By "real value" do you mean the cost of copying it? Or the $1 people are willing to pay for the convenience instead of chasing it down on a pirate site for $0? Besides, you're confusing "real value" with rational behavior. If I'm drop dead in love with a song with a song and would pay $10 for it but it's offered for sale for $1 then of course I buy it. Just because you feel the total cost (moral, legal, financial) of copying that textbook is a better value than buying the $350 eBook the real value is neither, it's the point where you'd make do without it. Which is sadly rather high since you'd be pretty likely to fail without the book, students that want to pass the class is a very captive market.
The biggest reason to ban robotic soldiers is that without killing people there is no point to war. before deciding that I am a lunatic, parse that for a while.
Nope, still doesn't make any sense. The winners gets to dictate terms to the losers, they may lose their country, their houses and land, their goods and property, their laws, their freedoms, their civil rights, they can become all manner of second class citizens or practically slaves without being killed. Robotic soldiers can impose martial law with not a circuit for leniency or compassion, most want a cowed enemy not a dead enemy. Not that there haven't been genocides where they intentionally seek to wipe out the civil population, but that is by far not most wars. You still don't want to be on the losing end of one.
I want to make sure I understand your thought process.
1. Create new crypto mining scheme 2. Mine lots of early, practicially free coins 3. Increase mining complexity 4. Convince everyone this is the next big thing 5. Watch dollar value soar 6. Cash out your free coin for real money 7. Leave suckers with worthless bits nobody wants for anything
Or in short, why be a peon in BitCoin when you can be king of a new currency?
Or perhaps they could disrupt a profitable market, sell at an appreciable margin, and make lots of money before trying to build massive, Toyota-scale factories out of nothing?
This. Here in Norway the Tesla Model S is looking like a very compelling offer because they're getting all the tax breaks of electric vehicles and the taxes tend to be much higher on high end cars which means that here a $80k Model S Performance sells for about the same as a slightly upgraded Audi A6 that'd sell for $50k in the US. Or if you look at cars that'd be roughly even priced in the US like the $75k Audi A8 it sells for 90% more than the Tesla here. Yes, it's exploiting a tax structure that won't last but right now they're getting to sell a damn fine high performance car like it was the most environmental-friendly subcompact on the block.
They've confirmed that 1000+ people here are now on a waiting list in a country of 5 million people, that's the equivalent of 60k+ in the US. And that was before the 99/100 Consumer Reports score which was widely publicized. It's not petrol/diesel car volume but they're getting decent volume - it's not like you're one of ten people in the country who has one, they get real people who have experience with them - most people are very conservative and true to brand when it comes to car purchases - and they get to boot a charger network. All in all, I'd say this looks like wins all around for them. So far I think they've promised the EV perks will last out 2015, if they come to an end I expect a huge rush of Tesla Model S orders before that who are still waiting for the first round of kinks to be worked out first.
No. They are technical descriptions of incorrect behavior of the software.
That only works in cases where there are clear and specific requirements/specifications for how this software should work or it crashes in some way no application ever should. Even then, the user won't know those he only sees what he thinks is incorrect behavior. Usually the definition of correct is just a meeting of minds, the user saying this doesn't look right, the developer agrees and the code changes since most bugs appear where the specification says nothing at all. And if the code follows the specifications it usually just moves the problem up a level, are the specifications correct or not. It's great for a blame-shifting game but really the user only cares about what he can't do, not why he can't do it and at what level it failed.
Who says they even need to claim that so-and-so change fixed it? One time when I looked around Launchpad, a common way I was seeing issues getting closed was someone coming several months later and being like "this was reported for 12.10, can you reproduce it in 13.04?" and then closing it as incomplete when the user who has probably switched to a similar package or another distro at that point no longer cares.
WINE also does the same, if you want a bug to stay open you have to babysit it. But to be fair they're often dealing with closed source software that they might not have a copy of themselves.
That's the bad news... the good news is that you can find unlocked or unlockable Android devices that are way more mainstream than any of the Windows and OS X competitors ever managed to be. Yes, certain apps that require DRM won't work but on the whole you're way, way more mainstream with a rooted Android phone than a Linux desktop. And Android is making the OS a commodity because if you don't need to be on the bleeding edge you can always download the last released Android version for free, even cheap Chinese clone makers. There is no way Apple will be the ones supplying most of the world with cheap smartphones unless they completely change their business model.
Tablets are a bit earlier in the market development but there's no reason to think it'll be any different, Apple will skim the top with the iPad but eventually Android will be the Nokia (pre-suicide) of cheap tablets to supply the world. Globally most people simply can't afford an iPad and they never will, but they'll take whatever cheap hardware someone can put a $0 version of Android on. I guess it's not the future RMS or Canonical wanted, but Apache is a proper Open Source license and the kernel itself is GNU/free. And there's now plenty of applications and developers for that open source system, building inertia that will rival what Windows has for desktop applications. I think your glass is very much so half empty if you think this is a "Phyrric victory".
