution only in the aspect that the workers are exploited. In every other respect, it is very different.
You counter by saying that they did NOT have QA or modern manufacturing theory 100 years ago.
In abscence of any argument, you fall to repeating it.
No. I restate my position and show how your "facts" do NOT contradict my position NOR do they support your position.
That is the !!! SMACKDOWN !!!
You cannot understand this because you do NOT understand globalization. Globalization is NOT about QA or "modern manufacturing theory" or ISO or any of that. Globalization is about moving the factories closer to cheaper, off-shore labour.
I knbow what I'm saying, do you?
I seem to. I've been restating it over and over and over.
Yet you keep trying to claim..... something.... about QA 100 years ago. What was that you said about it..... I don't have to defend anything, as the facts stand that modern globalization can be equated to the industrial revolution and you've failed to disprove or even dispute that in any meaningful way.:D
Yes, that's EXACTLY what you said. "...the facts stand..." and 100 years ago they didn't have QA.
Of course, since QA has NOTHING to do with whether manufacturing is happening or not (if it did, then 100 years ago they would NOT have been "manufacturing" since you say they did not have "QA"), QA has NOTHING to do with this discussion.
It is !!! THE FINAL SMACKDOWN !!!
You have, on more than 3 occassions, attempted to use QA as "support" for your position, when QA does not have anything to do with the discussion.
Because you have done that, that is sufficient evidence that you do not UNDERSTAND the discussion.
And so I deliver !!! THE FINAL SMACKDOWN !!!
Either defend your use of QA as support or do not. If you do not, I am triumphant! You have faced !!! SMACKDOWN !!! and will live the rest of your life in abject humiliation.
I know they wouldn't, because they Didn't. Six years ago Tom Daschle won his senate seat by less than 500 votes, most of which were extremely suspect. His Republican challenger refused to drag the results out, saying that it would do more harm than good.
Great. But that was then. Try looking at what is happening NOW.
The Washingtong State Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance says: "If Dino Rossi is ahead at the end of the day, he is the governor-elect, this is over, and she (Gregoire) needs to do the right thing, the gracious thing and the honorable thing and concede."
But if Gregoire is ahead at the end of the recount? "That's fundamentally different," Vance said.
Vance is also talking about how "...we will preserve all our options,...".
Rather than crying about the Democrats, in this case, the Republicans should be joining with them and pooling their resources to pay for a state-wide hand recount.
But they aren't doing that.
Nor are they willing to say right now that they will accept whatever the results are.
And I find it hilarious that you are quoting NIXON about "the harm it would do to the nation". What's next? Quoting Clinton about morality?:D
Smackdown V "The Smackening"
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
Because I made a statement to contradict your position, and you seem to just have given up and agreed with me rather than spouting more irrelevant nonsense.
Yet you had just said that I didn't have a position.
There is no discussion as you have no position.
And you said that in this post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130425&cid=109 07721
There, within two posts, you've managed to contradict yourself and I have provided references.
It is the dreaded !!! SMACKENING !!!
You say I don't have a position. You say I do have a position. You say they weren't manufacturing. You say they were manufacturing. You say QA matters. You say QA does not matter.
You don't know WHAT you're saying.
And I keep applying the SMACKDOWN!
Smackdown IV "Son of Smackdown"!
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
There is no discussion as you have no position.
Then why did you reply to my initial post?
I don't have to defend anything, as the facts stand that modern globalization can be equated to the industrial revolution and you've failed to disprove or even dispute that in any meaningful way.
I have disproved it. It is only similar in that the workers are exploited. During the Industrial Revolution, the workers could hitchhike from the farms to the factories to find work. Under globalization, they cannot do that. The jobs leave the country. You seem to believe that QA and "manufacturing theory" have some meaning, yet you refuse to state what that is.
I dont need to argue your arbitrary bullet points, as that is a neat little inflammatory trick you must have picked up from usenet and is outside the scope of rational discourse.
Yes you do need to defend your claims. Either QA supports your position, and you need to explain how it does, or QA does not support your position and you have attempted to introduce useless material into this discussion.
It's fun watching you try to squirm out of defending material that YOU introduced.
Rather than looking at "consolidated package management", why not discuss the functionality that you'd like to see in a package management system?
I think a new Package Management system must be created rather than combining the old ones. Many old package management systems tend to be very specific, limiting, and sometimes even confusing.
