It's a little weird for reservists. If we switch to active duty or go GSA then we get credit toward retirement for time spent on active duty during our reserve time. So in my case I served ten years in the Guard, of which between deployments, training and other stuff about 2.5 years were on active duty. So if I switched to active duty (or GSA) I would get 2.5 years towards retirement. If I then served another 17.5 years on AD and retired, I'd get a normal 20 year retirement (though I really served 27.5 years, I lose the 7.5 of straight reserve time). If on the other hand I served ten years on active duty, then switched to the reserves, I get full credit for all ten years toward my reserved retirement (including a lot of extra points toward getting a larger percentage of the retirement payment), but after ten years in the reserves I still get a "reserve retirement" despite my ten years of active service. So I get nothing till I'm 65, but once I hit 65 I get close to what a retired AD guy gets.
All retired military get a percentage of their "base pay" when they retire. The longer they are in, the higher the percentage. So at 20 years you can retire and get (I think) 45% of your base pay. After thirty years you get (again, I think) 85% of your base pay. Reservists then get a percentage of that percentage based on how much time they spent "working". A reservist who never did anything except his bare minimum 2 days a month and two weeks a year gets like, 30% of the 45% (for 20 years in). A reservist who did a lot of active duty (deployments, prior active service, lots of training, etc) might get 80% or 90% of his 45% (for 20 years in). This is fair as far as I'm concerned, we don't do soldier stuff full time, we don't get the whole amount. The bitch that most reservist have it that we don't get any of it till 65.
The only really good reason I can come up with to retire from the reserves is that after age 65 you get Tricare (military health insurance) which is marginally better than Medicare.
I was in the car listening to NPR for this. The NPR (WGBH) station did a nice little lead in story and switched smoothly to the test. As soon as it did I started jamming presets and none of the other station I had programmed got the test. Local Alt Rock station, local R&B station, and the other NPR station all failed to broadcast the test as far as I can tell.
The question of terms of surrender is somewhat important to the discussion. The Japanese would have accepted surrender on their own terms, and indeed their terms were not that onerous (though they were never actually terms of surrender, they did wind up getting most of what they wanted). The problem is that no one thought the American people (or the British people for that matter, they helped us quite a bit in the Pacific) would accept anything less than unconditional surrender. It's hard to understand that now, and might make a fair argument for "Imperialist America" when taken out of context; but the Japanese attacked *us*, unprovoked and unwarned, then proceeded to kick our collective butts for nearly a year. That hurt our pride. On top of that that there were many stories of Japanese atrocities, both against our Soldiers and Marines and against civilians in the occupied territories. Even if they hadn't been true (many were), the discovery of the Death Camps in Germany left people awful willing to believe in them.
So yes, there was a third choice: we could have accepted the Japanese surrender with terms, but that was a highly unlikely event at the time. Morally right or wrong, neither the military, the government, nor the people of the US would have accepted a Japanese surrender under terms, no matter how much blood and treasure (American and Japanese) would be required for an unconditional surrender.
As to whether the second bomb was a mistake, a necessity to get the Japanese to capitulate, or an object lesson to the Russians... That's another of those ting that we'll probably never know for sure. All three are possible and depending on who you talk to each is more likely.
Depends on where and how you serve. I was a National Guardsman. Turns out that no matter how many times they send me to Iraq, I still get "reserved retirement" which means that you get jack shit till you're 65. You can still retire at 20 years, and the years of active duty increase the amount you get in retirement pay; but reservist don't get any benefits until age 65. So you serve from say age 18-38 and retire. In that time you spend 5 years on deployment. Those 5 years add to the percentage of your salary you'll see from retirement payments, but you don't see the first payment for 27 years.
So you're comparing being mocked with being raped, and wearing a short skirt with taking a hostile and adversarial attitude with everyone who works for you. That's some impressive level of equivalency you have there. He wasn't hurt or physically assaulted no one from his family was hurt or physically assaulted. They were kinda mean to him, like he was very mean to them.
That's not to say that the way the staff had been acting was acceptable. There were clearly compliance issues at the lab. Acting like a tin pot dictator towards a bunch of people with PhDs who could pretty much go anywhere and name their salaries is probably not the best way to handle it though.
