Changing the name of your OS after trademark infringement is a minor issue, Failinc to check if your chosen name is available is rather troubling as this is routine for large, well-run corporations.
Here's a show that quite successfully introduces a mostly scientifically illiterate public to the concept of experimental verification and controls, as well as to the fun and excitement of scientific exploration and all you can do is bitch about some details which most likely were taken care off camera?
You wouldn't be called Sheldon by any chance would you?
UPS offers guaranteed time in transit on *all* packages. not just premium services. USPS does not guarantee delivery on anything.
They might offer "guaranteed" delivery, yet of the last five packages I sent none made it in less than a week. They gave fake excuses such as address was incorrect (it wasn't) and person wasn't at home (person was at home).
A properly configured *nix box won't be susceptible to malware, since they can only affect a user's $HOME, not the underlying system.
Do you really think that the only way to break into a box, be it linux or windows, is through the user doing something wrong?
Do you even know what a port is and that the programs listening on them more often than not run in superuser mode?
Last I heard, > 70% of the net is driven by *nix in one form or another.
I don't even know what that means. The routers most definitely do not run *nix.
Web servers are often unix boxen and usually they are secure not because of a strong OS, but because of other measures (close all ports, restart virtual servers often, very limited functionality, no user account login, etc).
The clients, which are the other half of the web run mostly Windows and unix-based OS X. Now that Macs are popular we see that they are being broken into more and more often.
Why is it that Google isn't pwned daily?:-O
This is such an inane argument. I'll rephrase it for you:
Most of Microsoft servers run windows. Why is it that Microsoft isn't pwned daily?
This proves nothing. Both Google and M$ have an army of engineers keeping their system clean and alive. The question is what happens to a properly patched linux box vs a windows box.
And the facts remain that my linux boxes were broken into. Clearly you can't handle this, so you claim that I'm making it up. Whatever, if you need to believe that to sleep soundly at night, sure, it didn't happen. I was just joking.
I have a linux box at my office next to a windows machine. The linux box has been broken two times.... that I know of, since the absence of linux AV software means that most intrusions likely go undetected. My windows box has been broken into once.
The OP is right. Linux is no safer than windows, and numbers are the main attraction. As popular as Linux is, it has very few network facing boxes than can be taken over.
Merely coming up with a counterexample doesn't imply that an exception existed.
I agree so far, what you are missing is that the OP is not merely coming up with a counterexample. The OP comes up with the one and only counterexample (or in some other circumstances one of a handful of counterexamples).
If in a universe of hundreds of thousands of applications you can only quote one counterexample, this does prove the rule.
Any time you can name the single well identified exception to the rule that is "the counterexample that proves the rule".
Life is not mathematics. In math a single counterexample shoots down a theorem, in actual real life the rule still holds, and moreover it can never be proven, all we can do is perform repeated observations and say: gee you are right, this rule generally seems to hold.
The exception that proves the rule. If on the other hand you had listed hundreds of applications, you would have proven your point.
Same thing happens with functional programming. People don't realize just how pathetic it sounds when they always use the same three examples to prove that they matter.
Compare this to the list of examples you would give if you were asked for successful programs written in C, C++ or Java.
It is interesting that you assume this to be likely, given that there is no evidence on either direction to make a judgement. Your statement has a Sheldon-esque ring to it.
Btw. the amount is adjusted for inflation.
His father was a successful lawyer who built his own practice. A well-to-do person? definitely. A rich, live off his rents person? not while Bill was growing up.
This is a bit misleading, because it sounds like he was the children of multimillionaries, which is not the case.
His father was a successful lawyer making upwards of $350K+ a year or top 1%. This is an upper middle class brackground: you live quite comfortably but you still need to work for a living.
Just because you write your argument in bold letters using republican talking points it doesn't make it more true.
More importantly you completely missed my point. The electorate can set a limit for government expenditures any place they like, from 0% of GDP to 100% of GDP. That is what my Haiti/Sweden example illustrates.
The point I was making is: where would a rational voter set that threshold? That is if you care about rational decision making as opposed to parroting talking points.
Rationally the threshold would be set at the point where returns are worse than you taking the money spending it yourself.
If the Total amount spent doesn't go down then you have not cut spending.
This is just not the case. The simplistic arithmetic that works for a household does not apply to a nation. Say, for example, suppose we have rampant 100% annual inflation, and one year we spend $1 Trillion and the next $1.5 Trillion. Then we have cut spending even if total amount spent went up.
Similarly, if we have 100M citizens one year and 200M citizens twenty years later while expenditures go from $1 Trillion to $1.5 Trillion then yet again by all reasonable metrics we have cut spending on our citizens by 33%.
I'm sorry that accounting for a growing entity such as the US is more complicated tham that of your fifth grade lemonade stand, but that's the way it is.
