Have you considered the more practical reason that a public spec must be supported, it costs a lot of resources to support a public spec and Microsoft did see enough business benefits of doing so.
Gosh, so how much does it cost microsoft to maintain the Fat32 Spec? I mean it hasn't been updated in 6 years, why do they keep paying for it? What is the business benefit?
Yeah, I've considered what you said. Then considered how old NTFS is. Then considered how much further we'd be if we even had an old spec with no support - like say NTFS v3.0 which came out with Windows 2K and hasn't been updated in 6 years. I decided you were wrong.
2. Fully support NTFS so I can dual boot and not only be able to work with my linux files from linux and my windows files from windows. At least have full read-write support on NTFS so I can really be able to use it in linux.
Just to be clear here... The problem with NTFS hasn't been a religious or ideaological hurdle. Nearly all Linux advocates agree that full NTFS support would be a boon to getting more people to use Linux. Microsoft knows this. Microsoft has not made the NTFS spec freely available because it could easily undermine their dominance on the desktop.
People volunteering their time have had to painstakingly reverse-engineer the NTFS file format. This is hard. How much confidence must you have in an NTFS driver before using it? A buggy driver could wipe out not only your Linux files, but all of your windows files as well.
Progress is being made. These folks seem to have a fairly well tested set of tools for NTFS access in Linux. But I would guesstimate that Linux is at least 1 year away from solid NTFS support.
Most of the time is spent accessing memory, in order to build and manipulate the AST and other data structures. It's these near-constant memory accesses that congest the bus, and vastly reduce system performance.
Except that the most frequently used symbol table entries are maintained in cache, so the loading on the memory bus isn't as bad as you claim. Which is why on my quad core system "make -j4" is at least 3x faster than "make".
1.77 metric tons of uranium... Well, near as anyone can tell this uranium was enriched to the point of usefulness for a reactor, but not for a fissile weapon. Not just any uranium is useful for a weapon. But come on, if you're going to play the pathetic "oh could have been for a dirty bomb" card, you should have played it with this. That uranium would be thousands of times easier to put in a dirty bomb than to enrich it for a nuclear weapon.
1,000 items of radioactive materials... oh you forgot to mention most of them were for medical or industrial use. Are you saying the WMD ban should have removed high quality medical care from Iraq? Do you realize that more than 90% of the "radioactive" waste produced in this country comes from nuclear medicine?
"The Sarin Shell" - Uh, that was an IED rigged dud shell. When we speak of WMD's we're talking about known caches of materials. Using a spent, unexploded dud that was dug up and used by the insurgency doesn't count.
"The Mustard Shell" - Oh where do I begin? The filled shells, if they exist, are expected to be worthless. Mustard gas is not stable for long term storage. Oh, I see your source has an unimpeachable expert witness telling us about the effectiveness of these weapons... Republican Senator Rick Santorum. A man with absolutely impeccable impartial opinion (not).
I have heard of Judges doing this before. This is why the judicial system has an appeals court. The judge in your case denied you your constitutional right (Amendment 6) to confront your accuser (the state). Had the officer calibrated the laser? Was this model known to occasionally record brick walls moving at any speed? These are problems recorded in the past with laser speed detectors, and you had no chance to ask the officer these questions.
You had cause to appeal your case, which almost certainly would have been overturned.
Hence the wierd surges in diseases (like diabetes).
There are two reasons for the surge in diabetes:
1) We can diagnose and treat it. (used to be you just died of the disease after a couple years) 2) We're living long enough eating a carbohydrate-rich diet to get Type II diabetes.
Bring back smallpox and stop making synthetic insulin. You'll see diabetes go away, and we won't have to do anything to our food! What a great deal!
Eventually, some portion of humans will adapt to the diet and they will do okay.
Blah, blah, blah... remove your head from the sand. If the disease does not render you dead or infertile before 25, then resistance to the diet-caused-disease will at best be weakly selected for. Natural selection can only take place through reproduction. If you reproduce before you die, YOU WIN! Thanks for playing!