Still arguably saved thousands or even hundreds of thousands of lives to use them. The Japanese Government was quite clear that if they had to they to defend the homeland with old people and children wielding sticks on the beaches they would. The Army and Marines believed them. The solution was to use the atomic weapons and hopefully trick the Japanese into thinking we could utterly annihilate the Island without risking our troops. We in fact couldn't, we used our only two bombs on the demonstration and couldn't make more in any reasonable time frame, but the ruse worked.
It's impossible to say what would have happened, history doesn't work that way, but based on the stated policy of the Japanese Government and the what the US military believed they would do, using the Atomic weapons saved lives: Japanese as well as American. Was it the right thing to do? Very hard to say. It's possible that Japanese resistance wouldn't have amounted to what was feared, it's possible that what was unleashed was worse them what was prevented, it's certainly very possible that they should have at least waited a few more days before they dropped the second one (a lot of historians think that the Japanese government would have surrendered without the extra motivation if we'd just given them a little while longer to realize what was going on), but based on the information available it was probably the best of bad options.
Especially Representatives, they serve two years and their terms all expire at the same time. You would literally be training a new House of Representatives from scratch every two years. They'd have to elect new leadership without knowing one another, form committees with no idea of who has what skill sets... it would be all but impossible. At least the Senate would only be turning over a third of its membership every two years.
And, those are the real situations where you need the performance you allegedly get by using BSD. Honestly, for most day to day purposes eeking a few extra performance percentages out of a box is not all that big of a deal. Most computers are more than powerful enough to do most of what we want them too most of the time. This is true even in server class installs except at the most cutting edge.
When I really need the most performance out of a box (HPC, high end servers, etc) I'm going to spend the money on the latest and greatest hardware. The latest and greatest is usually a driver nightmare on the *BSD OSes, so I tend to use Linux. If performance isn't a huge issue, then I'm not going to go to all the effort of tweaking a *BSD box. So I tend to use Linux. Of course in the first case I'll spend a ton of time tweaking, and even recompiling parts of the Linux stack for performance, in the second I'll "'yum install x y z' and toss it out into the wild".
Honestly the headline is downright misleading and the summary is almost as bad. I read this article yesterday, and they're not saying that Android phones are inherently worse than iOS or BB devices. The difference is that while iPhones are all produced by Apple (or at least under direct contract for Apple) and Blackberries are all produced by RIM, Android phones come from a number of manufacturers. Some are good phones of good quality (Most of HTC and Motorola's stuff along with several other "main" brands), others are produced on a shoe string by no-name manufacturers and given away free with a contract. On average Android phones fail more often, but the article doesn't really go into a like for like comparison. It seems likely that Droids, Heroes, and Transformers fail at a rate comparable to iPhones.
The no name Android white boxes are the problem. They fail at a much higher rate than either iDevices, BBs, or their higher quality Android cousins and drag down the averages. They're costing the carriers a lot, because they were "free" to the consumer to begin with, and they have to be replaced quite often. Frankly I'm not feeling too bad for the carriers. They use cheap ass rap to lure people in to sign contracts, it's their problem that the crap predictably breaks and costs them money to replace. A nice phone flame war is always fun, but the title and summary of this otherwise interesting article are complete flamebait.
I just don't see it happening. Right now there's a few core groups that use Macs, and most of them won't accept a Mac where only App Store stuff works:
1) Unix people who want a system that isn't ugly and hacked together, or need MS Office on their Unix platform, or need Adobe stuff on their Unix platform, etc. This is my group and there's a lot more of us than you'd think. Go to Supercomputing some year. There's a huge number of Mac laptops on the floor. Between the loss of MacPorts/Fink, and the loss of Adobe/MS products (not available on the App Store and never likely to be) we'd be mostly lost. Back to figuring out how to do what we need on Linux, or making Windows look like Unix through Cygwin, etc.
2) Web Developers/Artists. These guys need Adobe Apps. Period. Lost.
3) Mom and Pop who are tired of Windows. Probably a mixed bag. Some will be lost because they like MS office or Photoshop. Others will find "good enough" replacements on the app store and stay.
4) Mac fan boys. Obviously they'll keep most of these, but I think there is a dramatic overestimation of how much of Apple's success is due to them. They couldn't keep Apple alive by themselves in the Jobs Interim. They can't do it now either.
