At 77 (Lindahl), 69, and 69 years of age respectively, it has the feel of a lifetime achievement award rather than an innovative breakthrough.
Nobel prizes routinely ARE a form of lifetime achievement award. It's very common for them to be awarded 20-30+ years after the discovery was actually made. Part of this is conservatism on the part of the Nobel committee. They don't want to hand out an award for something that later turns out to be wrong or not so important after all. That has happened a few times. The breakthroughs ARE innovative at the time they are discovered even if the award comes many years later. The Peace prize tends to be the only exception to this and it has awarded the prize several times to individuals whose achievements were of questionable, insufficient or later dubious merit.
And multiple winners is nothing unusual or bad. There often are more that one deserving recipients in a year so why not award two or three if their discoveries merit recognition? Occasionally the prize is awarded to groups rather than individuals but this serves little purpose since only individuals can really benefit.
Why would it get lower? Are they using newer, cheaper process technology?
Largely because of amortization of fixed costs. To build the parts the company has to spend a large amount of money up front on production equipment, buildings, overhead, R&D, etc. Let's call it $1 Billion just for a nice round number. If they just produce on DIMM then to make that money back they have to charge $1 Billion for it. If they make two they cut that in half to $500M each. If they make 1 million of them they can charge $1000 each. So the more units you make the lower the unit price can be. That is the primary reason why products like semiconductors start off expensive and their costs lower over time. By now they have made several million of the chip and the fixed costs have been recouped so the price can get lower even if nothing else changes.
This is why you can get volume discounts on stuff you buy. Bigger volumes allows amortization of fixed costs over more units and results in a lower unit cost.
And yes them might have improved the process along the way to reduce costs.
Of course they are unenforceable - a contract requires parties to consider, understand, and agree to terms.
A valid contract does NOT require both parties to evaluate or understand the the terms, though they do have to agree to them. A contract does require an offer, an acceptance, two legally competent persons, an exchange of something of value (called consideration) and a mutuality of obligation. Comprehension is not required for the contract to be valid. The value of the things exchanged does not have to be equal and there is no requirement that both parties carefully consider their actions. They merely have to be considered capable of and have an opportunity to understand what they are agreeing to (which is why children cannot sign valid contracts) but they don't have to actually understand them.
You may be confusing consideration in the legal sense with the act of considering in the sense of analysis. They are not the same thing.
A clue: saying you're not doing something and then doing it doesn't mean you're not doing it.
A clue: When someone clarifies their intent because they are aware that others will misinterpret them you might consider actually taking them at their word. The word snide means to mock and I was in not mocking anyone. I merely wish to understand the motivations at work here. Had I wished to mock it would have been trivial to do so.
Saying you're not being snide then making snide personal attacks on the person in question means you actually lied about not being snide.
Never made a personal attack on anyone. I asked if the guy was "having a snit" (the word means to sulk or to have a fit of irritation) which is a reasonable question in this context. I've seen plenty of projects fork because of personality disagreements. Merely curious if that might be the case here. I also asked if there was any tangible benefit to his proposed additions to the kernel that an end user like myself would care about. If he has a good point and it matters to me then I'll sit up and pay attention. But it seems to merely be a personality conflict based on what I'm reading so I no longer care.
Well done on not reading my post or utterly failing to understand it.
Likewise. Pot meet kettle. (see THAT is being snide...)
In the old days when someone got pregnant without being married they were considered irresponsible. Society gave them two choices. Either they would get married or give the child up for adoption to a married couple.
Yeah, it didn't really work that way a lot of the time. Single parents and pregnant teens have always been a thing since the dawn of mankind. You really shouldn't get your opinions about how the real world works from 1950s sitcoms.
We know a child will be much more successful in life if they are raised by a mother and father.
No we don't "know" that because it isn't actually true. Most studies of this sort of thing badly confuse correlation with causation and fail to control for other factors. Having a mother and a father can help but the relationship between success (which you conveniently didn't define) and living in a traditional Norman Rockwell family is a weak one. What matters is having parents and guardians and family that are involved. Whether they are married or not is irrelevant.
Today what we do is tax the responsible people and give that money to the irresponsible people to raise their kids.
Even if that were true (and it mostly isn't) the VAST majority of the money we tax goes to the military and medicare and social security. I'll start worrying about a few folks taking advantage of my tax dollars once we stop spending trillions on fighter jets we don't need and wars in the middle east that we can't afford.
The liberal feels bad for the girl that gets pregnant without being married.
Why should I feel bad for that person unless they are underage? I don't care at all. What I do care about is whether society helps that person or not. Sounds like your attitude is to tell them to fuck off and then complain about the bad results after you couldn't be bothered to help a fellow human.
Meanwhile the single moms raise children that are a drain on society.
As someone who was raised by a single mom allow me to give a hearty FUCK YOU to you and your ignorant opinion of single moms. You have NO idea what you are talking about. The real world isn't an episode of Leave It To Beaver and there are millions of single parents who are doing a damn fine job raising their children to be fine productive members of society. I'll be happy to introduce you to some and you can tell them what a drain they and their children are to their face.
