Oops, I meant to type "Who said 'is secure'" not "Who said 'more secure'". I accidentally repeated the parent's phrase. Ie., no one said analog is secure. Just that the physical effort of an analog tap makes it more secure than the automation of a digital tap.
You can tap an analog phone line with stuff you find a radio shack.
Who said "more secure"? I said that people don't expect to have their voice tapped as a legacy of the analog world. Your radio shack parts still have to have one person actively research and target another specific person's analog line. In other words physical activity must be conducted by a person. Most people don't think they are interesting enough to warrant such effort and rightly so.
The difference with digital devices is that there is the opportunity to "tap" (typing on computer, voice on cell phone,...) in an automatic manner, no human action is required on a per "tap" basis as there is in the scenario you describe. People have not yet realized this with respect to digital voice, that their phone can be the "bug" just like their computer.
While people are somewhat open to the idea of their computer getting a virus they don't expect their phones to be tapped by thieves. Its a legacy of the analog world, many consider voice to be more secure than submitting a web-based form.
I had the impression that most, if not all, phones are vulnerable to this attack due to the inherent flaws in GSM.
This is a rather old news article that has been reported multiple times. Why is it suddenly "news" again when someone discover it works on the iPhone?
And if you're on about targeting business users, won't a compromised Blackberry be as, if not more, significant?
Its only "news" because of iPhone. If you don't mention iPhone in your title or description then your article/page will have fewer readers and you presentation will have fewer attendees. Basically mentioning iPhone in your title is marketing and even presentations have to be marketed.
The P vs. NP complete problem was introduced in a mandatory class at Virginia Tech (studying for Computer Science). Math is a big part of a CompSci degree now-a-day.
Math has always been a big part of CS. Early CS degrees tended to be a specialized math degree and some CS programs were still under the math department in the 1970s (some in the 80s?) as opposed to CS being its own full fledged department.
There are other ways of preventing the transfer of technology. High-grade encryption and things like generation 3 image intensifier-based night vision devices are subject to export control.
That is not a company decision, it is a government decision. So I don't think it applies to whether GE is being short sighted or rational. It also fails to restrain GE's competitors that are not US companies (ex. Rolls Royce). Such regulation may merely guarantee that GE loses in both the long and short term and do nothing to prevent the tech transfer since the tech is not exclusive to the US.
Again, I'm not comfortable with the deal but I'm not sure what a better move for GE would be.
... The exclusion of US investors is unlikely to affect plans for Facebook to raise the $1.5bn, although it will mean some wealthy individuals and companies being denied a chance to buy into a fast-growing firm...
Sure US based investment firms may not be able to participate but their US clients could just open up an account at a Europe investment firm. I'm not sure how an otherwise qualified US individual is really being denied participation.
Let me start by saying that I am naturally skeptical of this sort of deal. However let me offer the logic that may be behind this decision...
Basically GE has competition and believes that if they decline the offer then a competitor may accept it. In this scenario they lose in both the short term and the long term. To prevent the tech transfer GE and its competitors must essentially establish a cartel and coordinate their actions. The problem is that cartels almost always fail, some member almost always cheats. The "cheating" may not even be greed based, one member may be losing in the market and about to fail so it sells off its tech (or itself) to avoid going out of business. The cartel not only has to coordinate to prevent tech transfer but it would also have to coordinate to keep all members at some minimal level of health. So it is highly likely that someone is going to transfer the tech. GE's logic may be that since someone will most likely do it, they might as well be that someone.
Essentially they may believe that the long term is already lost and that the short term is the only potential win.
Personally I agree with the philosophy that decision makers should be thinking long term except when short term survival is in question. However what does one do when the long term options seem to all be bad? Emotionally I want to say that GE is being dumb or greedy but I can't honestly say that this is the case, a lot more info is needed.
... his deign and concept was complete shit so I don't buy this "teach concepts" crap. gah. There needs to be some middle ground here.
I'm sorry but I seem to have given the wrong impression. Getting your hands dirty coding *is* part of a computer science program. My point is that the professor's lecture should usually be about concepts and theory that transcend and apply regardless of what operating system you are using. Applying the concepts and theories to actual programming is also important but its a waste of lecture time to explain linux, vi, gcc, etc. The TA can cover that stuff in a discussion session, and/or the professor/TA can provide materials for students to read on their own time outside of lectures or discussions.