5) iOS developers. They'll still need Macs to work of course, but most of them use outside tools and understand how "real' computers work. They won't be happy and will certainly only own the bare minimum they need to do their work.
Cutting non-App Store apps wouldn't kill the Mac all by itself, but it would serious hurt sales, maybe in the 40-50% range. Apple like control, but they like money more.
With no more to go on than my own anecdotal evidence, call quality and longevity seems much better than my 3Gs. I currently live in what was, up till now, a cell phone blackhole. I was lucky to be able to send a text message inside my apartment. Since I upgraded I get at least a bar or two and can use the phone if not always perfectly. Thankfully I'm moving from my sub-first floor apartment to a second floor place next month, so this problem will hopefully correct itself completely through non-technical means.
Given that my so far the "estates" involved have always involved paying more back in debt than a one week piece of a timeshare is worth, therefore the "inheritance" has had a subzero value, I don't think there's much o be worrying about.
Most run off style voting systems don't require a second poll if one candidate gets a majority of the vote in the initial run. If one person gets 51% of the vote and the other nine split the rest, the person with plurality (and majority) gets the seat. If one person gets 49% of the vote and the other nine split the rest, the person with plurality (but not majority) runs off against his/her top one or two challengers. It's possible they do it differently somewhere, but I've always seen it handled this way.
My parents still own my *great grandfather's* timeshare condo in his name. When he died my grandmother just took it over as "him" because it seemed easier than going through he whole rigmarole of death certificates, etc. When she died my parents were honestly a little afraid to rock the boat given that the man would be about 100 by now, so they didn't change it either. Someday I expect to pass my children a timeshare on an 110 year old condo theoretically owned by a 160 year old man.
I'm a Linux support guy. I consider myself good at my job, and many bosses have agreed. That said, I'm one guy. Red Hat has dozens, maybe hundreds of engineers with in depth specialty knowledge of all levels of their OS. Need help with tuning kernel parameters or drivers to improve performance on a particular revision of some obscure SATA chipset? There's a good chance that the guy who wrote that module works for Red Hat. Having trouble tweaking your Apache config for some specialty web server? They have several Apache experts. Red Hat doesn't sell support like Microsoft sells support; where you get to talk to a Hell Desk guy and hope. They'll put you in touch with the guy that wrote the bit of code you're fiddling with, and they'll do it happily.
I've called Red hat Support four times in my career. Once I made a boneheaded error. Once I encountered what amounted to silly documentation error in the RHN docs. The other two times I wound up talking with software engineers who wrote either the actual code I was having trouble with, or worked directly on the project. No matter how good I am, I'll never be a subject matter expert on every variation of every piece of the stack that makes up a Linux web server, or mail server, or database server. I have a broad knowledge of how it all works together, I might be an expert in parts of it, but unlike the entire Red Hat team I can't be an expert in all of it.
The TSA was an invention of the Right. Not to say the Left isn't perfectly thrilled with it. This isn't a Left vs Right issue, it's a bipartisan clusterfuck.
Re:Strangely inspirational
on
The RMS Tour Rider
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What about the Pepsi which he may or may not like to be offered depending on if he's sleepy or not? What I took away from this is that he wants to be a spokesman for Free Software, but not if it inconveniences him in any way or requires him to leave his comfort zone. The whole thing with refusing to speak if there are sponsorship banners, or refusing to interviews if the interviewer isn't willing to "properly" refer to GNU/Linux or conflates Free and Open Source Software... Arguably such people are the ones who might most benefit from his message. Appearing on stage next to a banner might produce the opportunity to talk about why he disagrees with such things... talking to a reporter who conflates "Free" and "Open Source" might provide an opportunity to talk about the difference. Both could be done in a non-confrontational way that none the less shows what he believes and why.
Most of this stuff says "I don't want to talk to you if you don't already agree with me almost entirely". What's the point? It's more mutual masturbation at that point than advocacy.
Not that I think this thing is going to work, because I don't, but you do realize that even with conservation of energy there are all kinds of energy sources that are effectively "free" and "infinite" from the point of view of our species, right? Yes there are limits to solar power and geothermal power, but to people who won't live a couple of billion years, those limits are pretty unimportant. the Sun is, from a practical perspective, a perpetual motion machine. Who's to say that there aren't other "limited, but not from a practical perspective" energy sources out there.