$400K/year is the kind of salary that strat getting a high investment/expense ratio. Also the kind of salary that eventually buy $200,000 cars.
I have family members and friends that have make that kind of salary. (doctor's, lawyers, private equity, etc) Even in a location with low cost of living, it's not nearly enough for most to justify buying $200K vehicles and very, very few do. $400K becomes about half to two-thirds of that once taxes are taken out. Comfortable to be sure but not enough to start acting like a rap star. I assure you that very few people making that kind of salary are driving around in vehicles that cost anywhere near $200K. Just go look in the doctor's parking lot at any hospital if you don't believe me. You aren't going to see a lot of Ferrari's there. It's not that they can't eventually do it but the people who buy $200K cars tend to be folks that either come from money or who make close to seven figure incomes.
So a once in a lifetime $250,000 expense is not necessarily out of the question.
VERY different statement. Yes someone making $400K/year who is reasonably thrifty could drop $250K on a trip to space if they wanted. Most won't but it's possible.
Yeah you do, otherwise you wouldn't have said this:
No I don't which is why I wrote what I did. If I mean to be snide I'll just go right ahead and do that without bothering to claim otherwise.
Guy gets finally fed up with dealing with insane LKML politics and decides to have his own tree with his own patches. Guy isn't some rando, guy is a long term contributor to the mailing list.
None of which I care about as an end user nor is the politics involved remotely interesting to me. My question was whether this mattered to me as an end user. It sounds like you are confirming that this is a developer having a snit.
You should probably care because the politics driving away good people means that inevitably the quality will go down when those good people find more enjoyable places to work. And good people always have options.
People leaving does not mean quality will "inevitably" go down. I run a company and have had to deal with good people leaving many, many times. It's rare that someone cannot be replaced. Did this fellow bring something to the table that cannot be replaced? If not then I'm not worried in the slightest. If the kernel dev team isn't robust enough to withstand people leaving (including Linus) then it probably was doomed anyway but that seems rather unlikely given its prominence these days.
I don't actually mean to sound snide but can someone explain to me why I should care about this as an end user? TFS reads like someone got their panties in a bunch over some arcane detail and couldn't bear to not get his way. Is there some amazing benefit to users in this or is this just some developer having a snit because Linus disagreed with his preferences?
The concept of what space IS anyway has been cheapened by considering low Earth orbit is outer space anyway. It's not. The ISS is as close to me as the next major city. It's not even far away.
That's like arguing that a supertanker isn't in the Atlantic ocean because I can see it from shore. It's irrelevant to the discussion of whether it is in the ocean or not. Space is defined by the general absence of matter in close proximity. On Earth it is typically presumed to be the area outside our atmosphere. On other planets the boundary will be different though just as arbitrary. Some without atmospheres will have space start at the surface. Since there isn't an obvious boundary to an atmosphere like a shoreline they have to choose an arbitrarily selected one. You can pick a slightly different one if it makes you happy but once you are in a hard vacuum or a good approximation of one and not touching a planetary body, you are in space by definition. Whether that starts at 60km, 100km, 200km or 1000km is not really particularly important.
Even going to the moon, which is as far as we have ever gone, should be considered near space since it is still gravitationally bound to the Earth.
Absurd logic. Whether something is in space or not has nothing to do with what it is orbiting nor does it have anything specifically to do with Earth. Gravitation exists between every bit of matter in the universe so it's not a useful means of defining space. If you are on the surface of Mars you aren't in space but you certainly aren't gravitationally bound to Earth either. Nobody is going to agree with you that the ISS is not in space. It meets every commonly accepted definition of outer space.
English is the closest thing we have to a universal language, even though it isn't one.
Since even the most optimistic estimate of the number of speakers (including non-native) is around 500 million, you are talking about a language spoken by about 7% of the world's population. So no, it isn't even close to being a universal language. It is probably the closest thing the a lingua franca right now but it's no where close to universal. Hell there are more speakers of Mandarin than English albeit mostly in one country.
It used to be German, but that fell out of favor for some reason, I can't imagine why.
No idea where you got that idea. The Holy Roman Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empires used it and it's still quite popular but not much outside of Europe. Unless you are talking about Germanic languages in general which includes English. The world is a lot bigger place than Europe.
Check my userid. Some have been here longer but unless you are being ironic the answer is no I'm not new here.
You know how many threads there are defending / promoting the notion that i devices are impervious to malware / viruses?
Yes I am aware. Yes their arguments are generally idiotic.
Also, it's possible once the malware gets a hold of the system, it might block actions.
If that it is true then that is a huge flaw in the system which Apple needs to correct as soon as possible. I understand that such a scenario is possible but I also understand that it is correctable. If some software needs to break to improve security then so be it.