Okay, here's the problems with mercury correlation and autism:
1) Environmental heavy metal poisoning in children, including mercury, has been getting better over the last 100 years. We took lead out of paint, put scrubbers in coal-fired power plants, catalytic converters in cars, and made all sorts of other safety regulations. If it's vaccination, what is different about the thimerosol-containing vaccines and mercury poisoning from environmental factors?
2) Thanks to all the noise, new vaccines that do not contains thimerosol as a preservative have come on the market. There is not a sudden decline in the cases of autism among the population getting thimerosol-reduced or non-thimerosol vaccines.
Better testing was assumed to be the cause of some huge spikes in CA among geeks who had children (cue "geek disease" headlines) but was ruled out.
I'm not sure about the studies you've seen, but the ones I've seen that rule out better testing usually consist of an expert saying "oh that's just ridiculous!" and not providing any evidence to backup his claim.
You know why the field of biostatistics exists? It's because experts, and particularly medical doctors, really REALLY suck at proper experimental design and interpretation. When an expert makes a claim about a medical condition and does not provide solid evidence, treat the claim as dubious. I can give you a laundry list of claims made by experts based on their "experience" who never realized they were susceptible to confirmation bias. Linus Pauling - an expert with more accolades than any of us could hope - claimed for years, up to his death, that vitamin C protected him from the common cold. You see he never caught the cold, he only occasionally got sniffles.
Your basic CPU can issue at least two floating point calculations in parallel and/or use SIMD units to operate on vectors as large as 128 bits. So the capabilities you ascribe to a GPU are not uncommon in a CPU.
Well, yes and no. You can't use the FPU and SSE at the same time. If we consider Intel processors (which FAH is optimized for) and throw out the core microarchitectures processors, then what he said is close to correct. Each GPU shader has two dedicated ALUs, one that only multiplies and one that only adds. So you have essentially 96 ALU's each of which works on a 128bit packed array of 4 32 bit single precision floats and completes one OP per cycle. Thus that ATI card can retire single precision FLOPs/cycle.
Yonah on the other hand broke up 128bit SSE instructions into two 64 bit operations and took a good deal longer to complete. You could, on a good day, average 1 op per cycle for a total of 4 FLOPs/cycle on that core.
Both Opteron and Intel Core are capable of issuing one floating point multiply and one floating point add per cycle, but it isn't clear to me that the throughput on each of those is going to be 1 op retired per cycle (since the multiply has a larger latency).
The absolute top-of-the-line GPU option should be at least as fast as 200 mixed & matched Windows/Linux class processors for vector arithmetic.
Wait wait wait... Are you saying that you are working with UNCLASSIFIED satellite photography with a resolution of 5cm? You couldn't tell us the resolution if the imagery were classified. Satellite resolution is one of those *AHEM* types of classified info (tells our opponents what type of counter-measures to employ). You're worried about your job and you just leaked something like this? The limit of confirmed resolution, to the best of my knowledge, is 10cm. Are you SURE you're not working with aerial photography?
Dude, if they want a non-GPLd Cygwin (which is byte-for-byte identical to the GPL one, it's simply dual-licensed) then they don't want OSS products, they want proprietary software.
Not all OSS is GPL.
If they really wanted OSS, then they could use the GPLd version.
If they use the GPLd version, they must also distribute their software GPL.
Comparing XP pro to RH isn't apples to apples
Which I'm not doing. XP Pro is not a real time embedded OS.
I mean, we don't start discussing whether Santa Claus exists every time a Christmas related story pops up
Oh come on, nobody seriously questions the existence of Santa Claus. All of us gentile children receive very real, tangible evidence of his existence. This sets Santa Claus head and shoulders above characters like God, Jesus, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the FSM (pasta be upon him!). We could debate whether or not there really is a Santa Clause, but it's really a moot question. The debate would serve no purpose in the face of overwhelming evidence of Santa's continued existence.
The more interesting argument, I think, is why Santa continues to hold to medieval beliefs about the inherent superiority of the children of the aristocracy. He continues to this day to give the children of wealthy parents higher value gifts and a higher overall average number of presents. Clearly he missed the bourgeois revolution.
