Not right now, there's not. The companies are running razor-thin margins as it is (if they have a profit at all), and retrofitting means removing a plane from the active inventory. Now, this is done periodically anyway for major overhauls, but this is still an additional cost of probably several tens of thousands of dollars, if not a couple hundred thousand dollars, per plane to replace all of the seats and run the new wiring.
Yeah, I know. But in addition to all-Foundry, we're also all-Microsoft (or almost all -- the department forum is on a Linux box, and most of the security stuff is Linux or BSD-based), and I need to make sure I know how things like Active Directory work in detail, and the Securing certs actually have some useful points.
Believe me, if I could, I'd have given you +1 Insightful.:)
Microsoft gets a lot of flak for the MCSE certs, but Novell's CNE program really started it as far as I am concerned. For years, a CNE meant a lot more money on your paychecks. Admittedly, the CNE was also a difficult certification to get compared to MCSE, but it was Novell and not Microsoft that set the ball rolling in the first place.
I use certifications for personal goals now. By the end of this year, I want to get MCSE:Security, CCNA, Foundry's baseline cert (can't recall it right now, but we are a wholly-Foundry shop), and start in on GSEC, and eventually I plan on having a few others, including CISSP. I'm not using them for pay boosts (well, not primarily), but as guideposts, and the material I have from work does a good job of structuring things in layers so that I learn it all the way through.
I already know that I know more than the certified people at work. Most of the people there that really know their stuff are CCIEs -- and anyone with that gets my respect. There's one guy that's a CCNA, CNA, and MCSE+I (I actually had to look that one up to find out the Microsoft still allows it to be used), among other things, and he's a dimwit who gets a lot of really basic things wrong and is a constant source of annoyance to many of us. One day, my alphabet soup will not only be thicker than his, but I'll actually have real responsibilities, unlike him.
This is why RAID-1 is so nice. I went from "OHMYGODILOSTADRIVEMYDATAISGONE!!!" to "Oh, a drive failed. How annoying." Cross-ship from the manufacturer (Maxtor in my case), and in two days, I'm back up and running.
Having a seatbelt in a car keeps you inside, reducing the likelihood of being ejected from the vehicle, whereas you want to be effectively ejected from a motorcycle.
I do understand your point, and there are laws that are arbitrary and sometimes even capricious, but lines have to be drawn at some point. For a thief, when does one raise the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony? If it's $1000 (for example), and someone steals something that costs $999, then it's a misdemeanor. Not inherently fair that someone should serve more time and have a worse record because he stole something $1 more than the guy who grabbed something just slightly less expensive.
Someone here doesn't read Dilbert, it would seem, or else you would remember the Holy Grail of programming: two million lines of undocumented spaghetti code for one of the systems.
And you would fire someone like that in a heartbeat because you know what it means. If it can be snuck in...
I'm not a coder by trade myself (I just don't have the patience for it), but what I do write is pretty clearly written with meaningful variables and occasionally comments where something isn't obvious, if only that I can come back later and look it over and figure out WTH I was thinking.
While I'm not fond of helmet laws, putting a seatbelt on a motorcycle would be asinine. Would YOU like to get dragged by your bike -- with one leg being firmly ground into the pavement under the weight of it -- for the distance it takes to stop? Being able to come loose from the bike and roll (or even skid) to a stop is a lot safer without the added momentum of the motorcycle pulling the rider along.
No, no... He values maintaining a job. With one-character class names, he's the only one that can really trace the workings. Ergo, he's the only one who can maintain it, and thus unfireable.
Agreed, as well as perhaps to iron out some minor copyright holdings that may have interfered with operations, such as those for manuals or guides. But intended meaning and actual effect can be very different things if one is not careful. I imagine there are people at both companies that are kicking themselves for not clarifying and/or following up on this single point.
