Or maybe they're just being professionals rather than juveniles.
Ah yes. Let's see
"most females tend to have a narrow or thinner waist as it relates to the chest area,
"The challenge right now is that when you bring in those complex curvatures, the plate loses some of its strength,"
"This also allows a new pocket for another armor plate that can be inserted diagonally, which also improves the shape."
and from the video
increased "shoulder adjustability"
Could they perhaps more usefully say something like:
"because some women have big breasts we need to be able to shape the armour to cover it without compromising the strength and that's difficult". "other differences such as a typically shorter torso and more waist variance have been easier to deal with".
I'm sure some on Slashdot will go "snigger snigger; he said 'breast'; snigger sigger" like a beavis and butthead edition, but that's not something that a "professional" should even notice. Being clearer and more direct would make the whole thing need much less discussion.
It doesn't matter how well he can dodge chairs; he just has to aim for a team where everybody else is worse at it because Microsoft operates is the type of nightmare employer which operates forced ranking. Also, being with the stupidest people is probably your best chance of getting someone intelligent to teach you something since only the suicidal would teach someone in their own team. Ideally you are looking for a team of stupid people with a recently changed, decent, intelligent manager.
Having said that, the best thing about winning this would be the pleasure of being able to say "no thanks"
Most connections from exit nodes are perfectly legal. For example a Chinese guy wants to access Slashdot. The traffic in the US is legal and it's just his traffic which is encrypted and going to a different node which is where he has a problem if it's discovered.
Let's be clear. The mere fact that you aren't doing anything doesn't make you immune from the police. There are so many laws and regulations set up for corporate interests that it's likely that you are breaking something; merely not running an exit node will not protect you. Filtering the traffic on exit nodes can very much reduce anti-social (potentially illegal) traffic. As long as you are only accepting a partial contribution and your costs are more than $100 you can treat this as an expense payment rather than a profit. This is likely to be seen very differently in court than profiting from an activity. Furthermore, the explicit involvement with the Tor project could help make it clear you did things for political reasons rather than in order to facilitate illegal activities. Overall, bearing in mind INAL, INAL in your country and, ICNYL (certainly not your lawyer), I don't see that this much increases the risk of a person running an exit node.
There's plenty of reasonable FUD to spread about tor; it could be very risky to use tor from China since the traffic isn't that well hidden; you have to be very careful about your end point security; in less-democratic / less free countries you may be arrested for running an exit node even if you had no intention of supporting illegal activities. There's no need to make up extra FUD
I will agree with your comment that government involvement, however imperfect, is probably needed. A free market requires full information and it is almost impossible for people to understand how things are produced without somebody outside the companies following up, checking and ensuring that information gets from the production to the consumer. Unfortunately, the current situation is that the people in government are of the "government is for the companies" or "government doesn't work" persuasion and are setting out to prove it. Food labelling means that something which is labelled as "strawberry flavour yoghurt" can have nothing to do with strawberries. At one point the US government was trying to make it impossible to label meat as growth hormone free. For now at least you need to do something yourself. If nothing else so that some of the small, traditional or careful producers continue to exist when / if your government wakes up. Look at how fat most Americans are; understand most nations are catching up. That is, at least partly, the effect of eating crap. Eat better food and it will be better for you.
[...] People buy the cheapest available equivalent product, period. I always chuckle when I see "buy local" signs because it is such a naive idea that is completely detached from reality. How do I know that when buying local that I'm really creating any benefit? I find it silly to adjust my spending based on something that is not rooted in obvious economic value.[...]
No; you buy the cheapest available product; I buy local sometimes. Most importantly, I try to buy conciously most of the stuff that I buy. Learn about the products where you can. How do you know you are creating benefit? Go and visit the farm. Seriously. Almost any small producer will be happy to show you around. They will explain many things. Small farms in many countries often have accommodation ("agrotourism") as a side line. Spend a couple of days staying there, seeing what they do. When you know your farmer personally you will be much more likely to trust him.
For some things local just isn't relevant. When you buy products with the real Fair Trade logo then you can be pretty sure it's better than the alternative. Partly this is better for the farmers. Also the certification includes production standards which are likely better for you. Just beware that there are some fake Fair Trade style groups (the "Rainforest Alliance" and "Fair Trade USA" and so on) which you should only buy when there is no alternative.
How about for example toys? Everybody keeps complaining about how terrible "Chinese" plastic toys are. Then they complain when there is a recall with lead paint. Tell your friends and especially family that you don't accept cheap plastic toys. Buy Lego. They have completely different levels of product safety. The quality is also better; you will still find your kid playing with stuff five years later where normal toys seem to last about a week.
Basically, what I'm saying: there are economic factors you don't see. Products which make you sick cost you money, it's just that you don't directly see the link. Products which pay their workers more mean your company gets more business; again, this is hard to see but it's a real "economic" factor. "Local" is a useful way to guess that something has them. Specific producers with a brand, a reputation and an interest in quality are another way. Specific labels are yet another way. Try to look not just at the price but the broader economic picture. Think about what hidden costs to you are included in any product and choose the best product.
I think that one of the main original articles which pointed this out was this 2007 article about offshoring and GDP businessweek. I don't know of anything which has contradicted this and this 2009 article seems to suggest that the effect is still real. Whilst the 2009 article suggests that the US has better measures of it's economy and so the figures may be worse elsewhere, the obvious point is that this could only apply to places with increasing imports. Anyone know more?
Secondly, lets say you continued to operate this way until you lost the house and car, wouldn't it be nice to know that you could just walk down to the benefits office and file for benefits.