I don't know why I spend so much time with this, but the more I research about your case in Canada, the weaker your whole argument becomes. Much of what you say simply isn't true.
You can invest your RRSP into well performing investment vehicles, same as in the US. If you sock away 15% of your pay to one of these for 35 years, you should be able to retire purely on your RRSP. But that is nonsense in Canada. You guys offer clearly superior social benefits in retirement - 2 pensions and socialized medicine! You don't need to save nearly so much. And you can adjust your tax withholding so you don't have to play that deduction game at the end of the year. See CRA form 1213.
You need something more to support your food argument. I looked a number of weekly circulars that were online for this week for a grocer in Toronto. Specifically Loblows (I assume that is a big grocer up there, I've never been, but they seem to sell an awful lot). Your prices are on par or better than our prices.
You took a math error I made with the rainy day fund and ran with it. You don't need to save 90%, you need to save 45% (6 months of expenses, not a year). I have a rainy day fund with approximately 9 months living expenses. When life happens, I tap it. It's possible that my car could break down, the roof spring a leak and layoffs come all at the same time, but not likely. But my "laid off" expenses are substantially lower than my normal expenses. Seriously, you continue paying your "15%" into retirement while laid off? You pay your "10%" back into your rainy day fund from your rainy day fund? Even if we ignore everything else, your expenses while laid off will be 25% less than when employed. What this really amounts to is - you don't need nearly so much in that account.
Your dating-averages talk is just more nonsense. If you have to pay for an average of 104 dates a year, you aren't building a relationship, you are getting used. Get a grip, dump her, find someone else.
Not being able to sock away $6,000 a year for higher education is a poor excuse for not having children. The sort of excuse one uses when trying to rationalize something completely different (like can't have / don't want kids). A college fund is a "nice to have" not a requirement. Nothing of what you say is panning out. Being married, having kids and living comfortably is much more affordable than you claim. If you are holding off getting married and having kids until you meet this lofty income goal, you're just making excuses.
I really can't speak for Canada, but in the US here's why your argument is utter crap:
1) Much of your retirement savings is tax sheltered/deferred. Putting 15% of 33,500 into a retirement account does not mean you only have 85% of 33,500 left. It comes out pre-tax. Putting 15% of your net away reduces your gross take by about 10% (depending on tax bracket) 2) Your rainy day fund does not need to continue in perpetuity. You only need to save until you reach 90% of 33,500 (actually less because of #1 above) 3) Your food estimates are ridiculous. I feed a family of 5 healthy food for under $500/month. 4) Women do NOT require 2 dates a week every week. You sound kind of bitter on the women front. I don't know ANYBODY who maintains that sort of relationship - ESPECIALLY once you have kids. 5) You need $50/week in entertainment in addition to 2 dates? What are you doing?! 6) I know full well how much children cost. I have 3. All 3 of them together cost less than $10,000 year. 7) You get a tax break on each child. 8) Interest on a mortgage is usually tax deductible.
7 & 8 don't reduce the gross income you need, they just reduce the amount of money taken out of your net. The amount of money you need to support a family, live comfortably, and save for retirement these days is well below your estimate. I know for my wife and I, having a baby actually reduced our monthly expenses because we could no longer eat out 4+ times a week. I know this is true for many (if not all) of our friends as well.
Let's see a rough itemization on your $68,500 with a finer granularity than "dollars per person per year". I live in a metropolitan area of a couple million people in California. I have 3 kids, and my wife stays at home all day with little ones (translation: high utility bills). My gross is well below $68,500, but according to you it would need to be $78,500.
All my fixed expenses (including several hundred dollars of minimum credit card payments due to some hard times a year ago): rent, phone, internet, cell phone, sat. tv., Gasoline, natural gas, electricity, city services, student loan, 2 CCs, Food, Household items, health insurance, dental insurance, office visits/prescriptions and auto insurance come to a little over $3,100 per month. What extras would you spend $3,400 every month on that I am not? Itemize for us... Please...