They should be taking as little money out of the economy (taxing) as is necessary - not one penny more.
Again this is not true a priori.
Government should take all the money that they can spend more efficiently than the private sector. A classic example of this are social goods such as defense, roads, research, policing and education which are best sold under the "insurance" model.
Think about it, if you are investing in two businesses you put more money on the one that gives you better returns up and until they can no longer use the extra cash at which time you give money to the other business. The ideal amount of money spent is then the one that equalizes the rates of return.
And in the end, the taxes get raised, but the spending never actually gets cut, and so the Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
Actually spending went down during the Clinton years as percentage of GDP, which is the metric that matters. The last time before that when spending went down was during the Kennedy/Johnson administration.
You should note that there is no a priori "right" level of expenditures. You can choose to create a Haiti still level of government services in which case 10% of GDP in government expenditures would be too high, or you can create a cradle-to-grave, free education, free health care, safe streets, government backed pensions, system like in Sweden, and if you can provide that for 30% of GDP you are getting the deal of the century.
So rather than asking for more or less government spending, how about asking for efficient government programs for a change?
Another problem was Intel making their own compiler instead of improving gcc,
Intel always releases a bare bones compiler that takes advantage of the new features for every new architecture. The idea is that this serves as a guide for compiler developers such as gcc for how to go about developing a full fledged compiler for the architecture.
Slashdot Mirror
Changing the name of your OS after trademark infringement is a minor issue, Failinc to check if your chosen name is available is rather troubling as this is routine for large, well-run corporations.
The TV news report says that the cannonball completely missed the water barrels and cinderblock wall that were supposed to stop its journey.
Contrary to all expectations, the heavier object fell faster.
This is correct. It can take quite a few iterations before one has a fool proof release mechanism that does not favor the heavier object.
There is so much wrong with that show,
Here's a show that quite successfully introduces a mostly scientifically illiterate public to the concept of experimental verification and controls, as well as to the fun and excitement of scientific exploration and all you can do is bitch about some details which most likely were taken care off camera?
You wouldn't be called Sheldon by any chance would you?
No one in the field will take any new theory seriously until it can reproduce ALL the phenomena at least as well as the current model
Just a nit pick: not necessarily ALL, but certainly MOST.
UPS offers guaranteed time in transit on *all* packages. not just premium services. USPS does not guarantee delivery on anything.
They might offer "guaranteed" delivery, yet of the last five packages I sent none made it in less than a week. They gave fake excuses such as address was incorrect (it wasn't) and person wasn't at home (person was at home).
UPS sucks.
Fuck. Off!
Such depth of thought, such clarity in your arguments. Wow!
Uh huh. WRT: Bonehead!
That's a link to a wireless router/NAT box. Those drive your home LAN, not the internet.
These are the routers that drive the internet. They most definitely not run unix.
Microsoft doubled for several years in a row. Last I've heard, they are still in business.
A properly configured *nix box won't be susceptible to malware, since they can only affect a user's $HOME, not the underlying system.
Do you really think that the only way to break into a box, be it linux or windows, is through the user doing something wrong?
Do you even know what a port is and that the programs listening on them more often than not run in superuser mode?
Last I heard, > 70% of the net is driven by *nix in one form or another.
I don't even know what that means. The routers most definitely do not run *nix.
Web servers are often unix boxen and usually they are secure not because of a strong OS, but because of other measures (close all ports, restart virtual servers often, very limited functionality, no user account login, etc).
The clients, which are the other half of the web run mostly Windows and unix-based OS X. Now that Macs are popular we see that they are being broken into more and more often.
Why is it that Google isn't pwned daily? :-O
This is such an inane argument. I'll rephrase it for you:
Most of Microsoft servers run windows. Why is it that Microsoft isn't pwned daily?
This proves nothing. Both Google and M$ have an army of engineers keeping their system clean and alive. The question is what happens to a properly patched linux box vs a windows box.
And the facts remain that my linux boxes were broken into. Clearly you can't handle this, so you claim that I'm making it up. Whatever, if you need to believe that to sleep soundly at night, sure, it didn't happen. I was just joking.
I have a linux box at my office next to a windows machine. The linux box has been broken two times.... that I know of, since the absence of linux AV software means that most intrusions likely go undetected. My windows box has been broken into once.
The OP is right. Linux is no safer than windows, and numbers are the main attraction. As popular as Linux is, it has very few network facing boxes than can be taken over.
Merely coming up with a counterexample doesn't imply that an exception existed.
I agree so far, what you are missing is that the OP is not merely coming up with a counterexample. The OP comes up with the one and only counterexample (or in some other circumstances one of a handful of counterexamples).
If in a universe of hundreds of thousands of applications you can only quote one counterexample, this does prove the rule.