Personally, I prefer Debian's approach. But it does have the flaw that the author of the article pointed out. If you have the libraries installed by hand or something that didnt' update Debian's info, then the libraries are not recognized.
Instead of tearing everything down, I'd prefer to see the various package management systems' functionality increased so that they can identify (and flag as "untrusted" or something) the libraries that they think are "missing". Preferably automatically, but possibly manually as well. Example:
Do you want me to search the system for lib.foo.2? Searching may take a while: y/N
Searching for lib.foo.2..... lib.foo.2 found at/usr/local/lib/lib.foo.2. Updating system.... lib.foo.2 marked as "untrusted". You may experience problems with upgrading/removing packages on your system and system stability. Please do not file bug reports against package foo until lib.foo.2 is replaced.
There. You can install whatever app you want from where you want and you won't break the system's package management system.
For me, the whole idea behind a package management system is: #1. Easily install packages from known repository. #2. Easily upgrade packages. #3. Easily remove packages. #4. Easily verify any program on the system. #5. Verify the whole system.
I don't know if one package management system will every be right for everyone. All evidence seems to indicate otherwise.
Instead of focusing on the perfect package management system, why not focus on the following:
#1. What system do you currently use? #2. What do you like about that system? #3. What do you not like about that system? #3. What additional functionality you'd like.
Talking about the ultimate package management system is a lot like talking about the ultimate editor.
Nice. But I can't find where I'm supposed to install the beta version of KDE. Suppose I want to have both of them (official release and Beta) available on one machine?
And that's just one problem. Until EVERYTHING on the file system is standardized, then you can't use two different package management systems.
manufacturing did not happen in the US 100 years ago != Do you really think there was any meaningful Quality Control or even coherent manufacturing theory 100 years ago?
Again, it doesn't matter if they had "meaningful Quality Control" or not. That is your tangent. I even linked to where you introduced it.
They had manufacturing 100 years ago. That is the fact that you are unable to accept.
You arent fooling anyone but yourself. Knowing the algebra of 100 widgets makes 10 complex widgets is not considered manufacturing theory, thx for playing.
Again, they had manufacturing 100 years ago. It doesn't matter how YOU "define" "manufacturing theory".
They had manufacturing 100 years ago. That is the fact that you are unable to accept.
You can try to introduce whatever tangent you want and "define" it anyway you want, but none of your attempted deceits will change the fact that they had manufacturing 100 years ago.
That pain you're feeling right now is called "SMACKDOWN"!
Lemme, check. Yup, I said no such thing. You have no point, other than to argue.
Hmmm, let's see exactly what you did say.
Do you really think there was any meaningful Quality Control or even coherent manufacturing theory 100 years ago?
Since I hadn't brought up QA or "manufacturing theory", yet you are using them in your post, they must be something that you brought up. Let's see if I can find the specific link for that. Yep, here it is: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130425&cid=108 85184
Fascinating. So people in the US 100 years ago were somehow able to manufacture goods without having a theory of how to do it.:D
I can understand why you think the way you do. Unfortunately the industrial revolution had very little to do with "our" society when it was europe that underwent the IR not America (until later, around 1870-1900, which is a separate IR, historically). It's almost like you think that America was the center of the IR.
And China is going through their own Industrial Revolution now. I'm talking about the US. You know, where EA games is located? You know, what the original article was about?
It's fine by me if you want to play stupid about the Industrial Revolution. All it does is show how baseless your position is.
You meant "right" then went on to restate what I already said, excepting the "Abuse of workers" which is an unqualified cliche that I would never use. While in the EU, a 40 hour work week with mandatory overtime is unheard of, in Garden Grove, CA 20 mi from where I live, individuals working for Fairchild Semiconductors get recurring nosebleeds every day because of their working conditions (they tolerate it and I don't know why).
Great, it's an "unqualified cliche". Do some research. Learn about children working 60+ hours in the factories. If that's your definition of "unqualified" then that just shows again how little you know of the subject.
If you're going to babble nonsense, I'm going to have to call troll. The differences in the availability of technologies and materials alone are large enough to invalidate such a claim.
Call whatever you want. Industrialization is industrialization. That's the fact. Whether you're turning iron and coke into steel or laser tempering tungston/titanium alloys, it's still industrialization. Claiming that one or the other isn't because there are new technologies is idiotic.
Globalization is the term for the ability to shop the world, and then doing so. This strategy didn't function 100 years ago.