In fact the summary and the write up are very confusing or even slightly wrong. According to what I took from the keynote, the architecture is something similar clearspeed which already has more than 80 parallel floating point cores.
And the error of your analogy, just as the president of Authors Guild, is this is not a criminal action. Copyright infringement is a civil matter. (Not to mention that he fails to tie how running a soup kitchen is in anyway associated with racketeering, murder or tax evasion)
If you cared to do some research, you'd find this in Google's response:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-- (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
In other words a lofty purpose does negate the crime, it's right there written into the law.
IANAL - But the guy who was, and stated somewhat curtly the facts of the matter, is essentially right (and incorrectly modded down).
A lot of you guys seem to be of the impression that a judge is like a computer and the law is a program. This just isn't so.
If you attempt to sue turnitin, their attorney is going to be up there stating that the purpose of the copying is to prevent another student from plagiarizing your work, and the only time a copy is made it is for the express purpose of verifying plagiarism. They will note that they have not prevented you from enjoying your IP in any other way. Then they are going to start rattling off a whole bunch of case law about how the law has been interpretted through the years. In fact they will probably do this in writing attached to a motion to dismiss.
You had better have a really good response to this. If the judge thinks you are trying to game the system and use the judiciary as an atm machine, the absolute best you could hope for is dismissal with prejudice.
Actually it's only a problem if your school is truly behind the times. For example, consider my alma mater's policy manual. Section III, sub-section A part 3:
Submitting work previously graded in another course unless doing so has been approved by the course instructor or by department policy.
It's considered cheating. "Self-plagiarism" is definitely a bad phrase, but the university should have had a policy specifically addressing re-submitting work from another class.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you considered the more practical reason that a public spec must be supported, it costs a lot of resources to support a public spec and Microsoft did see enough business benefits of doing so.
Gosh, so how much does it cost microsoft to maintain the Fat32 Spec? I mean it hasn't been updated in 6 years, why do they keep paying for it? What is the business benefit?
Yeah, I've considered what you said. Then considered how old NTFS is. Then considered how much further we'd be if we even had an old spec with no support - like say NTFS v3.0 which came out with Windows 2K and hasn't been updated in 6 years. I decided you were wrong.
I think I should have been clearer in that last post. I'm referring to R/W NTFS support. Read only support has been available for a while.
2. Fully support NTFS so I can dual boot and not only be able to work with my linux files from linux and my windows files from windows. At least have full read-write support on NTFS so I can really be able to use it in linux.
Just to be clear here... The problem with NTFS hasn't been a religious or ideaological hurdle. Nearly all Linux advocates agree that full NTFS support would be a boon to getting more people to use Linux. Microsoft knows this. Microsoft has not made the NTFS spec freely available because it could easily undermine their dominance on the desktop.
People volunteering their time have had to painstakingly reverse-engineer the NTFS file format. This is hard. How much confidence must you have in an NTFS driver before using it? A buggy driver could wipe out not only your Linux files, but all of your windows files as well.
Progress is being made. These folks seem to have a fairly well tested set of tools for NTFS access in Linux. But I would guesstimate that Linux is at least 1 year away from solid NTFS support.
Most of the time is spent accessing memory, in order to build and manipulate the AST and other data structures. It's these near-constant memory accesses that congest the bus, and vastly reduce system performance.
Except that the most frequently used symbol table entries are maintained in cache, so the loading on the memory bus isn't as bad as you claim. Which is why on my quad core system "make -j4" is at least 3x faster than "make".
You're absolutely right. Don't tax Sony, or they might take their company overseas. Like to Japan or something.
Gosh, so many lies, how does one find the time?
1.77 metric tons of uranium... Well, near as anyone can tell this uranium was enriched to the point of usefulness for a reactor, but not for a fissile weapon. Not just any uranium is useful for a weapon. But come on, if you're going to play the pathetic "oh could have been for a dirty bomb" card, you should have played it with this. That uranium would be thousands of times easier to put in a dirty bomb than to enrich it for a nuclear weapon.
