I'm guessing that's Sierra Club of America? I tried searching on Google, but the best that came up was "SCA - Sexual Compulsives Anonymous"; I'm definitely hoping that's not what you meant:-)
back on topic; yup, when I look at most people's disaster recovery list, it also matches my kitchen stores and camping gear. This is great because it means you have an incentive to keep everything up to date. As perpenso posted below, using your normal supplies is the best way. It means that you don't end up with a big pile of outdated stuff.
Today; after six days; long after this story disappeared from the front page; long after the moderation could have any influence on anything other than, possibly, my karma; this was moderated down. Now someone explain that, other than my theory about MS manipulating Slashdot:-)
...Larry can go fuck himself......Filthy dirty fucking Oracle...
I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I personally find it a bit like gas mask porn. I'm glad it's out there; I believe in the freedom of speech; I really hope the users are happy and fully satisfied. However, I have no personal need to ever see this particular newsletter.
Just saying. (BTW; I once heard that the gas mask fetish was really popular in the UK in the 50s & 60s following on from the long nights of the london blitz; can't find a citation though).
I'm and I have been the first to call bullshit on the various liars from the nuclear industry, but when you make a claim like that you need to provide some evidence. Please could you provide links that we can put into Google translate or whatever.
That depends on whether we're trying to prove that our policies are "stable and determined" or "flexible and intelligent" today. It's all a matter of communication priorities you see.
Well, quantum mechanics says we can't be sure what has happened exactly or more importantly will happen. However, we can clearly exclude some things which will not happen (e.g. if we have a waveguide with a single wavelength width, the particle will not be in the middle; almost anywhere else, but not exactly in the middle (see the second of the images on this page; e.g. the electron in a semiconductor will not have an energy in the bandgap). In this case, conservation of angular momentum will apply, so solutions in which Japan moved and the world did not are ruled out. A large number of people observed that Japan moved, and so the rest of the world must have moved proportionally.
May have? Every time you move an apple from one side of the room to the other it'll shift the axis. Something like this has done it for sure. The only question is: how much? This is a perfect example of journalists needing to have two viewpoints and just not understanding which are the possible differences. Anybody who thinks there are two (rather than one or many) possible right answers is in need of either and anti-lobotomy or a brain transplant....
During this crisis, almost immediately people came out to say "a melt down of these reactors is impossible", yet these reactors have melted down.
Have they? Really? If you're such a Nuclear whizz, why are you on slashdot rather than trying to work out what's happened.
I assume you are questioning the prime minister of Japan's statement that the reactors melted down? If you are suggesting that we don't know if they have melted down, but he just thinks that, you are hardly helping us believe in the safety and competence of the people running the reactor.
We heard that the leak was only radioactive steam from the cooling system; that the core wasn't compromised. Now we suddenly learn again that that was a lie. We repeatedly hear that wind power is more expensive than nuclear and then find out that the numbers are complete lies. All of the cost estimates for nuclear plants seem to turn out to have been done ignoring the cost of nuclear waste.
So you move from safety onto cost?
Actually I'm moving from lies to lies. My point is not that nuclear power is inherently unsafe. My point is that nuclear power can be unsafe and that the people running it seem to be unfit for any safety critical job. In order to trust nuclear we have to trust their judgement and honesty. When we look at what they have said in the past it is clear that we cannot to so.
Keep implies there have been previous major failures. When was the last one? How many people have died from nuclear plants, including uranium mining, in the last 60 years? How many people have died from coal plants and mining?
If your Googlefoo isn't up to finding these answers yourself then there's a list of civilian nuclear accidents on Wikipedia which should help answering your question. Looking at the Chernoby article, it seems that the answer to your question ranges from several thousands (IAEA estimate) to tens of thousands (Greenpeace commissioned study estimate) for that one disaster alone.
Perhaps some perspective. 3,500 people die every day from lung cancer. If you want to save lives, put your energy into banning smoking.
It's a fair point. If I was more able to trust the nuclear lobby than the Greenpeace one then I might even go with this. The fact is that the first seem even more unscientific than the second.
