while their is a "real" difference it is still very very little.. - unicast to 5 people or multicast to 5 people you are still sending the content down the line to 5 people.. sure you can strip it down and not have a much over head.. but the content is what is the large part and you are still transmitting it..
It's not overhead... If two neighbors are watching the same show and are both on U-verse, the content appears on the majority of the network once, not 5 times (only being duplicated when network topology requires it). I'd call that more than overhead. If you and your 4 neighbors both request hulu broadcast of the same show at the exact same time, it's 5 times the content size.
Note also, that U-verse uses multi-cast, so that there is real difference in network load between 5 people watching the same show on U-verse, than 5 people watching Netflix or Hulu (assuming similar data-rates).
Let's see, let's compare EPA-preliminary controlled methodology to totally arbitrary and un-controlled random car writer random drive, and DRAIN THE DAMN BATTERIES.
When there's a large difference, let's call the manufacturer a liar and conflate this with government-ownership while we are at it.
What about the Nissan Leaf? Will it get the claimed 367 MPG in this writer's random non-plugged-in "test"?
No one will ever drive the exact EPA-mandated cycle in this car or any other. And I certainly hope no one will buy a Volt and never plug it in, or they get what they overpaid for...
As for whether it's better than a regular hybrid, one assumes that is a function of your commute. Mine is 13 miles, and I rarely get over 70 on the way to work, so in theory it's perfect. Would I get one? No, but that's because I like sports car style, and acceleration, which for me outweighs any environmental or monetary concerns (yes, I'm going to hell).
I believe the statement is a correct to the parent which stated "IE=Internet equation" (which btw I've never heard anyone say). This is in reference to Bing's attempt to conflate search with Bing, as IE has been conflated with the Internet (which I can attest to--ask your grandma or boss to open IE and they'll look at you confused, then ask them to open "The Intenet")...
Bad enough my cable company can figure out what I watch: I don't want them storing my stuff for me.
It's not "your stuff". Whether you can time-shift your consumption of it or not, it's not truly yours.
Even if it's legal to do so, it is not wanted, and I am sure the cable company will figure out how to make mincemeat of privacy once I allow them to store my TV shows and movies.
How is their storage of the content an additional invasion of privacy (beyond the tracking they already do)?
The more you allow others to do for you, the more you let others control you.
But there is another key difference between casino gambling and stocks
As mentioned by several, there is more to gambling than traditional casino gambling (e.g. craps, roulette, slots). The proposed ISP blocks would have an effect on all types.
averaged over time, gambling loses you money and stocks earn you money.
How much time? How many stocks? If you are talking particular stocks, than you can definitely lose money over even long time periods (how is your Worldcom stock doing?).
Pick any stock index you like - it's nearly impossible to find a 10-year span where it has lost money
Wayyyyyy different than gambling. Gambling is random and even worse, the end results (risk/reward profiles) are heavily skewed toward your competitor (the house). Stock price moves are determined by the market. Just a bunch of buyers and sellers agreeing on the price - but it isn't random, like gambling.
Not all gambling is random in the same way you describe. Some, are non-random, house-favored, such as sports/horse betting. Then, there is poker... The house takes a cut of pot. While your starting hand may be random, the winner is far from random.
As in, you own it just like you own a bike or a computer or any other asset in your house. You have (some) legal rights and some "claim" on future earnings. That's what stock, aka common equity, represents.
Also, I would argue that all stock really represents is voting power. It is not an asset in any real way. Your share is not equal to Company Worth/Total Shares. It's worth either par value ($1) or whatever the market thinks it is worth--> which can be completely independent of the company's intrinsic value (if such a thing exists).
I do not really get all this crap about stock & shares... I would certainly not put any money in that company... Besides, since Microsoft have so harshly defended software patents, they should increase the fine 10 fold!
Besides, product activation and GA and all that crap has "significantly" increased Microsoft's revenue stream, get the facts!
http://www.klid.dk/statistics/mswin.html
check the increase from 2001-2002, oops, that's when XP came out with product activation.... ahhhhh, that's why the figures double, then.... wintards!
I'm sure the stinking pile of ME had nothing to do with that, nor the XP product itself, nor their other products, or anything else--it was simply the product activation that made them all that money. Correlation != causation.
