Whaaa? Next thing you will tell me is that the concept of using gravity to determine the proper up-down orientation of a device was invented a long time ago, or that the act of using more than one finger at a time isn't a novel new idea!
"Apple reinvented the mobile phone in 2007 with its revolutionary iPhone®, and did it again in 2008 with its pioneering App Store, which now offers more than 150,000 mobile applications in over 90 countries. Over 40 million iPhones have been sold worldwide.
You heard them. Not 'invented', reinvented! And then re-reinvented! I think they omitted this, but Steve Jobs was quoted as saying "We would like other companies to compete by re-reinventing their own phones, not stealing ideas like a screen you can touch or a program you can download for local use. These innovations are clearly thanks to us."
How can we prove that these studies are valid, without a good valid study demonstrating that it's not the categorical violence inherent in the research study that is causing these results to suggest that the kids themselves are more violent as a result of these violent video games.
Nice use of the word "Attack" by the way. As a violent video game player, I totally had a mental flash of a stack of papers beating the s^%&% out of a game console cartridge.
It just needs to be better thought out. How about a modal box that says "VIRUS! GO GET HELP!" and you can't use the computer for 5 solid minutes. The user can spend that 5 minutes either contemplating existentially, or calling someone who might have a clue to help them. It's not perfect but it's better than nothing.
This is nice (if reactionary) but how long before we can get a court order to legally fight the botnet by 'infecting' the target computers with a patch, or at least some sort of message that warns the user to seek help?
Would Microsoft ever go that far? Would that be admitting that the only solution to the holes in Windows is vigilantism?
I understand where you are coming from, but your notion of 'support by the government' in terms of tax breaks on contributions basically breaks down to the government saying "if you are willing to give money to a properly registered nonprofit group, so are we (to the tune of 15% or whatever your bracket is)." By "mean anything" in this case, it means "only what a person willing to give their income for no tangible return wants it to mean."
What more could you expect in terms of the government democratically supporting social programs? They are letting the *people* decide where the money goes. Do you think we would be better off by having the federal government say that they alone will decide which social programs will be supported with tax dollars (putting aside for a moment the argument you are about to make that no social programs are to be supported with tax dollars... it's not going to happen.)?
Let me take one last serious swing at this. The US Federal tax system is basically one giant charity to begin with. Your federal taxes do NOT (except in very convoluted ways) end up paying for things like police, fire, safety, roads, bridges, etc. Those things are all paid for using State Income Tax (where only some deductions are allowed), and [City|County] [Income|Property|Sales] taxes (where no deductions are allowed.) So the feds say "if you give it to some other charity, the portion of tax you would have paid you can forget about" which is nice since they waste almost all of the money they get anyhow. But, I am trying to stay serious so I will end my rant here.
Ostensibly, because charitable contributions benefit everyone and therefore the government should encourage them in the only light-handed way possible, i.e. by not taxing them. Certainly, there are more political answers as to why it has come to be like it is.
You could look at it another way, a charitable contribution is almost necessarily a 'gratis' contribution, as in you receive no quantifiable return for your donation (outside of things like a 'gift' with marginal value). Therefore, it's as if you never made the money in the first place. Why there are no charitable deductions for simply setting fire to money, is a question left for the reader.
Vitriol aside, "Social Welfare" can mean anything, like a organization (say, a Church) in a community providing a non-trivial benefit to said community, while operating as a nonprofit. To put it tactfully, you need your "American Perspective" checked. It improves the welfare of the society (albeit in a somewhat hard to measure way). Saying that society as a whole (outside the open source community) has not benefited from Open Source (to which it pays no material compensation for) is ludicrous, therefore donations to open source should be treated just as any other donation to a nonprofit group.
"The scam was first discovered when a California bank's fraud department discovered that multiple bank card victims reporting problems had all used the same gas pump at a 7-Eleven store in Utah."
Of course those nanny liberals in CA found out about it, they are watching EVERYTHING YOU DO. In Utah, they were simply waiting for the free market (or Jesus) to sort it out.
When Toyota has 1,000 software engineers working on something, do you think 10 or 20 or 100 more NHTSA coders, who aren't very familiar with the code in question, and whose time is divided between all of the issues the NHTSA deals with, are going to be of any practical help? That is quite the assumption. More coders is NOT THE PROBLEM, plain and simple. Better coders, better QAs, better managers. But more coders? Okay, Microsoft, whatever you say.
Having worked (and been) a coder, I can tell you the last thing that would be productive is for the phone to ring at Toyota and for an NHTSA software engineer to go "hey guys, check out line 213343, I think you forgot to call the destruct method on that instantiation before the function closed, I bet that's why your cars are crashing!"