The OP, Tim with an excessive number of M's, objected. The person you are replying to, Sockatume, said that he thought the story interesting and possibly educational despite the unlikelihood of the reactor actually producing power. How you could possibly miss that, what with the two separate comments under different names I am unclear.
iOS 5 seems no worse than iOS 4 on the 3Gs (I used it for a week or two before upgrading my phone), and I assume that Apple will keep supporting it for at least a year or two after they stop selling it. That's only an assumption though, and honestly there were no real CPU crunching updates in iOS5. If they make a major under-the-hood change for iOS 6 they'll have to be pretty careful on the 3Gs.
Oh, I agree, but the OP's question is "Why are they setting a penalty phase before determining guilt? Isn't that prejudging?" the answer is "No, they always plan for a penalty phase because it's easier to schedule that way."
Your stuff is 4 years old at this point, they're talking about devices that lose support after a month or two in the article. No one is claiming that Apple support old devices forever, just far longer than most (probably all, but I can't really support that statement) Android manufacturers. Especially with mobile hardware (where devices are gaining power almost exponentially fast) there's gotta be a "this no longer works" cut off point.
The same thing used to be the case with PC hardware 10 years ago, though now a days you can usually use the same PC hardware for 5-7 years if you're careful. This is largely because PCs became "powerful enough" to do most common tasks. You still want more power for newer games, or for development, graphics, or scientific work, but most people can do most tasks they need to with fairly old hardware. Phones haven't reached that point yet
There won't be a third phase at all if Google is not found in violation. There's always a penalty phase planned, just in case it's needed the schedule has to account for it. It's always easier to fill unexpected free space in a schedule than to try to carve out space for something unexpected.
it doesn't stand out. There's nothing in the announcement that isn't something already available on Android and iPhone. Apple and the Android vendors can afford to play games where they leapfrog each other than catch up, then leapfrog again... They're established names in the market and people want an iPhone, a Droid, or A Galaxy as much because they like the brands as because they do something the other guy doesn't. To jump into the market this late in the game Nokia/Microsoft need something new, something to pull people away from their established preferences.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a little weird for reservists. If we switch to active duty or go GSA then we get credit toward retirement for time spent on active duty during our reserve time. So in my case I served ten years in the Guard, of which between deployments, training and other stuff about 2.5 years were on active duty. So if I switched to active duty (or GSA) I would get 2.5 years towards retirement. If I then served another 17.5 years on AD and retired, I'd get a normal 20 year retirement (though I really served 27.5 years, I lose the 7.5 of straight reserve time). If on the other hand I served ten years on active duty, then switched to the reserves, I get full credit for all ten years toward my reserved retirement (including a lot of extra points toward getting a larger percentage of the retirement payment), but after ten years in the reserves I still get a "reserve retirement" despite my ten years of active service. So I get nothing till I'm 65, but once I hit 65 I get close to what a retired AD guy gets.
All retired military get a percentage of their "base pay" when they retire. The longer they are in, the higher the percentage. So at 20 years you can retire and get (I think) 45% of your base pay. After thirty years you get (again, I think) 85% of your base pay. Reservists then get a percentage of that percentage based on how much time they spent "working". A reservist who never did anything except his bare minimum 2 days a month and two weeks a year gets like, 30% of the 45% (for 20 years in). A reservist who did a lot of active duty (deployments, prior active service, lots of training, etc) might get 80% or 90% of his 45% (for 20 years in). This is fair as far as I'm concerned, we don't do soldier stuff full time, we don't get the whole amount. The bitch that most reservist have it that we don't get any of it till 65.
The only really good reason I can come up with to retire from the reserves is that after age 65 you get Tricare (military health insurance) which is marginally better than Medicare.
I was in the car listening to NPR for this. The NPR (WGBH) station did a nice little lead in story and switched smoothly to the test. As soon as it did I started jamming presets and none of the other station I had programmed got the test. Local Alt Rock station, local R&B station, and the other NPR station all failed to broadcast the test as far as I can tell.