Really? I feel the computer age hasn't even taken off yet, and speaking of a middle for something that is open ended is just silly. In fact, even though the age of the gene-manipulation/bio-tech might be starting now, let us not forget that it is progress in our computation capabilities that makes all this possible. There is still lots more to be done in computational mathematics/biology/engineeering/science.
It's not like we left all the iron tools when we left the iron age, yes there are still radios but it'd feel very strange to say we're in the age of radio. It is not new, it is not something that right now is redefining our society. In that sense I feel the computer age maybe has come and gone - as in the moving from pen and paper, calculators and filing cabinets to word processors, spreadsheets and databases. It was already followed by the Internet age - which is of course using computers but that I feel is something completely different, a revolution in communication not computing. I think now we're in the budding of the "always on" age, where you take both with you on the go but I think that is distinct from the former, just like cell phones was a different revolution than phones. If you want to take a more birds-eye view I'd call all of it the Digital Age, because that's really what it's been all about - we take analog information and we convert it to zeros and ones, which we can then compute, transmit, display and lots of other things with. And there we find constantly new ways to apply computers.
They were established because people with adequate vacations make less mistakes, get sick less often, have better ideas and higher productivity, etc. and that pays off financially. Henry Ford, among others, realized this, and he was definitely not pro-worker in any sense.
Henry Ford was in a "race to the bottom" for employers and didn't care one bit, by offering better conditions than anyone else he could get the cream of the crop and lower turnover significantly leading to a highly skilled, highly experienced workforce that trashed anyone else. I doubt there was any conclusive proof to show that the average worker would be more productive on a shorter day, all other things being equal.
The most important thing is tight iterations. If a 2 week sprint fails, then it is not that big of a deal. If a 2 year death march fails? Someone's getting fired, since its the equivalent in agile-land of failing 52 sprints straight.
But is it two weeks sprint down a dead end? For a project this size, agile is like trying to build a skyscraper first as a one story building, then two story building, then three story building and so on. Apparently you're making great progress the first sprint and you have a shack up, that's 1/100 floors done already. Except it doesn't work like that, so sometime around the 20th floor you've got people all over the first 19 trying to build in extra support columns and stronger walls and propping up the foundation. Things grind to a halt and you're not making any real progress. Then the orders come to get moving and you start going upwards again more and more rickety until eventually you find the straw that broke the mule's back and it all comes crumbling down.
Agile is nice if you're close enough you can start delivering actual features that would belong in the end product at the end. In practice it often means you build the first iteration with string and duct tape planning to replace it with something more solid on the back end in time, but I think everyone knows how that goes - the string and duct tape has a tendency to stay because that part is "done". Of course hindsight is always much easier but agile I feel lacks foresight, we do this now to meet our sprint goals and then if we need to change something to meet our next sprint goals, we'll deal with that then. In practice, there's not time to go back and rework things every time you figure out this should have been done differently.
What AMD has here is a successor to Brazos, and the primary competitor is Atom.
So AMD says, but Tom's Hardware disagrees:
So what about the Core i3-3217U, a 17 W processor? Surely that one is a more virile competitor, and not much more expensive than the Pentium. Core i3's on-die HD Graphics 4000 engine with its 16 EUs stomps all over the A4's 128 ALUs, despite the backing of AMD's capable Graphics Core Next architecture. Now, AMD claims that Kabini isn't meant to go up against Core i3. But we found notebooks with this exact CPU selling for as little as $360 on Newegg. It may turn out that the free market doesn't let AMD choose which Intel-based platforms its Kabini-based APUs contend with.
The cheapest laptop newegg sells that I could find was $250, so there's a good $100 range where Atoms, Celerons, Pentiums and AMD is battling it out - that's not much, really.
It also equals or beats an Ivy Bridge based Pentium in all measures except single threaded performance
Which is likely the part that matters in these laptops. I mean if you're trying to use these for serious number crunching you are using the wrong tool for the job. It's not like the single threaded performance is poor, it is horrible. Anandtech compared it to a i7-3517U, which is totally unfair price-wise (it's a $350 chip) but fair power-wise (it's a 17W chip). In cinebench single-threaded the Intel chip scored 1.24, the A4-5000 0.39 - that's a 3.18x performance lead with 2W higher TDP, 2.8x if you scale it to be equal. You're getting a not-quite-as-dog-slow-as-an-Atom ultra mobile laptop, but you're not getting anything fighting above it's league either.