One more (or a hundred more) sets of eyes isn't the solution, the solution is better coding *practices* along with better testing. In short, the NHTSA needs QA and Project Management types to sort through the steps that led up to the bug being introduced. No one seems to want to comment on how many of those they have (or what they are busy doing). There may well be an understaffing (or improper-staffing) at the NHTSA, but saying "oh god theres no coders get them some coders!!!" is *not going to help*.
Are you kidding? NHTSA sanctions the testing, develops *some* of the test protocols and performs *some* investigative work to identify problems. Their best strategy to create/keep cars safe in the US is to make sure the manufacturers go through the right processes in creating them. Does that mean having code auditors at the NHTSA looking over the shoulders of programmers at all the car manufacturers? I don't think it does. Does it mean the NHTSA should mandate auto makers to do rigorous code audits of their code, possibly with third party consultants? That sounds a lot more practical. The NHTSA (along with most of the government) should be working *smarter*, not harder or bigger (read: more expensively).
What exactly would the NHTSA do with a set of engineers? Audit all 100 million lines of code for each and every car they suspect has a safety issue with the computer system? Yeah, that sounds like a worthwhile endeavor. How about they do it the old fashioned way; collect the reports, identify the risk, and sanction the manufacturer to find/fix the problem. Thinking that an NHTSA coder (or a hundred) would have gotten to the bottom of this Toyota issue in any reasonable amount of time is a joke!
This is clearly an issue of lack of oversight/integrity of a few operators, who are choosing to have unsavory business practices with regard to disclosure. Sure, if they lied they should be prosecuted, but this is hardly evidence that Nuclear Power is inherently flawed.
But go ahead, politicize it. I have my one-liner ready: "No One Died When Entergy representatives to the Vermont Public Service Board Lied."
From the look of it, they are using a laser to arrive at the 1W/inch of material. Sunlight produces approx 1 watt for a 1" x 12" area, so their claims certainly need adjusting if they are going to use these in normal sunlight.
This is probably why they are currently not looking into PV applications, the device is much better at turning laser light into an electrical signal with transistor-like precision than it is anything else (like gathering sunlight).
Although it is misleading, I think they meant that the actual structure of the circuit (the leads that run between devices) could actually generate the power, as opposed to having a PV cell somewhere to generate it and then carry it to the load through conventional means. The thought that you can get a watt (1A @ 1V) from a one inch piece of this stuff is really stunning. Considering how many useful things can run on a watt or less, it seems like an absolutely trivial physical package for providing power, the comparable PV cell would be a thousand times larger/heavier, if not more.
Are they a 'false patent marking troll' for going after Activision? Or is Activision the troll for covering their products with misleading patent information? Or are they both trolls? Seems like it should be some sort of patent regulatory body that prosecutes such things; what are they up to?
Randomness, put simply, is the degrees of separation from which a given stream resembles Shakespeare. Or, if you prefer the top-down approach, the degrees it is separated from the plaintext output of a million monkeys at a million typewriters.
Saying "why concern yourself with Canadian health care when the costs are hidden by taxes" is a completely fallacious argument. Please stop trying to make that anything that it isn't.
He created a straw man thusly: "People who say health care in canada costs $100 a month are wrong, therefore there is no point in saying that Canada has a less expensive health care system." It is a complete fallacy, and is ignoring what many many MANY people have pointed out, and that is that the cost per person for care in the US is way off base, no matter who is writing the check, and for that simple reason the system needs to be corrected before we go bankrupt trying to stay healthy. Comparing it to the system in Canada and pointing out that it costs a lot less there is absolutely right, as long as you actually use correct numbers. He concludes with another completely wrong assertion: "The closer figure it probably $650/family/month." This number is a joke, a family of 4 actually costs over $2000 a month to keep 'healthy' in the US (see Per Capita Spending statistics), if you consider all sources of funding. In Canada, that number is about half.
It may be that the legal system's burden of proof is too low, but I think you mean to rail against either poor English skills or general apathy toward knowledge.
It is hard to argue that if a layperson heard "Chuck Norris took over a thousand routers and displayed a picture of a man's anus on a million computer screens" that they would be wrong to assume that you meant THE Chuck Norris, not Chuck Norris the botnet. After all, the man came first (interestingly, also before the Chicken AND the Egg.)
Should it be up to the original report's publisher to plainly portray this as a unique identity? Should it be up to the reporters that turn it into headlines like "Chuck Norris Roundhouse Kicked Your Linux Router"? Should it be up to the end user to read the headline and think "well maybe they dont mean Chuck Norris the man... this warrants further investigation." Surely, we should hold ourselves to higher standards.
Slashdot Mirror
At the end the Zombie comes back, because you can't kill something that is already dead!
Oh and the zombie you thought was the last one, usually is not the last one. History repeats itself, folks.
