> I honestly don't think some burreaucrat > would be able to push through a regulation > of this level without broader government > support.
That's very touching naivete. Quid pro quo is the name of the game, man. It works the same way here in the U.S. For example, a fellow I know set up a manufacturing process for plastic pallets, but he saturated the U.S. market, so he couldn't grow anymore. One phone call to his sister's husband later -- he's an assistant to the director of the U.S. Customs bureau -- and he was planning to build a plant in Tianjin. Why? Because a regulation was put in the pipe to prohibit the import of wooden pallets from China, on the pretext that some parasitic insect was found in some shipyard in Seattle. Now my former struggling businessman friend is rolling in the money from licensing his manufacturing processes to a captive market.
Your comment is the kind of knee-jerk that discredits the autonomous nervous system.
IEEE is not an American standards organization. It is an international professional organization which promotes engineering standards globally, defined by engineers from all over the world, including China. IEEE is not ANSI.
No, somebody's cousin is gonna make billions of yuan off of this little rule, and that's why they came up with it. Corruption, pure and simple.
Hint: NOBODY pays patent royalties out of China unless they are selling products for export. This is a domestic market rule designed to give insiders a big fat monopoly window to entrench themselves as the market leader.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained as stupidity.
What this is, is someone's cousin got a fab, so the principal called his brother-in-law on the central committee, and got him to push a rule through some puppet engineering group that guarantees that said cousin will be first-mover in a multi-billion-yuan market.
So what makes you think that the chinese national standard ISN'T a vintage, time-worn cryptosystem? Just because a standard was issued recently doesn't mean that the material being standardized isn't old.
That's called eisogesis. When all you have are pink sunglasses, everything looks like a gardenia.
If they showed the females photographs of statistically attractive females, I'd wager that they would also have exhibited a degradation of economic rationality.
I would have found it much more interesting if the study had included the impact of exposure to statistically attractive males and females to both male and female subjects.
Clearly the interest of advertisers lies in gaining a favorable irrational reaction. But I notice that advertising geared toward women generally includes images of attractive females, not of attractive males. Thus I think the negative results obtained by exposing females subjects to statistically attractive males is unsurprising.
I found the reasoning of the sociobiologist interviewed in New Scientist to be facile. If this study had been done 50 years ago, they would have interviewed a psychoanalyst and obtained a similarly affected "expert" deep analysis.
actually, the easy, cheap way to make plutonium is to expose uranium-238 to fast neutrons. neptunium beta-decays to plutonium, and u-238 is abundant. heck you can scrape it out of the lungs of iraqi schoolchildren, or buy trashed 747 counter- weights, or niger yellowcake.
there's a time/money tradeoff however. a high-volume fast neutron source is expensive, while a low-volume source takes time:
for us$4m you can have a plutonium charge in 6 months, or for us$4k you can have one in 500 years. obviously its well within the budget of a UBL, but perhaps too speculative for a risk-averse jihadi.
I've had enough experience with XFS and ext3 to know that there is no or marginal gain in reliability from moving to XFS. What there is, is xfsdump, but, honestly, how many Linux users will ever dump a filesystem?
You might find it easier to get your business off the ground if you were to manufacture and market in countries that don't suffer from eurocratic parasitism, such as China and the U.S.
Against your comments, there are many of us who have managed lans of ext3 systems in *ahem* differently-powered environments and found that it is, in its current state of maturity, bullet-proof.
Compared to the relatively few users of SGI machines, I think the RedHat userbase constitutes a much more reliable statistical base.
So Marcelo will take XFS, which helps approximately 12 people, but he won't take low-latency and preempt patches, which would help about 12,000,000 people.
Slashdot Mirror
My question many seem naive, but what kind
of business requires Microsoft Windows?
I thought Windows was entirely obsolete at
this point.
> Why do people constantly wish to rebel
Why do people constantly want to put other
people in chains?
It's an article about how scientists are assholes.
> cendant recently put in one of four PMS systems at every hotel
Cool. Now I know where to send my wife when
the moon is full.
I AM A FROG, NOT A TOAD!
nonono, it goes...
in space, no one can hear your modem scream
> the old protocol from my BBS days (which was
> scorned in favor of Zmodem) being used on
> the greatest technological achievement of
> humankind."
Cool. Kermit is being used to distribute
The Return of the King? Who woulda thunk it!