And, the fact you took advantage of these benefits means it was more likely that he would continue to survive whilst his company was investing; so it's good for society. Moreover; people who earn unevenly end up paying more tax overall. They pay a higher percentage when earning more and lower when earning less. Access to benefits at the bottom end is something that somewhat, but unlikely completely compensates for this.
So yes; this makes complete sense. At least part of benefits should be paid out like work insurance. You get it back immediately you stop earning. All around the world, the people who make things go; the working people, have been conned out of this.
Legally change your name to Cowboy Neal then emigrate to Germany to seed the name? I think it'd be hard to deny someone naming their child Cowboy Neal, Jr. no matter the legal name approval requirements.
Probably won't work since I think you will come under a legal exception for foreigners. Unless you are German, in which case you should first emigrate from Germany to the UK or USA for the birth, name your child and then return to Germany. Warning, you will find that in both the UK and the US the health system is vastly inferior to the one you are used to at home and that the maternity and paternity leave provisions in the USA remind you of the 1950s but no sacrifice is too great to be able to answer "Cowby Neal" in a survey.
There is a European Union decision that people have the right to use Pseudonyms. Google has said they accept this. The only reason that "Cowboy Neal" isn't accepted is that is that their policy demands that names be convincing as normal every day usage. So; for now two suggestions
All slashdotters should agree that our future kids will be named "Cowboy Neal" (no requirement to rename existing kids - especially the ones old enough to resist).
Everybody should, for now, sign up to Google+ and Facebook from a European union hosted system with a fake but real sounding name and fake data
When the children get to an age to legally sign up, we can use their names as a precedent to get the "Cowboy Neal" option open for everybody
If either Facebook or Google+ resist on either point 2 or point 3 then be ready to take them to the European Court of Human Rights;
In this case, it seems to be one of the increasingly-rare cases of the law being used properly. The book rather clearly copies the trademarked style of JD. It does not have any obvious fair use exemption - it's not being used to reference JD itself (nominative fair use), it's not a parody. It is someone using another's branding apparently either out of laziness, or deliberate deception (most likely the former, but I can't rule out the latter).
Actually; if you had RATFA (Read around the fine article) you would have seen that this is a book, at least partly, about the effect of alcohol and drugs. There's a perfectly obvious reason to use the Jack Daniel's trademark since it is one of the biggest most obvious alcohol brands. Perhaps someone who has a copy could comment on whether the main character explicitly drinks JD or not and if so how much?
It's not censorship. They aren't trying to get the book withdrawn, or removed (which they definitely would, if they were trying to censor the book). The cover has nothing worth censoring - it's just the title and other basic metadata. The only "artistic expression" they're trying to control is their own - the art of their trademark.
Censorship is a bit of a dirty word around here. Despite what most Americans will tell you, there's nothing wrong with a little bit of controlled "censorship" and that's precisely what you want when you are trying to stop people from creating stampedes in non-burning theatres. However, censorship, in the common sense of the word it is. Jack Daniels wants to stop this person from saying what he originally wanted to say. Let's not gloss over that and let's remember that censorship is something that needs to be very carefully applied and be extremely carefully limited. That's why all exceptions to the first amendment in the United States require constitutional support and not merely laws.
In my opinion, since the original author doesn't seem to care too much about Jack Daniels in this instance, and since Jack Daniels is being nice about it, this is a bit of "censorship" that should be accepted. That decision, however, lies with the original author. If the original author, or even the original cover artist, really meant to make a comment on Jack Daniels in particular then he should, politely and nicely, explain that to Jack Daniels; Invite their management out for a drink with the EFF's lawyers and gently explain that, as a parody, this is protected speech and he has the right to use their design.
He could even a) offer to clearly state on the inside of the book that the cover is a parody of Jack Daniel's trademark and that he respects their right to their trademark. b) offer them the chance to co-brand / sponsor / etc. making it clear that any money that they give will go to a worthy charity such as a drugs rehabilitatation establishment (N.B. do not make an offer which could be misunderstood as a demand for money over the trademark - this is why you want your lawyer to be there and make the offer, not yourself).
Starting such a fight may however lead to needless nastiness, and he should only do it if he really believes that he needs to use JD's trademark for a good reason. I'm saying this as a person who believes that current copyright, trademark and patent laws are all invalid since I believe that they all extend beyond what is allowed in the US constitution, Universal declaration of Human Rights and European Convention on Human Rights which should be the controlling law in these cases. If you want to make your case; you should very specifically respect the supposed legal rights of reasonable people in order to specifically contrast them with the unreasonable people like the MPAA and RIAA.
So now if I mix all the languages I know into the code I write nobody but me will have a chance to read. I can even safely start using comments again so I know what the code was meant to do two days later without risking my job security...
The measurement of packaging quality is not, as HP seems to think, the amount extra that the packaging adds to the weight of the product.
You know the situation. A delivery guy comes along in a huge huge delivery truck; Out come a team of five lifters and bring a HUGE cardboard box out and drop it next to your desk. Oh; this must be the new database server, you think. You open the first box - it's just filled with boxes. ah; they sent it dissassembled, you think. You start opening boxes. Soon you realise that most of the boxes contain only packaging filler and are there only to hold the other boxes in place. Inside the middle box, however, is a small oblong cardboard box (surrounded by fluffy polystyrene poo shaped package protectors). You open this cardboard box, rip determinedly through the envelope inside. Finally, you find a CD. "HP-UX documentation in Urdu; Supplementary for delivery NN234643; Please store this CD carefully".
Including the 90 mile drive to the closest Apple Retail Store and the 90 mile drive back?