A private company offers a service. Users use it. The users then starts using the service for a political agenda. The company removes the content referring to their TOS. I really cannot see the right of the users to complain.
The right to complain comes from the fundamental right called "freedom of speech" which means that, except where it interfere's with other people's fundamental rights, such as "privacy" you should be allowed to say what you want. Including complaining.
The justification for complaining comes from the fact that services such as Flikr rely on the freedoms of the modern world and our systems of justice in order to exist. These freedoms were hard fought for. Companies which do not do their little bit for these freedoms
What is MORALLY or ETHICALLY correct to do isn't always the correct thing to do business wise.
It's our job to make sure it is.
Who is to judge when a private company with its own TOS has to do something OTHERS claim to be ethical / moral correct?
Me; you; every customer of their's. If we judge them, then that will help them to head in the right direction. We should judge them fairly; we should judge them pretty laxly; we should allow them to disagree with our points of view. However, when the start getting in the way of fundamental rights such as free speech we should be as harsh as we reasonably can be.
If someone was to come up to me a claim that I had to do something because it was the "right thing to do" when I didn't want to I would get really pissed of and kick the person out.
I'm really not sure what circumstances you are imagining. Maybe you think of giving money to a cancer charity? Then I can understand you; they mostly have plenty already; you don't really know who they are. You should be able to judge yourself. The circumstances I'm thinking of are where a little girl is dying outside your house after your rottweiler ripped her throat out and the person just wants to use your phone to call an ambulance. If you would kick that person out just because they offended delicate little you then you are scum. Would you really? I don't think so.
The step you are missing is the bit, just after paragraph 1, where you advertise your new bridge as providing "safe and limitless river crossing for generations; so cheap nobody will even think to impose tolls". Then, when people start getting washed away you build fences to make sure that only one person crosses at a time so nobody can tell who the washed away people are. Later, you publish studies showing that due to the unavoidable risk of waterfalls all river ferries are incredibly dangerous and much more expensive than anybody ever knew. Finally you start accusing everybody who ever claimed your version 1 bridge was unsafe of knowing nothing about water and that if only they all learned about the theory of swimming they would know that nobody will be killed by water in future.
perhaps you are right and nuclear is now safe. It's just very difficult to believe it just because the nuclear industry says it's true.
The thing is, most of us aren't competent to analyse the engineering or the physics in detail. The only thing we can go on is the fact that the pro-nuclear lobby turn out repeatedly to be a bunch of complete liars. For example, after Chernobyl we were told "there are no such dangerous reactors allowed in first world countries"; then we suddenly hear that the Japanese reactors are older than Chernobyl. During this crisis, almost immediately people came out to say "a melt down of these reactors is impossible", yet these reactors have melted down. We heard that the leak was only radioactive steam from the cooling system; that the core wasn't compromised. Now we suddenly learn again that that was a lie. We repeatedly hear that wind power is more expensive than nuclear and then find out that the numbers are complete lies. All of the cost estimates for nuclear plants seem to turn out to have been done ignoring the cost of nuclear waste.
I don't know if there are some safe nuclear plants. I don't know if we can reliably make safe nuclear plants. What I do know is that the same people keep repeatedly telling us that "nuclear power is safe" and then we keep having major failures which prove it isn't. I don't need to understand the engineering issues to understand that there is no way to trust the pro-nuclear lobby to actually deal with those issues. Fission based power (and yes; you are right fusion is a different case) needs to be severely limited until we are sure that the people proposing it are much much more trustworthy.
Before going ballistic, please read the entire post.
Flickr is a private company.Thus, they are entitled to have their own TOS providing it does not violate the law.
If one of these terms are "You are only allowed to upload your own material, i.e. material created by you or which you solely hold the copyright for." so be it.
These two things are not related. Flickr is a private company and allowed to do more or less what they want. We are private people and allowed to go ballistic about more or less what we want. When Flickr turns out to be supporting torturers then we will go ballistic.