So now you're talking globalization instead of industrialization. You might want to look up the term "segue". Or are you saying that the Industrial Revolution was not the same as globalization. If you are, then it's nice that you finally agree with me.
Companies could import labor, so they did.
Not really. Importing labour was very expensive and time consuming. The railroads did so and we had slavery, but slavery was pre-industrialization.
Now, you can setup factories anywhere it's cheap to do so.
Actually, you could always setup factories anywhere it was cheap to do so. Labour and transportation are costs in setting up a factory. Land is very, very cheap in the Australian desert. Yet not many factories go up there. They seem to be focused where the labour is plentiful and cheap. Maybe you should do some more reading?
Do you really think there was any meaningful Quality Control or even coherent manufacturing theory 100 years ago? I have doubts that you're qualified to be speaking about manufacturing.
Why do you associate QA with the Industrial Revolution? That's a flaw in your "thought" process. And yes, of course there was "manufacturing theory" 100 years ago. It wasn't Six Sigma or anything, but they understood the materials, labour and profit. Try to get a grip on Reality.
Learning to abuse workers efficiently is part of manufacturing. It's very difficult to make something for nothing. It's relatively easy to make a dollar off another human, and now it's done on a scale that makes this little EA tift seem laughable.
Fascinating. You seem to be simultaniously arguing that the IR did not affect the US, that the IR did affect the US, that workers weren't abused, that workers were abused, that manufacturing did not happen in the US 100 years ago, etc, etc, etc.
You stay competitive, by limiting costs, keeping
IR - abuses - organization - Unions
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
"The industrial revolution" begat unionism, over 100 years later.
Nope. Rather the Industrial Revolution begat the abuse of workers who found that they could organize to force management to improve their conditions.
I suspect you have a warped sense of what the Industrial Revolution was about (there have been many IRs). The innovations in technology coupled with the previously unseen explosive population growth, spurred the "industrial revolution" of 1750 that you're probably referring to.
Ummm, no. The "Industrial Revolution" was when our society went from being farm-based to being industry-based.
The poster's point that globalization is akin to the IR of the 19th century is spot on.
Again, no. Unless you're only looking at it from an abuse of the worker perspective.
And that abuse is exactly why we shouldn't rush into "globalization".
Where you are wrong is that with the Industrial Revolution, there wasn't anything stopping the people who had been farm workers from becoming factory workers.
Now, the jobs are going overseas. It's a lot harder to hitchhike to India from Montana than it was to hitchhike from Montana to New York.
And the people in New York still spoke the same language you did. So living day-to-day wasn't a problem.
I'm not in manufacturing right now but I know that the ability to accurately calculate all buisness expenses (you can shop for labor and material prices globally), dissect competitor's methodologies, choosing from a world-gradient for deciding standards and practices (ISO, DSQ, are high end standards for the EU) are all relatively new events.
And the difference between that and a factory 100 years ago is..... nothing.
Record numbers of industrialized citizens have become computer literate and even more have been made available to be exploited, who are not. This is the direct correlation, as it may have escaped you.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there (except the insult).
Record numbers of industrialized citizens have become computer literate...
And next year, even more will become computer literate, setting a new record. This has nothing to do with the globalization discussion. Look up shoe manufacturing in the 3rd world.
...and even more have been made available to be exploited, who are not.
Yep. And they are exploited. Which is the problem. Why is it impossible for us to avoid exploiting the workers this time?
This is the direct correlation,...
Again, that only holds true if you ONLY look at it from an "abuse the worker" perspective.
There is a LOT more to the discussion than whether we can abuse 3rd world workers. To start with, the question of "Should we abuse 3rd world workers" comes to mind. But I've already gone over that.
I've worked with Indian contractors.
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You're completely wrong about it.
They work hard to get here and then they work hard here and bank their paychecks.
They do this for 5 - 10 years because they know they'll go home after that and RETIRE and live the good life at home.
They'll have about the same standard of living there that I have here, but their's will cost a LOT less.
The good news is that they might as well be whining about a hurricane headed their way because this global competition thing has just really begun. It's going to change the world like the Industrial Revolution did, and no amount of hand wringing is going to stop it.
You don't understand what the Industrial Revolution was about, then. Look up some info about the begining of the Unions. If you think those conditions were "good" then you have a very warped sense of "good".
Most companies are looking for people with experience in their field. It's only in certain fields where fixing errors doesn't mean lost materials that young and naive and working 80+ hours a week is prefered.