What they're pleased about is the court's refusal to dismiss the part of the case revolving around the copyright ownership because of ambiguities in the language of APA Amendment 2. Novell had wanted the copyrights ruled to be under the ownership of Novell, which would have caused the whole SCO case against IBM to collapse. The court did say in the decision that the amendment seems to be a promise to transfer the copyrights rather than an actual transfer, but that an ambiguity of wording requires further review:
"The APA Amendment No. 2 excludes from transfer "[a]ll copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the [APA] required for [SCO's predecessor] to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and Unixware technologies." The Amendment does not identify which copyrights are required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and Unixware and provides no date for the transfer.
While the court seems to lean towards Novell on this overall point, I would honestly be inclined to think that the copyrights to Unix code would come along with such a transfer, although I would hope that I'd be a bit more intelligent and actually spell it out. The big question, of course, is: Did this document actually convey a transfer of copyright, even without a clear declaration to it (remember that it is an amendment to a contract of sale)? It doesn't seem to me that SCO has a lot of room here, but it might just be able to wiggle out.
It will not be "pulled" from the gene pool. There is no "pulling".
Now you're getting pedantic. You know what I meant.
Your position seems to imply that natural selection is effective only in the immediate, whereas I take the position that natural selection is a long-term process that includes the possible extinction of a species even many generations later. If a group reproduces faster than another, and collapses and dies out because of this leaving the slower-producing group to survive, then that is natural selection in progress, resulting in natural selection favoring the group that reproduces more slowly.
Actually, it was in 2002 with the release of IE6SP1. It's not really a patch, since there is no 'patch' to go from Gold to SP1. Similarly, the coming IE6SP2 has enough new features (security lockdowns which admittedly are late in arriving, plus a popup blocker) to qualify as at least a new minor version. Microsoft doesn't like advancing minor version numbers in the browser unless it has to.
That an organism with a mutation that allows for more rapid reproduction does not mean that the mutation will always be the more successful one. Yes, it may survive for a while -- it may survive for thousands of years. But if it ultimately results in the overpopulation of the species with an eventual collapse because the ecosystem can't support it (perhaps it results in the extinction of the main food supply in the area without easy access to other food), then it is a bad mutation and will be pulled from the gene pool.
And I don't know where your point on the sun has anything to do with this.
I know a number of small business owners, and none of them want to dominate their space. They want to provide a service to make their customers happy. Some of them are better at it than others, but they have good-natured relationships with their competitors, sometimes sending potential customers to each other when they're out of something or when that other business is closer to the customer.
I think what you're looking for is less "ends justify the means" and more "any publicity is good publicity." They're related, but not quite identical.
And I'll admit that I've fallen for it in some cases. I'll check out a movie or buy a book if there's a big enough media presence to some aspect of it, just to see what the big deal is, even if I don't agree with the idea behind it. This is why I watched Ken Park -- to find out what the Australian censors were so up in arms over. I still don't see what their big problem was, and it wasn't a very good movie to begin with, but it made someone $1.25 here in rental fees.
I have no intentions of buying this book -- I just don't have enough interest in it. But the phenomenon does work.
By your own logic, then, those that reproduce more slowly ('highest feasible production') could be the more prosperous, slowing the propagation of the species. It need not even be an external event that causes this selection. Suppose a genetic mutation at some point allows higher reproduction, with the given resource potential remaining the same over time. They could pass the resource threshold, and lose out in the long run to neighbors that don't consume so much energy.
I'd also observe that short of sociological phenomena, organisms which have high time-to-reproductive-age are always the least populous. Just examine the insects-to-mammals ratio.
And you don't believe that this could possibly be caused by natural selection? Perhaps a group of animals, for one reason or another, developed a slightly longer life cycle and was able to survive better because they weren't spending energy raising their young from an earlier age. Those that spent more energy raising their young from an earlier age depleted the surroundings of available resources, and thus could not survive in the long term. Over time, as resource levels decreased in some areas (short-term weather changes such as droughts or long-term climate adjustments like desertification), those that biologically could not procreate until later would have had a sort of forced advantage (presuming they could survive until sexual maturity, of course) over those that had the biological ability and urge to reproduce earlier.