For example a professor's lecture can discuss the operation and performance of various sorting algorithms. This would also include the concept that there is no one sorting algorithm that is superior. That different algorithms behave differently depending on the nature of the data, is it random, is it mostly sorted already, etc. The professor would then probably give a homework assignment to implement a few different algorithms. He/she may provide test data that illustrates that one algorithm performs better with mostly sorted data but another performs better with random data. In the discussion session the TA may get into linux specific details on how to time the execution of the implemented algorithms.(*)
Turning in stuff that doesn't compile. That would be a failed assigned at the two universities I attended (undergrad and grad). Turning in something that doesn't run properly on the professor's set of test data. That would be a severe loss of points. Turning in code that did not have proper comments. The TA would take off some points for that. It would be hard to be unfamiliar with external documentation since some projects would require you to download the relevant PDF for a tool or API and to figure things out for yourself.
I've met a lot of recent CS graduates with modest programming skills but nothing as dismal as what you describe. What I've seen has mostly been the inability to do anything more complex than what they did in 50 line homework assignments. During interviews I've learned to ask about what they have programmed outside of school projects and homework. I don't care how "silly" the program was, I just want to see that they wrote something on their own for no reason beyond their own needs, curiosity or just for fun. Doing so has served me quite well.
(*) There should have been an earlier class that was some sort of introduction to computer science where the TA for that class covered logging into linux, editing source files with vi, compiling with gcc, and executing the program.
Have them set up a basic LAMP server. That's how I learned Linux. Or for something somewhat more practical for them, how about a seedbox or a mythtv-box. Frankly, the best way to learn linux is to just get your hands dirty.
Given that we are discussing freshman computer science students we are probably talking about a university environment, not a trade school. Linux is not really a legitimate topic itself, its just a tool, its just a convenient place to do class assignments while learning core ideas and concepts. Setting up a LAMP box is something university level CS students should do on their own time. For a longer discussion see http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1952834&cid=34898826.
If this is a trade school then start right away teaching them how to set up a LAMP system as others have suggested. However if this is a university then do not teach Linux. Teach concepts. Linux is just one of various places to implement or try out these concepts. The LAMP system is something a university student should be figuring out on his/her own time.
My undergrad CS was in a unix-based environment(*). Professors in class taught concepts that could be applied in a variety of different environments. Teaching assistants (TA) in study/discussion sessions taught implementation detail like editors, compilers and other tools for the environment provided by the school - which in this case was BSD, vi, cc, lex, yacc,... So in a compilers class the professor taught the concepts and theories behind parsing, code generation and optimization and the TA taught you how to use lex and yacc under BSD to implement a compiler for your class assignments. Similarly in a graphics class the professor taught the math and theory of 3D graphics, transformations, perspective, hidden line/object removal, etc and the TA taught you how to use dedicated graphics workstations (today this would just be OpenGL). Now if you wanted to use a different environment and tools you were free to do so but you were on your own.
So if you are a university and your labs are Linux based, great. Your TA's should help students with all the implementation details of getting their assignment going under Linux. However Linux should not appear in the classroom that much, it is just the tool of the day, more of an implementation detail than a core concept. The university classroom should spend most of its time on concepts that transcend the tools of day, regardless of whether that tool of the day is MS Windows, Mac OS X or Linux; or Direct 3D or OpenGL.
(*) FWIW this was a DEC VAX based environment. I would have loved to have had a Linux or FreeBSD running on my PC rather than having to dial in over a modem from home when not on campus.
Yawn. Who gives a toss what the Chinese do? China may have the greatest population of any single country (for a while, until the teeming masses of India pass them) but *the rest of the World* pretty much use Google and not Baidu. Why is everyone techy who's not Chinese so Chinese obsessed these days? You always seem to miss the elephant in the room (and it is *the rest of the World*).
We have a forest and trees problem here. The point of mentioning Baidu was to demonstrate how easily Google can be replaced. No one is claiming that Baidu will become popular in the west.
But is it losing the default status? My understanding is that in China people are starting to use "baidu" as a verb. "I'll baidu that" as someone in the west may now be saying "I'll google that".
A search engine is a pretty simple thing to replace. I don't think many users care who provides search, they just want decent results. Google will have to work hard to maintain their position or they may for the most part become a verb, well except on Android based systems:-). For a while people used "xerox" as a verb even when they started buying non-Xerox copiers.
