That's ok. Most internet users don't even know what an SLA is, let alone actually have one other than "whatever we can provide is what you'll get, no matter what we advertise".
Umm... yes? Sorry, didn't know it was a state secret.
Whether he should be allowed to might be up for discussion, but that he quite literally has jester's license should by now be pretty much common knowledge.
This has less to do with belief than with pragmatism. I have no input but the input my senses provide. As long as this input is in accordance with the effects that happen if I act upon the input, it is valid.
Counter example: When you are drunk, your senses are able to tell you the room is spinning. According to your senses, you are moving even if you are stationary. You can try to act upon the input, e.g. the information that the room is spinning that your balance sensorium provides and you will fall down because you compensate for an effect that is not there in reality. This would provide you with the information that your sensory input is wrong.
In most other cases, you can verify that your sensory input is in accordance with the effects caused by your acting upon that input. Where does believing anything come into this equation?
My money back, for example? I bought an Intel CPU for a specific purpose and instead of a competing CPU due to a superior performance, which is simply no longer existing after this "update". If this gets to stand, rest assured that we'll get to see a lot of CPUs in the future with microcode cutting corners to get a performance edge in the early release tests which suddenly go poof when (not if) the security and stability tests provide evidence that these corners cut make the CPU as stable and reliable as a pig on stilts. Then the microcode patch comes in and, surprise, surprise, your CPU suddenly performs like the prior generation CPUs.
If you want that then yes, there is no good reason for a recall.
Personal space? It's not like he grabbed her by the pussy, it's money. I don't know where you keep yours, but close friends can at any time take a 50 out of my wallet as long as they tell me and put it give in due time.
This might be one of the reason why I pick and choose friends very carefully...
Well, maybe in the veterinary sense, but I didn't plan to buy a castrated CPU.
First, the problem is in the processor logic itself. We're talking about a design flaw that could only "really" be patched by re-etching the silicon. I highly doubt that he has found a way to rework the die. This isn't some BIOS feature we have to patch. Intel's promise now is that they found a way to manage the problem in microcode. And whether the microcode patch will do any good is still to be seen. Personally, my stance is "seeing is believing".
Mostly because there is a second aspect: ALL, and I do mean ALL, possible approaches to fixing this can only be done with a drop in performance. There is no way this can be addressed without taking a performance hit. Especially high I/O applications like database processing is severely affected by the current patches, postgresql cited performance drops of up to 30%.
Simply having the gall to state that this is no reason for a recall takes quite the chutzpah. I kinda wonder whether various high performance data centers will simply swallow this.
Can we finally disband the FCC and let the ISPs themselves take over their agenda? It's not like anyone really still believes that they're not a 100% subsidiary by now anyway.
Revolutions don't stop at torches and pitchforks. That's so 1800s. Today, you light cars instead of torches and the thrown brick has replaced the pitchfork.
Revolutions change. Why would the most revolutionary thing of them all stay the same?
I highly doubt anything like this exists. Mostly for a lack of necessity.
France has a rich history of sending its governments to hell if they try to pull something funny that's not supported by the people. When you have a population like this, you don't need some paper telling your government what not to do, the people are pretty capable of doing that themselves.
Harassment is the unwanted continuation of contact after being asked to stop. Some special cases apply for certain groups of people in certain professions (like politicians that have to deal with constituents that ask inconvenient questions or celebrities that have to deal with reporters doing the same) or certain circumstances (people having to deal with collection agencies that want their money), but that's pretty much the base line.
That last one is the one that most likely will result in a legal battle. In what kind of relationship that is still at least kinda-sorta working do you feel obliged to write your SO a check for money owed?
2) Yes. Taking something from somebody else without consent or legal title is theft. That the money once was most likely his is irrelevant, unless you want to concede that you're ok with your boss withdrawing money from your bank account because he was the one who once owned that money. 3) Yes. He may of course demand the money from her for compensation or even withhold any money she is supposed to get from him for various reasons, but simply taking money is theft. Unless, again, you're ok with me going to your bank account and taking what I consider mine when you hit my car with yours. 4) Yes. What he wants to buy with the money is irrelevant. Taking something from somebody else without their consent is theft. 5) Yes, In this particular case the wife will most likely agree that it was done with her implicit consent, at least if she agrees with the purchase, at least if your relationship is on good terms this is probably the one scenario with the least chance of fallout. 6) Yes. Again, would you be ok with me taking money from you and giving you an IOU? Actually, if your relationship is already at the point where you feel it's necessary to put a check into your wife's purse when you take money, it's WORSE than 5). In a functioning relationship, something like this most certainly isn't necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
That's ok. Most internet users don't even know what an SLA is, let alone actually have one other than "whatever we can provide is what you'll get, no matter what we advertise".
And have it stolen? Are you nuts?
My town tried that. To the effect that the nearby river is full of bikes and they still get stolen.
Umm... yes? Sorry, didn't know it was a state secret.
Whether he should be allowed to might be up for discussion, but that he quite literally has jester's license should by now be pretty much common knowledge.
Yup. That's how you do it.