Insects are generally small and rapidly consumed as food. They exist only to reproduce, or to support the member(s) of their societies that do reproduce. They can be rapidly wiped out by flood, drought, or influx of predators, so rapid, early reproduction supports them more than a possible lack of resources restricts them, since they can get by on relatively little due to their biology.
There are countless examples of species that can easily over-propagate, but there are also many examples of species that take much longer to develop, limiting their reproduction. Humans, for example, take from 10-15 years to reach sexual maturity. Chimps reach sexual maturity at about 8-10 years, and gorillas in 6-8 years or so. These two creatures are similar to us in many ways, but humans have evolved a growth pattern that requires more time to reach the age of possible procreation. Size seems to have little to do with it, too -- I've checked and most whales are in the 6-10 year range for sexual maturity.
They're not always illegal copies. I've known a number of techs who, at their jobs, used the Devil's Own key to install purchased installations of WinXP from their corporate CDs, often because they could not, for one reason or another, find the company's actual key, though sometimes it was out of sheer laziness. This was apparently a larger problem than was expected, because Microsoft published a KB article describing how to enter an alternate key without reinstalling after SP1 was released.
The approval of so-called "business process" patents has helped lead to the huge burden on patent examiners. The resulting flood of filings has left them chest-deep in paper, and many would-be innovators with a fear of becoming just as deeply buried in lawsuits.
Slashdot Mirror
Moore doesn't call it a documentary, and has said (on KABC radio, I think) that it is a propaganda piece directed at getting Bush out of office.
Of the statements you presented, yes. However, a balanced description could say something like:
"An attack was repelled when ten government soldiers held off an attack by rebel forces, killing 100 of them."
It presents the facts neutrally and presents details of what happened. It's not that hard to do in most cases.
Nothing becomes real mainstream if it's closed
Yeah, that Windows product will never catch on!
Sorry. I had to. I couldn't help it. The voices told me to.
Not right now, there's not. The companies are running razor-thin margins as it is (if they have a profit at all), and retrofitting means removing a plane from the active inventory. Now, this is done periodically anyway for major overhauls, but this is still an additional cost of probably several tens of thousands of dollars, if not a couple hundred thousand dollars, per plane to replace all of the seats and run the new wiring.
You have me intrigued. I'm checking Google right now, but I'm having some difficulty finding anything on this. Any useful links?
Yeah, I know. But in addition to all-Foundry, we're also all-Microsoft (or almost all -- the department forum is on a Linux box, and most of the security stuff is Linux or BSD-based), and I need to make sure I know how things like Active Directory work in detail, and the Securing certs actually have some useful points.
:)
Believe me, if I could, I'd have given you +1 Insightful.
Microsoft gets a lot of flak for the MCSE certs, but Novell's CNE program really started it as far as I am concerned. For years, a CNE meant a lot more money on your paychecks. Admittedly, the CNE was also a difficult certification to get compared to MCSE, but it was Novell and not Microsoft that set the ball rolling in the first place.
I use certifications for personal goals now. By the end of this year, I want to get MCSE:Security, CCNA, Foundry's baseline cert (can't recall it right now, but we are a wholly-Foundry shop), and start in on GSEC, and eventually I plan on having a few others, including CISSP. I'm not using them for pay boosts (well, not primarily), but as guideposts, and the material I have from work does a good job of structuring things in layers so that I learn it all the way through.
I already know that I know more than the certified people at work. Most of the people there that really know their stuff are CCIEs -- and anyone with that gets my respect. There's one guy that's a CCNA, CNA, and MCSE+I (I actually had to look that one up to find out the Microsoft still allows it to be used), among other things, and he's a dimwit who gets a lot of really basic things wrong and is a constant source of annoyance to many of us. One day, my alphabet soup will not only be thicker than his, but I'll actually have real responsibilities, unlike him.