1,000 items of radioactive materials... oh you forgot to mention most of them were for medical or industrial use. Are you saying the WMD ban should have removed high quality medical care from Iraq? Do you realize that more than 90% of the "radioactive" waste produced in this country comes from nuclear medicine?
"The Sarin Shell" - Uh, that was an IED rigged dud shell. When we speak of WMD's we're talking about known caches of materials. Using a spent, unexploded dud that was dug up and used by the insurgency doesn't count.
"The Mustard Shell" - Oh where do I begin? The filled shells, if they exist, are expected to be worthless. Mustard gas is not stable for long term storage. Oh, I see your source has an unimpeachable expert witness telling us about the effectiveness of these weapons... Republican Senator Rick Santorum. A man with absolutely impeccable impartial opinion (not).
I have heard of Judges doing this before. This is why the judicial system has an appeals court. The judge in your case denied you your constitutional right (Amendment 6) to confront your accuser (the state). Had the officer calibrated the laser? Was this model known to occasionally record brick walls moving at any speed? These are problems recorded in the past with laser speed detectors, and you had no chance to ask the officer these questions.
You had cause to appeal your case, which almost certainly would have been overturned.
Most of them died of Malaria when digging the trenches for the first Internet pipes.
Uh... I hate to burst your bubble, but... The internet is a series of tubes.
Hence the wierd surges in diseases (like diabetes).
There are two reasons for the surge in diabetes:
1) We can diagnose and treat it. (used to be you just died of the disease after a couple years)
2) We're living long enough eating a carbohydrate-rich diet to get Type II diabetes.
Bring back smallpox and stop making synthetic insulin. You'll see diabetes go away, and we won't have to do anything to our food! What a great deal!
Eventually, some portion of humans will adapt to the diet and they will do okay.
Blah, blah, blah... remove your head from the sand. If the disease does not render you dead or infertile before 25, then resistance to the diet-caused-disease will at best be weakly selected for. Natural selection can only take place through reproduction. If you reproduce before you die, YOU WIN! Thanks for playing!
Okay, here's the problems with mercury correlation and autism:
1) Environmental heavy metal poisoning in children, including mercury, has been getting better over the last 100 years. We took lead out of paint, put scrubbers in coal-fired power plants, catalytic converters in cars, and made all sorts of other safety regulations. If it's vaccination, what is different about the thimerosol-containing vaccines and mercury poisoning from environmental factors?
2) Thanks to all the noise, new vaccines that do not contains thimerosol as a preservative have come on the market. There is not a sudden decline in the cases of autism among the population getting thimerosol-reduced or non-thimerosol vaccines.
Better testing was assumed to be the cause of some huge spikes in CA among geeks who had children (cue "geek disease" headlines) but was ruled out.
I'm not sure about the studies you've seen, but the ones I've seen that rule out better testing usually consist of an expert saying "oh that's just ridiculous!" and not providing any evidence to backup his claim.
You know why the field of biostatistics exists? It's because experts, and particularly medical doctors, really REALLY suck at proper experimental design and interpretation. When an expert makes a claim about a medical condition and does not provide solid evidence, treat the claim as dubious. I can give you a laundry list of claims made by experts based on their "experience" who never realized they were susceptible to confirmation bias. Linus Pauling - an expert with more accolades than any of us could hope - claimed for years, up to his death, that vitamin C protected him from the common cold. You see he never caught the cold, he only occasionally got sniffles.
Your basic CPU can issue at least two floating point calculations in parallel and/or use SIMD units to operate on vectors as large as 128 bits. So the capabilities you ascribe to a GPU are not uncommon in a CPU.
Well, yes and no. You can't use the FPU and SSE at the same time. If we consider Intel processors (which FAH is optimized for) and throw out the core microarchitectures processors, then what he said is close to correct. Each GPU shader has two dedicated ALUs, one that only multiplies and one that only adds. So you have essentially 96 ALU's each of which works on a 128bit packed array of 4 32 bit single precision floats and completes one OP per cycle. Thus that ATI card can retire single precision FLOPs/cycle.