Seriously, throwing your hands up and squealing "Yay! Go, big boy, do your job and search me!" kinda pisses them off.
I'll blow a hole into your skull. Because to do so, you have to break into my home.
This has less to do with belief than with pragmatism. I have no input but the input my senses provide. As long as this input is in accordance with the effects that happen if I act upon the input, it is valid.
Counter example: When you are drunk, your senses are able to tell you the room is spinning. According to your senses, you are moving even if you are stationary. You can try to act upon the input, e.g. the information that the room is spinning that your balance sensorium provides and you will fall down because you compensate for an effect that is not there in reality. This would provide you with the information that your sensory input is wrong.
In most other cases, you can verify that your sensory input is in accordance with the effects caused by your acting upon that input. Where does believing anything come into this equation?
My money back, for example? I bought an Intel CPU for a specific purpose and instead of a competing CPU due to a superior performance, which is simply no longer existing after this "update". If this gets to stand, rest assured that we'll get to see a lot of CPUs in the future with microcode cutting corners to get a performance edge in the early release tests which suddenly go poof when (not if) the security and stability tests provide evidence that these corners cut make the CPU as stable and reliable as a pig on stilts. Then the microcode patch comes in and, surprise, surprise, your CPU suddenly performs like the prior generation CPUs.
If you want that then yes, there is no good reason for a recall.
Personal space? It's not like he grabbed her by the pussy, it's money. I don't know where you keep yours, but close friends can at any time take a 50 out of my wallet as long as they tell me and put it give in due time.
This might be one of the reason why I pick and choose friends very carefully...
Well, maybe in the veterinary sense, but I didn't plan to buy a castrated CPU.
First, the problem is in the processor logic itself. We're talking about a design flaw that could only "really" be patched by re-etching the silicon. I highly doubt that he has found a way to rework the die. This isn't some BIOS feature we have to patch. Intel's promise now is that they found a way to manage the problem in microcode. And whether the microcode patch will do any good is still to be seen. Personally, my stance is "seeing is believing".
Mostly because there is a second aspect: ALL, and I do mean ALL, possible approaches to fixing this can only be done with a drop in performance. There is no way this can be addressed without taking a performance hit. Especially high I/O applications like database processing is severely affected by the current patches, postgresql cited performance drops of up to 30%.
Simply having the gall to state that this is no reason for a recall takes quite the chutzpah. I kinda wonder whether various high performance data centers will simply swallow this.
Can we finally disband the FCC and let the ISPs themselves take over their agenda? It's not like anyone really still believes that they're not a 100% subsidiary by now anyway.
The cloud absorbs red, not pink. It's about as un-fabulous as it gets.
Revolutions don't stop at torches and pitchforks. That's so 1800s. Today, you light cars instead of torches and the thrown brick has replaced the pitchfork.
Revolutions change. Why would the most revolutionary thing of them all stay the same?
I highly doubt anything like this exists. Mostly for a lack of necessity.
France has a rich history of sending its governments to hell if they try to pull something funny that's not supported by the people. When you have a population like this, you don't need some paper telling your government what not to do, the people are pretty capable of doing that themselves.
A millennial posting that his New Year's resolution is to finally do his job...
Too bad the only 15" you have to offer is your laptop's screen.
Search for pliers, I dare you!
Put it on the pile behind me, I'll ignore later.
I think there's still some room for some new labels I could get between "commie bastard" and "alt-right nazi".
That's non-white trans male, you racist, misogynist cis-scum!
Harassment is the unwanted continuation of contact after being asked to stop. Some special cases apply for certain groups of people in certain professions (like politicians that have to deal with constituents that ask inconvenient questions or celebrities that have to deal with reporters doing the same) or certain circumstances (people having to deal with collection agencies that want their money), but that's pretty much the base line.
That last one is the one that most likely will result in a legal battle. In what kind of relationship that is still at least kinda-sorta working do you feel obliged to write your SO a check for money owed?
To quote my lawyer, I go to court to get an executable title, not to be right.
2) Yes. Taking something from somebody else without consent or legal title is theft. That the money once was most likely his is irrelevant, unless you want to concede that you're ok with your boss withdrawing money from your bank account because he was the one who once owned that money.
3) Yes. He may of course demand the money from her for compensation or even withhold any money she is supposed to get from him for various reasons, but simply taking money is theft. Unless, again, you're ok with me going to your bank account and taking what I consider mine when you hit my car with yours.
4) Yes. What he wants to buy with the money is irrelevant. Taking something from somebody else without their consent is theft.
5) Yes, In this particular case the wife will most likely agree that it was done with her implicit consent, at least if she agrees with the purchase, at least if your relationship is on good terms this is probably the one scenario with the least chance of fallout.
6) Yes. Again, would you be ok with me taking money from you and giving you an IOU? Actually, if your relationship is already at the point where you feel it's necessary to put a check into your wife's purse when you take money, it's WORSE than 5). In a functioning relationship, something like this most certainly isn't necessary.
France and the US are more alike than I thought.
Just outlaw the whole advertisment bullshit surrounding elections. It's ALL fake news anyway.