Clearly you have your priorities wrong. You should move your home least 87 miles. No true Apple fan would even consider living in such a godforsaken hellhole as the one you obviously live in.
Even if 80% of the teachers lack knowledge, / Sure, a bunch of them will be sold / a lot will not know what to do with them / Maybe that's exactly what's needed to get just ONE kid off to become that great engineer in the future...
It's a simple cost benefit analysis. The OLPC project has had problems in some areas and successes in others. The project started out with a wholistic set of ideas to block theft; to ensure teaching materials were available; to make the systems useful. The project the followed up with volunteers who went out, realised what problems there were and reacted to them. It still gets lots of criticism. It's an interesting balance but it looks like, on average, it has done good. If this project comes in without proper planning, without proper materials and without a worldwide volunteer group to bring lessons back then the most likely outcome is that it will end up causing twenty alternative better projects to be blocked. I'm sure there will be one engineer created, but if that's at the cost of directing 10,000 other kids to a life of worthless video games the overall project will end up with fewer engineers in Thailand.
The ministry is developing learning content for Grade 2-4 students in digital form. This will be made available online for downloading by students and teachers once it is completed.
At least it's clear that they understand they have to do something with the content. I hope this statement is a misunderstanding and they already have at least some content ready before they start to deliver devices.
Cell plans I can support you on, but smartphones is a different matter. This is 100% news for nerds. There is a change going on with a move so that most computing will be taking place on a smartphone. Within the next two years there will be more smartphones in use than computers. Within less than three years, more applications will be run on smartphones than on computers. Some time in that period, probably in a contry in Asia, the first bank will decide that supporting desktop users isn't worth it since they all have smartphones anyway.
When this happens, almost everybody on Slashdot will have their job change in one way or another. Mostly just doing the same stuff targetting a different user interface, but sometimes completely changing or, for those that got stuck with the wrong kind of desktop technology, being forced to completely leave the IT industry.
At the level of companies this change is seen very clearly. One company (Nokia) has already panicked and destroyed its self. Much more interesting is Microsoft. They have been very very aware of the mistake that IBM made at this stage and have totally committed to mobile. The thing is that it seems that they have made an even bigger mistake than IBM; they are sacrificing their desktop, compromising their traditional interface to impose metro; trying to push their mobile but finding nobody wants it. They have kicked their traditional partners - the PC manufacturers - in the teeth with Metro. They have kicked the Mobile operators in the balls with Skype. Keeping Nokia on life support and pushing Windows Phone is actually seriously eating into Microsoft's cash reserves.
If the trend continues and Microsoft collapses, or more likely is restructured into a series of smaller companies then the whole IT scene is going to change.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think that judges who declare that copyright is a good idea should be recused? To be honest, I do. Whilst I believe that some limited copyright might be a social good, I think that current copyright laws are unconstitutional, against human rights laws and an interference with freedom of speech. Juges who support those laws cannot fairly judge the constitutional issues. There is no chance that a judge who said that "we must find better ways to defend Intellectual Property" would then recuse himself from a filesharing case, even if he was currently involved in it. As long as that's true, Judge Harvey's comments, whilst mildly inappropriate in the situation, are nowhere close to the boundary to justify recusal. Judges who have, in previous work, been working for or cooperating with copyright bodies regularly fail to recuse themselves. If doubles standards like this are allowed to apply where is the chance that people who have been attacked by media interests can get a fair trial?
In the sense that the iPhone came from the idea that a 'rich American' can afford a phone which includes both consumer features like picture sharing and music together with 'corporate' features like email and security and is willing to pay for all of them in one package, I think you are right. However, Microsoft has designed for the first world and that is the source of many of it's Windows Phone's fundamental failings. Problems like lack of Bluetooth file tranfer come from an assumption you always have a network and can always afford it. Problems like lack of memory card support (shared with the iPhone) come from the assumption you have your own WiFi network at home and so can afford to move large chunks of data on and off the phone wirelessly. Clearly design for the first world has had a bad influence here and these design failures even make Windows phones bad for use in their home markets.
Japan is obviously the ultimate "first world" location. Networks there are much more advanced than in the US. Consumers mostly have more money to spend on gadgets. Despite that, systems designed for Japan rarely do well in other countries until culturally translated and simplified considerably.
What you actually need is a phone developed for the most demanding and quality concious users at a given moment. When the iPhone came out that was the US market. Now the needs there have been largely satisfied. It's quite likely that China, with it's complex character set, limited fixed network and advanced mobile networks and rapidly changing economy is one of the best places now.
You've been moderated as a troll; and, in the sense that you are parroting MS talking points so I guess I understand that. Still, I think it's unfair and I that mods can mod us both up and encourage sensible debate.
As someone who actually worked at the FDA with the people in question, I'm getting tired of the piss on the FDA attitude here, and I can tell you that TFA is written to sex things up.
thanks for declaring up front.
The individuals who were "spied" on were parts of teams who reviewed medical products. People on those teams had differing opinions regarding the safety and effectiveness of various products. The leads of those teams and their management had to decide whether to approve the products given the conflicting input from the team, the history of safety and effectiveness of similar products, published scientific studies, etc.
You talk as if there were only two possibilities; "yes" or "no". That's extremely scary and seems to me to show that there is something horribly wrong in the FDA. There is also a third option: "data is currently insufficient to make a clea tr decision". If the input was conflicting, then the team leads responsibility is to identify the reasons behind the conflict, decide what further study would be needed to make a decision and make a temporary rejection with information about what further research needs to be done.
When those decisions did not go in favor of the individuals in question, they complained loudly.
