Oh, I don't know, I can think of plenty of examples of real life computing that would make for an interesting story. The trouble is, it would only be an interesting story if you understand the context. Trouble with that is, people that are good directors don't necessarily have the technical knowledge to grasp the context enough to present it to the layman, or the people who do understand the context don't have the directorial expertise. It is possible that a duo or team could form that covers all the necessary skills and work well enough together, but I am not sure that has happened yet in the fiction space.
Here are the real life computing examples I thought of while writing the above: * Watson and/or Deep Blue * History of Unix * History of Open Source * The Fall of Netscape * Google's architecture * History of the AI Lab * Wearable computers (gargoyles) * Any NASA project (more engineering, but the lines blur)
The one that's right in this case. That's what being rational means, that you reason through things on a case-by-case basis. Writing off an organization as evil to such a degree that when they do the right thing you face a conundrum is exactly the opposite of being rational.
Well, the honest ones. You know, the droves of people that were bullied and sued when they had done nothing wrong because the *AA likes to go on fishing expeditions. We're talking about stemming frivolous lawsuits here, not honest-to-goodness copyright infringement cases.
If the RIAA for example would follow the laws in collecting evidence, securing warrents, and then suing the case, I'd have no problem with that. But when they try to save on their costs by using the shotgun approach with flimsy "evidence" to get warrants and then hope they're right in a them versus 300 people combined suit, they're trolls.
Those actions make it obvious they're not looking to achieve justice when they've been wronged by copyright infringement but are rather angry that people stopped buying their shitty product years ago and are desperate for any source of new income.
Your second example should be the one you started with, and possibly the only one you presented. Regardless, I am not sure you know how small claims court works with regards to lawyers.
Cookies are text, you can encrypt to your hearts content, but then you need to make sure it's encoded into text or it won't come across in the header correctly. The browser then stores that value as a text file. So no, cookies are not binary, unless you mean in the sense that everything is binary.
Regardless of the amount, we're not talking about buying development software here, but for a yearly fee to install software you write on a device you own (are marketed as buying).
Sorry about the double post, I forgot to mention there is a message to break thread. It's done by not setting the reference header. Your mail user agent documentation should provide instructions on how to do that.
For better usability, the subject of the message should be just that, the subject of the message, not a thread title. A thread is a tree of messages which were replied, or referenced to another message in the thread. The fact that message X is a reply to or reference to message Y should determine inclusion in the thread, not the subject of that particular message.
Yes, in a perfect world, topics and threads would be 1:1, but the way humans communicate, they are not. For example, one topic might lead to the other. For context, having a thread of the progression of the conversation is useful, but one can also add upon that a subject to each individual message. That way, you get the best of both systems of organizing messages. The email headers already support that. There's a subject header, and there's a reference header, they do different things.
That way, if I am looking for information about A, I can search my mail, find messages with A in the subject and read those. I don't particularly care that those messages about A came from a dozen messages about B, but with threading I can read the context of how A came to be talked about if I wanted.
You do understand that companies don't always care about you-the-private-citizen's integrity.
Say you work for Wingdings Inc that makes Widgets. They're marketing department is touting a new ad campaign that focuses on the fact that the Widgets are made in Afghanistan (where you live, work, and where Windgings Inc is headquartered). You, twenty years ago purchased a Gadget and have been happily using it ever since. Gadgets were the predecessor to Widgets, are made in France, and really do everything a Widget does. Gadgets and Widgets, while fulfilling a crucial role in your life, have a gigantic environmental impact. They are also DRMed to be non-transferable, and a consumer only needs one at a time.
You feel that it would be of high integrity to not dispose of a perfectly good Gadget manufactured twenty years before Widgets Inc was even founded and purchase a new Widget because the environmental impact would be too large. Your employer feels that your photo of you with your Gadget is of the lowest integrity. Who is right?
The fact is, integrity is not an objective facet of our lives and different entities have different interpretations of it. That example might be fanciful, but there are tons of real-world examples today where integrity is argued on both sides: Wisconsin, Wikileaks are the two W ones that come to mind, to do with the Widget theme.
Um, no. Threads are determined by other headers, not the subject, in any client worth their salt. Just because Outlook threads by subject, doesn't make it proper.
My data plan costs me 0.000000015 per byte. My SMS plan costs me 0.0014 per byte. That's a ratio of 95,238:1. Are you saying that it's reasonable for the price disparity to be such, solely because I do not need a data plan and to have strong enough signal to use it? Perhaps. But then you add that the carrier will pre-install an "IM" application that uses SMS to send and receive messages rather than using a data network.