Oh, and if you were to buy stock in Microsoft, unless it's an IPO, you're not giving them any money.
Good luck with that. Here's a snippet of patent (claim 1).
1. A registration system for licensing execution of digital data in a use mode, said digital data executable on a 55 platform, said system including local licensee unique ID generating means and remote licensee unique ID generating means, said system further including mode switching means operable on said platform which permits use of said digital data in said use mode on said platform only if a licensee 60 unique ID first generated by said local licensee unique ID generating means has matched a licensee unique ID subsequently generated by said remote licensee unique ID generating means; and wherein said remote licensee unique ID generating means comprises software executed on a plat- 65 form which includes the algorithm utilized by said local licensee unique ID generating means to produce said licensee unique ID.
or actual performance measurement but instead is calculated based on the amount of CO2 which exits the exhaust pipe of the car! Is it any wonder, then, that hybrid cars which shut off their gasoline engine when stopped and at low speed/light acceleration, would give grossly inflated figures? Well, they did (and do), which explains why real-world MPG is often far less than this calculated (not even simulated) performance.
Why do you think that the testing methodology inflates the estimated mileage for Hybrids because of shut-off's at lights? If your gas engine is shutoff, how much fuel are you burning? Zero. If you are driving a conventional powertrain vehicle and are idling, how much fuel are you burning? Something more than zero. Granted, the crux of the matter is measuring what this something more is, but that's on the conventional side, not the hybrid side of the equation.
What is needed is real-world testing -- dynamometer ("rolling test track") testing for autos where the wind resistance, temperature, barometric pressure, etc. can all be carefully controlled.
And how would you test wind resistance on a dyno anyway? Since the vehicle isn't physically moving, drag is a non-factor (and thus "strictly controlled" at zero).
"BlueGene/P uses a modified PowerPC 450 processor running at 850 MHz with four cores per chip and as many as 4,096 processors in a rack. The Sequoia system will use 45nm processors with as many as 16 cores per chip running at a significantly faster data rate.
Both BlueGene/P and Sequoia consist of clusters built up from 96 racks of systems. Sequoia will have 1.6 petabytes of memory feeding its 1.6 million cores, but many details of its design have not yet been disclosed."
There we go. It is 100,000 processors, with 16 cores each (yes, a core is a processor, but since the summary went out of its way to make this distinction, we should continue to do so for a fair comparison).
Summary is wrong (big surprise there).
Another reference article:
http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=213000489
Mentions "up to" 4,096 processors per rack. So, at maximum, this would be 393,216 processors.
Perhaps they are quad cores and someone took the liberty of multiplying the 393,216x4=1.6M (rounded).
A more reasonable assumption may be 100,000 quad-core CPUs (400,000 cores). That would make the summarization of by only 16 times, lol.
I agree, but I can see a scenario someday whereby someone files a Freedom of Information Act request to Google. Must they comply?
Firstly, something tells me that 99.999% of emails to/from staffers directed to this account on this particular was logistical/planning. Secondly, unlike the Bush/RNC, they aren't going to continue using the accounts in an effort to hide anything. Thirdly, Obama has already made it clear that this White House is going to be much more transparant. Finally, pretty sure FOIA would be served to the White House, not Google. His answer, should someone want the emails, "pfft. Take them."
Yes, you are. There's free email available, free! And people have actually used it. This is a momentous occasion.
Seriously though, I found this to be perhaps the least interesting./ item ever, and that's saying a lot. The only sort of interesting (barely) part is that the staffers have now had 4 email addresses in 4 months (barackobama.com, ptt.gov, gmail.com, who.eop.gov).
The author then describes how the two tests performed were unscientific and found evidence of data tampering to make Dvorak look better in the results.
The best part:
We discovered that the Navy's top expert in the analysis of time and motion studies during World War II was none other than...drum roll please...Lieut. Com. August Dvorak. Earle Strong, a professor at Pennsylvania State University and a one-time chairman of the Office Machine Section of the American Standards Association, reports that the 1944 Navy experiment was conducted by Dvorak himself. Strong was heavily involved with these issues. He was the author of a key test of the typewriter keyboard commissioned by the General Services Administration.
Actually it's.wri files, which haven't been savable in Windows since 3.1.