Again, you are scaring me. These are not personal favours. This is not about something going for or against the scientists. They believed that these systems were endangering and possibly killing people. If they believed that then their duty to push their belief forward. The FDA should have a system which accepts or even encourages that. As long as the scientists work within their professional duty it should be no problem at all if they believe and act on something, even if it is actually wrong. If that isn't true then the FDA is a danger to patients.
And when details about the products that they were reviewing were leaked to the NYT, they were suspected of doing so. Note that this product information belongs to the companies that submit the products, and its release by the FDA is against the law.
Anytime that any FDA employee logs into a FDA computer, a big splash window appears that states that ALL use of that computer is subject to monitoring by the US government.
Let's give a car analogy. Imagine you park your car and leave it to work for the day. I come along to it and put a sticker on it saying "this is rtfa-troll's car and will be removed soon". Does that then make it okay when I subsequently break into it and steal it? No. Illegal activity is lawbreaking, whether you announce it in advance ro not.
This window has appeared on all federal computers for more that 12 years now. Are we supposed to be surprised when the federal government monitors the use of some employees' computers they suspect of violating the law?
Not quite as sexy as the article makes it out, is it?
You've completely missed the point. Just monitoring is not the problem. The problem is what you do when you realise that you have no legal right to the information you have been monitoring? That is the point that they realised they were monitoring privilaged communications with members of congress or attourneys? They should have done several things: a) immediately destroy the information b) desist from further monitoring until their systems are updated c) ensure that in future similar information will not be captured d) inform those people who were illegally monitored at the first possible opportunity and give an apology and appropriate compensation. If you continue to monitor, gather, classify and use those communictions after realising what they are, then you switch from having made an understandable mistake to deliberate and wilful criminality.
If the FDA, the organisation responsible for approving medicines and medical equipment in the USA and a lead organisation in this area for the entire world, is a criminal organisation then that is a deep concern.
Those are old and outdated papers from before diverse double compilation techniques were described. Source code is the fundamental requiement for both auditing and efficient discovery of exploits. This is the reason why the Chinese government insists on and gets access to Microsoft Windows source.
Right; 100%. With an iPhone there is a dead simple choice; I'm rich / prioritize this - take the latest model, pay a reasonable amount. Poor / sensible - take the older one still on sale. All of them are still delivering a platform on which most of the features ("apps") will work except where tied to some very specific new feature (e.g. siri to voice recognition). If you want to see how much other phone companies don't get this, look only at the wannabe competitors who are releasing new phones unable to run skype where previous models have been able to. Even Android is barely succeeding at getting this even with Google continually and determinedly pushing it.
The real truth is that the brilliance of Apple was in sacrificing market share for the ability to make decisions independent of the mobile operators. This meant that there was only one company (Apple its self) putting it's own interests above the consumers and even that company is pretty much aware of the danger and so only does it "tastefully".
This is what Microsoft is fighting for with Skype - the ability to bypass the mobile operators and make them irrelevant. I don't think they will succeed, but once the mobile operators realise the risk I think it will make Apple and Google's bargaining power much larger.
This is a paper trail based voting machine. I will admit that I think that these are mostly acceptably secure, however that's because they start with the fundamental assumption that you can't trust the software. Still, there are clearly opportunities for cheating. For example, if votes are only normally recounted on close elections, then only cheat on elections where you are expected to win but don't, and then, when you do cheat, cheat in a big way. As long as you only do it once or twice you have a good chance of getting away with it.
The correct thing to do is to assume that there must always be a hand count and (almost) always do one.
If you had READ the FINE ARTICLE; you would know that 7000 == 7500 and 9 == 9.30 and 70,000 == 70,267. Typical careless rounding of the type that can easily get the wrong person elected..
Nobody actually knows how hard this is since nobody has ever actually succeeded in doing it, despite the fact that many people have tried. Here is another example:
use the same system for slot machines
they go under lots of testing to make them hard to cheat them even to the point of shocking them.
This is one of the standard examples, the other given is bank machines. The average engineer/computer scientest will tell you this every time up to the stage of actually starting voting machine companies and spending millions on delivering machines which fail to be sufficiently secure. Just think about how much more hostile the voting machine environment
if you cheat a slot machine you can get a few hundred dollars - if you beat a voting machine you can controll F22 contracts worth US$66.7 billion
slot machines are run in an environemnt where you can watch the users - watching voters is illegal
you can see who wins on your slot machine and almost nobody cares - voters are supposed to be anonymous
slot machines are essentially static; the money is put in and taken out in the bar - voting machines have to be distributed to many locations
your slot machine will still earn money even if it is completely emptied several times a year - a voting machine only needs to lose once
It's true that the slot Las Vegas slot machine program is much better than any current voting machine goes through. That is outrageous. However, don't think that if you did follow the Las Vegas system that would be enough.
I spend more time using the ribbon than the old menus! That's good... right?
Yes; you have to remember that, the thing which makes Facebook superior to Google is that people go to Google, find an answer, achieve something and then go away satisfied. With Facebook they spend much longer on each page searching for something of value. In future the Ribbon will allow adverts to be mixed in between the indestinguishable wierd icons ensuring that the users click on them by accident whilst desperately searching for a function which they can't work out the proper location or representation of.
This; is the true future of Office365 (which will soon become the one true office as companies attempt to monetize their under-deployed personnel).
This comment is an awesome rtfa-troll, you're living up to your name admirably,
Thanks. Like all Slashdot posters, I am here only to please.
since the only rational response is "please stop asking nVidia to do things they are legally unable to do". nVidia is not the sole owner of "their" IP. They cannot do what you are asking them to do. They tied themselves tightly to Direct3D pretty much from the beginning of the Quadro series, and DirectX6.0b and NV2A (bits of which continued) are a matched pair.