Yes, the underlying method for sending the bytes of the SMS message is different than IP. But, SMS is normal data. It's still a string of bytes. I think the argument is that the load on the network generated by SMS messages with their protocol versus the load on the network generated by IP packets with their protocal is not 50,000:1 in ratio.
I could care less what they charge to send a text message, for then I can decide whether or not the information I want to convey is worth the cost and the medium is the best one.
What I do care about is having to pay for text messages I receive. That leaves me open to large bills due out-side of my control or living with the feature at all. I haven't checked recently, but when I asked them if there was some method for me to whitelist numbers from which I wish to receive texts and block (without charge) the rest they told me no. Perhaps that's changed.
Why can't they just charge double for sending and make receiving free? That seems far more sane.
I didn't claim to have the right numbers, only that influence was completely ignored. You now claim that influence is not significant, but I'd like to point out that you have no data as to what the magnitude is in order to make that assertion. Based on my small sample size of 15 geeks I've asked, influence seems to be about 2.5 other people on average. Now, of course the geeks are not making the decisions themselves, only influencing them, and I know not what coefficient to use to adjust for that. Nonetheless, a 10k and 25k is a large margin of error based on my data, and I do not know if my data is representative or not. I guess I would argue that even if each geek only influence one other person, that's still a huge margin of error. So, no idea where you get 10k from, but I have no reason to think those numbers are right as it could be anywhere from 5k to 500k for all I know.
If you want to subjectively say "I don't think this is very relevant for X, Y, or Z reason" that's fine, but if you're going to be hard numbers on the thing, don't just make them up.
No one ever called it a Utopia either. Newsweek provides their methods in the article, and no, it's not quite the same as living there. My point only was that one person's experience living in a country is not representative. I live in the US right now, and my experience is vastly different than someone living a different life in a different part of it. I wasn't at all implying that your experience is incorrect, but only that it is one experience.
I'm sorry, did anyone ever say Cuba was a better place to live? Cuba came up as an answer to where to move to if one did not want to live in the US. It was one of many options provided, specifically to give the list some more diversity than Scandanavia or the Alps.
I have no idea if your number is accurate or not as you provide no data, but it does not seem you take into account that a geek who reads article such as these generally has the power to influence purchasing decisions for more than just him or herself.
You could be absolutely right that all that data if propaganda, but if we're not going to use any data at all due to our inability to verify it personally (at least I can't), that doesn't mean we should resort to single data points either. Again, I'm not saying it's paradise there and no one ever gets sick and there are no health problems or systemic problems at all, but it certainly isn't nearly as bad as the US would have you think.
The report reads practically like many other countries, better than a good portion of them. Comparing with the US, despite having lower infant mortality rates, lower adult mortality rates, the same life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, lower incommunicable disease death rates, lower injury death rates, they spend 1/20th per capita to achieve that.
Rank of Cuba in various categories: Education 20th Health 29th Quality of Life 32nd Economic Dynamism 72nd Political Environment 92nd
Granted, of course the study is not perfect; it does not for example weight income disparity and many of the measures are relative to middle income. They do have a section in the full feature describing their methods. While your account certainly is horrific; I'm not saying it's paradise, but I am not sure it's quite the hell you paint.
I don't know, but it seems reasonable to me that if you consent to something then the person performing the search is not violating your right to unreasonable searches. I mean, it's a pretty reasonable search if the searchee agrees to it, no? Now, having to consent to a search in order to use modern travel options is a whole other game
You're right I misspoke. I started the sentence saying they differ and then lumped the aspects together. Cuba does not have great political or personal freedoms but they have very high quality of life, education, and health care. Switzerland also doesn't have as much personal freedom as the others, as they enjoy a very broad democracy and hence communal freedom. Witness their recent outlawing of minarets. They do however, highly value their privacy and vote that way. The Scandinavian countries also have their quirks. My list was merely a suggestion of places to look into and evaluate for oneself. I concede that perhaps Cuba shouldn't be on the list, I wanted its inclusion to highlight that even places USians are told do everything wrong do surpass the US in some areas (health care, education, quality of life for some metrics).
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I don't know, I can think of plenty of examples of real life computing that would make for an interesting story. The trouble is, it would only be an interesting story if you understand the context. Trouble with that is, people that are good directors don't necessarily have the technical knowledge to grasp the context enough to present it to the layman, or the people who do understand the context don't have the directorial expertise. It is possible that a duo or team could form that covers all the necessary skills and work well enough together, but I am not sure that has happened yet in the fiction space.