What you ignore is that there is also tremendous wasteful spending along side vital services. The politician's countermove to reduced budgets is not to cut the waste or excess but to cut vital services as a political gambit and/or retaliation. Politicians want to manufacture a crisis in order to have their spending restored or left alone. Basically the politicians layoff police, firefighters and teachers to manufacture outcry rather than reduce administrators and overhead and stop vanity projects as the voters desire.
Arnie thought he could wave that old "let's plug the gap by eliminating wasteful spending" magic wand, but he soon found out that this is something that all governments attempt to do anyway...
What Arnie said and what Arnie *did* are two very different things. The most generous thing you could say of Arnie was that the legislature took him on and he blinked.
... and the savings you get from it are not that great. It's like saying you're gonna pay off your mortgage with the pennies you find in the couch.
That was a poor analogy. A more accurate analogy would be lets fill the gap between income and expenses by cutting out the Starbucks coffee, taking a sandwich to work, replacing the Hummer with a Civic, etc.:-)
California is not facing a reduction of vital services due to prop 13, it is due to political brinkmanship. The politicians believe they can make the voters blink first.
Yes it is. Prop 13 has prevented the people from voting for necessary tax hikes...
No. Taxes can be raised with a 2/3'rds majority. The minority that blocks these increases largely do so because cutting the waste and the unnecessary has not really been done to a sufficient degree.
... and leaving more borrowing as the only option left to legislators who actually have to find ways to pay for the stuff that people take so much for granted...
That is inaccurate. The various propositions/bonds that are proposed are sometimes a budget gimmick. Popular things that should be paid for out of the general budget are turned into propositions to move them out of the general budget. That frees up the general budget funds to continue the wasteful and unnecessary.
... The fact is, the people vote all the time for tax hikes but they have to get a 2/3 majority because of Prop 13, hence giving a veto to the taxophobic minority...
That's not really true. As I mentioned before there is a large enough minority to stop additional taxes because waste and unnecessary spending have not really be addressed sufficiently. If reasonable progress had been made in spending and increased taxes were the only viable option then 2/3'rds would not be out of reach.
... What pisses me off even more is Prop 13 was passed by a simple majority. If I had my way, any measure that mandates a super majority must itself pass by that super majority.
The flaw in your logic is that prop 13 was voted on by the people as a mechanism for the people to exert control on a legislature that was ignoring the people. There should be no extraordinary barrier to the people exerting control over government officials.
shhh dont tell anybody, but governments just add all sorts of FEES, when they can't raise taxes.
Actually its well known in California. Voters just approved a constitutional amendment, prop 26, requiring fees to pass with a 2/3'rds majority. It sort of mirrors prop 13 which amended the constitution to require a 2/3'rds majority for taxes.
Wrong lesson, my friend. The voters of California need to learn that you can't do stupid shit like slashing the state's income (Prop 13, for those of you with a memory or an interest in history) and expect the same level of service.
Actually the lesson was "starve the beast". Taxpayers in California figured out that politicians will *not* exercise self control, that they primarily view state spending as a vehicle to reward political supporters and garner additional supporters. That the only way to constrain politicians is to limit the amount of money they have available.
What you ignore is that there is also tremendous wasteful spending along side vital services. The politician's countermove to reduced budgets is not to cut the waste or excess but to cut vital services as a political gambit and/or retaliation. Politicians want to manufacture a crisis in order to have their spending restored or left alone. Basically the politicians layoff police, firefighters and teachers to manufacture outcry rather than reduce administrators and overhead and stop vanity projects as the voters desire.
California is not facing a reduction of vital services due to prop 13, it is due to political brinkmanship. The politicians believe they can make the voters blink first.
If this was in Europe, the company would have a plan in place to retrain the workers for some other vital function within the company. However in the USA they would lay off the meter readers while hiring new workers for those other roles.
Sorry but your US bashing fails. Nearly any company would rather transfer or rehire someone they know and have worked with successfully in the past and who already understands the company and its products/services. Now add the fact that these are generally union shops and the contracts probably require such practices.
At the place my dad worked the role might be eliminated but employees are not necessarily gone permanently. There is attrition and replacement for all roles. As smart meters are deployed over time some meter readers would probably be transferred to other roles and some would be at the top of the list as positions become available. So the situation is more of a hiring freeze as people are transferred around and less of a general layoff. The people who really lose out are the unemployed who may have been new hires filling open positions had there not been all this internal reshuffling.