The fact that these terms of service were there in advance is no excuse they are able to change those terms of service at any time if they want. There is also no magical obligation on them to enforce their TOS so they can make a temporary or long term exception if they wish. If there was a serious legal risk for them then we might understand. The fact that their staff post photos that don't belong to them shows that there is no such thing. At the very least they should give him time and help to relocate the photos before they remove them from their site.
As it is, Flickr is trying to be the main place for sharing photos at the same time as trying to censor political content. The correct reaction is to go ballistic.
Let's go over this again. There is nothing, per se, wrong with a monopoly. You are allowed to build a monopoly as long as a) you do not acquire it illegally (e.g. Microsoft seems to haver achieved their monopoly on office software by deliberately making other office suites not work properly) or b) you do not use it to illegally influence other markets (e.g. Microsoft took over the web browser market by illegally leveraging their monopoly on operating systems).
Google has definitely been gaining a monopoly on straight web advertising. Their acquisition of Double Click is worrying. They should be watched, but can you please give a clear simple example of actual illegal behavior by Google. As long as there isn't that example (and I can believe that it exists, but we just don't know about it.. that comes under "innocent until proven guilty" (un)fortunately) Google remains completely out of the picture.
The fact that facebook has been able to grow it's advertising system independent of Google is a pretty good sign that Google doesn't have the same kind of monopoly as Microsoft. If Google did, they would simply tell advertisers not to use Facebook, just as Microsoft tells computer manufacturers not to deliver Linux.
Really we do need this. It's such an insightful troll that it shouldn't be lost, but it really needs to be moved to the bottom of the discussion since the whole aim here is to make sure nobody gets down to the discussion about congressional corruption and/or we find out more about the way that MS triggered Google's anti-trust problems by making complaints through various front organisations.
I checked his posting history, he's a big Microsoft fanboi, yes, should have his head examined. However he also posts in other subjects so he doesn't seem to be a shillbot.
This seems to be SOP for Microsoft shills. They post regularly and informatively on topics which are neutral for Microsoft. That of course gives them plenty of moderator points and keeps their karma high even when they are being moderated down. If you post information which is against Microsoft's interests you will notice some very interesting and wierd moderation (e.g. posts quite often fall massively early with several coordinated moderations within a period of seconds/minutes then often get moderated back up slowly later). I'd assume that this is part of a campaign to manipulate the Slashdot moderation system. I also assume that it's only partly successful since the moderating back up does seem to happen quite often. A very good reason for moderators to always browse at -1.
Yes; Score 100%. And furthermore, once we force them to remove them, they'll clearly need a new machine (since they needed the old ones, it's clear that there will be an unfulfilled need) so they will be able to do exactly the same sting again. What technology will they use next time? Ultra-low dose cyanide projection scanners? Dioxin-penetration accelerators? The only thing they need is to make sure the contract is signed off before we find out!!!
Fedora is great; don't get me wrong. But it's great for me and you who would like to upgrade versions at least twice a year and mess around with new software. I'd steer away from recommending it until the come up with a default install which guarantees to do automatic updates to new versions without user intervention.
Wafaa's preferred solution was that Elop "should have forked Android, and done it better, made some of it open source, and wrestled the ecosystem away from Google. Can't be that hard. That would have been my strategy."
That doesn't give me a great feeling of confidence in the business/project management experience of that particular developer.
Actually it's a brilliant idea. They could have done that, putting an OpenJDK based JVM in place, possibly with Dalvik JIT translation all in GPL. Then they could either deal with Oracle to get a highly optimised implementation cheap or, if Oracle won't play ball, spend a bit more to update and optimise the OpenJDK to maxiumum performance levels themselves.
Nokia was actually the only company with enough patents to expect to survive doing this. Certainly Google wouldn't want to fight them and, if they stuck strictly to the GPL, Oracle probably wouldn't be able to touch them whilst being at serious risk of a massive countersuit if they did try.
I think that the difference is that all the gurus are telling everybody to do what works for them, where these guys are actually writing up and studying different techniques and finding that different lists work for different people.