Yonah on the other hand broke up 128bit SSE instructions into two 64 bit operations and took a good deal longer to complete. You could, on a good day, average 1 op per cycle for a total of 4 FLOPs/cycle on that core.
Both Opteron and Intel Core are capable of issuing one floating point multiply and one floating point add per cycle, but it isn't clear to me that the throughput on each of those is going to be 1 op retired per cycle (since the multiply has a larger latency).
The absolute top-of-the-line GPU option should be at least as fast as 200 mixed & matched Windows/Linux class processors for vector arithmetic.
Ah ha! You're saying she was mad about being the understudy at a restaurant?
I never trust the kitchen staff either.
Wait wait wait... Are you saying that you are working with UNCLASSIFIED satellite photography with a resolution of 5cm? You couldn't tell us the resolution if the imagery were classified. Satellite resolution is one of those *AHEM* types of classified info (tells our opponents what type of counter-measures to employ). You're worried about your job and you just leaked something like this? The limit of confirmed resolution, to the best of my knowledge, is 10cm. Are you SURE you're not working with aerial photography?
Then they cannot use the GPL for the free version either
(I assume there's a typo in there.)
Cygwin is dual-licensed.
Dude, if they want a non-GPLd Cygwin (which is byte-for-byte identical to the GPL one, it's simply dual-licensed) then they don't want OSS products, they want proprietary software.
Not all OSS is GPL.
If they really wanted OSS, then they could use the GPLd version.
If they use the GPLd version, they must also distribute their software GPL.
Comparing XP pro to RH isn't apples to apples
Which I'm not doing. XP Pro is not a real time embedded OS.
Why would you want the $10,000 version of Cygwin when you can download and use it for free?
Because they don't want to release their software as GPL, and the free version of cygwin requires it.
If you want a commercial Linux, why not look at Redhat?
Because they want a real-time embeddable OS and that's not what RH is selling.
I mean, we don't start discussing whether Santa Claus exists every time a Christmas related story pops up
Oh come on, nobody seriously questions the existence of Santa Claus. All of us gentile children receive very real, tangible evidence of his existence. This sets Santa Claus head and shoulders above characters like God, Jesus, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the FSM (pasta be upon him!). We could debate whether or not there really is a Santa Clause, but it's really a moot question. The debate would serve no purpose in the face of overwhelming evidence of Santa's continued existence.
The more interesting argument, I think, is why Santa continues to hold to medieval beliefs about the inherent superiority of the children of the aristocracy. He continues to this day to give the children of wealthy parents higher value gifts and a higher overall average number of presents. Clearly he missed the bourgeois revolution.
I don't know why I spend so much time with this, but the more I research about your case in Canada, the weaker your whole argument becomes. Much of what you say simply isn't true.
You can invest your RRSP into well performing investment vehicles, same as in the US. If you sock away 15% of your pay to one of these for 35 years, you should be able to retire purely on your RRSP. But that is nonsense in Canada. You guys offer clearly superior social benefits in retirement - 2 pensions and socialized medicine! You don't need to save nearly so much. And you can adjust your tax withholding so you don't have to play that deduction game at the end of the year. See CRA form 1213.
You need something more to support your food argument. I looked a number of weekly circulars that were online for this week for a grocer in Toronto. Specifically Loblows (I assume that is a big grocer up there, I've never been, but they seem to sell an awful lot). Your prices are on par or better than our prices.
You took a math error I made with the rainy day fund and ran with it. You don't need to save 90%, you need to save 45% (6 months of expenses, not a year). I have a rainy day fund with approximately 9 months living expenses. When life happens, I tap it. It's possible that my car could break down, the roof spring a leak and layoffs come all at the same time, but not likely. But my "laid off" expenses are substantially lower than my normal expenses. Seriously, you continue paying your "15%" into retirement while laid off? You pay your "10%" back into your rainy day fund from your rainy day fund? Even if we ignore everything else, your expenses while laid off will be 25% less than when employed. What this really amounts to is - you don't need nearly so much in that account.