The question of terms of surrender is somewhat important to the discussion. The Japanese would have accepted surrender on their own terms, and indeed their terms were not that onerous (though they were never actually terms of surrender, they did wind up getting most of what they wanted). The problem is that no one thought the American people (or the British people for that matter, they helped us quite a bit in the Pacific) would accept anything less than unconditional surrender. It's hard to understand that now, and might make a fair argument for "Imperialist America" when taken out of context; but the Japanese attacked *us*, unprovoked and unwarned, then proceeded to kick our collective butts for nearly a year. That hurt our pride. On top of that that there were many stories of Japanese atrocities, both against our Soldiers and Marines and against civilians in the occupied territories. Even if they hadn't been true (many were), the discovery of the Death Camps in Germany left people awful willing to believe in them.
So yes, there was a third choice: we could have accepted the Japanese surrender with terms, but that was a highly unlikely event at the time. Morally right or wrong, neither the military, the government, nor the people of the US would have accepted a Japanese surrender under terms, no matter how much blood and treasure (American and Japanese) would be required for an unconditional surrender.
As to whether the second bomb was a mistake, a necessity to get the Japanese to capitulate, or an object lesson to the Russians... That's another of those ting that we'll probably never know for sure. All three are possible and depending on who you talk to each is more likely.
Depends on where and how you serve. I was a National Guardsman. Turns out that no matter how many times they send me to Iraq, I still get "reserved retirement" which means that you get jack shit till you're 65. You can still retire at 20 years, and the years of active duty increase the amount you get in retirement pay; but reservist don't get any benefits until age 65. So you serve from say age 18-38 and retire. In that time you spend 5 years on deployment. Those 5 years add to the percentage of your salary you'll see from retirement payments, but you don't see the first payment for 27 years.
So you're comparing being mocked with being raped, and wearing a short skirt with taking a hostile and adversarial attitude with everyone who works for you. That's some impressive level of equivalency you have there. He wasn't hurt or physically assaulted no one from his family was hurt or physically assaulted. They were kinda mean to him, like he was very mean to them.
That's not to say that the way the staff had been acting was acceptable. There were clearly compliance issues at the lab. Acting like a tin pot dictator towards a bunch of people with PhDs who could pretty much go anywhere and name their salaries is probably not the best way to handle it though.
Still arguably saved thousands or even hundreds of thousands of lives to use them. The Japanese Government was quite clear that if they had to they to defend the homeland with old people and children wielding sticks on the beaches they would. The Army and Marines believed them. The solution was to use the atomic weapons and hopefully trick the Japanese into thinking we could utterly annihilate the Island without risking our troops. We in fact couldn't, we used our only two bombs on the demonstration and couldn't make more in any reasonable time frame, but the ruse worked.
It's impossible to say what would have happened, history doesn't work that way, but based on the stated policy of the Japanese Government and the what the US military believed they would do, using the Atomic weapons saved lives: Japanese as well as American. Was it the right thing to do? Very hard to say. It's possible that Japanese resistance wouldn't have amounted to what was feared, it's possible that what was unleashed was worse them what was prevented, it's certainly very possible that they should have at least waited a few more days before they dropped the second one (a lot of historians think that the Japanese government would have surrendered without the extra motivation if we'd just given them a little while longer to realize what was going on), but based on the information available it was probably the best of bad options.
It makes up for his goofy accent and regular use of nautical vernacular, despite never having *seen* a body of water larger than the public pool.
Especially Representatives, they serve two years and their terms all expire at the same time. You would literally be training a new House of Representatives from scratch every two years. They'd have to elect new leadership without knowing one another, form committees with no idea of who has what skill sets... it would be all but impossible. At least the Senate would only be turning over a third of its membership every two years.
And, those are the real situations where you need the performance you allegedly get by using BSD. Honestly, for most day to day purposes eeking a few extra performance percentages out of a box is not all that big of a deal. Most computers are more than powerful enough to do most of what we want them too most of the time. This is true even in server class installs except at the most cutting edge.
When I really need the most performance out of a box (HPC, high end servers, etc) I'm going to spend the money on the latest and greatest hardware. The latest and greatest is usually a driver nightmare on the *BSD OSes, so I tend to use Linux. If performance isn't a huge issue, then I'm not going to go to all the effort of tweaking a *BSD box. So I tend to use Linux. Of course in the first case I'll spend a ton of time tweaking, and even recompiling parts of the Linux stack for performance, in the second I'll "'yum install x y z' and toss it out into the wild".