I guess a summary list of practical research you can read through would be really interesting if anyone knows a good one.... There was something recently that the only proven memorisation technique is to use some kind of exponential back off. Even a special program to do that. Unfortunately I can't remember where and when it was discussed:-)..
"Laid off" is code for "worth less than he was making". It's also a good indication that you should probably reconsider your "worth".
Bullshit. Almost always laid off is a code for "Jake in HR doesn't like his face" or "refused to help us to steal from the shareholders". It's very rare that actual incompetents get fired.
What you need to do is to send him a C&D and then a serious lawsuit. If you don't have funding then please announce that and we will provide. I now pledge 100 Euro on actual instigation of a court action against him for a specific GPL violation if you need it and provided that you demand appropriate damages (as with the BusyBox cases).
The calls were dropped because the trunks (over which calls flow) were disabled in software. Nothing to do with "rain fade" or some abstract wireless issue.
Interesting. Completely unacceptable. Not at all clear from the Bloomsberg article. I wish posters would link to something which had a link back to the the original article. This was a big hassle to find.
Looking at it, something is deeply wrong here. Clearly the operations staff completely missed what should be a big bunch of serious alarms over a period of about five hours!!! Even more, Verizon's network people don't seem to be able to give a clear answer about what went wrong (though at a guess the measured BER on the trunks went up because they were properly in use for the first time - which shows incomplete testing, long term ignoring alarms and a switch system which measures BER badly). If this were in another country and the FCC wasn't so afraid of the operators then I guess that they would be at serious risk of losing their operator license. What's sad is that we used to hear of the US as the place where you couldn't have more than a five minute outage without a government investigation.
Damn right. All servers should be rebooted at least once a month, probably more. The redundant server will take over seamlessly (if you don't have a redundant server then the service isn't serious and you can do this during daytime). If you can't afford to run without redundancy then you should have at least two redundant servers. However, the article seems to be talking about rebooting to debug.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing that's Sierra Club of America? I tried searching on Google, but the best that came up was "SCA - Sexual Compulsives Anonymous"; I'm definitely hoping that's not what you meant :-)
back on topic; yup, when I look at most people's disaster recovery list, it also matches my kitchen stores and camping gear. This is great because it means you have an incentive to keep everything up to date. As perpenso posted below, using your normal supplies is the best way. It means that you don't end up with a big pile of outdated stuff.
Today; after six days; long after this story disappeared from the front page; long after the moderation could have any influence on anything other than, possibly, my karma; this was moderated down. Now someone explain that, other than my theory about MS manipulating Slashdot :-)
I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I personally find it a bit like gas mask porn. I'm glad it's out there; I believe in the freedom of speech; I really hope the users are happy and fully satisfied. However, I have no personal need to ever see this particular newsletter.
Just saying. (BTW; I once heard that the gas mask fetish was really popular in the UK in the 50s & 60s following on from the long nights of the london blitz; can't find a citation though).
4000 or so. This is less than even the initial estimates of immediate short-term life loss from the quake and tsunami.
It is very cute when the definition of "safe" is "causes less deaths than the worst ever earthquake in the history of man".
I'm and I have been the first to call bullshit on the various liars from the nuclear industry, but when you make a claim like that you need to provide some evidence. Please could you provide links that we can put into Google translate or whatever.
Does the axis shift if it can't be measured?
That depends on whether we're trying to prove that our policies are "stable and determined" or "flexible and intelligent" today. It's all a matter of communication priorities you see.
Well, quantum mechanics says we can't be sure what has happened exactly or more importantly will happen. However, we can clearly exclude some things which will not happen (e.g. if we have a waveguide with a single wavelength width, the particle will not be in the middle; almost anywhere else, but not exactly in the middle (see the second of the images on this page; e.g. the electron in a semiconductor will not have an energy in the bandgap). In this case, conservation of angular momentum will apply, so solutions in which Japan moved and the world did not are ruled out. A large number of people observed that Japan moved, and so the rest of the world must have moved proportionally.