This is why RAID-1 is so nice. I went from "OHMYGODILOSTADRIVEMYDATAISGONE!!!" to "Oh, a drive failed. How annoying." Cross-ship from the manufacturer (Maxtor in my case), and in two days, I'm back up and running.
Ultra-light they may be, but spread over that much area, how much would it weigh? Its maximum cargo capacity is already severely limited.
Having a seatbelt in a car keeps you inside, reducing the likelihood of being ejected from the vehicle, whereas you want to be effectively ejected from a motorcycle.
I do understand your point, and there are laws that are arbitrary and sometimes even capricious, but lines have to be drawn at some point. For a thief, when does one raise the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony? If it's $1000 (for example), and someone steals something that costs $999, then it's a misdemeanor. Not inherently fair that someone should serve more time and have a worse record because he stole something $1 more than the guy who grabbed something just slightly less expensive.
Someone here doesn't read Dilbert, it would seem, or else you would remember the Holy Grail of programming: two million lines of undocumented spaghetti code for one of the systems.
And you would fire someone like that in a heartbeat because you know what it means. If it can be snuck in...
I'm not a coder by trade myself (I just don't have the patience for it), but what I do write is pretty clearly written with meaningful variables and occasionally comments where something isn't obvious, if only that I can come back later and look it over and figure out WTH I was thinking.
While I'm not fond of helmet laws, putting a seatbelt on a motorcycle would be asinine. Would YOU like to get dragged by your bike -- with one leg being firmly ground into the pavement under the weight of it -- for the distance it takes to stop? Being able to come loose from the bike and roll (or even skid) to a stop is a lot safer without the added momentum of the motorcycle pulling the rider along.
No, no... He values maintaining a job. With one-character class names, he's the only one that can really trace the workings. Ergo, he's the only one who can maintain it, and thus unfireable.
Agreed, as well as perhaps to iron out some minor copyright holdings that may have interfered with operations, such as those for manuals or guides. But intended meaning and actual effect can be very different things if one is not careful. I imagine there are people at both companies that are kicking themselves for not clarifying and/or following up on this single point.
What they're pleased about is the court's refusal to dismiss the part of the case revolving around the copyright ownership because of ambiguities in the language of APA Amendment 2. Novell had wanted the copyrights ruled to be under the ownership of Novell, which would have caused the whole SCO case against IBM to collapse. The court did say in the decision that the amendment seems to be a promise to transfer the copyrights rather than an actual transfer, but that an ambiguity of wording requires further review:
"The APA Amendment No. 2 excludes from transfer "[a]ll copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the [APA] required for [SCO's predecessor] to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and Unixware technologies." The Amendment does not identify which copyrights are required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and Unixware and provides no date for the transfer.
While the court seems to lean towards Novell on this overall point, I would honestly be inclined to think that the copyrights to Unix code would come along with such a transfer, although I would hope that I'd be a bit more intelligent and actually spell it out. The big question, of course, is: Did this document actually convey a transfer of copyright, even without a clear declaration to it (remember that it is an amendment to a contract of sale)? It doesn't seem to me that SCO has a lot of room here, but it might just be able to wiggle out.
It will not be "pulled" from the gene pool. There is no "pulling".
Now you're getting pedantic. You know what I meant.
Your position seems to imply that natural selection is effective only in the immediate, whereas I take the position that natural selection is a long-term process that includes the possible extinction of a species even many generations later. If a group reproduces faster than another, and collapses and dies out because of this leaving the slower-producing group to survive, then that is natural selection in progress, resulting in natural selection favoring the group that reproduces more slowly.
Actually, it was in 2002 with the release of IE6SP1. It's not really a patch, since there is no 'patch' to go from Gold to SP1. Similarly, the coming IE6SP2 has enough new features (security lockdowns which admittedly are late in arriving, plus a popup blocker) to qualify as at least a new minor version. Microsoft doesn't like advancing minor version numbers in the browser unless it has to.