> I honestly don't think some burreaucrat
> would be able to push through a regulation
> of this level without broader government
> support.
That's very touching naivete. Quid pro quo
is the name of the game, man. It works the
same way here in the U.S. For example, a
fellow I know set up a manufacturing process
for plastic pallets, but he saturated the
U.S. market, so he couldn't grow anymore.
One phone call to his sister's husband later -- he's an assistant to the director of the
U.S. Customs bureau -- and he was planning
to build a plant in Tianjin. Why? Because
a regulation was put in the pipe to prohibit
the import of wooden pallets from China, on
the pretext that some parasitic insect was
found in some shipyard in Seattle. Now my
former struggling businessman friend is
rolling in the money from licensing his
manufacturing processes to a captive market.
Your comment is the kind of knee-jerk that
discredits the autonomous nervous system.
IEEE is not an American standards organization.
It is an international professional organization
which promotes engineering standards globally,
defined by engineers from all over the world,
including China. IEEE is not ANSI.
No, somebody's cousin is gonna make billions
of yuan off of this little rule, and that's
why they came up with it. Corruption, pure
and simple.
Hint: NOBODY pays patent royalties out of
China unless they are selling products for
export. This is a domestic market rule
designed to give insiders a big fat monopoly
window to entrench themselves as the market
leader.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately
explained as stupidity.
What this is, is someone's cousin got a fab,
so the principal called his brother-in-law
on the central committee, and got him to
push a rule through some puppet engineering
group that guarantees that said cousin will be
first-mover in a multi-billion-yuan market.
So what makes you think that the chinese
national standard ISN'T a vintage, time-worn
cryptosystem? Just because a standard was
issued recently doesn't mean that the material
being standardized isn't old.
That's called eisogesis. When all you have
are pink sunglasses, everything looks like
a gardenia.
If they showed the females photographs of
statistically attractive females, I'd wager
that they would also have exhibited a
degradation of economic rationality.
I would have found it much more interesting
if the study had included the impact of exposure
to statistically attractive males and females
to both male and female subjects.
Clearly the interest of advertisers lies in
gaining a favorable irrational reaction.
But I notice that advertising geared toward
women generally includes images of attractive
females, not of attractive males. Thus I
think the negative results obtained by
exposing females subjects to statistically
attractive males is unsurprising.
I found the reasoning of the sociobiologist
interviewed in New Scientist to be facile.
If this study had been done 50 years ago,
they would have interviewed a psychoanalyst
and obtained a similarly affected "expert"
deep analysis.
actually, the easy, cheap way to make
plutonium is to expose uranium-238 to
fast neutrons. neptunium beta-decays to
plutonium, and u-238 is abundant. heck
you can scrape it out of the lungs of iraqi
schoolchildren, or buy trashed 747 counter-
weights, or niger yellowcake.
there's a time/money tradeoff however.
a high-volume fast neutron source is
expensive, while a low-volume source takes
time:
for us$4m you can have a plutonium charge
in 6 months, or for us$4k you can have one
in 500 years. obviously its well within the
budget of a UBL, but perhaps too speculative
for a risk-averse jihadi.
I think he was referring to the pink cheeks
you see on Thomas the Tank Engine and friends.
That's why we're all getting them for
Christmas: Because we just want to piss you
off.
True. But the Chinese aren't about to
pull that boner, so I'd have to say the
existing ICBM fleet is quite wasted.
I've had enough experience with XFS and ext3
to know that there is no or marginal gain
in reliability from moving to XFS. What there
is, is xfsdump, but, honestly, how many Linux
users will ever dump a filesystem?
*Everybody* wins from low-latency and preempt.
You might find it easier to get your business
off the ground if you were to manufacture
and market in countries that don't suffer
from eurocratic parasitism, such as China
and the U.S.
Against your comments, there are many of us
who have managed lans of ext3 systems in
*ahem* differently-powered environments and
found that it is, in its current state of
maturity, bullet-proof.
Compared to the relatively few users of
SGI machines, I think the RedHat userbase
constitutes a much more reliable statistical
base.
So Marcelo will take XFS, which helps
approximately 12 people, but he won't take
low-latency and preempt patches, which would
help about 12,000,000 people.
ah yes, the copyright gnomes.... ...PROFIT!
All decent C compilers optimize-away
tail-recursion. There should be 0 stack
growth.
Chomsky is no marxist. He's a libertarian anarchist.