You can rename or Save As to whatever.wri in any version of Windows.
Inferring from the content of the advisory at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/960906.mspx , the extension and format really doesn't matter, except to the extent you can get Wordpad to open the file. It would also work with a.doc extension, but only if you don't have Word installed (which is not vulnerable). To broaden the susceptible audience,.wri will likely be used an attack because it is always associated to the flawed program (Wordpad), assuming you haven't changed that behavior.
You are absolutely right about Windows and software complexity. I also understand that this particular issue requires a prior compromise. The statement was more about the rose-tinted glasses that some have (those glasses could be tinted to favor anything, Windows, Linux, Apple, Porsches). It tends to blind one to real substantial improvements or criticisms (we won't go into those but there are plenty to be made for all named above).
Yay! We're safe because mac/linux/firefox is secure by design.
Oops.
Yay! We're safe because no one bothers with attacks on us.
Oops.
Yay! We're being attacked and thus might finally be important?
----
Note: Actually a fanboy, but a realistic one.
If I buy commodity X at $1 and resell it at $1.50 (or equivalent RMB) and I do it repeatedly, I'm a dealer of X. Tax agencies throughout the world will tax me the majority of the time on this profit. X can be anything--shoes, cars, houses, e-gold.
So, Chinese government is making it clear that you have to prove a basis cost of $1, otherwise they will tax you on the full $1.50.
This is normal, expected, and even reasonable (the righteousness of the concept of taxes aside).
Slashdot Mirror
while their is a "real" difference it is still very very little.. - unicast to 5 people or multicast to 5 people you are still sending the content down the line to 5 people.. sure you can strip it down and not have a much over head.. but the content is what is the large part and you are still transmitting it..
It's not overhead... If two neighbors are watching the same show and are both on U-verse, the content appears on the majority of the network once, not 5 times (only being duplicated when network topology requires it). I'd call that more than overhead. If you and your 4 neighbors both request hulu broadcast of the same show at the exact same time, it's 5 times the content size.
Note also, that U-verse uses multi-cast, so that there is real difference in network load between 5 people watching the same show on U-verse, than 5 people watching Netflix or Hulu (assuming similar data-rates).
Let's see, let's compare EPA-preliminary controlled methodology to totally arbitrary and un-controlled random car writer random drive, and DRAIN THE DAMN BATTERIES.
When there's a large difference, let's call the manufacturer a liar and conflate this with government-ownership while we are at it.
What about the Nissan Leaf? Will it get the claimed 367 MPG in this writer's random non-plugged-in "test"?
No one will ever drive the exact EPA-mandated cycle in this car or any other. And I certainly hope no one will buy a Volt and never plug it in, or they get what they overpaid for...
As for whether it's better than a regular hybrid, one assumes that is a function of your commute. Mine is 13 miles, and I rarely get over 70 on the way to work, so in theory it's perfect. Would I get one? No, but that's because I like sports car style, and acceleration, which for me outweighs any environmental or monetary concerns (yes, I'm going to hell).
I believe the statement is a correct to the parent which stated "IE=Internet equation" (which btw I've never heard anyone say). This is in reference to Bing's attempt to conflate search with Bing, as IE has been conflated with the Internet (which I can attest to--ask your grandma or boss to open IE and they'll look at you confused, then ask them to open "The Intenet")...
Bad enough my cable company can figure out what I watch: I don't want them storing my stuff for me.
It's not "your stuff". Whether you can time-shift your consumption of it or not, it's not truly yours.
Even if it's legal to do so, it is not wanted, and I am sure the cable company will figure out how to make mincemeat of privacy once I allow them to store my TV shows and movies.
How is their storage of the content an additional invasion of privacy (beyond the tracking they already do)?
The more you allow others to do for you, the more you let others control you.
Might want to loosen the tinfoil.
This was 1969. $6.00/hr (12,522/year) wasn't so bad. Equivalent in 2009 dollars is $34.87/hr (72,773/year).
But there is another key difference between casino gambling and stocks
As mentioned by several, there is more to gambling than traditional casino gambling (e.g. craps, roulette, slots). The proposed ISP blocks would have an effect on all types.
averaged over time, gambling loses you money and stocks earn you money.