Whaaa? Next thing you will tell me is that the concept of using gravity to determine the proper up-down orientation of a device was invented a long time ago, or that the act of using more than one finger at a time isn't a novel new idea!
Ahem.
"Apple reinvented the mobile phone in 2007 with its revolutionary iPhone®, and did it again in 2008 with its pioneering App Store, which now offers more than 150,000 mobile applications in over 90 countries. Over 40 million iPhones have been sold worldwide.
You heard them. Not 'invented', reinvented! And then re-reinvented! I think they omitted this, but Steve Jobs was quoted as saying "We would like other companies to compete by re-reinventing their own phones, not stealing ideas like a screen you can touch or a program you can download for local use. These innovations are clearly thanks to us."
How can we prove that these studies are valid, without a good valid study demonstrating that it's not the categorical violence inherent in the research study that is causing these results to suggest that the kids themselves are more violent as a result of these violent video games.
Nice use of the word "Attack" by the way. As a violent video game player, I totally had a mental flash of a stack of papers beating the s^%&% out of a game console cartridge.
It just needs to be better thought out. How about a modal box that says "VIRUS! GO GET HELP!" and you can't use the computer for 5 solid minutes. The user can spend that 5 minutes either contemplating existentially, or calling someone who might have a clue to help them. It's not perfect but it's better than nothing.
This is nice (if reactionary) but how long before we can get a court order to legally fight the botnet by 'infecting' the target computers with a patch, or at least some sort of message that warns the user to seek help?
Would Microsoft ever go that far? Would that be admitting that the only solution to the holes in Windows is vigilantism?
I understand where you are coming from, but your notion of 'support by the government' in terms of tax breaks on contributions basically breaks down to the government saying "if you are willing to give money to a properly registered nonprofit group, so are we (to the tune of 15% or whatever your bracket is)." By "mean anything" in this case, it means "only what a person willing to give their income for no tangible return wants it to mean."
What more could you expect in terms of the government democratically supporting social programs? They are letting the *people* decide where the money goes. Do you think we would be better off by having the federal government say that they alone will decide which social programs will be supported with tax dollars (putting aside for a moment the argument you are about to make that no social programs are to be supported with tax dollars... it's not going to happen.)?
Let me take one last serious swing at this. The US Federal tax system is basically one giant charity to begin with. Your federal taxes do NOT (except in very convoluted ways) end up paying for things like police, fire, safety, roads, bridges, etc. Those things are all paid for using State Income Tax (where only some deductions are allowed), and [City|County] [Income|Property|Sales] taxes (where no deductions are allowed.) So the feds say "if you give it to some other charity, the portion of tax you would have paid you can forget about" which is nice since they waste almost all of the money they get anyhow. But, I am trying to stay serious so I will end my rant here.
Somewhere there is a form letter for this
You are trying to rationalize the US IRS Taxation System. Your Attempts will fail because...
Ostensibly, because charitable contributions benefit everyone and therefore the government should encourage them in the only light-handed way possible, i.e. by not taxing them. Certainly, there are more political answers as to why it has come to be like it is.
You could look at it another way, a charitable contribution is almost necessarily a 'gratis' contribution, as in you receive no quantifiable return for your donation (outside of things like a 'gift' with marginal value). Therefore, it's as if you never made the money in the first place. Why there are no charitable deductions for simply setting fire to money, is a question left for the reader.
Vitriol aside, "Social Welfare" can mean anything, like a organization (say, a Church) in a community providing a non-trivial benefit to said community, while operating as a nonprofit. To put it tactfully, you need your "American Perspective" checked. It improves the welfare of the society (albeit in a somewhat hard to measure way). Saying that society as a whole (outside the open source community) has not benefited from Open Source (to which it pays no material compensation for) is ludicrous, therefore donations to open source should be treated just as any other donation to a nonprofit group.
"The scam was first discovered when a California bank's fraud department discovered that multiple bank card victims reporting problems had all used the same gas pump at a 7-Eleven store in Utah."
Of course those nanny liberals in CA found out about it, they are watching EVERYTHING YOU DO. In Utah, they were simply waiting for the free market (or Jesus) to sort it out.
Anonymous? I probably should have.
hah hah hahahahahahahahaaaahaha
Where are my mod points, you sir wrote a good one.
When Toyota has 1,000 software engineers working on something, do you think 10 or 20 or 100 more NHTSA coders, who aren't very familiar with the code in question, and whose time is divided between all of the issues the NHTSA deals with, are going to be of any practical help? That is quite the assumption. More coders is NOT THE PROBLEM, plain and simple. Better coders, better QAs, better managers. But more coders? Okay, Microsoft, whatever you say.
Having worked (and been) a coder, I can tell you the last thing that would be productive is for the phone to ring at Toyota and for an NHTSA software engineer to go "hey guys, check out line 213343, I think you forgot to call the destruct method on that instantiation before the function closed, I bet that's why your cars are crashing!"