Consider a cabinet company who hires young and naive workers. Even if they're putting in lots of hours, the errors they make eat up the lumber which means lower profits for when the product finally does get out the door.
With software, as long as it meets basic functionality and ships on time, it doesn't matter how many unpaid overtime hours or how many electrons were used.
To begin with is a long and unclear argument of what 'security' means.
Then define why you mean by it to establish the basic terms used in this communication. Don't just say that it means different things to different people.
A significant number of 'exploits' on IE are due to users stupidly agreeing to install components that they shouldn't. While there are arguments about how easy it should be for a user to do something stupid -- download, find, and execute vs. click on the wrong button -- I think it is sensible to cast these aside.
And I don't think it is. That is part of the "security model" of the application/OS. Firefox uses the "whitelist" approach. You cannot download and install an extension unless that site is in the whitelist that you controll. Microsoft takes the opposite approach of shipping their product wide open and requiring users learn how to block specific sites.
What serious exploits are left? Undoubtedly people will feel tempted to bring up past track records, but this doesn't lead to any constructive discussion.
Why not? The past record shows better than anything else how Microsoft approached security within IE. Unless you have evidence that Microsoft has changed their security model, the track record is the best, real world evidence of their practices.
Most of the negative attitude here about IE has less to do with the quality of IE, and more to do with a general anti-MS sentiment and some bitterness about the way they stomped on the competition...
Try to support your position without claiming that people who disagree with you are religious nutcases, okay? Thanks.:)
I do not think it is difficult to imagine that the next big browser exploit will be for FireFox rather than IE..
It's probably very easy to imagine it. Just like people can imagine the flying cars and vast underwater cities.
Meanwhile, back in the real world (http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index. html) there is still evidence that Microsoft has existing flaws that it hasn't dealt with. Bad flaws. Very bad flaws.
Security is based upon your security model and your implementation of it. A good model can still have buggy code. As the bugs are found and fixed, there are fewer problems.
A bad security model can have great code, but the problems keep coming. See all of the Windows anti-virus companies for a real world example of this. Rather than Microsoft fixing their security model, they rely upon 3rd parties to issue daily patches that are unbelievably specific to an individual exploit.
TCO is only one factor to consider when evaluating a system, but it is also one of the most easily abused numbers. Particularly in the "studies" funded by Microsoft.
TCO only covers daily operation costs, upgrades, air conditioning, employees, etc.
All of the migration costs go under the category of "migration costs".
Otherwise, it is easy to increase the "TCO" of any other product to any amount you want by "assuming" that the company in the example will be running your product and that it will cost $X to migrate from your product.
$X includes all data migration costs, educational expenses, etc. So, you "estimate" that it will cost $500/person/hour to "re-train" the existing staff. If that isn't enough, then "estimate" that it will cost $750/person/hour to "re-train".
You can do the same with the data migration costs. If the company selling Product A needs Product B to be $100,000 more expensive, just "assume" that the example company will be running Product A and then "estimate" that it will cost $100,000 to migrate the data to Product B.
now, since ms still has the lion's share of the desktop and workstation installs and a healthy chunk of the server space they maybe could be forgiven for glossing over this crucial fact. but, still, it just boils down to making a simple unstated assumption that changes the whole outcome of the data.
I don't think so. They can add whatever costs they want to the migration cost amount, but they won't ever split it out correctly.
Otherwise, people could easily see that other solutions are far less expensive to run...... and that Microsoft depends upon locking up your data to keep you as a "customer".
If there is already an LSB, why do we have to agree on a standard of LSB? Isn't that THE defacto standard?
Nope. It's just a published attempt at creating a standard. The "de facto standard" is however the majority of Linux boxes are currently configured.
The LSB is a documented standard, but it doesn't specify a complete implementation. That's why two different distributions can be "LSB compliant" yet software designed to run on one will not run on the other.
So, once again a few of the lesser distributions are going to band together to work on an implementation common to them so that software written to the LCC implementation of the LSB will run on any of distributions of the members of the LCC.
Which also explains why Red Hat and Novell/SuSE have not joined. Since they really have nothing to gain from diluting their marketing efforts.
Even by the most conservative count, Linux has a few million users. That's more than enough to support a virus population.
Even the old MS-DOS machines had a viable virus population, although the viruses, for the most part, had to be hand transported via floppies to each machine.