Honestly the headline is downright misleading and the summary is almost as bad. I read this article yesterday, and they're not saying that Android phones are inherently worse than iOS or BB devices. The difference is that while iPhones are all produced by Apple (or at least under direct contract for Apple) and Blackberries are all produced by RIM, Android phones come from a number of manufacturers. Some are good phones of good quality (Most of HTC and Motorola's stuff along with several other "main" brands), others are produced on a shoe string by no-name manufacturers and given away free with a contract. On average Android phones fail more often, but the article doesn't really go into a like for like comparison. It seems likely that Droids, Heroes, and Transformers fail at a rate comparable to iPhones.
The no name Android white boxes are the problem. They fail at a much higher rate than either iDevices, BBs, or their higher quality Android cousins and drag down the averages. They're costing the carriers a lot, because they were "free" to the consumer to begin with, and they have to be replaced quite often. Frankly I'm not feeling too bad for the carriers. They use cheap ass rap to lure people in to sign contracts, it's their problem that the crap predictably breaks and costs them money to replace. A nice phone flame war is always fun, but the title and summary of this otherwise interesting article are complete flamebait.
I just don't see it happening. Right now there's a few core groups that use Macs, and most of them won't accept a Mac where only App Store stuff works:
1) Unix people who want a system that isn't ugly and hacked together, or need MS Office on their Unix platform, or need Adobe stuff on their Unix platform, etc. This is my group and there's a lot more of us than you'd think. Go to Supercomputing some year. There's a huge number of Mac laptops on the floor. Between the loss of MacPorts/Fink, and the loss of Adobe/MS products (not available on the App Store and never likely to be) we'd be mostly lost. Back to figuring out how to do what we need on Linux, or making Windows look like Unix through Cygwin, etc.
2) Web Developers/Artists. These guys need Adobe Apps. Period. Lost.
3) Mom and Pop who are tired of Windows. Probably a mixed bag. Some will be lost because they like MS office or Photoshop. Others will find "good enough" replacements on the app store and stay.
4) Mac fan boys. Obviously they'll keep most of these, but I think there is a dramatic overestimation of how much of Apple's success is due to them. They couldn't keep Apple alive by themselves in the Jobs Interim. They can't do it now either.
5) iOS developers. They'll still need Macs to work of course, but most of them use outside tools and understand how "real' computers work. They won't be happy and will certainly only own the bare minimum they need to do their work.
Cutting non-App Store apps wouldn't kill the Mac all by itself, but it would serious hurt sales, maybe in the 40-50% range. Apple like control, but they like money more.
With no more to go on than my own anecdotal evidence, call quality and longevity seems much better than my 3Gs. I currently live in what was, up till now, a cell phone blackhole. I was lucky to be able to send a text message inside my apartment. Since I upgraded I get at least a bar or two and can use the phone if not always perfectly. Thankfully I'm moving from my sub-first floor apartment to a second floor place next month, so this problem will hopefully correct itself completely through non-technical means.
Given that my so far the "estates" involved have always involved paying more back in debt than a one week piece of a timeshare is worth, therefore the "inheritance" has had a subzero value, I don't think there's much o be worrying about.
Most run off style voting systems don't require a second poll if one candidate gets a majority of the vote in the initial run. If one person gets 51% of the vote and the other nine split the rest, the person with plurality (and majority) gets the seat. If one person gets 49% of the vote and the other nine split the rest, the person with plurality (but not majority) runs off against his/her top one or two challengers. It's possible they do it differently somewhere, but I've always seen it handled this way.
My parents still own my *great grandfather's* timeshare condo in his name. When he died my grandmother just took it over as "him" because it seemed easier than going through he whole rigmarole of death certificates, etc. When she died my parents were honestly a little afraid to rock the boat given that the man would be about 100 by now, so they didn't change it either. Someday I expect to pass my children a timeshare on an 110 year old condo theoretically owned by a 160 year old man.
I'm a Linux support guy. I consider myself good at my job, and many bosses have agreed. That said, I'm one guy. Red Hat has dozens, maybe hundreds of engineers with in depth specialty knowledge of all levels of their OS. Need help with tuning kernel parameters or drivers to improve performance on a particular revision of some obscure SATA chipset? There's a good chance that the guy who wrote that module works for Red Hat. Having trouble tweaking your Apache config for some specialty web server? They have several Apache experts. Red Hat doesn't sell support like Microsoft sells support; where you get to talk to a Hell Desk guy and hope. They'll put you in touch with the guy that wrote the bit of code you're fiddling with, and they'll do it happily.