Any time you can name the single well identified exception to the rule that is "the counterexample that proves the rule".
My point here is that the argument, "the exception proves the rule" is just glib and erroneous dodging of a valid argument.
And you would be wrong.
Life is not mathematics. In math a single counterexample shoots down a theorem, in actual real life the rule still holds, and moreover it can never be proven, all we can do is perform repeated observations and say: gee you are right, this rule generally seems to hold.
The exception that proves the rule. If on the other hand you had listed hundreds of applications, you would have proven your point.
Same thing happens with functional programming. People don't realize just how pathetic it sounds when they always use the same three examples to prove that they matter.
Compare this to the list of examples you would give if you were asked for successful programs written in C, C++ or Java.
For (A) you are forgetting taxes, which at the time would have been around $150K a year (inflation adjusted)
For (B) the figure given was already inflation adjusted to current dollars, so no, his father was not making 2.9 million dollars.
No I did not. In fact I mentioned the United Way connections in another reply.
I simply took issue with the way his father income was presented. Was the father well-to-do? yes. Was he a multimillionaire? not back then.
Likely, you forgot to adjust for inflation.
It is interesting that you assume this to be likely, given that there is no evidence on either direction to make a judgement. Your statement has a Sheldon-esque ring to it.
Btw. the amount is adjusted for inflation.
His father was a successful lawyer who built his own practice. A well-to-do person? definitely. A rich, live off his rents person? not while Bill was growing up.
but how can you characterize mid-six figures a year as "upper middle class"?
Easy:
In the United States, the upper middle class is defined as consisting mostly of white collar professionals who not only have above-average personal incomes and advanced educational degrees but also a higher degree of autonomy in their work. The main occupational tasks of upper middle class individuals tend to center on conceptualizing, consulting, and instruction.
A rule of thumb is: if you have to work every day, (i.e. you can't retire today and live of your rents), you are still middle class.
No $350K in today's dollars.
the prep-schooled son of upper 0.5%'ers
This is a bit misleading, because it sounds like he was the children of multimillionaries, which is not the case.
His father was a successful lawyer making upwards of $350K+ a year or top 1%. This is an upper middle class brackground: you live quite comfortably but you still need to work for a living.
Obviously you've never heard of loss leaders.
end of story.
Only if you know nothing about running a business. If you did, you would realize that sometimes to make a buck you need to spend a buck.
Just because you write your argument in bold letters using republican talking points it doesn't make it more true.
More importantly you completely missed my point. The electorate can set a limit for government expenditures any place they like, from 0% of GDP to 100% of GDP. That is what my Haiti/Sweden example illustrates.
The point I was making is: where would a rational voter set that threshold? That is if you care about rational decision making as opposed to parroting talking points.
Rationally the threshold would be set at the point where returns are worse than you taking the money spending it yourself.
If the Total amount spent doesn't go down then you have not cut spending.
This is just not the case. The simplistic arithmetic that works for a household does not apply to a nation. Say, for example, suppose we have rampant 100% annual inflation, and one year we spend $1 Trillion and the next $1.5 Trillion. Then we have cut spending even if total amount spent went up.
Similarly, if we have 100M citizens one year and 200M citizens twenty years later while expenditures go from $1 Trillion to $1.5 Trillion then yet again by all reasonable metrics we have cut spending on our citizens by 33%.
I'm sorry that accounting for a growing entity such as the US is more complicated tham that of your fifth grade lemonade stand, but that's the way it is.
They should be taking as little money out of the economy (taxing) as is necessary - not one penny more.
Again this is not true a priori.
Government should take all the money that they can spend more efficiently than the private sector. A classic example of this are social goods such as defense, roads, research, policing and education which are best sold under the "insurance" model.
Think about it, if you are investing in two businesses you put more money on the one that gives you better returns up and until they can no longer use the extra cash at which time you give money to the other business. The ideal amount of money spent is then the one that equalizes the rates of return.
And in the end, the taxes get raised, but the spending never actually gets cut, and so the Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
Actually spending went down during the Clinton years as percentage of GDP, which is the metric that matters. The last time before that when spending went down was during the Kennedy/Johnson administration.
You should note that there is no a priori "right" level of expenditures. You can choose to create a Haiti still level of government services in which case 10% of GDP in government expenditures would be too high, or you can create a cradle-to-grave, free education, free health care, safe streets, government backed pensions, system like in Sweden, and if you can provide that for 30% of GDP you are getting the deal of the century.
So rather than asking for more or less government spending, how about asking for efficient government programs for a change?
Another problem was Intel making their own compiler instead of improving gcc,
Intel always releases a bare bones compiler that takes advantage of the new features for every new architecture. The idea is that this serves as a guide for compiler developers such as gcc for how to go about developing a full fledged compiler for the architecture.