It's an enterprise certificate, so those companies want more control over what goes in and out -- they don't want mission critical software to be suddenly removed because someone at APL bungled something.
Doesn't matter. If there is a security flaw where a certificate has been compromised then the only correct response it revoke the certificate. Yes this could be highly inconvenient but the danger of not revoking the certificate and disabling the vulnerability is worse. A certificate that isn't revoked when necessary is worse than useless. If the danger does not justify a certificate then what is the point of issuing one in the first place?
ah by Vegas cabs almost universally don't have GPS.
So what? You do if you have a smartphone. Or tote along a standalone GPS if you have one. Plug the route in and if they are taking the scenic route then direct them back or get out and complain to their parent company. A good cabbie won't need a GPS and it's not hard to figure out if they know what they are doing.
I was there just this summer probably took at least fifteen cab rides not one cabbie had a GPS.
So why not rent a car if you are taking that many cab rides?
Most of them asked ME for directions.
Then get out and find a different cab. No idea why people are so bashful about demanding that the drivers know what they are doing. Frankly if they can't find their way around Vegas then they are incompetent. That's about the easiest city to get around in there is.
So in addition to the outrageous fairs, I am left using my phone and MY data plan to navigate for the drive.
Which is why I rent a car in Vegas. Honestly unless you are going directly to/from one hotel and never leaving it, taking a taxi is a stupid waste of money in Vegas. I prefer to navigate myself places anyway. Plus I'm paying for the data anyway whether I use it or not so I may as well use it. I agree it is annoying but it's better than being ripped off.
I go to Vegas every year to work at CES, not to vacation.
Getting ripped off by a taxi driver and having the same discussion about "fastest way to airpor" every year gets old.
Then that is your fault for doing the same thing every year. Tell them your preferred route upon entering the car or secure alternative transportation.
YiSpecter's malicious apps were signed with three iOS enterprise certificates issued by Apple so that they can be installed as enterprise apps on non-jailbroken iOS devices via in-house distribution.
So Apple should revoke the certificate. Why is this a problem? What makes this newsworthy? What am I missing?
It should surprise nobody that malware makers find security holes. Apple is no exception. But the entire point of certificates is that they can be revoked in the event there is a problem. Revoke the certificate which should then disable the app. If it doesn't work this way then something is wrong and the certificate is pointless.
LV taxi always try to trick you into taking the highway to the airport which is significantly more expensive than the normal way from the strip.
That's cute. Going to Las Vegas to be thrifty? What exactly is the point of that? You are aware that those huge casinos weren't built by people being smart with their money, right?
Personally I just rent a car when I go to Vegas. Costs about $30-40 a day and I can go wherever I want and parking is plentiful and mostly free. The monorail can get you to much of the strip and you'll be walking plenty anyway. Cabs can be useful but if you are going to take more than 2 cab rides a day you might as well rent a car.
While I agree with your thesis that cab companies often provide shitty service for an outrageous price, I think you are wrong a few points.
It's frustrating dealing with taxi drivers who don't know where they're going or what they're doing, since they only arrived in the country a month before.
In the age of GPS this should be a non-problem. And frankly while I don't take cabs often I've NEVER run into a cab where the guy got off the figurative boat a month before. Maybe it does actually happen but I think that is more of an urban legend than anything else. More likely it is just the arrogant and often racist assumption that anyone who doesn't have English as their first language must have just gotten to the country 5 days prior.
It's also frustrating when they can't speak or understand English, which is the international language of the travel industry worldwide, especially in countries that are natively English-speaking.
English is NOT a universal language or anything close to it and certainly isn't the "international language of the travel industry worldwide". While it is among the more commonly spoken languages more of the world doesn't speak English than does. I've traveled quite a lot in places where not a word of English is spoken. The assumption that everyone should speak English is ignorant and arrogant and if you honestly believe that then you are a jerk. This is the sort of ugly-american stuff that gets us such a bad reputation. In the US, yes you should be able to speak English and in some areas Spanish is helpful too. Elsewhere different rules apply. If you cannot communicate with your driver then GET OUT and get a new cab. If you are offended at an accent then you are just being a douche.
And it's utterly disrespectful when they spend the whole trip chattering loudly on their phones or headsets in Arabic or some other obscure language the entire trip.
What do you care what language they are "chattering" in? Disrespect is a matter of opinion and perspective and local custom. I don't see that as disrespectful at all. Unprofessional in some cases but not disrespectful. Personally I don't care at all if the cabbie wants to entertain himself as long as he gets me where I want to go quickly and efficiently. I don't really want to talk with them anyway so what do I care? The only time I care is if I interrupt the driver I expect him to drop whatever he's doing and pay attention.
How about a link to an article that does require cookies enabled to view? Maybe you don't mind but I do and I don't really need to allow some random news site to set a cookie for no reason. Provide no value to me whatsoever.
Doesn't matter. The engineers are responsible for their own actions. They chose to commit a crime when asked and they are just as responsible as anyone else involved. If your management comes to you and asks you to commit a crime and you do anything other that say "no" then you are a criminal yourself. This is not complicated.
