Without a carbon tax, industry has no incentive to reduce their emissions. With a carbon tax, they have a small financial incentive to do so. Therefore they will pick the lowest hanging fruit to save some money, in the process lowering their emissions..
Or they can move operations to a country where their emissions are not taxed.
If your hardware is so old it doesn't have USB booting, I really doubt Ubuntu would be a good distro choice anyway.
Why? My 2004 vintage desktop, which does not support USB booting, is quite a bit faster then my EEEPC 1005HA which does support USB booting and actually runs Ubuntu.
I used to use [companyname]@mydomain.com for everything I signed up for. It worked great for a long time. The only downside was having to use a catchall address, but not a huge deal.
Unfortnately what will eventually happen is someone will troll through whois records or just grab random domains from existing mailing lists, and start sending out spam from random strings of letters/words @ that domain..
The trick is to not use a catchall. Setup a redirection for every address in use. Anything not defined should bounce. With Sendmail this means a virtuser entry for each address. Admittedly, this is not as convenient as a catchall but it does provide immunity from dictionary attacks like you describe. Long on my to-do list (but never actually done) is to create a script to check From: and Reply-To: on all outgoing mail and automatically add new addresses to virtusers if they are not already present.
It is even possible to retrofit this method if you have previously been using a catchall, as I did. All it takes is basic shell text processing and access to all the old mail. If anyone hasn't sent me any email is, say, three years then they probably are never going to.
When people receive bad news about their health, they often make poor decisions about treatment. Solution: Stop screening and therefore, there won't be any bad news to report.
What? Unless the testing itself is a hazard, we shouldn't be cutting off a potentially life saving source of information. We should be working on improving the decision making process. If most prostate cancers should not be treated then recognize this and develop an alternative response. Perhaps more extensive tests for those who come up positive. Perhaps more frequent tests. Maybe just wait and see if it has grown by the time next years test rolls around.
But what would you have Qantas do? They have no choice - if QF International is to survive at all, they MUST significantly reduce their cost base. That would be impossible to do while keeping all existing jobs in Australia. And even more impossible to do if the unions force them to pay even more. They are competing against foreign carriers whose costs are half as much, remember. What a sad thing it would be if Qantas - the second oldest continuously operating international airline in the world - was forced to close its doors.
Is there really a difference?
Is applying the Quantus brand to a functionally foreign airline any different than formally shutting down the Australian airline? Is it better to be laid off when your employer moves it's jobs offshore then to be laid off when your employer slashes operations due to offshore competition?
When someone suggests the only way to save a company is to move it's jobs offshore, it raises the question of what a company is where it's value comes from. I would argue that, aside from the top executives, there is no practical difference between moving a company from the top ( by starting a new company offshore) and moving a company from the bottom (by moving the operations that the executives oversee offshore).
Um, I think you mean "the offers was erroneously considered to be too low." Last time I checked, Netscape did not exist.
Was Microsoft willing pay $75/share? That's what Netscape hit a year later at IPO. The final outcome is most irrelevant. A price is "too low" if it is more profitable to hold on to the shares and sell at a later date.
IBM later tried to stuff the commoditization genie back in the bottle with the MicroChannel architecture that shipped in their Personal System/2 machines, but the licensing for it was so onerous the major cloners ignored it, banded together and standardized on (I believe) ISA.
Close. the "Gang of Nine" standardized EISA, a 32 bit extension to the 16-bit ISA bus. EISA never really took off, though. Most cards and most PC remained ISA until VLB came out.
The big problem with this is the online school has to be ABET accredited for your engineering degree to mean anything to anyone, and ABET seems to think that if you spend less than $30,000 your degree is worthless, regardless of what's being taught by who.
MIT and UCB are not ABET accredited. I don't think many employers are checking up on ABET accreditation. As a candidate, you get points if the your degree comes from a University they knows and have confidence in. Otherwise, you don't and you can actually lose points if you came from a school that the hiring manager dislikes, regardless of the schools accreditation.
Yeah, it's always amazing reading biographies about people who grew up before around the 1980s, namely the huge # of opportunities they had without having to go through the whole corporate/educational grind.
70's actually. The economy was more robust and stable then it is now. Manufacturing companies actually had factories. They had jobs at every level and the confidence to take the long view. In the case of Jobs, he had the further advantage of entering a very young industry. When domain experts are few and not all that expert, it is a whole lot easier for resourceful people who lack education to get in and be productive.
This is the age of "hit the ground running". There is no time to train or nurture because the opportunity that the company is exploiting may not last. It is has become the responsibility of the candidate to get the right training by whatever means and be ready precisely when that skill is needed.
Most western countries will reach peak population within 50 years...