The end result is a lower head count over time and fewer union workers so the unions are more concerned than the individual meter readers who can transfer to other roles.
If you don't shoot the pirates then you may get away, but they'll attack the next ship. If you do kill them then they're no longer a problem, and it will help to discourage the others. What's 'moral' about running away and letting these people attack someone else?
You can maintain your own false sense of moral superiority. Its like being against hunting while at the same time paying Ronald McDonald to kill the cows for your happy meal.
They got to those prices if you're buying a generation or two behind.
Not necessarily a design generation, but a hardware reconfiguration has worked too. Perhaps a storage capacity and a software update for the new top-of-the-line model.
The new iPhone/iPad are not $250/200 unless you're talking about the nano or mini.
No. The iPhone 4 models are $200 and $300. The iPhone 3G is $50 (yes fifty). The iPod Classic $250, iPod touch $230.
Cheapest regular iphone (through apple) still requires a 2 year contract with AT&T - one of the worst providers on the planet. Given this, you're still spending $600.
Red Herring. Android phones require contracts too if you want to use them as phones.
Cheapest ipad is $499.
The only place where your argument holds true is with the regular ipod, which is $229 for the cheapest model.
The only point my argument holds is in the nearly ten year history of Apple iXXX handheld devices. Every product starts out as a single model at a very high price. As refreshes occur and new models are introduced mid range and low end models are introduced at significantly reduced prices compared to the first model. The iPad is following the exact same pattern we have seen over and over with Apple iXXX devices.
Because its too much $. At least for me. While i would rather have one, I can get a decent Android tablet for under 200. If the ipad was down to 300 id have chosen that instead.
The iPad is still on its initial release, its still primarily being sold to the early adopters. IIRC the iPod started out at $500, the iPhone started out at $600,... eventually they got to $250 or $200. Apple likes to have multiple configurations for these devices, a good, better and best sort of thing, each at very different price points. One year's "best" model is the next year's "good" model at nearly half the price. If you can wait for a product line update or two you may very well see that sub-$300 iPad.
Although my dad would have been the guy installing/replacing a meter not reading it.
So f*** the other guy.
No. They work for the same company and belong to the same union. My dad just happened to be assigned to field repairs and service. Installing meters was one of the regular tasks, dumb meters or smart meters. Also some meter readers would move over to other roles in the company. The role might be eliminated but employees are not necessarily gone permanently. There is attrition and replacement for all roles. As smart meters are deployed over time some meter readers would probably be transferred to other roles and some would be at the top of the list as positions become available. So the situation is more of a hiring freeze as people are transferred around and less of a general layoff. The people who really lose out are the unemployed who may have been new hires filling open positions had there not been all this internal reshuffling.
The end result is a lower head count over time and fewer union workers so the unions are more concerned than the individual meter readers who can transfer to other roles.
I would be surprised if utility workers unions did not have some input here, meter readers being automated out of a job. I'm not being paranoid, I grew up in such a union household. Although my dad would have been the guy installing/replacing a meter not reading it.
I believe that gambling is fundamentally stupid, but if the state is going to allow it, the state should allow it on terms that are equally favorable to the plebes and the casinos.
Technically the house (casinos) have to have slightly better terms (odds). A profit margin must exist to pay for the service they are providing. Whenever I am in Vegas I marvel at the casino complexes and what a few percentage points of advantage can accumulate into. Its testimony on a monumental scale that you are probably going to lose.
Buffers increasing latency is not exactly a new phenomena. Its been observed and taken into design considerations for quite some time. For example back-in-the-day serial chips essentially had a buffer of one byte. The CPU fed data one byte at a time as the buffer became available and latency was pretty low since data was immediately transmitted. As more capable serial chips became available larger buffers were introduced. A newer chip may have a larger buffer but it may also not transmit data as soon as it has a single byte. It was common to have two programmable thresholds to begin a data transmission, (1) when a certain amount of data has accumulated in the buffer or (2) when a certain amount of time has elapsed. So if a "packet" to transmit was small enough it may sit in the buffer until (2), hence more latency with larger buffers. Software that cared generally began to issue flush commands to cause anything in the buffer to be sent immediately.
Network cards and/or the operating system may try to similarly accumulate data before transmitting a packet.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, I meant to type "Who said 'is secure'" not "Who said 'more secure'". I accidentally repeated the parent's phrase. Ie., no one said analog is secure. Just that the physical effort of an analog tap makes it more secure than the automation of a digital tap.