Here are the real life computing examples I thought of while writing the above:
* Watson and/or Deep Blue
* History of Unix
* History of Open Source
* The Fall of Netscape
* Google's architecture
* History of the AI Lab
* Wearable computers (gargoyles)
* Any NASA project (more engineering, but the lines blur)
The one that's right in this case. That's what being rational means, that you reason through things on a case-by-case basis. Writing off an organization as evil to such a degree that when they do the right thing you face a conundrum is exactly the opposite of being rational.
Well, the honest ones. You know, the droves of people that were bullied and sued when they had done nothing wrong because the *AA likes to go on fishing expeditions. We're talking about stemming frivolous lawsuits here, not honest-to-goodness copyright infringement cases.
If the RIAA for example would follow the laws in collecting evidence, securing warrents, and then suing the case, I'd have no problem with that. But when they try to save on their costs by using the shotgun approach with flimsy "evidence" to get warrants and then hope they're right in a them versus 300 people combined suit, they're trolls.
Those actions make it obvious they're not looking to achieve justice when they've been wronged by copyright infringement but are rather angry that people stopped buying their shitty product years ago and are desperate for any source of new income.
Your second example should be the one you started with, and possibly the only one you presented. Regardless, I am not sure you know how small claims court works with regards to lawyers.
Cookies are text, you can encrypt to your hearts content, but then you need to make sure it's encoded into text or it won't come across in the header correctly. The browser then stores that value as a text file. So no, cookies are not binary, unless you mean in the sense that everything is binary.
Wait, one can install software one writes on one's phone without paying Apple or jailbreaking one's phone?
Regardless of the amount, we're not talking about buying development software here, but for a yearly fee to install software you write on a device you own (are marketed as buying).
Sorry about the double post, I forgot to mention there is a message to break thread. It's done by not setting the reference header. Your mail user agent documentation should provide instructions on how to do that.
For better usability, the subject of the message should be just that, the subject of the message, not a thread title. A thread is a tree of messages which were replied, or referenced to another message in the thread. The fact that message X is a reply to or reference to message Y should determine inclusion in the thread, not the subject of that particular message.
Yes, in a perfect world, topics and threads would be 1:1, but the way humans communicate, they are not. For example, one topic might lead to the other. For context, having a thread of the progression of the conversation is useful, but one can also add upon that a subject to each individual message. That way, you get the best of both systems of organizing messages. The email headers already support that. There's a subject header, and there's a reference header, they do different things.
That way, if I am looking for information about A, I can search my mail, find messages with A in the subject and read those. I don't particularly care that those messages about A came from a dozen messages about B, but with threading I can read the context of how A came to be talked about if I wanted.
I fail at not editing.
The environmental impact from the Widgets and Gadgets is from their manufacture. They have identical footprints while in service.
You do understand that companies don't always care about you-the-private-citizen's integrity.
Say you work for Wingdings Inc that makes Widgets. They're marketing department is touting a new ad campaign that focuses on the fact that the Widgets are made in Afghanistan (where you live, work, and where Windgings Inc is headquartered). You, twenty years ago purchased a Gadget and have been happily using it ever since. Gadgets were the predecessor to Widgets, are made in France, and really do everything a Widget does. Gadgets and Widgets, while fulfilling a crucial role in your life, have a gigantic environmental impact. They are also DRMed to be non-transferable, and a consumer only needs one at a time.
You feel that it would be of high integrity to not dispose of a perfectly good Gadget manufactured twenty years before Widgets Inc was even founded and purchase a new Widget because the environmental impact would be too large. Your employer feels that your photo of you with your Gadget is of the lowest integrity. Who is right?
The fact is, integrity is not an objective facet of our lives and different entities have different interpretations of it. That example might be fanciful, but there are tons of real-world examples today where integrity is argued on both sides: Wisconsin, Wikileaks are the two W ones that come to mind, to do with the Widget theme.
I wish I had mod points today. I always get them on days when all the stories are uninteresting.
Um, no. Threads are determined by other headers, not the subject, in any client worth their salt. Just because Outlook threads by subject, doesn't make it proper.
My data plan costs me 0.000000015 per byte. My SMS plan costs me 0.0014 per byte. That's a ratio of 95,238:1. Are you saying that it's reasonable for the price disparity to be such, solely because I do not need a data plan and to have strong enough signal to use it? Perhaps. But then you add that the carrier will pre-install an "IM" application that uses SMS to send and receive messages rather than using a data network.