FIVR in the mornin' FIVR in the evenin', FIVR all through the night!
Yeah, but the biggest benefit it seems they got in sleep states and I don't think sleeping in the morning, sleeping in the evening, sleeping all through the night is what the song is all about...
The analogy is sound, the "parallel" part is the processor and the "non-parallel" part the rest and it'll approach the same power baseline with increased processor efficiency as it does the performance baseline with increased parallelization. But I feel it's a rather silly complication of the obvious, unlike parallelization. Yes of course if the screen is the biggest power hog, then it has the most potential for improvement. Note that it would be a fallacy to think it will always have the greatest improvement, if the screen takes 60% and the processor 40% but you can only reduce screen power by 10% to 54% and the processor by 50% to 20% of the original you gain more with the processor.
Right. In fact the user did not find what the title claims. He found the point at which they would ask WTF. And it turns out TF was that he was doing something the TOS said he couldn't. Nice job misleading.
Do Verizon care if you run a piddly little server that doesn't even use 1GB/month? No. They cared because he used 77TB, himself admitting to violating the ToS was just a free confession they could hang him by. If he'd said "none of your business" they'd just have to search the ToS a little harder, you're confusing the ends with the means.
You think the ancient Greeks didn't know about snow melting to water, water vapor from boiling or dew from moist air? The four elements are their first attempt at the periodic table, they did not confuse elements and states. Though I suppose fire was way off the mark.
Except the open source community doesn't take "no" for an answer, it's like calling a hermit a bad citizen simply because he wants nothing to with the rest of society. Those technologies you talk of won't work with a blob because there's no ABI and GPL hooks, so it essentially boils down to the same: nVidia doesn't do open source. They only want to offer you the blob, period. But for a lot of people in the OSS community it seems doing nothing at all is the same as being evil. Either you're with us, or you're against us.
As a general rule there's two kinds of contracts, fixed bid and time&material. The former usually means a predefined scope at a fixed price, formal change orders and bug fixes are usually free within a given testing period. The other is basically "do whatever I say" and yes I will, but I don't own the specification and I'm not making any sign-offs on what I'll deliver - I just work hours for you. You get various forms of hybrids - I consider agile one of them - but that's the archetypes. I've coded off "specifications" that were a yellow post-it note, rushed it to production with hardly any testing or documentation and if it works for them it works for me. If you're overall not happy with my work stop the contract, but I charge you every hour even when I'm bug fixing my own work.
It sounds to me like you're asking for the best of both worlds, contractors that'll work regular hours during most of the project and do bug fixes for free at the end. That is going to be trouble, every time. Hell, when you say "programming project manager" I'm starting to think they're not even in full control of the code, far less the spec. Contractors tend to love repeat business, have you them coming back for more? No? Probably because they feel railroaded by the process. Do your contractors ever reject your specs? Can they reject your specs? Or are you just telling them these are the specs and I'm saying they're good enough, get to work? What about when things undoubtedly come up, is there a formal change process or you just improving or amending the spec?
Good enough to work by and good enough to sign off on are two entirely different things, try doing a proper fixed bid project and I think you'll find out.
I have that setup.... but it's a dark arts test every time to find the right order of turning on/tuning in the devices in right order to make it actually work. Usually I have to disconnect and reconnect the cable from the PC to my surround receiver as well. I blame HDCP, clearly they have some sort of handshake issues. The TV I had before that would only work with direct source -> TV connections, going via a receiver meant no signal. Again it appears to be a HDCP handshake issue, the pass-through added just enough latency that it didn't work. Kill it with fire.
Around here I would say refrigerators for employee use and/or vending machines are more common, basic coffee is usually free though. For example there's a coffee capsule machine on my floor, but it's bring your own capsules. Every so often I bring soda, but I could also buy it on the first floor at cafeteria prices. Snacking I do too much of already, so I'd rather enjoy that at home than snacking at work. Sure I'd in some way love free soda, but I also know I'd drink much more just because I can and it's free and it's right there. Yes self control is my own task but at the same time you know it's subsidized soda, implicitly you know you're giving up a tiny bit of your paycheck for it and want your money's worth. If I ever worked a place that gave me free potato chips too, I'd probably add 20 pounds before I quit for my own good. To me, bring/buy your own refreshments makes a lot more sense than BYOD.
Have you ever been in a business meeting with people who speak another language? Have you seen them confer amongst themselves, in your presence in said language? I haven't, but my ex has - and they didn't know that one of the english speakers actually knew French. The conversation that they thought was private was quite revealing, to say the least.