How much time? How many stocks? If you are talking particular stocks, than you can definitely lose money over even long time periods (how is your Worldcom stock doing?).
Pick any stock index you like - it's nearly impossible to find a 10-year span where it has lost money
Hm. I dug up a really obscure index you may never of heard of, the S&P 500: http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXSP:.INX
Wayyyyyy different than gambling. Gambling is random and even worse, the end results (risk/reward profiles) are heavily skewed toward your competitor (the house). Stock price moves are determined by the market. Just a bunch of buyers and sellers agreeing on the price - but it isn't random, like gambling.
Not all gambling is random in the same way you describe. Some, are non-random, house-favored, such as sports/horse betting. Then, there is poker... The house takes a cut of pot. While your starting hand may be random, the winner is far from random.
As in, you own it just like you own a bike or a computer or any other asset in your house. You have (some) legal rights and some "claim" on future earnings. That's what stock, aka common equity, represents.
Also, I would argue that all stock really represents is voting power. It is not an asset in any real way. Your share is not equal to Company Worth/Total Shares. It's worth either par value ($1) or whatever the market thinks it is worth--> which can be completely independent of the company's intrinsic value (if such a thing exists).
I do not really get all this crap about stock & shares ... I would certainly not put any money in that company ... Besides, since Microsoft have so harshly defended software patents, they should increase the fine 10 fold!
Besides, product activation and GA and all that crap has "significantly" increased Microsoft's revenue stream, get the facts!
http://www.klid.dk/statistics/mswin.html
check the increase from 2001-2002, oops, that's when XP came out with product activation .... ahhhhh, that's why the figures double, then .... wintards!
I'm sure the stinking pile of ME had nothing to do with that, nor the XP product itself, nor their other products, or anything else--it was simply the product activation that made them all that money. Correlation != causation. Oh, and if you were to buy stock in Microsoft, unless it's an IPO, you're not giving them any money.
Good luck with that. Here's a snippet of patent (claim 1).
1. A registration system for licensing execution of digital data in a use mode, said digital data executable on a 55 platform, said system including local licensee unique ID generating means and remote licensee unique ID generating means, said system further including mode switching means operable on said platform which permits use of said digital data in said use mode on said platform only if a licensee 60 unique ID first generated by said local licensee unique ID generating means has matched a licensee unique ID subsequently generated by said remote licensee unique ID generating means; and wherein said remote licensee unique ID generating means comprises software executed on a plat- 65 form which includes the algorithm utilized by said local licensee unique ID generating means to produce said licensee unique ID.
Say what?
http://www.google.com/patents?id=K7MoAAAAEBAJ As you can see, we can blame an Aussie for this one! Attaaaaaaack.
It's no different than the automobile industry stating "EPA Estimated MPG city/highway" which is not based on a dynamometer test
EPA tests are done on a dyno: http://www.fueleconomy.org/feg/how_tested.shtml
or actual performance measurement but instead is calculated based on the amount of CO2 which exits the exhaust pipe of the car! Is it any wonder, then, that hybrid cars which shut off their gasoline engine when stopped and at low speed/light acceleration, would give grossly inflated figures? Well, they did (and do), which explains why real-world MPG is often far less than this calculated (not even simulated) performance.
Why do you think that the testing methodology inflates the estimated mileage for Hybrids because of shut-off's at lights? If your gas engine is shutoff, how much fuel are you burning? Zero. If you are driving a conventional powertrain vehicle and are idling, how much fuel are you burning? Something more than zero. Granted, the crux of the matter is measuring what this something more is, but that's on the conventional side, not the hybrid side of the equation.
What is needed is real-world testing -- dynamometer ("rolling test track") testing for autos where the wind resistance, temperature, barometric pressure, etc. can all be carefully controlled.
And how would you test wind resistance on a dyno anyway? Since the vehicle isn't physically moving, drag is a non-factor (and thus "strictly controlled" at zero).
"BlueGene/P uses a modified PowerPC 450 processor running at 850 MHz with four cores per chip and as many as 4,096 processors in a rack. The Sequoia system will use 45nm processors with as many as 16 cores per chip running at a significantly faster data rate.