May have? Every time you move an apple from one side of the room to the other it'll shift the axis. Something like this has done it for sure. The only question is: how much? This is a perfect example of journalists needing to have two viewpoints and just not understanding which are the possible differences. Anybody who thinks there are two (rather than one or many) possible right answers is in need of either and anti-lobotomy or a brain transplant....
During this crisis, almost immediately people came out to say "a melt down of these reactors is impossible", yet these reactors have melted down.
Have they? Really? If you're such a Nuclear whizz, why are you on slashdot rather than trying to work out what's happened.
I assume you are questioning the prime minister of Japan's statement that the reactors melted down? If you are suggesting that we don't know if they have melted down, but he just thinks that, you are hardly helping us believe in the safety and competence of the people running the reactor.
We heard that the leak was only radioactive steam from the cooling system; that the core wasn't compromised. Now we suddenly learn again that that was a lie. We repeatedly hear that wind power is more expensive than nuclear and then find out that the numbers are complete lies. All of the cost estimates for nuclear plants seem to turn out to have been done ignoring the cost of nuclear waste.
So you move from safety onto cost?
Actually I'm moving from lies to lies. My point is not that nuclear power is inherently unsafe. My point is that nuclear power can be unsafe and that the people running it seem to be unfit for any safety critical job. In order to trust nuclear we have to trust their judgement and honesty. When we look at what they have said in the past it is clear that we cannot to so.
Keep implies there have been previous major failures. When was the last one? How many people have died from nuclear plants, including uranium mining, in the last 60 years? How many people have died from coal plants and mining?
If your Googlefoo isn't up to finding these answers yourself then there's a list of civilian nuclear accidents on Wikipedia which should help answering your question. Looking at the Chernoby article, it seems that the answer to your question ranges from several thousands (IAEA estimate) to tens of thousands (Greenpeace commissioned study estimate) for that one disaster alone.
Perhaps some perspective. 3,500 people die every day from lung cancer. If you want to save lives, put your energy into banning smoking.
It's a fair point. If I was more able to trust the nuclear lobby than the Greenpeace one then I might even go with this. The fact is that the first seem even more unscientific than the second.
A private company offers a service. Users use it. The users then starts using the service for a political agenda. The company removes the content referring to their TOS. I really cannot see the right of the users to complain.
The right to complain comes from the fundamental right called "freedom of speech" which means that, except where it interfere's with other people's fundamental rights, such as "privacy" you should be allowed to say what you want. Including complaining.
The justification for complaining comes from the fact that services such as Flikr rely on the freedoms of the modern world and our systems of justice in order to exist. These freedoms were hard fought for. Companies which do not do their little bit for these freedoms
What is MORALLY or ETHICALLY correct to do isn't always the correct thing to do business wise.
It's our job to make sure it is.
Who is to judge when a private company with its own TOS has to do something OTHERS claim to be ethical / moral correct?
Me; you; every customer of their's. If we judge them, then that will help them to head in the right direction. We should judge them fairly; we should judge them pretty laxly; we should allow them to disagree with our points of view. However, when the start getting in the way of fundamental rights such as free speech we should be as harsh as we reasonably can be.
If someone was to come up to me a claim that I had to do something because it was the "right thing to do" when I didn't want to I would get really pissed of and kick the person out.
I'm really not sure what circumstances you are imagining. Maybe you think of giving money to a cancer charity? Then I can understand you; they mostly have plenty already; you don't really know who they are. You should be able to judge yourself. The circumstances I'm thinking of are where a little girl is dying outside your house after your rottweiler ripped her throat out and the person just wants to use your phone to call an ambulance. If you would kick that person out just because they offended delicate little you then you are scum. Would you really? I don't think so.