With network enabled machines, it should be even easier to spread viruses. And it is. Just look at all of the Windows viruses, worms and trojans that are out there.
If Linux was as un-secure as Windows, a simple link on/. would be enough to start a major Linux virus.
what happens when they reverse engineer the reverse engineering you did on the virus they originally wrote? if we look into the biological field, fighting viruses only makes them stronger. Not that we shouldn't but the better the anti virus writer becomes, the better the virus writer already is.
Hardly. If that were so, then Linux would currently be under attack by the toughest viruses and worms ever seen.
Viruses and worms exist because security models and implementations have vulnerabilities.
You see so many Windows viruses and worms because Microsoft's security model has some very basic flaws. Instead of dealing with them, Microsoft relies upon 3rd party anti-virus companies to issue very specific "patches" for each virus that comes out.
People who understand the plural of anecdote is not data, for instance.
Do you understand what an anecdote is? It is usually used as a short account of some personal experience.
Presenting a list of US military operations in various countries does not seem to fit the definition of "anecdote".
Snort. Right. Hard numbers about military spending is soft data, and your vague notions about things is hard data.
Data is not information. You are presenting the data of military spending as if it were information about global beliefs. They are not the same.
The fact is, more countries are pursuing nuclear programs now. That is "data". Now, you can interpret that "data" in any way you want to. Personally, I believe it reflects an increased awareness of what needs to be done so the US will not attack your country. So, in that case, your data does not support your assumption, but the data I have does support mine.
Look at North Korea. Look at Iran. Look at Pakistan's market in nuke technology.
Countries are focusing on getting nukes.
But even though you (and I!) can reel off a list of exceptions as long as your arm, people clearly understand those are exceptions... or they'd be doing something about it, other than bitch and hope that we take the opportunity to voluntarily shoot ourselves down, a tactic so cheap (pure talk-based) that it is worth trying, but hardly indicative of real feelings.
When do they stop being "exceptions" to you and become the rule?
A "dirty bomb" is a bunch of conventional explosives and some form of radioactive material. The bomb goes off and spreads radiation in a small area.
A suitcase nuke is a small nuke. It can level a city.
A "dirty bomb" only spreads radioactive material in the immediate blast area. Then it relies upon wind to blow it further. The further it goes, the less risk there is from it. Eventually, it is only slightly higher than regular background radiation.
Also, the radioactive material after the blast is just the dust. This will be cleaned after the first rain. The rain will concentrate the dust in areas the rain normally concentrates in. The sewers or the rivers or the oceans.
Also, the radiation damage usually does not show up in people for years. Then they get cancer earlier and at a higher percentage than the rest of the population.
Dirty bombs are not really any threat to anyone. They require additional material that can be detected and they don't give much more destructive capabilities.
While the US may not fear missiles being launched at us, we do have allies, chiefly Israel, that do and having a defense platform like this flying around would limit Iran or Syria's ability to launch a few missiles their way.
Wouldn't they just smuggle in the explosives rather than using a missle then? Syria is right on the Israeli border. Spending billions of dollars on this systems seems rather silly when Syria can bypass it with a few thousand dollars of bribes.
This could potentially eliminate the threat of nuclear missiles altogether, leaving us to focus on other threats such as terrorists obtaining the useless nuclear material from newly useless missiles and making dirty bombs to set off at locations of their choosing.
If they can build a nuclear missle, they can put a nuke on a boat and sail it into a harbor.
If you're worried about nukes, then focusing on the delivery mechanism doesn't seem that effective.
A "dirty bomb" just blows radioactive material in an area. This is completely different from a nuke. Just because the missle isn't 100% effective anymore does not mean that the nuke becomes ineffective.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a "work visa". Not citizenship.
The kids going over there are working for a salary and, eventually, will be sent back to their home country. It's easy to explain with two examples.
#1. Euro-kid goes to India and works for 2 years. He makes a "mediocre" wage (1/10th what he'd make back home). He banks it all and lives on cheap rice, curry and lentils. After 2 years he goes home with $X (or whatever his currency is). $X is 1/10 that he'd make in 2 years at home under the same conditions.
#2. Indian guy goes to the US and works for 2 years. He makes a "mediocre" wage for a US job (still 10x what he'd make back home). Banks it all, eats rice, curry and lentils. After 2 years he, goes home. He now has 10x the money he'd have after 2 years of working in India.