More secure?
You can tap an analog phone line with stuff you find a radio shack.
Who said "more secure"? I said that people don't expect to have their voice tapped as a legacy of the analog world. Your radio shack parts still have to have one person actively research and target another specific person's analog line. In other words physical activity must be conducted by a person. Most people don't think they are interesting enough to warrant such effort and rightly so.
...) in an automatic manner, no human action is required on a per "tap" basis as there is in the scenario you describe. People have not yet realized this with respect to digital voice, that their phone can be the "bug" just like their computer.
The difference with digital devices is that there is the opportunity to "tap" (typing on computer, voice on cell phone,
different than a Mac/PC keylogger how?
While people are somewhat open to the idea of their computer getting a virus they don't expect their phones to be tapped by thieves. Its a legacy of the analog world, many consider voice to be more secure than submitting a web-based form.
I had the impression that most, if not all, phones are vulnerable to this attack due to the inherent flaws in GSM. This is a rather old news article that has been reported multiple times. Why is it suddenly "news" again when someone discover it works on the iPhone? And if you're on about targeting business users, won't a compromised Blackberry be as, if not more, significant?
Its only "news" because of iPhone. If you don't mention iPhone in your title or description then your article/page will have fewer readers and you presentation will have fewer attendees. Basically mentioning iPhone in your title is marketing and even presentations have to be marketed.
The P vs. NP complete problem was introduced in a mandatory class at Virginia Tech (studying for Computer Science). Math is a big part of a CompSci degree now-a-day.
Math has always been a big part of CS. Early CS degrees tended to be a specialized math degree and some CS programs were still under the math department in the 1970s (some in the 80s?) as opposed to CS being its own full fledged department.
There are other ways of preventing the transfer of technology. High-grade encryption and things like generation 3 image intensifier-based night vision devices are subject to export control.
That is not a company decision, it is a government decision. So I don't think it applies to whether GE is being short sighted or rational. It also fails to restrain GE's competitors that are not US companies (ex. Rolls Royce). Such regulation may merely guarantee that GE loses in both the long and short term and do nothing to prevent the tech transfer since the tech is not exclusive to the US.
Again, I'm not comfortable with the deal but I'm not sure what a better move for GE would be.
... The exclusion of US investors is unlikely to affect plans for Facebook to raise the $1.5bn, although it will mean some wealthy individuals and companies being denied a chance to buy into a fast-growing firm ...
Sure US based investment firms may not be able to participate but their US clients could just open up an account at a Europe investment firm. I'm not sure how an otherwise qualified US individual is really being denied participation.
I can't believe that GE is this stupid.
stupid^H^H^H^H^H^H greedy
Let me start by saying that I am naturally skeptical of this sort of deal. However let me offer the logic that may be behind this decision ...
Basically GE has competition and believes that if they decline the offer then a competitor may accept it. In this scenario they lose in both the short term and the long term. To prevent the tech transfer GE and its competitors must essentially establish a cartel and coordinate their actions. The problem is that cartels almost always fail, some member almost always cheats. The "cheating" may not even be greed based, one member may be losing in the market and about to fail so it sells off its tech (or itself) to avoid going out of business. The cartel not only has to coordinate to prevent tech transfer but it would also have to coordinate to keep all members at some minimal level of health. So it is highly likely that someone is going to transfer the tech. GE's logic may be that since someone will most likely do it, they might as well be that someone.
Essentially they may believe that the long term is already lost and that the short term is the only potential win.
Personally I agree with the philosophy that decision makers should be thinking long term except when short term survival is in question. However what does one do when the long term options seem to all be bad? Emotionally I want to say that GE is being dumb or greedy but I can't honestly say that this is the case, a lot more info is needed.
... his deign and concept was complete shit so I don't buy this "teach concepts" crap. gah. There needs to be some middle ground here.
I'm sorry but I seem to have given the wrong impression. Getting your hands dirty coding *is* part of a computer science program. My point is that the professor's lecture should usually be about concepts and theory that transcend and apply regardless of what operating system you are using. Applying the concepts and theories to actual programming is also important but its a waste of lecture time to explain linux, vi, gcc, etc. The TA can cover that stuff in a discussion session, and/or the professor/TA can provide materials for students to read on their own time outside of lectures or discussions.