So what? This has happened before.Over the centuries we've survived plaques (Black Death) and famine (little ice age) which has limited our population until we have found technological means to overcome it. So what's the problem if our population maxes out for a while again? At least until we find technological solutions to the space problem and get into the solar system where our growth can resume.
It isn't a resource problem. Populations in the developed world are peaking because, in industrialized societies, there are no economic benefits and plenty of economic negatives to having children. They can't bring in significant income from what little work they are allowed to do. They aren't needed for old age care. "Vanity" procreation doesn't even meet replacement levels.
Unskilled child labor is useful in a primitive agrarian society but what good is it in a technology dependent space culture? And the economic system would be at least as sophisticated as in today's first world.
If you wanted to restart population growth you could abolish pensions and fully socialize the cost of raising children but I'm not sure even that would work. You would have a really difficult time getting people to agree with the plan, especially the first part.
There are penguins in South Africa too. In fact, most of the penguins in Africa are in South Africa. I don't recall seeing them there but they are also in Namibia.
TFA mentions other souvenirs brought back by astronauts. They were not sued, which was attributed to them asking permission first. But did they try to sell their souvenirs? I think that is the critical difference. NASA doesn't have a problem with one of their Moon heroes owning a relic from his famous mission. They don't want a market in questionable NASA artifacts encouraging a black market in stolen artifacts.
In the old days, most new ventures failed. Only a very few people could be at the top when an idea exploded. That wasn't a big problem. Fully exploiting those ideas required hiring lots of people. And thats how most people made their living. They didn't have to make a big win themselves. They just needed to be useful those who did.
Enter the economy of today. Most new ventures still fail. Occasionally, one still wins. But when it comes time to hire all those people to exploit the idea, they don't. Either the need for large numbers of employers never materializes due to automation and the non-physical nature of the work or, if they really must hire, they hire overseas.
The myth of the creative class was created out of need to believe we had an out. It was obvious to anyone that the American dream could no longer be supported by manufacturing. And I don't think anyone really believed that retail and burger flipping was an option. There needed to be something that was productive but different from what goes on in the emerging world and, therefore, safe. Well, it isn't all that different and it isn't safe. Employment security in the info economy didn't even survive beyond the business cycle in which it was born.
Patents don't work that way. You are probably thinking of trademarks. If you don't promptly and aggressively defend your trademark you can lose it. Patents and copyrights have no such requirement.
On the outside there doesn't appear to be many changes. On the inside there have been many hardware changes. However it is easier to call someone a fanboy rather than give Apple any credit. You do realize that Apple was able to put in a larger processor, make the phone operate both CDMA and GSM, put in a larger camera-- all the while keeping the same form factor with a slight increase in weight (3g). I would think geeks would appreciate the engineering it would take to do this.
The processor package doesn't get physically much if any bigger by going to dual-core. The radio in the Verizon I-phone was already capable of GSM. The firmware just didn't take advantage. The camera does seem to have some better optics and that is a good thing. Overall, it looks like a just a merging of the Verizon and AT&T phones along with a few closely compatible part upgrades that had become available from internal and external suppliers. No form factor heroics here.
I imagine some economies of scale are going on as well as the ability to launch more frequently since you don't have to fabricate a whole new rocket for each launch.
Economies of scale actually favor expendables. Building a rocket becomes a routine, assembly line afair. Each rocket becomes cheaper. Also, refurbishing is essentially a "hand built" since time is going to be little bit different.
You can overbuild a house, it generally makes it stronger. You over code a piece of software it just adds to the number of possible points of failure. The two really aren't good analogies for each other. That doesn't even consider things like how maintenance of both is handled, interactions of hardware, varying setups, and just simple complexity.
Software isn't built. It is designed. An overdesigned house isn't necessarily any bigger. More time is simply spent covering possible uses and failure cases.
Likewise, overdesigned software may not be more complex. It will almost certainly be bigger and slower. Careful study of use and failure modes means that some optimizations can not be trusted. If the behavior of a section of code can not be well enough understood, it may need to be replaced by something simpler, more predictable, but less efficient. It may also be less flexible, resulting in more frequent but better handled degredation.
If you are going to saddle it with a PCI or a single lane PCIe, why do you need a modern GPU? Older technology cards are still available and still supported.
Under advertiser control it is pretty ugly, of course. But it would actually be nice if I could map a route and say "along the way, I need to find cheap gas, an Asian grocer, and try to get me to a Walmart or Target (don't care which) if it is it not *too* much deviation.
Slashdot Mirror
Without a carbon tax, industry has no incentive to reduce their emissions. With a carbon tax, they have a small financial incentive to do so. Therefore they will pick the lowest hanging fruit to save some money, in the process lowering their emissions..
Or they can move operations to a country where their emissions are not taxed.
If your hardware is so old it doesn't have USB booting, I really doubt Ubuntu would be a good distro choice anyway.