The step you are missing is the bit, just after paragraph 1, where you advertise your new bridge as providing "safe and limitless river crossing for generations; so cheap nobody will even think to impose tolls". Then, when people start getting washed away you build fences to make sure that only one person crosses at a time so nobody can tell who the washed away people are. Later, you publish studies showing that due to the unavoidable risk of waterfalls all river ferries are incredibly dangerous and much more expensive than anybody ever knew. Finally you start accusing everybody who ever claimed your version 1 bridge was unsafe of knowing nothing about water and that if only they all learned about the theory of swimming they would know that nobody will be killed by water in future.
perhaps you are right and nuclear is now safe. It's just very difficult to believe it just because the nuclear industry says it's true.
The thing is, most of us aren't competent to analyse the engineering or the physics in detail. The only thing we can go on is the fact that the pro-nuclear lobby turn out repeatedly to be a bunch of complete liars. For example, after Chernobyl we were told "there are no such dangerous reactors allowed in first world countries"; then we suddenly hear that the Japanese reactors are older than Chernobyl. During this crisis, almost immediately people came out to say "a melt down of these reactors is impossible", yet these reactors have melted down. We heard that the leak was only radioactive steam from the cooling system; that the core wasn't compromised. Now we suddenly learn again that that was a lie. We repeatedly hear that wind power is more expensive than nuclear and then find out that the numbers are complete lies. All of the cost estimates for nuclear plants seem to turn out to have been done ignoring the cost of nuclear waste.
I don't know if there are some safe nuclear plants. I don't know if we can reliably make safe nuclear plants. What I do know is that the same people keep repeatedly telling us that "nuclear power is safe" and then we keep having major failures which prove it isn't. I don't need to understand the engineering issues to understand that there is no way to trust the pro-nuclear lobby to actually deal with those issues. Fission based power (and yes; you are right fusion is a different case) needs to be severely limited until we are sure that the people proposing it are much much more trustworthy.
Before going ballistic, please read the entire post.
Flickr is a private company.Thus, they are entitled to have their own TOS providing it does not violate the law.
If one of these terms are "You are only allowed to upload your own material, i.e. material created by you or which you solely hold the copyright for." so be it.
These two things are not related. Flickr is a private company and allowed to do more or less what they want. We are private people and allowed to go ballistic about more or less what we want. When Flickr turns out to be supporting torturers then we will go ballistic.
The fact that these terms of service were there in advance is no excuse they are able to change those terms of service at any time if they want. There is also no magical obligation on them to enforce their TOS so they can make a temporary or long term exception if they wish. If there was a serious legal risk for them then we might understand. The fact that their staff post photos that don't belong to them shows that there is no such thing. At the very least they should give him time and help to relocate the photos before they remove them from their site.
As it is, Flickr is trying to be the main place for sharing photos at the same time as trying to censor political content. The correct reaction is to go ballistic.
Let's go over this again. There is nothing, per se, wrong with a monopoly. You are allowed to build a monopoly as long as a) you do not acquire it illegally (e.g. Microsoft seems to haver achieved their monopoly on office software by deliberately making other office suites not work properly) or b) you do not use it to illegally influence other markets (e.g. Microsoft took over the web browser market by illegally leveraging their monopoly on operating systems).
Google has definitely been gaining a monopoly on straight web advertising. Their acquisition of Double Click is worrying. They should be watched, but can you please give a clear simple example of actual illegal behavior by Google. As long as there isn't that example (and I can believe that it exists, but we just don't know about it.. that comes under "innocent until proven guilty" (un)fortunately) Google remains completely out of the picture.
The fact that facebook has been able to grow it's advertising system independent of Google is a pretty good sign that Google doesn't have the same kind of monopoly as Microsoft. If Google did, they would simply tell advertisers not to use Facebook, just as Microsoft tells computer manufacturers not to deliver Linux.
Really we do need this. It's such an insightful troll that it shouldn't be lost, but it really needs to be moved to the bottom of the discussion since the whole aim here is to make sure nobody gets down to the discussion about congressional corruption and/or we find out more about the way that MS triggered Google's anti-trust problems by making complaints through various front organisations.
I checked his posting history, he's a big Microsoft fanboi, yes, should have his head examined. However he also posts in other subjects so he doesn't seem to be a shillbot.