For example a professor's lecture can discuss the operation and performance of various sorting algorithms. This would also include the concept that there is no one sorting algorithm that is superior. That different algorithms behave differently depending on the nature of the data, is it random, is it mostly sorted already, etc. The professor would then probably give a homework assignment to implement a few different algorithms. He/she may provide test data that illustrates that one algorithm performs better with mostly sorted data but another performs better with random data. In the discussion session the TA may get into linux specific details on how to time the execution of the implemented algorithms.(*)
Turning in stuff that doesn't compile. That would be a failed assigned at the two universities I attended (undergrad and grad). Turning in something that doesn't run properly on the professor's set of test data. That would be a severe loss of points. Turning in code that did not have proper comments. The TA would take off some points for that. It would be hard to be unfamiliar with external documentation since some projects would require you to download the relevant PDF for a tool or API and to figure things out for yourself.
I've met a lot of recent CS graduates with modest programming skills but nothing as dismal as what you describe. What I've seen has mostly been the inability to do anything more complex than what they did in 50 line homework assignments. During interviews I've learned to ask about what they have programmed outside of school projects and homework. I don't care how "silly" the program was, I just want to see that they wrote something on their own for no reason beyond their own needs, curiosity or just for fun. Doing so has served me quite well.
(*) There should have been an earlier class that was some sort of introduction to computer science where the TA for that class covered logging into linux, editing source files with vi, compiling with gcc, and executing the program.
Have them set up a basic LAMP server. That's how I learned Linux. Or for something somewhat more practical for them, how about a seedbox or a mythtv-box. Frankly, the best way to learn linux is to just get your hands dirty.
Given that we are discussing freshman computer science students we are probably talking about a university environment, not a trade school. Linux is not really a legitimate topic itself, its just a tool, its just a convenient place to do class assignments while learning core ideas and concepts. Setting up a LAMP box is something university level CS students should do on their own time. For a longer discussion see http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1952834&cid=34898826.
If this is a trade school then start right away teaching them how to set up a LAMP system as others have suggested. However if this is a university then do not teach Linux. Teach concepts. Linux is just one of various places to implement or try out these concepts. The LAMP system is something a university student should be figuring out on his/her own time.
... So in a compilers class the professor taught the concepts and theories behind parsing, code generation and optimization and the TA taught you how to use lex and yacc under BSD to implement a compiler for your class assignments. Similarly in a graphics class the professor taught the math and theory of 3D graphics, transformations, perspective, hidden line/object removal, etc and the TA taught you how to use dedicated graphics workstations (today this would just be OpenGL). Now if you wanted to use a different environment and tools you were free to do so but you were on your own.
My undergrad CS was in a unix-based environment(*). Professors in class taught concepts that could be applied in a variety of different environments. Teaching assistants (TA) in study/discussion sessions taught implementation detail like editors, compilers and other tools for the environment provided by the school - which in this case was BSD, vi, cc, lex, yacc,
So if you are a university and your labs are Linux based, great. Your TA's should help students with all the implementation details of getting their assignment going under Linux. However Linux should not appear in the classroom that much, it is just the tool of the day, more of an implementation detail than a core concept. The university classroom should spend most of its time on concepts that transcend the tools of day, regardless of whether that tool of the day is MS Windows, Mac OS X or Linux; or Direct 3D or OpenGL.
(*) FWIW this was a DEC VAX based environment. I would have loved to have had a Linux or FreeBSD running on my PC rather than having to dial in over a modem from home when not on campus.
Yawn. Who gives a toss what the Chinese do? China may have the greatest population of any single country (for a while, until the teeming masses of India pass them) but *the rest of the World* pretty much use Google and not Baidu. Why is everyone techy who's not Chinese so Chinese obsessed these days? You always seem to miss the elephant in the room (and it is *the rest of the World*).
We have a forest and trees problem here. The point of mentioning Baidu was to demonstrate how easily Google can be replaced. No one is claiming that Baidu will become popular in the west.
...Google [h]as reached "Default" status ...
But is it losing the default status? My understanding is that in China people are starting to use "baidu" as a verb. "I'll baidu that" as someone in the west may now be saying "I'll google that".
:-). For a while people used "xerox" as a verb even when they started buying non-Xerox copiers.