To simply document register names etc. does not document how things work. That is not IP. The recent Oracle vs. Google case says clearly that APIs are not protected matter and I see no reason why the same does not apply to hardware binary interfaces. NVIDIA could also just provide alternate interfaces to (at least some of) the same functionality. NVIDIA could also simply start by providing the 2D and basic registers and avoiding the Direc3D related stuff.If some idiot in NVIDIA signed a contract which excludes them from giving any help whatsoever to Linux, then visibly and cearly firing that person would go a long way to showing willingness.
There is no way that NVIDIA could be stuck and unable to do anyhthing at all helpful. And yet what they do is nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe they're just being professionals rather than juveniles.
Ah yes. Let's see
and from the video
Could they perhaps more usefully say something like:
I'm sure some on Slashdot will go "snigger snigger; he said 'breast'; snigger sigger" like a beavis and butthead edition, but that's not something that a "professional" should even notice. Being clearer and more direct would make the whole thing need much less discussion.
It doesn't matter how well he can dodge chairs; he just has to aim for a team where everybody else is worse at it because Microsoft operates is the type of nightmare employer which operates forced ranking. Also, being with the stupidest people is probably your best chance of getting someone intelligent to teach you something since only the suicidal would teach someone in their own team. Ideally you are looking for a team of stupid people with a recently changed, decent, intelligent manager.
Having said that, the best thing about winning this would be the pleasure of being able to say "no thanks"
Most connections from exit nodes are perfectly legal. For example a Chinese guy wants to access Slashdot. The traffic in the US is legal and it's just his traffic which is encrypted and going to a different node which is where he has a problem if it's discovered.
Let's be clear. The mere fact that you aren't doing anything doesn't make you immune from the police. There are so many laws and regulations set up for corporate interests that it's likely that you are breaking something; merely not running an exit node will not protect you. Filtering the traffic on exit nodes can very much reduce anti-social (potentially illegal) traffic. As long as you are only accepting a partial contribution and your costs are more than $100 you can treat this as an expense payment rather than a profit. This is likely to be seen very differently in court than profiting from an activity. Furthermore, the explicit involvement with the Tor project could help make it clear you did things for political reasons rather than in order to facilitate illegal activities. Overall, bearing in mind INAL, INAL in your country and, ICNYL (certainly not your lawyer), I don't see that this much increases the risk of a person running an exit node.
There's plenty of reasonable FUD to spread about tor; it could be very risky to use tor from China since the traffic isn't that well hidden; you have to be very careful about your end point security; in less-democratic / less free countries you may be arrested for running an exit node even if you had no intention of supporting illegal activities. There's no need to make up extra FUD
I will agree with your comment that government involvement, however imperfect, is probably needed. A free market requires full information and it is almost impossible for people to understand how things are produced without somebody outside the companies following up, checking and ensuring that information gets from the production to the consumer. Unfortunately, the current situation is that the people in government are of the "government is for the companies" or "government doesn't work" persuasion and are setting out to prove it. Food labelling means that something which is labelled as "strawberry flavour yoghurt" can have nothing to do with strawberries. At one point the US government was trying to make it impossible to label meat as growth hormone free. For now at least you need to do something yourself. If nothing else so that some of the small, traditional or careful producers continue to exist when / if your government wakes up. Look at how fat most Americans are; understand most nations are catching up. That is, at least partly, the effect of eating crap. Eat better food and it will be better for you.
[...] People buy the cheapest available equivalent product, period. I always chuckle when I see "buy local" signs because it is such a naive idea that is completely detached from reality. How do I know that when buying local that I'm really creating any benefit? I find it silly to adjust my spending based on something that is not rooted in obvious economic value.[...]
No; you buy the cheapest available product; I buy local sometimes. Most importantly, I try to buy conciously most of the stuff that I buy. Learn about the products where you can. How do you know you are creating benefit? Go and visit the farm. Seriously. Almost any small producer will be happy to show you around. They will explain many things. Small farms in many countries often have accommodation ("agrotourism") as a side line. Spend a couple of days staying there, seeing what they do. When you know your farmer personally you will be much more likely to trust him.
For some things local just isn't relevant. When you buy products with the real Fair Trade logo then you can be pretty sure it's better than the alternative. Partly this is better for the farmers. Also the certification includes production standards which are likely better for you. Just beware that there are some fake Fair Trade style groups (the "Rainforest Alliance" and "Fair Trade USA" and so on) which you should only buy when there is no alternative.
How about for example toys? Everybody keeps complaining about how terrible "Chinese" plastic toys are. Then they complain when there is a recall with lead paint. Tell your friends and especially family that you don't accept cheap plastic toys. Buy Lego. They have completely different levels of product safety. The quality is also better; you will still find your kid playing with stuff five years later where normal toys seem to last about a week.
Basically, what I'm saying: there are economic factors you don't see. Products which make you sick cost you money, it's just that you don't directly see the link. Products which pay their workers more mean your company gets more business; again, this is hard to see but it's a real "economic" factor. "Local" is a useful way to guess that something has them. Specific producers with a brand, a reputation and an interest in quality are another way. Specific labels are yet another way. Try to look not just at the price but the broader economic picture. Think about what hidden costs to you are included in any product and choose the best product.
I think that one of the main original articles which pointed this out was this 2007 article about offshoring and GDP businessweek. I don't know of anything which has contradicted this and this 2009 article seems to suggest that the effect is still real. Whilst the 2009 article suggests that the US has better measures of it's economy and so the figures may be worse elsewhere, the obvious point is that this could only apply to places with increasing imports. Anyone know more?