Only to make sure that what was said in English was fully understood by everyone in the room or asking a stronger English speaker to express something they found difficult, never heard anything they seemed to assume was private. Seems like a very foolish move as I can speak three languages, understand five and probably pick up stray words from a dozen. Would this possibly be Canadian French and the English speakers in presence American? Because people tend to assume Americans only speak English (or possibly Spanish), it's only 99.9% accurate but I don't see two Frenchman thinking the same anywhere in Europe.
What seems sort of curious is that 'support' is what happens when software(sometimes hardware; but hardware at least has the decency to usually fail dramatically enough to just be swapped out, and would be hard to roboticize outside of a datacenter or something in any case) fucks up hard enough, or confuses the user hard enough, that an IT minion gets called in.
No, first line support is often dealing with people that have a PEBCAK problem, not a software or hardware problem. Or at least not one related to what you're actually providing support for in a supported configuration. I suspect that many companies don't actually want a support line, if you have a problem they'd rather you get pissed and go somewhere else than tie up one of their employees - even your outsourced call center guy. Unless it's a big thing affecting many users in which case you probably know it without everyone calling in. It's not acceptable to not offer support, but you can make it useless enough that most people won't bother. This all sounds like a much cheaper way of providing non-support while still giving the pretense that you do. Let's call it a tier zero before you even get to reach first line support, far less knowledgeable support.
I once had the displeasure of telling our client that the vendor (luckily not our company but our partner, so I could say "they" not "us") did not support the use of the "back" button in their web interface. Any support case that involved using it would be closed as not supported. For bonus points they didn't provide any functionality equivalent to it either, so of course everyone used the back button anyway where it did work. To me it's a bit like selling a four door car where the back doors are only for decoration and actually opening and closing the doors are not supported but I guess if you have enough lawyers and impenetrable contracts anything is possible.
Correct. But they aren't affirming that they represent the owner of the work being taken down, just the one they're claiming they own.
"I affirm that I am the copyright owner on X. Take down Y."
They are not affirming that X is Y, merely that they own X.
Yes, the claim that Y is actually X is only covered by a small section on misrepresentation. Unless it's in bad faith there's no penalty at all and worse case they're only liable for costs incurred, no penalties or restitution. It's as if the copyright lobby wrote it, oh wait they did....
English is used worldwide when conducting business between two people with otherwise dissimilar language, but Chinese is still mostly limited to conducting business with China.
This. Before, people were mostly concerned with learning the language of the bordering countries because that's what was most useful. Today people have the Internet and want/need a global language of communication. While this graphic is also in many ways biased, English in the World shows most of the world has English as their first foreign language. That trend is only going to grow stronger because there are huge network effects at play here. While the US may be seeing a big influx of Spanish, here in Europe the trend is opposite - few people learn Spanish and the Spaniards learn more and more English. And I don't think it has any traction in Africa, Asia or Oceania.
File sharing is a technology to share files, piracy is shorthand for copyright infringement that may or may not involve file sharing and file sharing may or may not involve copyright infringement. Calling them one and the same is certainly running the "proprietarians" errand in their quest to kill file sharing. It's not like they care about the collateral damage of shutting down non-infringing file sharing, in fact it's a competing distribution channel. Besides, why do you think they're increasingly using the words "thieves" and "stealing"? Because "pirates" and "piracy" no longer have the desired effect, more people associate pirates with the Jack Sparrow variety who is something more of a bad boy-hero / Robin Hood than Somalian cutthroats. Not to mention the ample opportunities to use pirate symbols, co-opting a brand is easier than building one.
First of all you're complaining about a "brand problem" of a movement that probably wouldn't even exist if they hadn't put up the pirate flag as the rallying point, getting off the ground is more important than how gracefully you do it. Secondly if they'd gotten lost in the finer semantics of language nobody would care, wasting precious media time arguing that it's not piracy but copyright infringement. Except it's not short, catchy, made for headlines and they'd probably lose. Media loves the pirate branding too you see, without it they wouldn't have gotten a fraction of the attention. Near as I can tell, neither the Swedish or German Pirate Party - who have come the furthest - have a problem with their pirate branding, but more with what the rest of their politics should contain.
The wider "mainstreaming" effect you're talking about is more seen in the other youth parties and possibly a few more concession in other political parties (I'm talking about here in Europe now, US is a lost cause). None of the other parties really cared much about their environmental policy before the Greens put it on the agenda, likewise none of the other parties cared much about IP before the Pirate Party put it on the agenda. Some of the left wing parties have framed it in terms of digital public property, some of the right wing parties in forms of market liberalization - less government regulation. Piracy is perfectly free of left-right connotations, while "sharing is caring" I'm pretty sure would become socialist politics and so inedible to the right. For all its flaws, it still has more potential than the alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
By "real value" do you mean the cost of copying it? Or the $1 people are willing to pay for the convenience instead of chasing it down on a pirate site for $0? Besides, you're confusing "real value" with rational behavior. If I'm drop dead in love with a song with a song and would pay $10 for it but it's offered for sale for $1 then of course I buy it. Just because you feel the total cost (moral, legal, financial) of copying that textbook is a better value than buying the $350 eBook the real value is neither, it's the point where you'd make do without it. Which is sadly rather high since you'd be pretty likely to fail without the book, students that want to pass the class is a very captive market.