There's like an entire corporate machine in place to ensure that a lone wolf can't through error or malice can't cause problems. Things like basic software development practices should ensure that bad/stupid things don't go unnoticed.
This wasn't unnoticed. This was done intentionally and there were many people involved including more than a few engineers. We know the engineers knew about it because it apparently was a group of senior engineers who ultimately spilled the beans. If they knew and they said nothing then they are complicit in a crime and should see appropriate punishment in a court of law.
They may have known, but what was the alternative? Get fired, and in a manner that ensures they will never work in their field again?
The alternative is that you don't commit a crime. Why is that so hard to understand? This was FRAUD, plain and simple. If my boss comes to me and asks me to commit a crime so the company will make more money my answer is to gather my personal effects and seek employment elsewhere.
We are not talking about engineers who lacked options. The auto industry isn't one where they can get blackballed from every working again. These are well paid, educated people who knew (or should have known) what they were doing and decided to commit a crime.
Or go to the regulator and media, bring down the responsible parties, and get sued so hard their grandchildren will be paying the lawyer bills?
You can do that OR you can just leave. Either option is better than committing a crime.
I think that you missed the point of the previous post. It could be that many people involved thought that they were adding a performance function.
I did not miss the point. The point was wrong. They did not think they were adding a performance function. That's not how it this stuff gets developed. They would have known if this idea worked or not before it left R&D.
Granted, at some point it clearly crossed the line.
And that is where they should have stopped. No equivocation is necessary. The moment they realized it was illegal/impossible they should have stopped. It was reasonable to try to come up with a clever way to avoid the cost of adding a urea injection system but the would have known if this was feasible before the idea left the R&D lab. Once it got to the production engineers, there is no possible way they didn't know that what they were doing.
At what point does a group of people, perhaps thinking they're working to create something good, but that actually results in something that maybe isn't so good, become a "conspiracy"?
The moment it becomes obvious that what they are attempting is impossible and they start looking for illegal ways to circumvent a test. At that precise point they should have stopped and done something else.
There is no real grey area here where people weren't fully aware of what they were doing and at no time were they under any illusion about the legality. The people who implemented this are professional engineers who knew(or should have known) what the rules were and decided to go ahead anyway. This isn't a piece of consumer software where there are no federal laws involved. This wasn't a piece of software where what seemed like a good idea ultimately didn't work. No, they intentionally and with premeditation committed this fraud. Stop it with trying to excuse what they did.
Anyone who actually works in the auto industry is pretty much certain this wasn't a lone-wolf operation. I know because I've been in the industry myself for a good chunk of my career including right now. This is very much the water cooler talk right now and nobody believes it was just one or two guys. I run a company that makes wiring harnesses and many of our products go into automobiles made by the Big 3. There are WAY too many people and groups involved in the engineering, design and testing and manufacture of these cars for this to be pulled off entirely in secret. While it would not have been known across the company it would have had to have been signed off on by more than a few including engineering, management and probably testing as well.
This was not done by accident. It was not done by some poor engineer asked to do the cheat on pain of losing his job. This was an intentional and premeditated fraud and it isn't the first time something like this has happened. About 15 years ago a bunch of truck manufacturers including Volvo and Caterpillar were caught doing something similar. Probably won't be the last time we see it either given the amount of money at stake. While I'm sure VW is probably going to try to throw some low level people under the figurative bus, I'd be shocked if this didn't go pretty far up the food chain. Maybe not all the way to the top but probably up to the heads of engineering and R&D at the least. I can't imagine how the engine designers and their management team wouldn't know. This stuff isn't magic and questions would be asked for which there is no satisfactory answer via software.
Not everywhere. Believe it or not I had escargot in a Pizza Hut in Chengdu China about 10 years ago. We were stunned to see snails on the menu in a Pizza Hut and believe me, it wasn't haute cuisine.
Although they're not that bad really. They're just something that "sounds bad" and scare xenophobes.
This is true. It's a lot like eating clams or oysters. I think people mostly eat them for the butter or whatever else they get dipped into.
We can and we did. It was euphemistically called "The U.S. Government Relocation Facility", but it's code name was "Project Greek Island", and it was capable of sustaining a fairly large population and support staff for 30 years, in the event of a nuclear war.
Project Greek Island was a fallout bunker at the Greenbriar Hotel. It was NOT a biosphere or even close to one. It was a fallout shelter, nothing more. I have personally been in that particular bunker myself now that it is open to the public. I stayed at the hotel a few years back. It certainly wasn't designed or equipped to operate for 30 years. The facility EXISTED for 30 years of operation but it was only designed to be occupied for a relatively short time. It had enough space to have congress and the senate plus a few of the white house staff and not much more. A few hundred people maximum.
Slashdot Mirror
At 77 (Lindahl), 69, and 69 years of age respectively, it has the feel of a lifetime achievement award rather than an innovative breakthrough.