Secondly, lets say you continued to operate this way until you lost the house and car, wouldn't it be nice to know that you could just walk down to the benefits office and file for benefits.
And, the fact you took advantage of these benefits means it was more likely that he would continue to survive whilst his company was investing; so it's good for society. Moreover; people who earn unevenly end up paying more tax overall. They pay a higher percentage when earning more and lower when earning less. Access to benefits at the bottom end is something that somewhat, but unlikely completely compensates for this.
So yes; this makes complete sense. At least part of benefits should be paid out like work insurance. You get it back immediately you stop earning. All around the world, the people who make things go; the working people, have been conned out of this.
Legally change your name to Cowboy Neal then emigrate to Germany to seed the name? I think it'd be hard to deny someone naming their child Cowboy Neal, Jr. no matter the legal name approval requirements.
Probably won't work since I think you will come under a legal exception for foreigners. Unless you are German, in which case you should first emigrate from Germany to the UK or USA for the birth, name your child and then return to Germany. Warning, you will find that in both the UK and the US the health system is vastly inferior to the one you are used to at home and that the maternity and paternity leave provisions in the USA remind you of the 1950s but no sacrifice is too great to be able to answer "Cowby Neal" in a survey.
In this case, it seems to be one of the increasingly-rare cases of the law being used properly. The book rather clearly copies the trademarked style of JD. It does not have any obvious fair use exemption - it's not being used to reference JD itself (nominative fair use), it's not a parody. It is someone using another's branding apparently either out of laziness, or deliberate deception (most likely the former, but I can't rule out the latter).
Actually; if you had RATFA (Read around the fine article) you would have seen that this is a book, at least partly, about the effect of alcohol and drugs. There's a perfectly obvious reason to use the Jack Daniel's trademark since it is one of the biggest most obvious alcohol brands. Perhaps someone who has a copy could comment on whether the main character explicitly drinks JD or not and if so how much?
It's not censorship. They aren't trying to get the book withdrawn, or removed (which they definitely would, if they were trying to censor the book). The cover has nothing worth censoring - it's just the title and other basic metadata. The only "artistic expression" they're trying to control is their own - the art of their trademark.
Censorship is a bit of a dirty word around here. Despite what most Americans will tell you, there's nothing wrong with a little bit of controlled "censorship" and that's precisely what you want when you are trying to stop people from creating stampedes in non-burning theatres. However, censorship, in the common sense of the word it is. Jack Daniels wants to stop this person from saying what he originally wanted to say. Let's not gloss over that and let's remember that censorship is something that needs to be very carefully applied and be extremely carefully limited. That's why all exceptions to the first amendment in the United States require constitutional support and not merely laws.
In my opinion, since the original author doesn't seem to care too much about Jack Daniels in this instance, and since Jack Daniels is being nice about it, this is a bit of "censorship" that should be accepted. That decision, however, lies with the original author. If the original author, or even the original cover artist, really meant to make a comment on Jack Daniels in particular then he should, politely and nicely, explain that to Jack Daniels; Invite their management out for a drink with the EFF's lawyers and gently explain that, as a parody, this is protected speech and he has the right to use their design.
He could even a) offer to clearly state on the inside of the book that the cover is a parody of Jack Daniel's trademark and that he respects their right to their trademark. b) offer them the chance to co-brand / sponsor / etc. making it clear that any money that they give will go to a worthy charity such as a drugs rehabilitatation establishment (N.B. do not make an offer which could be misunderstood as a demand for money over the trademark - this is why you want your lawyer to be there and make the offer, not yourself).
Starting such a fight may however lead to needless nastiness, and he should only do it if he really believes that he needs to use JD's trademark for a good reason. I'm saying this as a person who believes that current copyright, trademark and patent laws are all invalid since I believe that they all extend beyond what is allowed in the US constitution, Universal declaration of Human Rights and European Convention on Human Rights which should be the controlling law in these cases. If you want to make your case; you should very specifically respect the supposed legal rights of reasonable people in order to specifically contrast them with the unreasonable people like the MPAA and RIAA.
I don't want to take away from the coolness of your post, but I would like to point out that the wikipedia TECO page shows exactly what he's talking about.
So now if I mix all the languages I know into the code I write nobody but me will have a chance to read. I can even safely start using comments again so I know what the code was meant to do two days later without risking my job security...
AAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH.
The measurement of packaging quality is not, as HP seems to think, the amount extra that the packaging adds to the weight of the product.
You know the situation. A delivery guy comes along in a huge huge delivery truck; Out come a team of five lifters and bring a HUGE cardboard box out and drop it next to your desk. Oh; this must be the new database server, you think. You open the first box - it's just filled with boxes. ah; they sent it dissassembled, you think. You start opening boxes. Soon you realise that most of the boxes contain only packaging filler and are there only to hold the other boxes in place. Inside the middle box, however, is a small oblong cardboard box (surrounded by fluffy polystyrene poo shaped package protectors). You open this cardboard box, rip determinedly through the envelope inside. Finally, you find a CD. "HP-UX documentation in Urdu; Supplementary for delivery NN234643; Please store this CD carefully".
At that point you scream.
Including the 90 mile drive to the closest Apple Retail Store and the 90 mile drive back?
Clearly you have your priorities wrong. You should move your home least 87 miles. No true Apple fan would even consider living in such a godforsaken hellhole as the one you obviously live in.
for humanity.