The biggest reason to ban robotic soldiers is that without killing people there is no point to war. before deciding that I am a lunatic, parse that for a while.
Nope, still doesn't make any sense. The winners gets to dictate terms to the losers, they may lose their country, their houses and land, their goods and property, their laws, their freedoms, their civil rights, they can become all manner of second class citizens or practically slaves without being killed. Robotic soldiers can impose martial law with not a circuit for leniency or compassion, most want a cowed enemy not a dead enemy. Not that there haven't been genocides where they intentionally seek to wipe out the civil population, but that is by far not most wars. You still don't want to be on the losing end of one.
I want to make sure I understand your thought process.
1. Create new crypto mining scheme
2. Mine lots of early, practicially free coins
3. Increase mining complexity
4. Convince everyone this is the next big thing
5. Watch dollar value soar
6. Cash out your free coin for real money
7. Leave suckers with worthless bits nobody wants for anything
Or in short, why be a peon in BitCoin when you can be king of a new currency?
Or perhaps they could disrupt a profitable market, sell at an appreciable margin, and make lots of money before trying to build massive, Toyota-scale factories out of nothing?
This. Here in Norway the Tesla Model S is looking like a very compelling offer because they're getting all the tax breaks of electric vehicles and the taxes tend to be much higher on high end cars which means that here a $80k Model S Performance sells for about the same as a slightly upgraded Audi A6 that'd sell for $50k in the US. Or if you look at cars that'd be roughly even priced in the US like the $75k Audi A8 it sells for 90% more than the Tesla here. Yes, it's exploiting a tax structure that won't last but right now they're getting to sell a damn fine high performance car like it was the most environmental-friendly subcompact on the block.
They've confirmed that 1000+ people here are now on a waiting list in a country of 5 million people, that's the equivalent of 60k+ in the US. And that was before the 99/100 Consumer Reports score which was widely publicized. It's not petrol/diesel car volume but they're getting decent volume - it's not like you're one of ten people in the country who has one, they get real people who have experience with them - most people are very conservative and true to brand when it comes to car purchases - and they get to boot a charger network. All in all, I'd say this looks like wins all around for them. So far I think they've promised the EV perks will last out 2015, if they come to an end I expect a huge rush of Tesla Model S orders before that who are still waiting for the first round of kinks to be worked out first.
No. They are technical descriptions of incorrect behavior of the software.
That only works in cases where there are clear and specific requirements/specifications for how this software should work or it crashes in some way no application ever should. Even then, the user won't know those he only sees what he thinks is incorrect behavior. Usually the definition of correct is just a meeting of minds, the user saying this doesn't look right, the developer agrees and the code changes since most bugs appear where the specification says nothing at all. And if the code follows the specifications it usually just moves the problem up a level, are the specifications correct or not. It's great for a blame-shifting game but really the user only cares about what he can't do, not why he can't do it and at what level it failed.
Who says they even need to claim that so-and-so change fixed it? One time when I looked around Launchpad, a common way I was seeing issues getting closed was someone coming several months later and being like "this was reported for 12.10, can you reproduce it in 13.04?" and then closing it as incomplete when the user who has probably switched to a similar package or another distro at that point no longer cares.
WINE also does the same, if you want a bug to stay open you have to babysit it. But to be fair they're often dealing with closed source software that they might not have a copy of themselves.
That's the bad news... the good news is that you can find unlocked or unlockable Android devices that are way more mainstream than any of the Windows and OS X competitors ever managed to be. Yes, certain apps that require DRM won't work but on the whole you're way, way more mainstream with a rooted Android phone than a Linux desktop. And Android is making the OS a commodity because if you don't need to be on the bleeding edge you can always download the last released Android version for free, even cheap Chinese clone makers. There is no way Apple will be the ones supplying most of the world with cheap smartphones unless they completely change their business model.
Tablets are a bit earlier in the market development but there's no reason to think it'll be any different, Apple will skim the top with the iPad but eventually Android will be the Nokia (pre-suicide) of cheap tablets to supply the world. Globally most people simply can't afford an iPad and they never will, but they'll take whatever cheap hardware someone can put a $0 version of Android on. I guess it's not the future RMS or Canonical wanted, but Apache is a proper Open Source license and the kernel itself is GNU/free. And there's now plenty of applications and developers for that open source system, building inertia that will rival what Windows has for desktop applications. I think your glass is very much so half empty if you think this is a "Phyrric victory".