Nobel prizes routinely ARE a form of lifetime achievement award. It's very common for them to be awarded 20-30+ years after the discovery was actually made. Part of this is conservatism on the part of the Nobel committee. They don't want to hand out an award for something that later turns out to be wrong or not so important after all. That has happened a few times. The breakthroughs ARE innovative at the time they are discovered even if the award comes many years later. The Peace prize tends to be the only exception to this and it has awarded the prize several times to individuals whose achievements were of questionable, insufficient or later dubious merit.
And multiple winners is nothing unusual or bad. There often are more that one deserving recipients in a year so why not award two or three if their discoveries merit recognition? Occasionally the prize is awarded to groups rather than individuals but this serves little purpose since only individuals can really benefit.
Why would it get lower? Are they using newer, cheaper process technology?
Largely because of amortization of fixed costs. To build the parts the company has to spend a large amount of money up front on production equipment, buildings, overhead, R&D, etc. Let's call it $1 Billion just for a nice round number. If they just produce on DIMM then to make that money back they have to charge $1 Billion for it. If they make two they cut that in half to $500M each. If they make 1 million of them they can charge $1000 each. So the more units you make the lower the unit price can be. That is the primary reason why products like semiconductors start off expensive and their costs lower over time. By now they have made several million of the chip and the fixed costs have been recouped so the price can get lower even if nothing else changes.
This is why you can get volume discounts on stuff you buy. Bigger volumes allows amortization of fixed costs over more units and results in a lower unit cost.
And yes them might have improved the process along the way to reduce costs.
Of course they are unenforceable - a contract requires parties to consider, understand, and agree to terms.
A valid contract does NOT require both parties to evaluate or understand the the terms, though they do have to agree to them. A contract does require an offer, an acceptance, two legally competent persons, an exchange of something of value (called consideration) and a mutuality of obligation. Comprehension is not required for the contract to be valid. The value of the things exchanged does not have to be equal and there is no requirement that both parties carefully consider their actions. They merely have to be considered capable of and have an opportunity to understand what they are agreeing to (which is why children cannot sign valid contracts) but they don't have to actually understand them.
You may be confusing consideration in the legal sense with the act of considering in the sense of analysis. They are not the same thing.
A clue: saying you're not doing something and then doing it doesn't mean you're not doing it.
A clue: When someone clarifies their intent because they are aware that others will misinterpret them you might consider actually taking them at their word. The word snide means to mock and I was in not mocking anyone. I merely wish to understand the motivations at work here. Had I wished to mock it would have been trivial to do so.
Saying you're not being snide then making snide personal attacks on the person in question means you actually lied about not being snide.
Never made a personal attack on anyone. I asked if the guy was "having a snit" (the word means to sulk or to have a fit of irritation) which is a reasonable question in this context. I've seen plenty of projects fork because of personality disagreements. Merely curious if that might be the case here. I also asked if there was any tangible benefit to his proposed additions to the kernel that an end user like myself would care about. If he has a good point and it matters to me then I'll sit up and pay attention. But it seems to merely be a personality conflict based on what I'm reading so I no longer care.
Well done on not reading my post or utterly failing to understand it.
Likewise. Pot meet kettle. (see THAT is being snide...)
In the old days when someone got pregnant without being married they were considered irresponsible. Society gave them two choices. Either they would get married or give the child up for adoption to a married couple.
Yeah, it didn't really work that way a lot of the time. Single parents and pregnant teens have always been a thing since the dawn of mankind. You really shouldn't get your opinions about how the real world works from 1950s sitcoms.
We know a child will be much more successful in life if they are raised by a mother and father.
No we don't "know" that because it isn't actually true. Most studies of this sort of thing badly confuse correlation with causation and fail to control for other factors. Having a mother and a father can help but the relationship between success (which you conveniently didn't define) and living in a traditional Norman Rockwell family is a weak one. What matters is having parents and guardians and family that are involved. Whether they are married or not is irrelevant.
Today what we do is tax the responsible people and give that money to the irresponsible people to raise their kids.
Even if that were true (and it mostly isn't) the VAST majority of the money we tax goes to the military and medicare and social security. I'll start worrying about a few folks taking advantage of my tax dollars once we stop spending trillions on fighter jets we don't need and wars in the middle east that we can't afford.
The liberal feels bad for the girl that gets pregnant without being married.
Why should I feel bad for that person unless they are underage? I don't care at all. What I do care about is whether society helps that person or not. Sounds like your attitude is to tell them to fuck off and then complain about the bad results after you couldn't be bothered to help a fellow human.
Meanwhile the single moms raise children that are a drain on society.
As someone who was raised by a single mom allow me to give a hearty FUCK YOU to you and your ignorant opinion of single moms. You have NO idea what you are talking about. The real world isn't an episode of Leave It To Beaver and there are millions of single parents who are doing a damn fine job raising their children to be fine productive members of society. I'll be happy to introduce you to some and you can tell them what a drain they and their children are to their face.