Yes, the underlying method for sending the bytes of the SMS message is different than IP. But, SMS is normal data. It's still a string of bytes. I think the argument is that the load on the network generated by SMS messages with their protocol versus the load on the network generated by IP packets with their protocal is not 50,000:1 in ratio.
I could care less what they charge to send a text message, for then I can decide whether or not the information I want to convey is worth the cost and the medium is the best one.
What I do care about is having to pay for text messages I receive. That leaves me open to large bills due out-side of my control or living with the feature at all. I haven't checked recently, but when I asked them if there was some method for me to whitelist numbers from which I wish to receive texts and block (without charge) the rest they told me no. Perhaps that's changed.
Why can't they just charge double for sending and make receiving free? That seems far more sane.
Now you are starting to understand why people aren't overly fond of the telecommunications companies Stateside.
I didn't claim to have the right numbers, only that influence was completely ignored. You now claim that influence is not significant, but I'd like to point out that you have no data as to what the magnitude is in order to make that assertion. Based on my small sample size of 15 geeks I've asked, influence seems to be about 2.5 other people on average. Now, of course the geeks are not making the decisions themselves, only influencing them, and I know not what coefficient to use to adjust for that. Nonetheless, a 10k and 25k is a large margin of error based on my data, and I do not know if my data is representative or not. I guess I would argue that even if each geek only influence one other person, that's still a huge margin of error. So, no idea where you get 10k from, but I have no reason to think those numbers are right as it could be anywhere from 5k to 500k for all I know.
If you want to subjectively say "I don't think this is very relevant for X, Y, or Z reason" that's fine, but if you're going to be hard numbers on the thing, don't just make them up.
No one ever called it a Utopia either. Newsweek provides their methods in the article, and no, it's not quite the same as living there. My point only was that one person's experience living in a country is not representative. I live in the US right now, and my experience is vastly different than someone living a different life in a different part of it. I wasn't at all implying that your experience is incorrect, but only that it is one experience.
I'm sorry, did anyone ever say Cuba was a better place to live? Cuba came up as an answer to where to move to if one did not want to live in the US. It was one of many options provided, specifically to give the list some more diversity than Scandanavia or the Alps.
I have no idea if your number is accurate or not as you provide no data, but it does not seem you take into account that a geek who reads article such as these generally has the power to influence purchasing decisions for more than just him or herself.
I got my information from the WHO survey of their health and health care. http://www.who.int/gho/countries/cub.pdf
You could be absolutely right that all that data if propaganda, but if we're not going to use any data at all due to our inability to verify it personally (at least I can't), that doesn't mean we should resort to single data points either. Again, I'm not saying it's paradise there and no one ever gets sick and there are no health problems or systemic problems at all, but it certainly isn't nearly as bad as the US would have you think.
The report reads practically like many other countries, better than a good portion of them. Comparing with the US, despite having lower infant mortality rates, lower adult mortality rates, the same life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, lower incommunicable disease death rates, lower injury death rates, they spend 1/20th per capita to achieve that.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html
Rank of Cuba in various categories:
Education 20th
Health 29th
Quality of Life 32nd
Economic Dynamism 72nd
Political Environment 92nd
Granted, of course the study is not perfect; it does not for example weight income disparity and many of the measures are relative to middle income. They do have a section in the full feature describing their methods. While your account certainly is horrific; I'm not saying it's paradise, but I am not sure it's quite the hell you paint.
I don't know, but it seems reasonable to me that if you consent to something then the person performing the search is not violating your right to unreasonable searches. I mean, it's a pretty reasonable search if the searchee agrees to it, no? Now, having to consent to a search in order to use modern travel options is a whole other game
You're right I misspoke. I started the sentence saying they differ and then lumped the aspects together. Cuba does not have great political or personal freedoms but they have very high quality of life, education, and health care. Switzerland also doesn't have as much personal freedom as the others, as they enjoy a very broad democracy and hence communal freedom. Witness their recent outlawing of minarets. They do however, highly value their privacy and vote that way. The Scandinavian countries also have their quirks. My list was merely a suggestion of places to look into and evaluate for oneself. I concede that perhaps Cuba shouldn't be on the list, I wanted its inclusion to highlight that even places USians are told do everything wrong do surpass the US in some areas (health care, education, quality of life for some metrics).