The effective difference is 100x between the two.
Work visas are only good for making money in a wealthy country and then going home to a poor country. They suck for working in a poor country and then going home to a wealthy country.
Great..... And you could have done that back in the 80's, too. I'm talking the 1880's.
What you're talking about is NOT "Globalization". You've only been hitting the 1st world countries.
Globalization is about exploiting the 3rd world countries. Go and live there for a few years and see if your attitude doesn't change.
It is the !!! SMACKDOWN !!!
It's called "logic", not "fetish".
Again, your position is that globalization is like the Industrial Revolution because they didn't have QA or manufacturing theory 100 years ago.
While I say that globalization is only like the Industrial Revolution only in the aspect that the workers are exploited. In every other respect, it is very different.
You counter by saying that they did NOT have QA or modern manufacturing theory 100 years ago.
No. I restate my position and show how your "facts" do NOT contradict my position NOR do they support your position.
That is the !!! SMACKDOWN !!!
You cannot understand this because you do NOT understand globalization. Globalization is NOT about QA or "modern manufacturing theory" or ISO or any of that. Globalization is about moving the factories closer to cheaper, off-shore labour.
I seem to. I've been restating it over and over and over.
Yet you keep trying to claim
Yes, that's EXACTLY what you said. "...the facts stand..." and 100 years ago they didn't have QA.
Of course, since QA has NOTHING to do with whether manufacturing is happening or not (if it did, then 100 years ago they would NOT have been "manufacturing" since you say they did not have "QA"), QA has NOTHING to do with this discussion.
It is !!! THE FINAL SMACKDOWN !!!
You have, on more than 3 occassions, attempted to use QA as "support" for your position, when QA does not have anything to do with the discussion.
Because you have done that, that is sufficient evidence that you do not UNDERSTAND the discussion.
And so I deliver !!! THE FINAL SMACKDOWN !!!
Either defend your use of QA as support or do not. If you do not, I am triumphant! You have faced !!! SMACKDOWN !!! and will live the rest of your life in abject humiliation.
The Washingtong State Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance says: "If Dino Rossi is ahead at the end of the day, he is the governor-elect, this is over, and she (Gregoire) needs to do the right thing, the gracious thing and the honorable thing and concede."
But if Gregoire is ahead at the end of the recount? "That's fundamentally different," Vance said.
Vance is also talking about how "...we will preserve all our options,...".
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews
Rather than crying about the Democrats, in this case, the Republicans should be joining with them and pooling their resources to pay for a state-wide hand recount.
But they aren't doing that.
Nor are they willing to say right now that they will accept whatever the results are.
And I find it hilarious that you are quoting NIXON about "the harm it would do to the nation". What's next? Quoting Clinton about morality?
There, within two posts, you've managed to contradict yourself and I have provided references.
It is the dreaded !!! SMACKENING !!!
You say I don't have a position.
You say I do have a position.
You say they weren't manufacturing.
You say they were manufacturing.
You say QA matters.
You say QA does not matter.
You don't know WHAT you're saying.
And I keep applying the SMACKDOWN!
It's fun watching you try to squirm out of defending material that YOU introduced.
In fact, it's more than just fun.....
It's !!! SMACKDOWN !!!
You're the one that tried to make claims about QA and "manufacturing theory".
So, take your pick:
#1. QA and manufacturing theory prove that manufacturing was not happening 100 years ago, which was why you introduced them.
#2. QA and manufacturing theory have NOTHING to do with manufacturing 100 years ago so you have still no supported your claims.
#3. QA and manufacturing theory are evidence that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and trying to fill this discussion with bullshit.
They either support your position, or they do not. Which is it?
If they support your position, then their absence 100 years ago means that manufacturing was not happening 100 years ago.
If they do not, you've failed.
You introduced them to this discussion so it's up to you to defend their introduction.
!!! SMACKDOWN !!!
Instead of tearing everything down, I'd prefer to see the various package management systems' functionality increased so that they can identify (and flag as "untrusted" or something) the libraries that they think are "missing". Preferably automatically, but possibly manually as well. Example:
apt-get install foo
Package foo fails dependencies (library lib.foo.2).
Do you want me to search the system for lib.foo.2? Searching may take a while: y/N
Searching for lib.foo.2
There. You can install whatever app you want from where you want and you won't break the system's package management system.
For me, the whole idea behind a package management system is:
#1. Easily install packages from known repository.