Why? My 2004 vintage desktop, which does not support USB booting, is quite a bit faster then my EEEPC 1005HA which does support USB booting and actually runs Ubuntu.
A word of warning.
I used to use [companyname]@mydomain.com for everything I signed up for. It worked great for a long time. The only downside was having to use a catchall address, but not a huge deal.
Unfortnately what will eventually happen is someone will troll through whois records or just grab random domains from existing mailing lists, and start sending out spam from random strings of letters/words @ that domain..
The trick is to not use a catchall. Setup a redirection for every address in use. Anything not defined should bounce. With Sendmail this means a virtuser entry for each address. Admittedly, this is not as convenient as a catchall but it does provide immunity from dictionary attacks like you describe. Long on my to-do list (but never actually done) is to create a script to check From: and Reply-To: on all outgoing mail and automatically add new addresses to virtusers if they are not already present.
It is even possible to retrofit this method if you have previously been using a catchall, as I did. All it takes is basic shell text processing and access to all the old mail. If anyone hasn't sent me any email is, say, three years then they probably are never going to.
Let's see if I have this right:
When people receive bad news about their health, they often make poor decisions about treatment.
Solution: Stop screening and therefore, there won't be any bad news to report.
What? Unless the testing itself is a hazard, we shouldn't be cutting off a potentially life saving source of information. We should be working on improving the decision making process. If most prostate cancers should not be treated then recognize this and develop an alternative response. Perhaps more extensive tests for those who come up positive. Perhaps more frequent tests. Maybe just wait and see if it has grown by the time next years test rolls around.
But what would you have Qantas do? They have no choice - if QF International is to survive at all, they MUST significantly reduce their cost base. That would be impossible to do while keeping all existing jobs in Australia. And even more impossible to do if the unions force them to pay even more. They are competing against foreign carriers whose costs are half as much, remember. What a sad thing it would be if Qantas - the second oldest continuously operating international airline in the world - was forced to close its doors.
Is there really a difference?
Is applying the Quantus brand to a functionally foreign airline any different than formally shutting down the Australian airline?
Is it better to be laid off when your employer moves it's jobs offshore then to be laid off when your employer slashes operations due to offshore competition?
When someone suggests the only way to save a company is to move it's jobs offshore, it raises the question of what a company is where it's value comes from. I would argue that, aside from the top executives, there is no practical difference between moving a company from the top ( by starting a new company offshore) and moving a company from the bottom (by moving the operations that the executives oversee offshore).
Um, I think you mean "the offers was erroneously considered to be too low." Last time I checked, Netscape did not exist.
Was Microsoft willing pay $75/share? That's what Netscape hit a year later at IPO. The final outcome is most irrelevant. A price is "too low" if it is more profitable to hold on to the shares and sell at a later date.
IBM later tried to stuff the commoditization genie back in the bottle with the MicroChannel architecture that shipped in their Personal System/2 machines, but the licensing for it was so onerous the major cloners ignored it, banded together and standardized on (I believe) ISA.
Close. the "Gang of Nine" standardized EISA, a 32 bit extension to the 16-bit ISA bus. EISA never really took off, though. Most cards and most PC remained ISA until VLB came out.
...instead of CS. Ohms law has awesome resale value.
But Verilog-XL has little. 90's era FPGA and ASIC work is a tough sell even though many companies are still using methods popular in that time.
Most startups spend more then they take in and then finish by going bankrupt. Maybe the federal government is already a startup.
I run stable.
google-chrome is masked
Firefox is 3.6.20
The big problem with this is the online school has to be ABET accredited for your engineering degree to mean anything to anyone, and ABET seems to think that if you spend less than $30,000 your degree is worthless, regardless of what's being taught by who.
MIT and UCB are not ABET accredited. I don't think many employers are checking up on ABET accreditation. As a candidate, you get points if the your degree comes from a University they knows and have confidence in. Otherwise, you don't and you can actually lose points if you came from a school that the hiring manager dislikes, regardless of the schools accreditation.
Yeah, it's always amazing reading biographies about people who grew up before around the 1980s, namely the huge # of opportunities they had without having to go through the whole corporate/educational grind.
70's actually. The economy was more robust and stable then it is now. Manufacturing companies actually had factories. They had jobs at every level and the confidence to take the long view. In the case of Jobs, he had the further advantage of entering a very young industry. When domain experts are few and not all that expert, it is a whole lot easier for resourceful people who lack education to get in and be productive.
This is the age of "hit the ground running". There is no time to train or nurture because the opportunity that the company is exploiting may not last. It is has become the responsibility of the candidate to get the right training by whatever means and be ready precisely when that skill is needed.
Why would you run it as root for the update function instead of using your distro's repositories?
I was rather surprised to note that Gentoo was current with Chromium. Firefox is still at 3.6.20. Still no Chrome though.