Both BlueGene/P and Sequoia consist of clusters built up from 96 racks of systems. Sequoia will have 1.6 petabytes of memory feeding its 1.6 million cores, but many details of its design have not yet been disclosed."
There we go. It is 100,000 processors, with 16 cores each (yes, a core is a processor, but since the summary went out of its way to make this distinction, we should continue to do so for a fair comparison). Summary is wrong (big surprise there).
Another reference article: http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=213000489 Mentions "up to" 4,096 processors per rack. So, at maximum, this would be 393,216 processors. Perhaps they are quad cores and someone took the liberty of multiplying the 393,216x4=1.6M (rounded). A more reasonable assumption may be 100,000 quad-core CPUs (400,000 cores). That would make the summarization of by only 16 times, lol.
I am an IT Manager. There is no excuse for not having email accounts, at the very least, created prior to a new employees first day.
Will you have time to setup all those new people when all your time is dedicated to destroying evidence?
Thank you, enjoy the veal parm, I'll be here all week.
Why should I trust politifact.com? They can't even add! (7+1+14+488=500? Not when I went to school!)
Apparently, you missed the meaning of the word "about" in school too.
"PolitiFact has compiled about 500 promises that Barack Obama made..."
I'm hoping that was irony, but on Slashdot, I know it probably wasn't. Sigh.
Meta-irony? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/typo's&
It's a close relative of slashdot, dedicated to typo's.
I agree, but I can see a scenario someday whereby someone files a Freedom of Information Act request to Google. Must they comply?
Firstly, something tells me that 99.999% of emails to/from staffers directed to this account on this particular was logistical/planning. Secondly, unlike the Bush/RNC, they aren't going to continue using the accounts in an effort to hide anything. Thirdly, Obama has already made it clear that this White House is going to be much more transparant. Finally, pretty sure FOIA would be served to the White House, not Google. His answer, should someone want the emails, "pfft. Take them."
Yes, you are. There's free email available, free! And people have actually used it. This is a momentous occasion. ./ item ever, and that's saying a lot. The only sort of interesting (barely) part is that the staffers have now had 4 email addresses in 4 months (barackobama.com, ptt.gov, gmail.com, who.eop.gov).
Seriously though, I found this to be perhaps the least interesting
The author then describes how the two tests performed were unscientific and found evidence of data tampering to make Dvorak look better in the results.
The best part:
We discovered that the Navy's top expert in the analysis of time and motion studies during World War II was none other than...drum roll please...Lieut. Com. August Dvorak. Earle Strong, a professor at Pennsylvania State University and a one-time chairman of the Office Machine Section of the American Standards Association, reports that the 1944 Navy experiment was conducted by Dvorak himself. Strong was heavily involved with these issues. He was the author of a key test of the typewriter keyboard commissioned by the General Services Administration.
Actually it's .wri files, which haven't been savable in Windows since 3.1.
You can rename or Save As to whatever.wri in any version of Windows. .doc extension, but only if you don't have Word installed (which is not vulnerable). To broaden the susceptible audience, .wri will likely be used an attack because it is always associated to the flawed program (Wordpad), assuming you haven't changed that behavior.
Inferring from the content of the advisory at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/960906.mspx , the extension and format really doesn't matter, except to the extent you can get Wordpad to open the file. It would also work with a
You are absolutely right about Windows and software complexity. I also understand that this particular issue requires a prior compromise. The statement was more about the rose-tinted glasses that some have (those glasses could be tinted to favor anything, Windows, Linux, Apple, Porsches). It tends to blind one to real substantial improvements or criticisms (we won't go into those but there are plenty to be made for all named above).
Yay! We're safe because mac/linux/firefox is secure by design. Oops. Yay! We're safe because no one bothers with attacks on us. Oops. Yay! We're being attacked and thus might finally be important?
----
Note: Actually a fanboy, but a realistic one.
If I buy commodity X at $1 and resell it at $1.50 (or equivalent RMB) and I do it repeatedly, I'm a dealer of X. Tax agencies throughout the world will tax me the majority of the time on this profit. X can be anything--shoes, cars, houses, e-gold.
So, Chinese government is making it clear that you have to prove a basis cost of $1, otherwise they will tax you on the full $1.50.
This is normal, expected, and even reasonable (the righteousness of the concept of taxes aside).