Follow the money.
Someone is getting paid. Find out who and what that person's connection to the person signing off on that expense is.
Why are so many people in this thread talking about this like it's some kind of scandal to be exposed? Big company spends big money on a little thing. What else is new? Last I checked, being incredibly stupid and inefficient was not nefarious. Unless you own shares of NYT, why does this even matter to you?
I too am curious how and why so much money was spent on a trifling piece of technology, but that's the extent of it. Some of you seem to be getting out your pitchforks and assembling the posse. WHY?
Digital distribution makes it impossible for you to realize the kind of price control you are talking about. That's really the beginning and the end of it. Be outraged if you want, but it's about as helpful as getting mad at the door you just slammed your little toe into. The door just sits there...
If you actually bother to learn what a Sievert is, you would see that it is already adjusted for the type of ionizing radiation and the type of exposure... It's measuring exactly what you are talking about.
I've never understood what the problem is with OTP distribution. It's expensive, but doable. A 3 TB drive of random bits is enough for a hell of a lot of communication, so long as you aren't using gobs of video or audio. In reality you need two such drives with the same random bits, one for each end of the communication channel. The expense isn't in buying the drives, but exchanging them securely. Pretty much, one guy has to fly over and physically bring one of the drives back with him. So for the price of a round-trip plane ticket and two 3 TB drives, you can do OTP for quite a long while.
It isn't hard to imagine how to organize a star topology network based on OTP. The hubs of the network will go through pad data at a faster rate than the leaves, but hey... it's all doable.
1) The purpose of Sony's rootkit, while unethical, at least made sense. A catch-all keylogger makes no fucking sense. There's "evil with a purpose" and then theres "fucking insano poking at the dragon cuz I'm coked up." What Sony did was the former. What Samsung was alleged to have done is clearly the latter.
2) Sony got smacked down for it. They had to recall their CDs, they were sued in various class actions and various countries. They admitted it was a fuckup and they got slammed for it.
Whatever the real model is, Phong is an approximation of it. We know it's a decent approximation, because when we use Phong to model the effects of illumination, the results look realistic. Nobody said it's a perfect model. It is apparently quite a bit better than the approximations used previously.
Even when we do have an exact model of something, we A) still don't know if it's correct, just that it matches observations made so far, and B) when we use a computer to analyze a situation based on that model, we necessarily make approximations anyway.
Where did the quote come from? It came from an idiot, apparently. If it was true, only an idiot would admit to it. If it was not true, only an idiot would say it was. I tend to discount what idiots say, as should you.
All those who knew that this was obviously false when it was posted yesterday, raise your hands and link to your comments:
"This is not believable."
Oh, and let me reiterate. Anyone who actually believed a company would do something like this, is a god damned moron. I mean seriously, what the fuck people?
I mean, literally, unbelievable. I do not believe it. And anyone else who believes it without some proof apart from what this dude says, is a god damned moron. Apparently that's most of the people in this thread.
(The fact that someone at Samsung seems to have "confirmed" it just means that someone got hold of an idiot somewhere and he said some stupid crap, probably without even understanding what he was saying.)
The day when a judge, a lawyer, and a person randomly selected off the street can actually understand why de-duplication makes absolutely no logical difference to what happens, is a day I might see a glimmer of hope for the human race.
So I guess what happens is that the electrical field charges the soot and other light carbony things generated in the fire
An electric field can't charge anything -- charge is produced by charged particles. An electric field is just a field. However, it can separate charges if strong enough, and it can influence charged particles. You can test this yourself by putting a lit candle in a microwave. Obviously do not do this in your fancy microwave.
Which appears to imply that one out of the three used Windows, giving at least someone a chance to run the smoke tests [wikipedia.org] on Windows daily. So maybe the cutoff to make a mixed environment work is three developers.
It was a small shop, but we did real testing, meaning we had an actual QA team and of course tested the product on Windows. The one developer who used Windows only used it because he was also a VP and had to run a handful of Windows apps for administrative stuff.
Even if you have successfully split the cross-platform logic from the platform-specific presentation [pineight.com], testing the Windows presentation still needs a Windows license, whether Windows is running on bare metal or in VMware. This makes the PC a "machine with Windows installed".
I'd say I spent about 5% of time on the Windows side of things. So if 5% of time on Windows means I'm developing in a "Windows environment" then why doesn't the other 95% of time spent in Linux mean I'm developing in a "Linux environment," other than it supports your argument? The point is, it was a mixed environment and it worked well.
I'm not sure why this would be problematic in a small shop -- we were a small shop with three developers on this codebase. Two out of the three used Linux. Anyway, I'm just trying to put a point in, that you do not necessarily need to develop on your target platform -- for embedded stuff in particular that's obviously ludicrous.