$400K/year is the kind of salary that strat getting a high investment/expense ratio. Also the kind of salary that eventually buy $200,000 cars.
I have family members and friends that have make that kind of salary. (doctor's, lawyers, private equity, etc) Even in a location with low cost of living, it's not nearly enough for most to justify buying $200K vehicles and very, very few do. $400K becomes about half to two-thirds of that once taxes are taken out. Comfortable to be sure but not enough to start acting like a rap star. I assure you that very few people making that kind of salary are driving around in vehicles that cost anywhere near $200K. Just go look in the doctor's parking lot at any hospital if you don't believe me. You aren't going to see a lot of Ferrari's there. It's not that they can't eventually do it but the people who buy $200K cars tend to be folks that either come from money or who make close to seven figure incomes.
So a once in a lifetime $250,000 expense is not necessarily out of the question.
VERY different statement. Yes someone making $400K/year who is reasonably thrifty could drop $250K on a trip to space if they wanted. Most won't but it's possible.
Yeah you do, otherwise you wouldn't have said this:
No I don't which is why I wrote what I did. If I mean to be snide I'll just go right ahead and do that without bothering to claim otherwise.
Guy gets finally fed up with dealing with insane LKML politics and decides to have his own tree with his own patches. Guy isn't some rando, guy is a long term contributor to the mailing list.
None of which I care about as an end user nor is the politics involved remotely interesting to me. My question was whether this mattered to me as an end user. It sounds like you are confirming that this is a developer having a snit.
You should probably care because the politics driving away good people means that inevitably the quality will go down when those good people find more enjoyable places to work. And good people always have options.
People leaving does not mean quality will "inevitably" go down. I run a company and have had to deal with good people leaving many, many times. It's rare that someone cannot be replaced. Did this fellow bring something to the table that cannot be replaced? If not then I'm not worried in the slightest. If the kernel dev team isn't robust enough to withstand people leaving (including Linus) then it probably was doomed anyway but that seems rather unlikely given its prominence these days.
I don't actually mean to sound snide but can someone explain to me why I should care about this as an end user? TFS reads like someone got their panties in a bunch over some arcane detail and couldn't bear to not get his way. Is there some amazing benefit to users in this or is this just some developer having a snit because Linus disagreed with his preferences?
The concept of what space IS anyway has been cheapened by considering low Earth orbit is outer space anyway. It's not. The ISS is as close to me as the next major city. It's not even far away.
That's like arguing that a supertanker isn't in the Atlantic ocean because I can see it from shore. It's irrelevant to the discussion of whether it is in the ocean or not. Space is defined by the general absence of matter in close proximity. On Earth it is typically presumed to be the area outside our atmosphere. On other planets the boundary will be different though just as arbitrary. Some without atmospheres will have space start at the surface. Since there isn't an obvious boundary to an atmosphere like a shoreline they have to choose an arbitrarily selected one. You can pick a slightly different one if it makes you happy but once you are in a hard vacuum or a good approximation of one and not touching a planetary body, you are in space by definition. Whether that starts at 60km, 100km, 200km or 1000km is not really particularly important.
Even going to the moon, which is as far as we have ever gone, should be considered near space since it is still gravitationally bound to the Earth.
Absurd logic. Whether something is in space or not has nothing to do with what it is orbiting nor does it have anything specifically to do with Earth. Gravitation exists between every bit of matter in the universe so it's not a useful means of defining space. If you are on the surface of Mars you aren't in space but you certainly aren't gravitationally bound to Earth either. Nobody is going to agree with you that the ISS is not in space. It meets every commonly accepted definition of outer space.
English is the closest thing we have to a universal language, even though it isn't one.
Since even the most optimistic estimate of the number of speakers (including non-native) is around 500 million, you are talking about a language spoken by about 7% of the world's population. So no, it isn't even close to being a universal language. It is probably the closest thing the a lingua franca right now but it's no where close to universal. Hell there are more speakers of Mandarin than English albeit mostly in one country.
It used to be German, but that fell out of favor for some reason, I can't imagine why.
No idea where you got that idea. The Holy Roman Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empires used it and it's still quite popular but not much outside of Europe. Unless you are talking about Germanic languages in general which includes English. The world is a lot bigger place than Europe.
You're new here, aren't you?
Check my userid. Some have been here longer but unless you are being ironic the answer is no I'm not new here.
You know how many threads there are defending / promoting the notion that i devices are impervious to malware / viruses?
Yes I am aware. Yes their arguments are generally idiotic.
Also, it's possible once the malware gets a hold of the system, it might block actions.
If that it is true then that is a huge flaw in the system which Apple needs to correct as soon as possible. I understand that such a scenario is possible but I also understand that it is correctable. If some software needs to break to improve security then so be it.
It's an enterprise certificate, so those companies want more control over what goes in and out -- they don't want mission critical software to be suddenly removed because someone at APL bungled something.