In the future, I guess snipers will have to carry a $ 5 roll of aluminum foil, to block the multimillion dollar real time radar.
Which would shine conspicuously in the radar beam. That's where I'd shoot.
Most western countries will reach peak population within 50 years...
So what? This has happened before.Over the centuries we've survived plaques (Black Death) and famine (little ice age) which has limited our population until we have found technological means to overcome it. So what's the problem if our population maxes out for a while again? At least until we find technological solutions to the space problem and get into the solar system where our growth can resume.
It isn't a resource problem. Populations in the developed world are peaking because, in industrialized societies, there are no economic benefits and plenty of economic negatives to having children. They can't bring in significant income from what little work they are allowed to do. They aren't needed for old age care. "Vanity" procreation doesn't even meet replacement levels.
Unskilled child labor is useful in a primitive agrarian society but what good is it in a technology dependent space culture? And the economic system would be at least as sophisticated as in today's first world.
If you wanted to restart population growth you could abolish pensions and fully socialize the cost of raising children but I'm not sure even that would work. You would have a really difficult time getting people to agree with the plan, especially the first part.
There are penguins in South Africa too. In fact, most of the penguins in Africa are in South Africa. I don't recall seeing them there but they are also in Namibia.
TFA mentions other souvenirs brought back by astronauts. They were not sued, which was attributed to them asking permission first. But did they try to sell their souvenirs? I think that is the critical difference. NASA doesn't have a problem with one of their Moon heroes owning a relic from his famous mission. They don't want a market in questionable NASA artifacts encouraging a black market in stolen artifacts.
In the old days, most new ventures failed. Only a very few people could be at the top when an idea exploded. That wasn't a big problem. Fully exploiting those ideas required hiring lots of people. And thats how most people made their living. They didn't have to make a big win themselves. They just needed to be useful those who did.
Enter the economy of today. Most new ventures still fail. Occasionally, one still wins. But when it comes time to hire all those people to exploit the idea, they don't. Either the need for large numbers of employers never materializes due to automation and the non-physical nature of the work or, if they really must hire, they hire overseas.
The myth of the creative class was created out of need to believe we had an out. It was obvious to anyone that the American dream could no longer be supported by manufacturing. And I don't think anyone really believed that retail and burger flipping was an option. There needed to be something that was productive but different from what goes on in the emerging world and, therefore, safe. Well, it isn't all that different and it isn't safe. Employment security in the info economy didn't even survive beyond the business cycle in which it was born.
Patents don't work that way. You are probably thinking of trademarks. If you don't promptly and aggressively defend your trademark you can lose it. Patents and copyrights have no such requirement.
On the outside there doesn't appear to be many changes. On the inside there have been many hardware changes. However it is easier to call someone a fanboy rather than give Apple any credit. You do realize that Apple was able to put in a larger processor, make the phone operate both CDMA and GSM, put in a larger camera-- all the while keeping the same form factor with a slight increase in weight (3g). I would think geeks would appreciate the engineering it would take to do this.
The processor package doesn't get physically much if any bigger by going to dual-core. The radio in the Verizon I-phone was already capable of GSM. The firmware just didn't take advantage. The camera does seem to have some better optics and that is a good thing. Overall, it looks like a just a merging of the Verizon and AT&T phones along with a few closely compatible part upgrades that had become available from internal and external suppliers. No form factor heroics here.
I imagine some economies of scale are going on as well as the ability to launch more frequently since you don't have to fabricate a whole new rocket for each launch.
Economies of scale actually favor expendables. Building a rocket becomes a routine, assembly line afair. Each rocket becomes cheaper. Also, refurbishing is essentially a "hand built" since time is going to be little bit different.
It's the only way to be sure
You can overbuild a house, it generally makes it stronger. You over code a piece of software it just adds to the number of possible points of failure. The two really aren't good analogies for each other. That doesn't even consider things like how maintenance of both is handled, interactions of hardware, varying setups, and just simple complexity.
Software isn't built. It is designed. An overdesigned house isn't necessarily any bigger. More time is simply spent covering possible uses and failure cases.
Likewise, overdesigned software may not be more complex. It will almost certainly be bigger and slower. Careful study of use and failure modes means that some optimizations can not be trusted. If the behavior of a section of code can not be well enough understood, it may need to be replaced by something simpler, more predictable, but less efficient. It may also be less flexible, resulting in more frequent but better handled degredation.
If you are going to saddle it with a PCI or a single lane PCIe, why do you need a modern GPU? Older technology cards are still available and still supported.
Under advertiser control it is pretty ugly, of course. But it would actually be nice if I could map a route and say "along the way, I need to find cheap gas, an Asian grocer, and try to get me to a Walmart or Target (don't care which) if it is it not *too* much deviation.