The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, a massive problem with violent crime, is one of only a handful of developed nations that executes its own citizens, and has a racist prison-industrial complex. Are you seriously suggesting that our legal system is "pretty good"?
And your remedy for this problem is to remove more controls from the system, allowing raw citizens to consider or refuse to consider evidence as they see fit? That'll make it better?
Actually, who controls the information is precisely the point, especially in civil cases (which also take place in court houses).
While your point may be important, it is not the topic. The topic is the problem of jurors inappropriately tapping into information sources where the court is not aware of it. If you're going to conduct justice that way, why not do away with the judge, lawyers, and courtroom all together? We get just get a band of people together and they can talk amongst themselves. We could call such an assemblage of persons a "posse" or maybe a "lynch mob."
Whether the judge controls the information is beside the point. The point is, the defense needs the opportunity to address the information in court. I don't understand how replacing one potential problem with a much, much bigger problem helps anything.
So, you think it's okay for jurors to, on their own, access information pertinent to the case, without giving the defense or prosecution an opportunity to examine that information and discuss it in court? You think people should be convicted based on secret information their attorneys didn't even know about? Nice...
Perhaps they should spend that idle time pondering the importance of the decisions they will be making and the impacts those decisions will have on the various parties involved -- and taking stock of their own capacity to be objective, their own internalized biases, and personal foibles, in order to offer a fairer verdict at the end of the process. Instead of playing Angry Birds. Just a thought.
His argument is just as stupid as saying "Windows is unsuitable for developing Linux software". This clown should be catapulted into the sun.
I'm not so sure... I've done the opposite. For ten years I worked on Windows software. I never once had a Windows machine on my desk. Development and debugging were done on a Linux machine (we could build the product for Linux, and had a few customers who used it, but the main user base was, by far, Windows users). And I wasn't the only developer there who chose to work that way.
I never had problems with this setup. For the occasional bug that I couldn't repro on Linux, I'd fire up VMWare just long enough to work it out. Then, back to the land of bash command lines and GNU tools (in other words, productivity land)
Slashdot Mirror
Follow the money. Someone is getting paid. Find out who and what that person's connection to the person signing off on that expense is.
Why are so many people in this thread talking about this like it's some kind of scandal to be exposed? Big company spends big money on a little thing. What else is new? Last I checked, being incredibly stupid and inefficient was not nefarious. Unless you own shares of NYT, why does this even matter to you?
I too am curious how and why so much money was spent on a trifling piece of technology, but that's the extent of it. Some of you seem to be getting out your pitchforks and assembling the posse. WHY?
Because there is no one-to-one relationship between phones and users. As pointed out in the second freakin' sentence of the post you replied to.
But when I left-align my presentations, the Republicans all get up and walk out of the room. Any advice?
Geez... I understand your frustration with the current socket, but that's no reason to run over your computer with a bulldozer. Wait, what?
Digital distribution makes it impossible for you to realize the kind of price control you are talking about. That's really the beginning and the end of it. Be outraged if you want, but it's about as helpful as getting mad at the door you just slammed your little toe into. The door just sits there...
Reams and reams of documentation with full source information is here: Bible Possession Once Banned by the Catholic Church!
If you actually bother to learn what a Sievert is, you would see that it is already adjusted for the type of ionizing radiation and the type of exposure... It's measuring exactly what you are talking about.
I've never understood what the problem is with OTP distribution. It's expensive, but doable. A 3 TB drive of random bits is enough for a hell of a lot of communication, so long as you aren't using gobs of video or audio. In reality you need two such drives with the same random bits, one for each end of the communication channel. The expense isn't in buying the drives, but exchanging them securely. Pretty much, one guy has to fly over and physically bring one of the drives back with him. So for the price of a round-trip plane ticket and two 3 TB drives, you can do OTP for quite a long while.
It isn't hard to imagine how to organize a star topology network based on OTP. The hubs of the network will go through pad data at a faster rate than the leaves, but hey... it's all doable.
If something with a finite useful lifespan is a failure, then you're a failure. Gotta die someday, right?
Regardless of actual intentions, how can publishing the man's own words coming out of the man's own mouth be in any way considered defamatory?
Are you always this much of a worthless, piece-of-shit, asshole?
If my expectation of some minimal level of brain activity in people who make potentially defamatory claims counts as that, then yes.
1) The purpose of Sony's rootkit, while unethical, at least made sense. A catch-all keylogger makes no fucking sense. There's "evil with a purpose" and then theres "fucking insano poking at the dragon cuz I'm coked up." What Sony did was the former. What Samsung was alleged to have done is clearly the latter.
2) Sony got smacked down for it. They had to recall their CDs, they were sued in various class actions and various countries. They admitted it was a fuckup and they got slammed for it.
Critical thinking, try it sometime.