Doesn't matter. If there is a security flaw where a certificate has been compromised then the only correct response it revoke the certificate. Yes this could be highly inconvenient but the danger of not revoking the certificate and disabling the vulnerability is worse. A certificate that isn't revoked when necessary is worse than useless. If the danger does not justify a certificate then what is the point of issuing one in the first place?
ah by Vegas cabs almost universally don't have GPS.
So what? You do if you have a smartphone. Or tote along a standalone GPS if you have one. Plug the route in and if they are taking the scenic route then direct them back or get out and complain to their parent company. A good cabbie won't need a GPS and it's not hard to figure out if they know what they are doing.
I was there just this summer probably took at least fifteen cab rides not one cabbie had a GPS.
So why not rent a car if you are taking that many cab rides?
Most of them asked ME for directions.
Then get out and find a different cab. No idea why people are so bashful about demanding that the drivers know what they are doing. Frankly if they can't find their way around Vegas then they are incompetent. That's about the easiest city to get around in there is.
So in addition to the outrageous fairs, I am left using my phone and MY data plan to navigate for the drive.
Which is why I rent a car in Vegas. Honestly unless you are going directly to/from one hotel and never leaving it, taking a taxi is a stupid waste of money in Vegas. I prefer to navigate myself places anyway. Plus I'm paying for the data anyway whether I use it or not so I may as well use it. I agree it is annoying but it's better than being ripped off.
I go to Vegas every year to work at CES, not to vacation.
Getting ripped off by a taxi driver and having the same discussion about "fastest way to airpor" every year gets old.
Then that is your fault for doing the same thing every year. Tell them your preferred route upon entering the car or secure alternative transportation.
YiSpecter's malicious apps were signed with three iOS enterprise certificates issued by Apple so that they can be installed as enterprise apps on non-jailbroken iOS devices via in-house distribution.
So Apple should revoke the certificate. Why is this a problem? What makes this newsworthy? What am I missing?
It should surprise nobody that malware makers find security holes. Apple is no exception. But the entire point of certificates is that they can be revoked in the event there is a problem. Revoke the certificate which should then disable the app. If it doesn't work this way then something is wrong and the certificate is pointless.
LV taxi always try to trick you into taking the highway to the airport which is significantly more expensive than the normal way from the strip.
That's cute. Going to Las Vegas to be thrifty? What exactly is the point of that? You are aware that those huge casinos weren't built by people being smart with their money, right?
Personally I just rent a car when I go to Vegas. Costs about $30-40 a day and I can go wherever I want and parking is plentiful and mostly free. The monorail can get you to much of the strip and you'll be walking plenty anyway. Cabs can be useful but if you are going to take more than 2 cab rides a day you might as well rent a car.
While I agree with your thesis that cab companies often provide shitty service for an outrageous price, I think you are wrong a few points.
It's frustrating dealing with taxi drivers who don't know where they're going or what they're doing, since they only arrived in the country a month before.
In the age of GPS this should be a non-problem. And frankly while I don't take cabs often I've NEVER run into a cab where the guy got off the figurative boat a month before. Maybe it does actually happen but I think that is more of an urban legend than anything else. More likely it is just the arrogant and often racist assumption that anyone who doesn't have English as their first language must have just gotten to the country 5 days prior.
It's also frustrating when they can't speak or understand English, which is the international language of the travel industry worldwide, especially in countries that are natively English-speaking.
English is NOT a universal language or anything close to it and certainly isn't the "international language of the travel industry worldwide". While it is among the more commonly spoken languages more of the world doesn't speak English than does. I've traveled quite a lot in places where not a word of English is spoken. The assumption that everyone should speak English is ignorant and arrogant and if you honestly believe that then you are a jerk. This is the sort of ugly-american stuff that gets us such a bad reputation. In the US, yes you should be able to speak English and in some areas Spanish is helpful too. Elsewhere different rules apply. If you cannot communicate with your driver then GET OUT and get a new cab. If you are offended at an accent then you are just being a douche.
And it's utterly disrespectful when they spend the whole trip chattering loudly on their phones or headsets in Arabic or some other obscure language the entire trip.
What do you care what language they are "chattering" in? Disrespect is a matter of opinion and perspective and local custom. I don't see that as disrespectful at all. Unprofessional in some cases but not disrespectful. Personally I don't care at all if the cabbie wants to entertain himself as long as he gets me where I want to go quickly and efficiently. I don't really want to talk with them anyway so what do I care? The only time I care is if I interrupt the driver I expect him to drop whatever he's doing and pay attention.
Queue the comments from idiots who think a drug derived from old herbal remedies is the same thing as using old herbal remedies...
How about a link to an article that does require cookies enabled to view? Maybe you don't mind but I do and I don't really need to allow some random news site to set a cookie for no reason. Provide no value to me whatsoever.
The engineers aren't in charge.