Really? I feel the computer age hasn't even taken off yet, and speaking of a middle for something that is open ended is just silly. In fact, even though the age of the gene-manipulation/bio-tech might be starting now, let us not forget that it is progress in our computation capabilities that makes all this possible. There is still lots more to be done in computational mathematics/biology/engineeering/science.
It's not like we left all the iron tools when we left the iron age, yes there are still radios but it'd feel very strange to say we're in the age of radio. It is not new, it is not something that right now is redefining our society. In that sense I feel the computer age maybe has come and gone - as in the moving from pen and paper, calculators and filing cabinets to word processors, spreadsheets and databases. It was already followed by the Internet age - which is of course using computers but that I feel is something completely different, a revolution in communication not computing. I think now we're in the budding of the "always on" age, where you take both with you on the go but I think that is distinct from the former, just like cell phones was a different revolution than phones. If you want to take a more birds-eye view I'd call all of it the Digital Age, because that's really what it's been all about - we take analog information and we convert it to zeros and ones, which we can then compute, transmit, display and lots of other things with. And there we find constantly new ways to apply computers.
They were established because people with adequate vacations make less mistakes, get sick less often, have better ideas and higher productivity, etc. and that pays off financially. Henry Ford, among others, realized this, and he was definitely not pro-worker in any sense.
Henry Ford was in a "race to the bottom" for employers and didn't care one bit, by offering better conditions than anyone else he could get the cream of the crop and lower turnover significantly leading to a highly skilled, highly experienced workforce that trashed anyone else. I doubt there was any conclusive proof to show that the average worker would be more productive on a shorter day, all other things being equal.
The most important thing is tight iterations. If a 2 week sprint fails, then it is not that big of a deal. If a 2 year death march fails? Someone's getting fired, since its the equivalent in agile-land of failing 52 sprints straight.
But is it two weeks sprint down a dead end? For a project this size, agile is like trying to build a skyscraper first as a one story building, then two story building, then three story building and so on. Apparently you're making great progress the first sprint and you have a shack up, that's 1/100 floors done already. Except it doesn't work like that, so sometime around the 20th floor you've got people all over the first 19 trying to build in extra support columns and stronger walls and propping up the foundation. Things grind to a halt and you're not making any real progress. Then the orders come to get moving and you start going upwards again more and more rickety until eventually you find the straw that broke the mule's back and it all comes crumbling down.
Agile is nice if you're close enough you can start delivering actual features that would belong in the end product at the end. In practice it often means you build the first iteration with string and duct tape planning to replace it with something more solid on the back end in time, but I think everyone knows how that goes - the string and duct tape has a tendency to stay because that part is "done". Of course hindsight is always much easier but agile I feel lacks foresight, we do this now to meet our sprint goals and then if we need to change something to meet our next sprint goals, we'll deal with that then. In practice, there's not time to go back and rework things every time you figure out this should have been done differently.
What AMD has here is a successor to Brazos, and the primary competitor is Atom.
So AMD says, but Tom's Hardware disagrees:
So what about the Core i3-3217U, a 17 W processor? Surely that one is a more virile competitor, and not much more expensive than the Pentium. Core i3's on-die HD Graphics 4000 engine with its 16 EUs stomps all over the A4's 128 ALUs, despite the backing of AMD's capable Graphics Core Next architecture. Now, AMD claims that Kabini isn't meant to go up against Core i3. But we found notebooks with this exact CPU selling for as little as $360 on Newegg. It may turn out that the free market doesn't let AMD choose which Intel-based platforms its Kabini-based APUs contend with.
The cheapest laptop newegg sells that I could find was $250, so there's a good $100 range where Atoms, Celerons, Pentiums and AMD is battling it out - that's not much, really.
It also equals or beats an Ivy Bridge based Pentium in all measures except single threaded performance
Which is likely the part that matters in these laptops. I mean if you're trying to use these for serious number crunching you are using the wrong tool for the job. It's not like the single threaded performance is poor, it is horrible. Anandtech compared it to a i7-3517U, which is totally unfair price-wise (it's a $350 chip) but fair power-wise (it's a 17W chip). In cinebench single-threaded the Intel chip scored 1.24, the A4-5000 0.39 - that's a 3.18x performance lead with 2W higher TDP, 2.8x if you scale it to be equal. You're getting a not-quite-as-dog-slow-as-an-Atom ultra mobile laptop, but you're not getting anything fighting above it's league either.