A search engine is a pretty simple thing to replace. I don't think many users care who provides search, they just want decent results. Google will have to work hard to maintain their position or they may for the most part become a verb, well except on Android based systems
What you ignore is that there is also tremendous wasteful spending along side vital services. The politician's countermove to reduced budgets is not to cut the waste or excess but to cut vital services as a political gambit and/or retaliation. Politicians want to manufacture a crisis in order to have their spending restored or left alone. Basically the politicians layoff police, firefighters and teachers to manufacture outcry rather than reduce administrators and overhead and stop vanity projects as the voters desire.
Arnie thought he could wave that old "let's plug the gap by eliminating wasteful spending" magic wand, but he soon found out that this is something that all governments attempt to do anyway ...
What Arnie said and what Arnie *did* are two very different things. The most generous thing you could say of Arnie was that the legislature took him on and he blinked.
... and the savings you get from it are not that great. It's like saying you're gonna pay off your mortgage with the pennies you find in the couch.
That was a poor analogy. A more accurate analogy would be lets fill the gap between income and expenses by cutting out the Starbucks coffee, taking a sandwich to work, replacing the Hummer with a Civic, etc. :-)
California is not facing a reduction of vital services due to prop 13, it is due to political brinkmanship. The politicians believe they can make the voters blink first.
Yes it is. Prop 13 has prevented the people from voting for necessary tax hikes ...
No. Taxes can be raised with a 2/3'rds majority. The minority that blocks these increases largely do so because cutting the waste and the unnecessary has not really been done to a sufficient degree.
... and leaving more borrowing as the only option left to legislators who actually have to find ways to pay for the stuff that people take so much for granted ...
That is inaccurate. The various propositions/bonds that are proposed are sometimes a budget gimmick. Popular things that should be paid for out of the general budget are turned into propositions to move them out of the general budget. That frees up the general budget funds to continue the wasteful and unnecessary.
That's not really true. As I mentioned before there is a large enough minority to stop additional taxes because waste and unnecessary spending have not really be addressed sufficiently. If reasonable progress had been made in spending and increased taxes were the only viable option then 2/3'rds would not be out of reach.
... What pisses me off even more is Prop 13 was passed by a simple majority. If I had my way, any measure that mandates a super majority must itself pass by that super majority.
The flaw in your logic is that prop 13 was voted on by the people as a mechanism for the people to exert control on a legislature that was ignoring the people. There should be no extraordinary barrier to the people exerting control over government officials.
shhh dont tell anybody, but governments just add all sorts of FEES, when they can't raise taxes.
Actually its well known in California. Voters just approved a constitutional amendment, prop 26, requiring fees to pass with a 2/3'rds majority. It sort of mirrors prop 13 which amended the constitution to require a 2/3'rds majority for taxes.
Wrong lesson, my friend. The voters of California need to learn that you can't do stupid shit like slashing the state's income (Prop 13, for those of you with a memory or an interest in history) and expect the same level of service.
Actually the lesson was "starve the beast". Taxpayers in California figured out that politicians will *not* exercise self control, that they primarily view state spending as a vehicle to reward political supporters and garner additional supporters. That the only way to constrain politicians is to limit the amount of money they have available.
What you ignore is that there is also tremendous wasteful spending along side vital services. The politician's countermove to reduced budgets is not to cut the waste or excess but to cut vital services as a political gambit and/or retaliation. Politicians want to manufacture a crisis in order to have their spending restored or left alone. Basically the politicians layoff police, firefighters and teachers to manufacture outcry rather than reduce administrators and overhead and stop vanity projects as the voters desire.
California is not facing a reduction of vital services due to prop 13, it is due to political brinkmanship. The politicians believe they can make the voters blink first.
Will Intel provide documentation so that other OSes will be able to make use of this feature ?
Sure. They already support Linux with other software products. They are a hardware company after all.
However if your preferred software license prevents content providers from support your operating system of choice that is not Intel's fault is it?
If this was in Europe, the company would have a plan in place to retrain the workers for some other vital function within the company. However in the USA they would lay off the meter readers while hiring new workers for those other roles.
Sorry but your US bashing fails. Nearly any company would rather transfer or rehire someone they know and have worked with successfully in the past and who already understands the company and its products/services. Now add the fact that these are generally union shops and the contracts probably require such practices.
At the place my dad worked the role might be eliminated but employees are not necessarily gone permanently. There is attrition and replacement for all roles. As smart meters are deployed over time some meter readers would probably be transferred to other roles and some would be at the top of the list as positions become available. So the situation is more of a hiring freeze as people are transferred around and less of a general layoff. The people who really lose out are the unemployed who may have been new hires filling open positions had there not been all this internal reshuffling.