Whatever the real model is, Phong is an approximation of it. We know it's a decent approximation, because when we use Phong to model the effects of illumination, the results look realistic. Nobody said it's a perfect model. It is apparently quite a bit better than the approximations used previously.
Even when we do have an exact model of something, we A) still don't know if it's correct, just that it matches observations made so far, and B) when we use a computer to analyze a situation based on that model, we necessarily make approximations anyway.
Where did the quote come from? It came from an idiot, apparently. If it was true, only an idiot would admit to it. If it was not true, only an idiot would say it was. I tend to discount what idiots say, as should you.
All those who knew that this was obviously false when it was posted yesterday, raise your hands and link to your comments:
"This is not believable." Oh, and let me reiterate. Anyone who actually believed a company would do something like this, is a god damned moron. I mean seriously, what the fuck people?
I mean, literally, unbelievable. I do not believe it. And anyone else who believes it without some proof apart from what this dude says, is a god damned moron. Apparently that's most of the people in this thread.
(The fact that someone at Samsung seems to have "confirmed" it just means that someone got hold of an idiot somewhere and he said some stupid crap, probably without even understanding what he was saying.)
The day when a judge, a lawyer, and a person randomly selected off the street can actually understand why de-duplication makes absolutely no logical difference to what happens, is a day I might see a glimmer of hope for the human race.
So I guess what happens is that the electrical field charges the soot and other light carbony things generated in the fire
An electric field can't charge anything -- charge is produced by charged particles. An electric field is just a field. However, it can separate charges if strong enough, and it can influence charged particles. You can test this yourself by putting a lit candle in a microwave. Obviously do not do this in your fancy microwave.
Which appears to imply that one out of the three used Windows, giving at least someone a chance to run the smoke tests [wikipedia.org] on Windows daily. So maybe the cutoff to make a mixed environment work is three developers.
It was a small shop, but we did real testing, meaning we had an actual QA team and of course tested the product on Windows. The one developer who used Windows only used it because he was also a VP and had to run a handful of Windows apps for administrative stuff.
Even if you have successfully split the cross-platform logic from the platform-specific presentation [pineight.com], testing the Windows presentation still needs a Windows license, whether Windows is running on bare metal or in VMware. This makes the PC a "machine with Windows installed".
I'd say I spent about 5% of time on the Windows side of things. So if 5% of time on Windows means I'm developing in a "Windows environment" then why doesn't the other 95% of time spent in Linux mean I'm developing in a "Linux environment," other than it supports your argument? The point is, it was a mixed environment and it worked well.
I'm not sure why this would be problematic in a small shop -- we were a small shop with three developers on this codebase. Two out of the three used Linux. Anyway, I'm just trying to put a point in, that you do not necessarily need to develop on your target platform -- for embedded stuff in particular that's obviously ludicrous.
The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, a massive problem with violent crime, is one of only a handful of developed nations that executes its own citizens, and has a racist prison-industrial complex. Are you seriously suggesting that our legal system is "pretty good"?
And your remedy for this problem is to remove more controls from the system, allowing raw citizens to consider or refuse to consider evidence as they see fit? That'll make it better?
Actually, who controls the information is precisely the point, especially in civil cases (which also take place in court houses).
While your point may be important, it is not the topic. The topic is the problem of jurors inappropriately tapping into information sources where the court is not aware of it. If you're going to conduct justice that way, why not do away with the judge, lawyers, and courtroom all together? We get just get a band of people together and they can talk amongst themselves. We could call such an assemblage of persons a "posse" or maybe a "lynch mob."
Whether the judge controls the information is beside the point. The point is, the defense needs the opportunity to address the information in court. I don't understand how replacing one potential problem with a much, much bigger problem helps anything.
So, you think it's okay for jurors to, on their own, access information pertinent to the case, without giving the defense or prosecution an opportunity to examine that information and discuss it in court? You think people should be convicted based on secret information their attorneys didn't even know about? Nice...
Perhaps they should spend that idle time pondering the importance of the decisions they will be making and the impacts those decisions will have on the various parties involved -- and taking stock of their own capacity to be objective, their own internalized biases, and personal foibles, in order to offer a fairer verdict at the end of the process. Instead of playing Angry Birds. Just a thought.
His argument is just as stupid as saying "Windows is unsuitable for developing Linux software". This clown should be catapulted into the sun.
I'm not so sure... I've done the opposite. For ten years I worked on Windows software. I never once had a Windows machine on my desk. Development and debugging were done on a Linux machine (we could build the product for Linux, and had a few customers who used it, but the main user base was, by far, Windows users). And I wasn't the only developer there who chose to work that way.
I never had problems with this setup. For the occasional bug that I couldn't repro on Linux, I'd fire up VMWare just long enough to work it out. Then, back to the land of bash command lines and GNU tools (in other words, productivity land)