#2. Easily upgrade packages.
#3. Easily remove packages.
#4. Easily verify any program on the system.
#5. Verify the whole system.
I don't know if one package management system will every be right for everyone. All evidence seems to indicate otherwise.
Instead of focusing on the perfect package management system, why not focus on the following:
#1. What system do you currently use?
#2. What do you like about that system?
#3. What do you not like about that system?
#3. What additional functionality you'd like.
Talking about the ultimate package management system is a lot like talking about the ultimate editor.
Nice. But I can't find where I'm supposed to install the beta version of KDE. Suppose I want to have both of them (official release and Beta) available on one machine?
And that's just one problem. Until EVERYTHING on the file system is standardized, then you can't use two different package management systems.
They had manufacturing 100 years ago. That is the fact that you are unable to accept.
Again, they had manufacturing 100 years ago. It doesn't matter how YOU "define" "manufacturing theory".
They had manufacturing 100 years ago. That is the fact that you are unable to accept.
You can try to introduce whatever tangent you want and "define" it anyway you want, but none of your attempted deceits will change the fact that they had manufacturing 100 years ago.
That pain you're feeling right now is called "SMACKDOWN"!
Fascinating. So people in the US 100 years ago were somehow able to manufacture goods without having a theory of how to do it.
smackdown. quoted, referenced and delivered.
And China is going through their own Industrial Revolution now. I'm talking about the US. You know, where EA games is located? You know, what the original article was about?
It's fine by me if you want to play stupid about the Industrial Revolution. All it does is show how baseless your position is.
Great, it's an "unqualified cliche". Do some research. Learn about children working 60+ hours in the factories. If that's your definition of "unqualified" then that just shows again how little you know of the subject.
Call whatever you want. Industrialization is industrialization. That's the fact. Whether you're turning iron and coke into steel or laser tempering tungston/titanium alloys, it's still industrialization. Claiming that one or the other isn't because there are new technologies is idiotic.
So now you're talking globalization instead of industrialization. You might want to look up the term "segue". Or are you saying that the Industrial Revolution was not the same as globalization. If you are, then it's nice that you finally agree with me.
Not really. Importing labour was very expensive and time consuming. The railroads did so and we had slavery, but slavery was pre-industrialization.
Actually, you could always setup factories anywhere it was cheap to do so. Labour and transportation are costs in setting up a factory. Land is very, very cheap in the Australian desert. Yet not many factories go up there. They seem to be focused where the labour is plentiful and cheap. Maybe you should do some more reading?
Why do you associate QA with the Industrial Revolution? That's a flaw in your "thought" process. And yes, of course there was "manufacturing theory" 100 years ago. It wasn't Six Sigma or anything, but they understood the materials, labour and profit. Try to get a grip on Reality.
Fascinating. You seem to be simultaniously arguing that the IR did not affect the US, that the IR did affect the US, that workers weren't abused, that workers were abused, that manufacturing did not happen in the US 100 years ago, etc, etc, etc.
And that abuse is exactly why we shouldn't rush into "globalization".
Where you are wrong is that with the Industrial Revolution, there wasn't anything stopping the people who had been farm workers from becoming factory workers.
Now, the jobs are going overseas. It's a lot harder to hitchhike to India from Montana than it was to hitchhike from Montana to New York.
And the people in New York still spoke the same language you did. So living day-to-day wasn't a problem.And the difference between that and a factory 100 years ago is
There is a LOT more to the discussion than whether we can abuse 3rd world workers. To start with, the question of "Should we abuse 3rd world workers" comes to mind. But I've already gone over that.
They work hard to get here and then they work hard here and bank their paychecks.
They do this for 5 - 10 years because they know they'll go home after that and RETIRE and live the good life at home.
They'll have about the same standard of living there that I have here, but their's will cost a LOT less.You don't understand what the Industrial Revolution was about, then. Look up some info about the begining of the Unions. If you think those conditions were "good" then you have a very warped sense of "good".
This isn't a company struggling to make payroll.
This is a company pulling in millions of dollars and paying their executives a LOT more than the coders.
This is all about where EA wants to spend the money, not about whether EA has enough money to pay their bills.
Most companies are looking for people with experience in their field. It's only in certain fields where fixing errors doesn't mean lost materials that young and naive and working 80+ hours a week is prefered.
Consider a cabinet company who hires young and naive workers. Even if they're putting in lots of hours, the errors they make eat up the lumber which means lower profits for when the product finally does get out the door.