FIVR in the mornin' FIVR in the evenin', FIVR all through the night!
Yeah, but the biggest benefit it seems they got in sleep states and I don't think sleeping in the morning, sleeping in the evening, sleeping all through the night is what the song is all about...
The analogy is sound, the "parallel" part is the processor and the "non-parallel" part the rest and it'll approach the same power baseline with increased processor efficiency as it does the performance baseline with increased parallelization. But I feel it's a rather silly complication of the obvious, unlike parallelization. Yes of course if the screen is the biggest power hog, then it has the most potential for improvement. Note that it would be a fallacy to think it will always have the greatest improvement, if the screen takes 60% and the processor 40% but you can only reduce screen power by 10% to 54% and the processor by 50% to 20% of the original you gain more with the processor.
Right. In fact the user did not find what the title claims. He found the point at which they would ask WTF. And it turns out TF was that he was doing something the TOS said he couldn't. Nice job misleading.
Do Verizon care if you run a piddly little server that doesn't even use 1GB/month? No. They cared because he used 77TB, himself admitting to violating the ToS was just a free confession they could hang him by. If he'd said "none of your business" they'd just have to search the ToS a little harder, you're confusing the ends with the means.
You think the ancient Greeks didn't know about snow melting to water, water vapor from boiling or dew from moist air? The four elements are their first attempt at the periodic table, they did not confuse elements and states. Though I suppose fire was way off the mark.
Except the open source community doesn't take "no" for an answer, it's like calling a hermit a bad citizen simply because he wants nothing to with the rest of society. Those technologies you talk of won't work with a blob because there's no ABI and GPL hooks, so it essentially boils down to the same: nVidia doesn't do open source. They only want to offer you the blob, period. But for a lot of people in the OSS community it seems doing nothing at all is the same as being evil. Either you're with us, or you're against us.
As a general rule there's two kinds of contracts, fixed bid and time&material. The former usually means a predefined scope at a fixed price, formal change orders and bug fixes are usually free within a given testing period. The other is basically "do whatever I say" and yes I will, but I don't own the specification and I'm not making any sign-offs on what I'll deliver - I just work hours for you. You get various forms of hybrids - I consider agile one of them - but that's the archetypes. I've coded off "specifications" that were a yellow post-it note, rushed it to production with hardly any testing or documentation and if it works for them it works for me. If you're overall not happy with my work stop the contract, but I charge you every hour even when I'm bug fixing my own work.
It sounds to me like you're asking for the best of both worlds, contractors that'll work regular hours during most of the project and do bug fixes for free at the end. That is going to be trouble, every time. Hell, when you say "programming project manager" I'm starting to think they're not even in full control of the code, far less the spec. Contractors tend to love repeat business, have you them coming back for more? No? Probably because they feel railroaded by the process. Do your contractors ever reject your specs? Can they reject your specs? Or are you just telling them these are the specs and I'm saying they're good enough, get to work? What about when things undoubtedly come up, is there a formal change process or you just improving or amending the spec?
Good enough to work by and good enough to sign off on are two entirely different things, try doing a proper fixed bid project and I think you'll find out.
I have that setup.... but it's a dark arts test every time to find the right order of turning on/tuning in the devices in right order to make it actually work. Usually I have to disconnect and reconnect the cable from the PC to my surround receiver as well. I blame HDCP, clearly they have some sort of handshake issues. The TV I had before that would only work with direct source -> TV connections, going via a receiver meant no signal. Again it appears to be a HDCP handshake issue, the pass-through added just enough latency that it didn't work. Kill it with fire.
Around here I would say refrigerators for employee use and/or vending machines are more common, basic coffee is usually free though. For example there's a coffee capsule machine on my floor, but it's bring your own capsules. Every so often I bring soda, but I could also buy it on the first floor at cafeteria prices. Snacking I do too much of already, so I'd rather enjoy that at home than snacking at work. Sure I'd in some way love free soda, but I also know I'd drink much more just because I can and it's free and it's right there. Yes self control is my own task but at the same time you know it's subsidized soda, implicitly you know you're giving up a tiny bit of your paycheck for it and want your money's worth. If I ever worked a place that gave me free potato chips too, I'd probably add 20 pounds before I quit for my own good. To me, bring/buy your own refreshments makes a lot more sense than BYOD.
Have you ever been in a business meeting with people who speak another language? Have you seen them confer amongst themselves, in your presence in said language? I haven't, but my ex has - and they didn't know that one of the english speakers actually knew French. The conversation that they thought was private was quite revealing, to say the least.