I've called Red hat Support four times in my career. Once I made a boneheaded error. Once I encountered what amounted to silly documentation error in the RHN docs. The other two times I wound up talking with software engineers who wrote either the actual code I was having trouble with, or worked directly on the project. No matter how good I am, I'll never be a subject matter expert on every variation of every piece of the stack that makes up a Linux web server, or mail server, or database server. I have a broad knowledge of how it all works together, I might be an expert in parts of it, but unlike the entire Red Hat team I can't be an expert in all of it.
The TSA was an invention of the Right. Not to say the Left isn't perfectly thrilled with it. This isn't a Left vs Right issue, it's a bipartisan clusterfuck.
What about the Pepsi which he may or may not like to be offered depending on if he's sleepy or not? What I took away from this is that he wants to be a spokesman for Free Software, but not if it inconveniences him in any way or requires him to leave his comfort zone. The whole thing with refusing to speak if there are sponsorship banners, or refusing to interviews if the interviewer isn't willing to "properly" refer to GNU/Linux or conflates Free and Open Source Software... Arguably such people are the ones who might most benefit from his message. Appearing on stage next to a banner might produce the opportunity to talk about why he disagrees with such things... talking to a reporter who conflates "Free" and "Open Source" might provide an opportunity to talk about the difference. Both could be done in a non-confrontational way that none the less shows what he believes and why.
Most of this stuff says "I don't want to talk to you if you don't already agree with me almost entirely". What's the point? It's more mutual masturbation at that point than advocacy.
Not that I think this thing is going to work, because I don't, but you do realize that even with conservation of energy there are all kinds of energy sources that are effectively "free" and "infinite" from the point of view of our species, right? Yes there are limits to solar power and geothermal power, but to people who won't live a couple of billion years, those limits are pretty unimportant. the Sun is, from a practical perspective, a perpetual motion machine. Who's to say that there aren't other "limited, but not from a practical perspective" energy sources out there.
The OP, Tim with an excessive number of M's, objected. The person you are replying to, Sockatume, said that he thought the story interesting and possibly educational despite the unlikelihood of the reactor actually producing power. How you could possibly miss that, what with the two separate comments under different names I am unclear.
iOS 5 seems no worse than iOS 4 on the 3Gs (I used it for a week or two before upgrading my phone), and I assume that Apple will keep supporting it for at least a year or two after they stop selling it. That's only an assumption though, and honestly there were no real CPU crunching updates in iOS5. If they make a major under-the-hood change for iOS 6 they'll have to be pretty careful on the 3Gs.
Oh, I agree, but the OP's question is "Why are they setting a penalty phase before determining guilt? Isn't that prejudging?" the answer is "No, they always plan for a penalty phase because it's easier to schedule that way."
Your stuff is 4 years old at this point, they're talking about devices that lose support after a month or two in the article. No one is claiming that Apple support old devices forever, just far longer than most (probably all, but I can't really support that statement) Android manufacturers. Especially with mobile hardware (where devices are gaining power almost exponentially fast) there's gotta be a "this no longer works" cut off point.
The same thing used to be the case with PC hardware 10 years ago, though now a days you can usually use the same PC hardware for 5-7 years if you're careful. This is largely because PCs became "powerful enough" to do most common tasks. You still want more power for newer games, or for development, graphics, or scientific work, but most people can do most tasks they need to with fairly old hardware. Phones haven't reached that point yet
There won't be a third phase at all if Google is not found in violation. There's always a penalty phase planned, just in case it's needed the schedule has to account for it. It's always easier to fill unexpected free space in a schedule than to try to carve out space for something unexpected.
it doesn't stand out. There's nothing in the announcement that isn't something already available on Android and iPhone. Apple and the Android vendors can afford to play games where they leapfrog each other than catch up, then leapfrog again... They're established names in the market and people want an iPhone, a Droid, or A Galaxy as much because they like the brands as because they do something the other guy doesn't. To jump into the market this late in the game Nokia/Microsoft need something new, something to pull people away from their established preferences.