Doesn't matter. The engineers are responsible for their own actions. They chose to commit a crime when asked and they are just as responsible as anyone else involved. If your management comes to you and asks you to commit a crime and you do anything other that say "no" then you are a criminal yourself. This is not complicated.
There's like an entire corporate machine in place to ensure that a lone wolf can't through error or malice can't cause problems. Things like basic software development practices should ensure that bad/stupid things don't go unnoticed.
This wasn't unnoticed. This was done intentionally and there were many people involved including more than a few engineers. We know the engineers knew about it because it apparently was a group of senior engineers who ultimately spilled the beans. If they knew and they said nothing then they are complicit in a crime and should see appropriate punishment in a court of law.
They may have known, but what was the alternative? Get fired, and in a manner that ensures they will never work in their field again?
The alternative is that you don't commit a crime. Why is that so hard to understand? This was FRAUD, plain and simple. If my boss comes to me and asks me to commit a crime so the company will make more money my answer is to gather my personal effects and seek employment elsewhere.
We are not talking about engineers who lacked options. The auto industry isn't one where they can get blackballed from every working again. These are well paid, educated people who knew (or should have known) what they were doing and decided to commit a crime.
Or go to the regulator and media, bring down the responsible parties, and get sued so hard their grandchildren will be paying the lawyer bills?
You can do that OR you can just leave. Either option is better than committing a crime.
I think that you missed the point of the previous post. It could be that many people involved thought that they were adding a performance function.
I did not miss the point. The point was wrong. They did not think they were adding a performance function. That's not how it this stuff gets developed. They would have known if this idea worked or not before it left R&D.
Granted, at some point it clearly crossed the line.
And that is where they should have stopped. No equivocation is necessary. The moment they realized it was illegal/impossible they should have stopped. It was reasonable to try to come up with a clever way to avoid the cost of adding a urea injection system but the would have known if this was feasible before the idea left the R&D lab. Once it got to the production engineers, there is no possible way they didn't know that what they were doing.
At what point does a group of people, perhaps thinking they're working to create something good, but that actually results in something that maybe isn't so good, become a "conspiracy"?
The moment it becomes obvious that what they are attempting is impossible and they start looking for illegal ways to circumvent a test. At that precise point they should have stopped and done something else.
There is no real grey area here where people weren't fully aware of what they were doing and at no time were they under any illusion about the legality. The people who implemented this are professional engineers who knew(or should have known) what the rules were and decided to go ahead anyway. This isn't a piece of consumer software where there are no federal laws involved. This wasn't a piece of software where what seemed like a good idea ultimately didn't work. No, they intentionally and with premeditation committed this fraud. Stop it with trying to excuse what they did.
Anyone who actually works in the auto industry is pretty much certain this wasn't a lone-wolf operation. I know because I've been in the industry myself for a good chunk of my career including right now. This is very much the water cooler talk right now and nobody believes it was just one or two guys. I run a company that makes wiring harnesses and many of our products go into automobiles made by the Big 3. There are WAY too many people and groups involved in the engineering, design and testing and manufacture of these cars for this to be pulled off entirely in secret. While it would not have been known across the company it would have had to have been signed off on by more than a few including engineering, management and probably testing as well.
This was not done by accident. It was not done by some poor engineer asked to do the cheat on pain of losing his job. This was an intentional and premeditated fraud and it isn't the first time something like this has happened. About 15 years ago a bunch of truck manufacturers including Volvo and Caterpillar were caught doing something similar. Probably won't be the last time we see it either given the amount of money at stake. While I'm sure VW is probably going to try to throw some low level people under the figurative bus, I'd be shocked if this didn't go pretty far up the food chain. Maybe not all the way to the top but probably up to the heads of engineering and R&D at the least. I can't imagine how the engine designers and their management team wouldn't know. This stuff isn't magic and questions would be asked for which there is no satisfactory answer via software.
Snails are part of "haute cuisine".
Not everywhere. Believe it or not I had escargot in a Pizza Hut in Chengdu China about 10 years ago. We were stunned to see snails on the menu in a Pizza Hut and believe me, it wasn't haute cuisine.
Although they're not that bad really. They're just something that "sounds bad" and scare xenophobes.
This is true. It's a lot like eating clams or oysters. I think people mostly eat them for the butter or whatever else they get dipped into.
We can and we did. It was euphemistically called "The U.S. Government Relocation Facility", but it's code name was "Project Greek Island", and it was capable of sustaining a fairly large population and support staff for 30 years, in the event of a nuclear war.
Project Greek Island was a fallout bunker at the Greenbriar Hotel. It was NOT a biosphere or even close to one. It was a fallout shelter, nothing more. I have personally been in that particular bunker myself now that it is open to the public. I stayed at the hotel a few years back. It certainly wasn't designed or equipped to operate for 30 years. The facility EXISTED for 30 years of operation but it was only designed to be occupied for a relatively short time. It had enough space to have congress and the senate plus a few of the white house staff and not much more. A few hundred people maximum.