Even if 80% of the teachers lack knowledge, / Sure, a bunch of them will be sold / a lot will not know what to do with them / Maybe that's exactly what's needed to get just ONE kid off to become that great engineer in the future...
It's a simple cost benefit analysis. The OLPC project has had problems in some areas and successes in others. The project started out with a wholistic set of ideas to block theft; to ensure teaching materials were available; to make the systems useful. The project the followed up with volunteers who went out, realised what problems there were and reacted to them. It still gets lots of criticism. It's an interesting balance but it looks like, on average, it has done good. If this project comes in without proper planning, without proper materials and without a worldwide volunteer group to bring lessons back then the most likely outcome is that it will end up causing twenty alternative better projects to be blocked. I'm sure there will be one engineer created, but if that's at the cost of directing 10,000 other kids to a life of worthless video games the overall project will end up with fewer engineers in Thailand.
At least it's clear that they understand they have to do something with the content. I hope this statement is a misunderstanding and they already have at least some content ready before they start to deliver devices.
Cell plans I can support you on, but smartphones is a different matter. This is 100% news for nerds. There is a change going on with a move so that most computing will be taking place on a smartphone. Within the next two years there will be more smartphones in use than computers. Within less than three years, more applications will be run on smartphones than on computers. Some time in that period, probably in a contry in Asia, the first bank will decide that supporting desktop users isn't worth it since they all have smartphones anyway.
When this happens, almost everybody on Slashdot will have their job change in one way or another. Mostly just doing the same stuff targetting a different user interface, but sometimes completely changing or, for those that got stuck with the wrong kind of desktop technology, being forced to completely leave the IT industry.
At the level of companies this change is seen very clearly. One company (Nokia) has already panicked and destroyed its self. Much more interesting is Microsoft. They have been very very aware of the mistake that IBM made at this stage and have totally committed to mobile. The thing is that it seems that they have made an even bigger mistake than IBM; they are sacrificing their desktop, compromising their traditional interface to impose metro; trying to push their mobile but finding nobody wants it. They have kicked their traditional partners - the PC manufacturers - in the teeth with Metro. They have kicked the Mobile operators in the balls with Skype. Keeping Nokia on life support and pushing Windows Phone is actually seriously eating into Microsoft's cash reserves.
If the trend continues and Microsoft collapses, or more likely is restructured into a series of smaller companies then the whole IT scene is going to change.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think that judges who declare that copyright is a good idea should be recused? To be honest, I do. Whilst I believe that some limited copyright might be a social good, I think that current copyright laws are unconstitutional, against human rights laws and an interference with freedom of speech. Juges who support those laws cannot fairly judge the constitutional issues. There is no chance that a judge who said that "we must find better ways to defend Intellectual Property" would then recuse himself from a filesharing case, even if he was currently involved in it. As long as that's true, Judge Harvey's comments, whilst mildly inappropriate in the situation, are nowhere close to the boundary to justify recusal. Judges who have, in previous work, been working for or cooperating with copyright bodies regularly fail to recuse themselves. If doubles standards like this are allowed to apply where is the chance that people who have been attacked by media interests can get a fair trial?
In the sense that the iPhone came from the idea that a 'rich American' can afford a phone which includes both consumer features like picture sharing and music together with 'corporate' features like email and security and is willing to pay for all of them in one package, I think you are right. However, Microsoft has designed for the first world and that is the source of many of it's Windows Phone's fundamental failings. Problems like lack of Bluetooth file tranfer come from an assumption you always have a network and can always afford it. Problems like lack of memory card support (shared with the iPhone) come from the assumption you have your own WiFi network at home and so can afford to move large chunks of data on and off the phone wirelessly. Clearly design for the first world has had a bad influence here and these design failures even make Windows phones bad for use in their home markets.
Japan is obviously the ultimate "first world" location. Networks there are much more advanced than in the US. Consumers mostly have more money to spend on gadgets. Despite that, systems designed for Japan rarely do well in other countries until culturally translated and simplified considerably.
What you actually need is a phone developed for the most demanding and quality concious users at a given moment. When the iPhone came out that was the US market. Now the needs there have been largely satisfied. It's quite likely that China, with it's complex character set, limited fixed network and advanced mobile networks and rapidly changing economy is one of the best places now.
You've been moderated as a troll; and, in the sense that you are parroting MS talking points so I guess I understand that. Still, I think it's unfair and I that mods can mod us both up and encourage sensible debate.
As someone who actually worked at the FDA with the people in question, I'm getting tired of the piss on the FDA attitude here, and I can tell you that TFA is written to sex things up.
thanks for declaring up front.
The individuals who were "spied" on were parts of teams who reviewed medical products. People on those teams had differing opinions regarding the safety and effectiveness of various products. The leads of those teams and their management had to decide whether to approve the products given the conflicting input from the team, the history of safety and effectiveness of similar products, published scientific studies, etc.
You talk as if there were only two possibilities; "yes" or "no". That's extremely scary and seems to me to show that there is something horribly wrong in the FDA. There is also a third option: "data is currently insufficient to make a clea tr decision". If the input was conflicting, then the team leads responsibility is to identify the reasons behind the conflict, decide what further study would be needed to make a decision and make a temporary rejection with information about what further research needs to be done.
When those decisions did not go in favor of the individuals in question, they complained loudly.
Again, you are scaring me. These are not personal favours. This is not about something going for or against the scientists. They believed that these systems were endangering and possibly killing people. If they believed that then their duty to push their belief forward. The FDA should have a system which accepts or even encourages that. As long as the scientists work within their professional duty it should be no problem at all if they believe and act on something, even if it is actually wrong. If that isn't true then the FDA is a danger to patients.