The end result is a lower head count over time and fewer union workers so the unions are more concerned than the individual meter readers who can transfer to other roles.
If you don't shoot the pirates then you may get away, but they'll attack the next ship. If you do kill them then they're no longer a problem, and it will help to discourage the others. What's 'moral' about running away and letting these people attack someone else?
You can maintain your own false sense of moral superiority. Its like being against hunting while at the same time paying Ronald McDonald to kill the cows for your happy meal.
They got to those prices if you're buying a generation or two behind.
Not necessarily a design generation, but a hardware reconfiguration has worked too. Perhaps a storage capacity and a software update for the new top-of-the-line model.
The new iPhone/iPad are not $250/200 unless you're talking about the nano or mini.
No. The iPhone 4 models are $200 and $300. The iPhone 3G is $50 (yes fifty). The iPod Classic $250, iPod touch $230.
Cheapest regular iphone (through apple) still requires a 2 year contract with AT&T - one of the worst providers on the planet. Given this, you're still spending $600.
Red Herring. Android phones require contracts too if you want to use them as phones.
Cheapest ipad is $499. The only place where your argument holds true is with the regular ipod, which is $229 for the cheapest model.
The only point my argument holds is in the nearly ten year history of Apple iXXX handheld devices. Every product starts out as a single model at a very high price. As refreshes occur and new models are introduced mid range and low end models are introduced at significantly reduced prices compared to the first model. The iPad is following the exact same pattern we have seen over and over with Apple iXXX devices.
Because its too much $. At least for me. While i would rather have one, I can get a decent Android tablet for under 200. If the ipad was down to 300 id have chosen that instead.
The iPad is still on its initial release, its still primarily being sold to the early adopters. IIRC the iPod started out at $500, the iPhone started out at $600, ... eventually they got to $250 or $200. Apple likes to have multiple configurations for these devices, a good, better and best sort of thing, each at very different price points. One year's "best" model is the next year's "good" model at nearly half the price. If you can wait for a product line update or two you may very well see that sub-$300 iPad.
Although my dad would have been the guy installing/replacing a meter not reading it.
So f*** the other guy.
No. They work for the same company and belong to the same union. My dad just happened to be assigned to field repairs and service. Installing meters was one of the regular tasks, dumb meters or smart meters. Also some meter readers would move over to other roles in the company. The role might be eliminated but employees are not necessarily gone permanently. There is attrition and replacement for all roles. As smart meters are deployed over time some meter readers would probably be transferred to other roles and some would be at the top of the list as positions become available. So the situation is more of a hiring freeze as people are transferred around and less of a general layoff. The people who really lose out are the unemployed who may have been new hires filling open positions had there not been all this internal reshuffling.
The end result is a lower head count over time and fewer union workers so the unions are more concerned than the individual meter readers who can transfer to other roles.
I would be surprised if utility workers unions did not have some input here, meter readers being automated out of a job. I'm not being paranoid, I grew up in such a union household. Although my dad would have been the guy installing/replacing a meter not reading it.
I believe that gambling is fundamentally stupid, but if the state is going to allow it, the state should allow it on terms that are equally favorable to the plebes and the casinos.
Technically the house (casinos) have to have slightly better terms (odds). A profit margin must exist to pay for the service they are providing. Whenever I am in Vegas I marvel at the casino complexes and what a few percentage points of advantage can accumulate into. Its testimony on a monumental scale that you are probably going to lose.
Latency is bad? Bigger buffers = more latency?
Buffers increasing latency is not exactly a new phenomena. Its been observed and taken into design considerations for quite some time. For example back-in-the-day serial chips essentially had a buffer of one byte. The CPU fed data one byte at a time as the buffer became available and latency was pretty low since data was immediately transmitted. As more capable serial chips became available larger buffers were introduced. A newer chip may have a larger buffer but it may also not transmit data as soon as it has a single byte. It was common to have two programmable thresholds to begin a data transmission, (1) when a certain amount of data has accumulated in the buffer or (2) when a certain amount of time has elapsed. So if a "packet" to transmit was small enough it may sit in the buffer until (2), hence more latency with larger buffers. Software that cared generally began to issue flush commands to cause anything in the buffer to be sent immediately.
Network cards and/or the operating system may try to similarly accumulate data before transmitting a packet.