One more (or a hundred more) sets of eyes isn't the solution, the solution is better coding *practices* along with better testing. In short, the NHTSA needs QA and Project Management types to sort through the steps that led up to the bug being introduced. No one seems to want to comment on how many of those they have (or what they are busy doing). There may well be an understaffing (or improper-staffing) at the NHTSA, but saying "oh god theres no coders get them some coders!!!" is *not going to help*.
Are you kidding? NHTSA sanctions the testing, develops *some* of the test protocols and performs *some* investigative work to identify problems. Their best strategy to create/keep cars safe in the US is to make sure the manufacturers go through the right processes in creating them. Does that mean having code auditors at the NHTSA looking over the shoulders of programmers at all the car manufacturers? I don't think it does. Does it mean the NHTSA should mandate auto makers to do rigorous code audits of their code, possibly with third party consultants? That sounds a lot more practical. The NHTSA (along with most of the government) should be working *smarter*, not harder or bigger (read: more expensively).
What exactly would the NHTSA do with a set of engineers? Audit all 100 million lines of code for each and every car they suspect has a safety issue with the computer system? Yeah, that sounds like a worthwhile endeavor. How about they do it the old fashioned way; collect the reports, identify the risk, and sanction the manufacturer to find/fix the problem. Thinking that an NHTSA coder (or a hundred) would have gotten to the bottom of this Toyota issue in any reasonable amount of time is a joke!
This is clearly an issue of lack of oversight/integrity of a few operators, who are choosing to have unsavory business practices with regard to disclosure. Sure, if they lied they should be prosecuted, but this is hardly evidence that Nuclear Power is inherently flawed.
But go ahead, politicize it. I have my one-liner ready: "No One Died When Entergy representatives to the Vermont Public Service Board Lied."
From the look of it, they are using a laser to arrive at the 1W/inch of material. Sunlight produces approx 1 watt for a 1" x 12" area, so their claims certainly need adjusting if they are going to use these in normal sunlight.
This is probably why they are currently not looking into PV applications, the device is much better at turning laser light into an electrical signal with transistor-like precision than it is anything else (like gathering sunlight).
Although it is misleading, I think they meant that the actual structure of the circuit (the leads that run between devices) could actually generate the power, as opposed to having a PV cell somewhere to generate it and then carry it to the load through conventional means. The thought that you can get a watt (1A @ 1V) from a one inch piece of this stuff is really stunning. Considering how many useful things can run on a watt or less, it seems like an absolutely trivial physical package for providing power, the comparable PV cell would be a thousand times larger/heavier, if not more.
Are they a 'false patent marking troll' for going after Activision? Or is Activision the troll for covering their products with misleading patent information? Or are they both trolls? Seems like it should be some sort of patent regulatory body that prosecutes such things; what are they up to?
Randomness, put simply, is the degrees of separation from which a given stream resembles Shakespeare. Or, if you prefer the top-down approach, the degrees it is separated from the plaintext output of a million monkeys at a million typewriters.
Saying "why concern yourself with Canadian health care when the costs are hidden by taxes" is a completely fallacious argument. Please stop trying to make that anything that it isn't.
He created a straw man thusly: "People who say health care in canada costs $100 a month are wrong, therefore there is no point in saying that Canada has a less expensive health care system." It is a complete fallacy, and is ignoring what many many MANY people have pointed out, and that is that the cost per person for care in the US is way off base, no matter who is writing the check, and for that simple reason the system needs to be corrected before we go bankrupt trying to stay healthy. Comparing it to the system in Canada and pointing out that it costs a lot less there is absolutely right, as long as you actually use correct numbers. He concludes with another completely wrong assertion: "The closer figure it probably $650/family/month." This number is a joke, a family of 4 actually costs over $2000 a month to keep 'healthy' in the US (see Per Capita Spending statistics), if you consider all sources of funding. In Canada, that number is about half.
It may be that the legal system's burden of proof is too low, but I think you mean to rail against either poor English skills or general apathy toward knowledge.
It is hard to argue that if a layperson heard "Chuck Norris took over a thousand routers and displayed a picture of a man's anus on a million computer screens" that they would be wrong to assume that you meant THE Chuck Norris, not Chuck Norris the botnet. After all, the man came first (interestingly, also before the Chicken AND the Egg.)
Should it be up to the original report's publisher to plainly portray this as a unique identity? Should it be up to the reporters that turn it into headlines like "Chuck Norris Roundhouse Kicked Your Linux Router"? Should it be up to the end user to read the headline and think "well maybe they dont mean Chuck Norris the man... this warrants further investigation." Surely, we should hold ourselves to higher standards.