And when details about the products that they were reviewing were leaked to the NYT, they were suspected of doing so. Note that this product information belongs to the companies that submit the products, and its release by the FDA is against the law.
Anytime that any FDA employee logs into a FDA computer, a big splash window appears that states that ALL use of that computer is subject to monitoring by the US government.
Let's give a car analogy. Imagine you park your car and leave it to work for the day. I come along to it and put a sticker on it saying "this is rtfa-troll's car and will be removed soon". Does that then make it okay when I subsequently break into it and steal it? No. Illegal activity is lawbreaking, whether you announce it in advance ro not.
This window has appeared on all federal computers for more that 12 years now. Are we supposed to be surprised when the federal government monitors the use of some employees' computers they suspect of violating the law?
Not quite as sexy as the article makes it out, is it?
You've completely missed the point. Just monitoring is not the problem. The problem is what you do when you realise that you have no legal right to the information you have been monitoring? That is the point that they realised they were monitoring privilaged communications with members of congress or attourneys? They should have done several things: a) immediately destroy the information b) desist from further monitoring until their systems are updated c) ensure that in future similar information will not be captured d) inform those people who were illegally monitored at the first possible opportunity and give an apology and appropriate compensation. If you continue to monitor, gather, classify and use those communictions after realising what they are, then you switch from having made an understandable mistake to deliberate and wilful criminality.
If the FDA, the organisation responsible for approving medicines and medical equipment in the USA and a lead organisation in this area for the entire world, is a criminal organisation then that is a deep concern.
Strange Loops: Ken Thompson and the Self-referencing C Compiler Reflections on Trusting Trust - Ken Thompson
Those are old and outdated papers from before diverse double compilation techniques were described. Source code is the fundamental requiement for both auditing and efficient discovery of exploits. This is the reason why the Chinese government insists on and gets access to Microsoft Windows source.
Right; 100%. With an iPhone there is a dead simple choice; I'm rich / prioritize this - take the latest model, pay a reasonable amount. Poor / sensible - take the older one still on sale. All of them are still delivering a platform on which most of the features ("apps") will work except where tied to some very specific new feature (e.g. siri to voice recognition). If you want to see how much other phone companies don't get this, look only at the wannabe competitors who are releasing new phones unable to run skype where previous models have been able to. Even Android is barely succeeding at getting this even with Google continually and determinedly pushing it.
The real truth is that the brilliance of Apple was in sacrificing market share for the ability to make decisions independent of the mobile operators. This meant that there was only one company (Apple its self) putting it's own interests above the consumers and even that company is pretty much aware of the danger and so only does it "tastefully".
This is what Microsoft is fighting for with Skype - the ability to bypass the mobile operators and make them irrelevant. I don't think they will succeed, but once the mobile operators realise the risk I think it will make Apple and Google's bargaining power much larger.
This is a paper trail based voting machine. I will admit that I think that these are mostly acceptably secure, however that's because they start with the fundamental assumption that you can't trust the software. Still, there are clearly opportunities for cheating. For example, if votes are only normally recounted on close elections, then only cheat on elections where you are expected to win but don't, and then, when you do cheat, cheat in a big way. As long as you only do it once or twice you have a good chance of getting away with it.
The correct thing to do is to assume that there must always be a hand count and (almost) always do one.
If you had READ the FINE ARTICLE; you would know that 7000 == 7500 and 9 == 9.30 and 70,000 == 70,267. Typical careless rounding of the type that can easily get the wrong person elected..
use the same system for slot machines they go under lots of testing to make them hard to cheat them even to the point of shocking them.
This is one of the standard examples, the other given is bank machines. The average engineer/computer scientest will tell you this every time up to the stage of actually starting voting machine companies and spending millions on delivering machines which fail to be sufficiently secure. Just think about how much more hostile the voting machine environment
It's true that the slot Las Vegas slot machine program is much better than any current voting machine goes through. That is outrageous. However, don't think that if you did follow the Las Vegas system that would be enough.
I spend more time using the ribbon than the old menus! That's good... right?
Yes; you have to remember that, the thing which makes Facebook superior to Google is that people go to Google, find an answer, achieve something and then go away satisfied. With Facebook they spend much longer on each page searching for something of value. In future the Ribbon will allow adverts to be mixed in between the indestinguishable wierd icons ensuring that the users click on them by accident whilst desperately searching for a function which they can't work out the proper location or representation of.
This; is the true future of Office365 (which will soon become the one true office as companies attempt to monetize their under-deployed personnel).
This comment is an awesome rtfa-troll, you're living up to your name admirably,
Thanks. Like all Slashdot posters, I am here only to please.
since the only rational response is "please stop asking nVidia to do things they are legally unable to do". nVidia is not the sole owner of "their" IP. They cannot do what you are asking them to do. They tied themselves tightly to Direct3D pretty much from the beginning of the Quadro series, and DirectX6.0b and NV2A (bits of which continued) are a matched pair.
To simply document register names etc. does not document how things work. That is not IP. The recent Oracle vs. Google case says clearly that APIs are not protected matter and I see no reason why the same does not apply to hardware binary interfaces. NVIDIA could also just provide alternate interfaces to (at least some of) the same functionality. NVIDIA could also simply start by providing the 2D and basic registers and avoiding the Direc3D related stuff.If some idiot in NVIDIA signed a contract which excludes them from giving any help whatsoever to Linux, then visibly and cearly firing that person would go a long way to showing willingness.
There is no way that NVIDIA could be stuck and unable to do anyhthing at all helpful. And yet what they do is nothing.