Your dating-averages talk is just more nonsense. If you have to pay for an average of 104 dates a year, you aren't building a relationship, you are getting used. Get a grip, dump her, find someone else.
Not being able to sock away $6,000 a year for higher education is a poor excuse for not having children. The sort of excuse one uses when trying to rationalize something completely different (like can't have / don't want kids). A college fund is a "nice to have" not a requirement. Nothing of what you say is panning out. Being married, having kids and living comfortably is much more affordable than you claim. If you are holding off getting married and having kids until you meet this lofty income goal, you're just making excuses.
I really can't speak for Canada, but in the US here's why your argument is utter crap:
1) Much of your retirement savings is tax sheltered/deferred. Putting 15% of 33,500 into a retirement account does not mean you only have 85% of 33,500 left. It comes out pre-tax. Putting 15% of your net away reduces your gross take by about 10% (depending on tax bracket)
2) Your rainy day fund does not need to continue in perpetuity. You only need to save until you reach 90% of 33,500 (actually less because of #1 above)
3) Your food estimates are ridiculous. I feed a family of 5 healthy food for under $500/month.
4) Women do NOT require 2 dates a week every week. You sound kind of bitter on the women front. I don't know ANYBODY who maintains that sort of relationship - ESPECIALLY once you have kids.
5) You need $50/week in entertainment in addition to 2 dates? What are you doing?!
6) I know full well how much children cost. I have 3. All 3 of them together cost less than $10,000 year.
7) You get a tax break on each child.
8) Interest on a mortgage is usually tax deductible.
7 & 8 don't reduce the gross income you need, they just reduce the amount of money taken out of your net. The amount of money you need to support a family, live comfortably, and save for retirement these days is well below your estimate. I know for my wife and I, having a baby actually reduced our monthly expenses because we could no longer eat out 4+ times a week. I know this is true for many (if not all) of our friends as well.
I call bullshit.
Let's see a rough itemization on your $68,500 with a finer granularity than "dollars per person per year". I live in a metropolitan area of a couple million people in California. I have 3 kids, and my wife stays at home all day with little ones (translation: high utility bills). My gross is well below $68,500, but according to you it would need to be $78,500.
All my fixed expenses (including several hundred dollars of minimum credit card payments due to some hard times a year ago): rent, phone, internet, cell phone, sat. tv., Gasoline, natural gas, electricity, city services, student loan, 2 CCs, Food, Household items, health insurance, dental insurance, office visits/prescriptions and auto insurance come to a little over $3,100 per month. What extras would you spend $3,400 every month on that I am not? Itemize for us... Please...
In fact the summary and the write up are very confusing or even slightly wrong. According to what I took from the keynote, the architecture is something similar clearspeed which already has more than 80 parallel floating point cores.
Your wish has been granted.
Next!
And the error of your analogy, just as the president of Authors Guild, is this is not a criminal action. Copyright infringement is a civil matter. (Not to mention that he fails to tie how running a soup kitchen is in anyway associated with racketeering, murder or tax evasion)
If you cared to do some research, you'd find this in Google's response:
In other words a lofty purpose does negate the crime, it's right there written into the law.
IANAL - But the guy who was, and stated somewhat curtly the facts of the matter, is essentially right (and incorrectly modded down).
A lot of you guys seem to be of the impression that a judge is like a computer and the law is a program. This just isn't so.
If you attempt to sue turnitin, their attorney is going to be up there stating that the purpose of the copying is to prevent another student from plagiarizing your work, and the only time a copy is made it is for the express purpose of verifying plagiarism. They will note that they have not prevented you from enjoying your IP in any other way. Then they are going to start rattling off a whole bunch of case law about how the law has been interpretted through the years. In fact they will probably do this in writing attached to a motion to dismiss.
You had better have a really good response to this. If the judge thinks you are trying to game the system and use the judiciary as an atm machine, the absolute best you could hope for is dismissal with prejudice.
It's considered cheating. "Self-plagiarism" is definitely a bad phrase, but the university should have had a policy specifically addressing re-submitting work from another class.