This seems to be SOP for Microsoft shills. They post regularly and informatively on topics which are neutral for Microsoft. That of course gives them plenty of moderator points and keeps their karma high even when they are being moderated down. If you post information which is against Microsoft's interests you will notice some very interesting and wierd moderation (e.g. posts quite often fall massively early with several coordinated moderations within a period of seconds/minutes then often get moderated back up slowly later). I'd assume that this is part of a campaign to manipulate the Slashdot moderation system. I also assume that it's only partly successful since the moderating back up does seem to happen quite often. A very good reason for moderators to always browse at -1.
Yes; Score 100%. And furthermore, once we force them to remove them, they'll clearly need a new machine (since they needed the old ones, it's clear that there will be an unfulfilled need) so they will be able to do exactly the same sting again. What technology will they use next time? Ultra-low dose cyanide projection scanners? Dioxin-penetration accelerators? The only thing they need is to make sure the contract is signed off before we find out!!!
Fedora is great; don't get me wrong. But it's great for me and you who would like to upgrade versions at least twice a year and mess around with new software. I'd steer away from recommending it until the come up with a default install which guarantees to do automatic updates to new versions without user intervention.
Wafaa's preferred solution was that Elop "should have forked Android, and done it better, made some of it open source, and wrestled the ecosystem away from Google. Can't be that hard. That would have been my strategy."
That doesn't give me a great feeling of confidence in the business/project management experience of that particular developer.
Actually it's a brilliant idea. They could have done that, putting an OpenJDK based JVM in place, possibly with Dalvik JIT translation all in GPL. Then they could either deal with Oracle to get a highly optimised implementation cheap or, if Oracle won't play ball, spend a bit more to update and optimise the OpenJDK to maxiumum performance levels themselves.
Nokia was actually the only company with enough patents to expect to survive doing this. Certainly Google wouldn't want to fight them and, if they stuck strictly to the GPL, Oracle probably wouldn't be able to touch them whilst being at serious risk of a massive countersuit if they did try.
Interesting but not that. It was a free Linux application.
I think that the difference is that all the gurus are telling everybody to do what works for them, where these guys are actually writing up and studying different techniques and finding that different lists work for different people.
I guess a summary list of practical research you can read through would be really interesting if anyone knows a good one.... There was something recently that the only proven memorisation technique is to use some kind of exponential back off. Even a special program to do that. Unfortunately I can't remember where and when it was discussed :-) ..
"Laid off" is code for "worth less than he was making". It's also a good indication that you should probably reconsider your "worth".
Bullshit. Almost always laid off is a code for "Jake in HR doesn't like his face" or "refused to help us to steal from the shareholders". It's very rare that actual incompetents get fired.
What you need to do is to send him a C&D and then a serious lawsuit. If you don't have funding then please announce that and we will provide. I now pledge 100 Euro on actual instigation of a court action against him for a specific GPL violation if you need it and provided that you demand appropriate damages (as with the BusyBox cases).
The calls were dropped because the trunks (over which calls flow) were disabled in software. Nothing to do with "rain fade" or some abstract wireless issue.
Interesting. Completely unacceptable. Not at all clear from the Bloomsberg article. I wish posters would link to something which had a link back to the the original article. This was a big hassle to find.
Looking at it, something is deeply wrong here. Clearly the operations staff completely missed what should be a big bunch of serious alarms over a period of about five hours!!! Even more, Verizon's network people don't seem to be able to give a clear answer about what went wrong (though at a guess the measured BER on the trunks went up because they were properly in use for the first time - which shows incomplete testing, long term ignoring alarms and a switch system which measures BER badly). If this were in another country and the FCC wasn't so afraid of the operators then I guess that they would be at serious risk of losing their operator license. What's sad is that we used to hear of the US as the place where you couldn't have more than a five minute outage without a government investigation.
Damn right. All servers should be rebooted at least once a month, probably more. The redundant server will take over seamlessly (if you don't have a redundant server then the service isn't serious and you can do this during daytime). If you can't afford to run without redundancy then you should have at least two redundant servers. However, the article seems to be talking about rebooting to debug.