With software, as long as it meets basic functionality and ships on time, it doesn't matter how many unpaid overtime hours or how many electrons were used.
It's probably very easy to imagine it. Just like people can imagine the flying cars and vast underwater cities.
Meanwhile, back in the real world (http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index
Security is based upon your security model and your implementation of it. A good model can still have buggy code. As the bugs are found and fixed, there are fewer problems.
A bad security model can have great code, but the problems keep coming. See all of the Windows anti-virus companies for a real world example of this. Rather than Microsoft fixing their security model, they rely upon 3rd parties to issue daily patches that are unbelievably specific to an individual exploit.
TCO only covers daily operation costs, upgrades, air conditioning, employees, etc.
All of the migration costs go under the category of "migration costs".
Otherwise, it is easy to increase the "TCO" of any other product to any amount you want by "assuming" that the company in the example will be running your product and that it will cost $X to migrate from your product.
$X includes all data migration costs, educational expenses, etc. So, you "estimate" that it will cost $500/person/hour to "re-train" the existing staff. If that isn't enough, then "estimate" that it will cost $750/person/hour to "re-train".
You can do the same with the data migration costs. If the company selling Product A needs Product B to be $100,000 more expensive, just "assume" that the example company will be running Product A and then "estimate" that it will cost $100,000 to migrate the data to Product B.I don't think so. They can add whatever costs they want to the migration cost amount, but they won't ever split it out correctly.
Otherwise, people could easily see that other solutions are far less expensive to run
The LSB is a documented standard, but it doesn't specify a complete implementation. That's why two different distributions can be "LSB compliant" yet software designed to run on one will not run on the other.
So, once again a few of the lesser distributions are going to band together to work on an implementation common to them so that software written to the LCC implementation of the LSB will run on any of distributions of the members of the LCC.
Which also explains why Red Hat and Novell/SuSE have not joined. Since they really have nothing to gain from diluting their marketing efforts.
Even by the most conservative count, Linux has a few million users. That's more than enough to support a virus population.
/. would be enough to start a major Linux virus.
Even the old MS-DOS machines had a viable virus population, although the viruses, for the most part, had to be hand transported via floppies to each machine.
With network enabled machines, it should be even easier to spread viruses. And it is. Just look at all of the Windows viruses, worms and trojans that are out there.
If Linux was as un-secure as Windows, a simple link on
Viruses and worms exist because security models and implementations have vulnerabilities.
You see so many Windows viruses and worms because Microsoft's security model has some very basic flaws. Instead of dealing with them, Microsoft relies upon 3rd party anti-virus companies to issue very specific "patches" for each virus that comes out.
Presenting a list of US military operations in various countries does not seem to fit the definition of "anecdote".Data is not information. You are presenting the data of military spending as if it were information about global beliefs. They are not the same.
The fact is, more countries are pursuing nuclear programs now. That is "data". Now, you can interpret that "data" in any way you want to. Personally, I believe it reflects an increased awareness of what needs to be done so the US will not attack your country. So, in that case, your data does not support your assumption, but the data I have does support mine.
Look at North Korea. Look at Iran. Look at Pakistan's market in nuke technology.
Countries are focusing on getting nukes.
When do they stop being "exceptions" to you and become the rule?
A "dirty bomb" is not a nuke.
A "dirty bomb" is a bunch of conventional explosives and some form of radioactive material. The bomb goes off and spreads radiation in a small area.
A suitcase nuke is a small nuke. It can level a city.
A "dirty bomb" only spreads radioactive material in the immediate blast area. Then it relies upon wind to blow it further. The further it goes, the less risk there is from it. Eventually, it is only slightly higher than regular background radiation.
Also, the radioactive material after the blast is just the dust. This will be cleaned after the first rain. The rain will concentrate the dust in areas the rain normally concentrates in. The sewers or the rivers or the oceans.
Also, the radiation damage usually does not show up in people for years. Then they get cancer earlier and at a higher percentage than the rest of the population.
Dirty bombs are not really any threat to anyone. They require additional material that can be detected and they don't give much more destructive capabilities.
If you're worried about nukes, then focusing on the delivery mechanism doesn't seem that effective.
A "dirty bomb" just blows radioactive material in an area. This is completely different from a nuke. Just because the missle isn't 100% effective anymore does not mean that the nuke becomes ineffective.