That an organism with a mutation that allows for more rapid reproduction does not mean that the mutation will always be the more successful one. Yes, it may survive for a while -- it may survive for thousands of years. But if it ultimately results in the overpopulation of the species with an eventual collapse because the ecosystem can't support it (perhaps it results in the extinction of the main food supply in the area without easy access to other food), then it is a bad mutation and will be pulled from the gene pool.
And I don't know where your point on the sun has anything to do with this.
I know a number of small business owners, and none of them want to dominate their space. They want to provide a service to make their customers happy. Some of them are better at it than others, but they have good-natured relationships with their competitors, sometimes sending potential customers to each other when they're out of something or when that other business is closer to the customer.
Not every industry is cut-throat.
I think what you're looking for is less "ends justify the means" and more "any publicity is good publicity." They're related, but not quite identical.
And I'll admit that I've fallen for it in some cases. I'll check out a movie or buy a book if there's a big enough media presence to some aspect of it, just to see what the big deal is, even if I don't agree with the idea behind it. This is why I watched Ken Park -- to find out what the Australian censors were so up in arms over. I still don't see what their big problem was, and it wasn't a very good movie to begin with, but it made someone $1.25 here in rental fees.
I have no intentions of buying this book -- I just don't have enough interest in it. But the phenomenon does work.
By your own logic, then, those that reproduce more slowly ('highest feasible production') could be the more prosperous, slowing the propagation of the species. It need not even be an external event that causes this selection. Suppose a genetic mutation at some point allows higher reproduction, with the given resource potential remaining the same over time. They could pass the resource threshold, and lose out in the long run to neighbors that don't consume so much energy.
I'd also observe that short of sociological phenomena, organisms which have high time-to-reproductive-age are always the least populous. Just examine the insects-to-mammals ratio.
And you don't believe that this could possibly be caused by natural selection? Perhaps a group of animals, for one reason or another, developed a slightly longer life cycle and was able to survive better because they weren't spending energy raising their young from an earlier age. Those that spent more energy raising their young from an earlier age depleted the surroundings of available resources, and thus could not survive in the long term. Over time, as resource levels decreased in some areas (short-term weather changes such as droughts or long-term climate adjustments like desertification), those that biologically could not procreate until later would have had a sort of forced advantage (presuming they could survive until sexual maturity, of course) over those that had the biological ability and urge to reproduce earlier.
Insects are generally small and rapidly consumed as food. They exist only to reproduce, or to support the member(s) of their societies that do reproduce. They can be rapidly wiped out by flood, drought, or influx of predators, so rapid, early reproduction supports them more than a possible lack of resources restricts them, since they can get by on relatively little due to their biology.
Natural selection always chooses overproduction.
And your basis for this statement is?
There are countless examples of species that can easily over-propagate, but there are also many examples of species that take much longer to develop, limiting their reproduction. Humans, for example, take from 10-15 years to reach sexual maturity. Chimps reach sexual maturity at about 8-10 years, and gorillas in 6-8 years or so. These two creatures are similar to us in many ways, but humans have evolved a growth pattern that requires more time to reach the age of possible procreation. Size seems to have little to do with it, too -- I've checked and most whales are in the 6-10 year range for sexual maturity.
They're not always illegal copies. I've known a number of techs who, at their jobs, used the Devil's Own key to install purchased installations of WinXP from their corporate CDs, often because they could not, for one reason or another, find the company's actual key, though sometimes it was out of sheer laziness. This was apparently a larger problem than was expected, because Microsoft published a KB article describing how to enter an alternate key without reinstalling after SP1 was released.
The approval of so-called "business process" patents has helped lead to the huge burden on patent examiners. The resulting flood of filings has left them chest-deep in paper, and many would-be innovators with a fear of becoming just as deeply buried in lawsuits.