Only to make sure that what was said in English was fully understood by everyone in the room or asking a stronger English speaker to express something they found difficult, never heard anything they seemed to assume was private. Seems like a very foolish move as I can speak three languages, understand five and probably pick up stray words from a dozen. Would this possibly be Canadian French and the English speakers in presence American? Because people tend to assume Americans only speak English (or possibly Spanish), it's only 99.9% accurate but I don't see two Frenchman thinking the same anywhere in Europe.
What seems sort of curious is that 'support' is what happens when software(sometimes hardware; but hardware at least has the decency to usually fail dramatically enough to just be swapped out, and would be hard to roboticize outside of a datacenter or something in any case) fucks up hard enough, or confuses the user hard enough, that an IT minion gets called in.
No, first line support is often dealing with people that have a PEBCAK problem, not a software or hardware problem. Or at least not one related to what you're actually providing support for in a supported configuration. I suspect that many companies don't actually want a support line, if you have a problem they'd rather you get pissed and go somewhere else than tie up one of their employees - even your outsourced call center guy. Unless it's a big thing affecting many users in which case you probably know it without everyone calling in. It's not acceptable to not offer support, but you can make it useless enough that most people won't bother. This all sounds like a much cheaper way of providing non-support while still giving the pretense that you do. Let's call it a tier zero before you even get to reach first line support, far less knowledgeable support.
I once had the displeasure of telling our client that the vendor (luckily not our company but our partner, so I could say "they" not "us") did not support the use of the "back" button in their web interface. Any support case that involved using it would be closed as not supported. For bonus points they didn't provide any functionality equivalent to it either, so of course everyone used the back button anyway where it did work. To me it's a bit like selling a four door car where the back doors are only for decoration and actually opening and closing the doors are not supported but I guess if you have enough lawyers and impenetrable contracts anything is possible.
Correct. But they aren't affirming that they represent the owner of the work being taken down, just the one they're claiming they own.
"I affirm that I am the copyright owner on X. Take down Y."
They are not affirming that X is Y, merely that they own X.
Yes, the claim that Y is actually X is only covered by a small section on misrepresentation. Unless it's in bad faith there's no penalty at all and worse case they're only liable for costs incurred, no penalties or restitution. It's as if the copyright lobby wrote it, oh wait they did....
English is used worldwide when conducting business between two people with otherwise dissimilar language, but Chinese is still mostly limited to conducting business with China.
This. Before, people were mostly concerned with learning the language of the bordering countries because that's what was most useful. Today people have the Internet and want/need a global language of communication. While this graphic is also in many ways biased, English in the World shows most of the world has English as their first foreign language. That trend is only going to grow stronger because there are huge network effects at play here. While the US may be seeing a big influx of Spanish, here in Europe the trend is opposite - few people learn Spanish and the Spaniards learn more and more English. And I don't think it has any traction in Africa, Asia or Oceania.
File sharing is a technology to share files, piracy is shorthand for copyright infringement that may or may not involve file sharing and file sharing may or may not involve copyright infringement. Calling them one and the same is certainly running the "proprietarians" errand in their quest to kill file sharing. It's not like they care about the collateral damage of shutting down non-infringing file sharing, in fact it's a competing distribution channel. Besides, why do you think they're increasingly using the words "thieves" and "stealing"? Because "pirates" and "piracy" no longer have the desired effect, more people associate pirates with the Jack Sparrow variety who is something more of a bad boy-hero / Robin Hood than Somalian cutthroats. Not to mention the ample opportunities to use pirate symbols, co-opting a brand is easier than building one.
First of all you're complaining about a "brand problem" of a movement that probably wouldn't even exist if they hadn't put up the pirate flag as the rallying point, getting off the ground is more important than how gracefully you do it. Secondly if they'd gotten lost in the finer semantics of language nobody would care, wasting precious media time arguing that it's not piracy but copyright infringement. Except it's not short, catchy, made for headlines and they'd probably lose. Media loves the pirate branding too you see, without it they wouldn't have gotten a fraction of the attention. Near as I can tell, neither the Swedish or German Pirate Party - who have come the furthest - have a problem with their pirate branding, but more with what the rest of their politics should contain.
The wider "mainstreaming" effect you're talking about is more seen in the other youth parties and possibly a few more concession in other political parties (I'm talking about here in Europe now, US is a lost cause). None of the other parties really cared much about their environmental policy before the Greens put it on the agenda, likewise none of the other parties cared much about IP before the Pirate Party put it on the agenda. Some of the left wing parties have framed it in terms of digital public property, some of the right wing parties in forms of market liberalization - less government regulation. Piracy is perfectly free of left-right connotations, while "sharing is caring" I'm pretty sure would become socialist politics and so inedible to the right. For all its flaws, it still has more potential than the alternatives.