C is faster, and I have no reason to doubt your figures for applications that are written entirely in compiled low level languages. Are you factoring in the amount of work done by mySQL? I expect that's actually a fair chunk of the CPU time and I believe that is written in C.
And that's where the "better" analogy fails. If you were to take my cellphone away because I was drunk, I'd be grateful when sober even though you had technically stolen from me. If you were to take it away because I was stupid, that's theft, because you are in no position to make the decision for me.
I just see the conclusion as backwards. Why do the police have the right to search an address book without a warrant? Doesn't that violate the 4th amendment?
I have no problem with allowing people to be stupid if it only endangers themselves. However, in the case of drink driving, or driving while distracted by a mobile phone other people get killed or injured through no fault of their own.
He's an employee! Not a slave. He's coming to a contractual arrangement to work for the employer in return for a salary, not to obey every little whim of the employer.
There are certain rights you can't sign away. Not sure whether this is one of them but were I an employer, I'd be very wary of looking at anything that I might reasonably expect would violate the employee's privacy.
It seems fairly sensible to me that a judge shouldn't hear a case where one side is represented by a close friend, and should disqualify himself immediately. I'm sure there are plenty of judges. If they're friends on facebook this policy should still apply.
Microsoft has plenty of skill and there's nothing from stopping them from buying it.
What Google is doing isn't so much of a concern as what they might do in the future. Their CEO clearly considers anything that I send to them to be public information. I'm not sure I agree with this policy.
While we may or may not have done something wrong, this most likely will not be revealed by our search histories. I like privacy because I enjoy my privacy. That's all there is too it. Why do I need to want to hide something so Google doesn't know about it?
I'm sick of Google. Is there an alternative search engine that might have some concept of privacy rights?
I assume sailors know the risk of being captured by pirates, and are briefed on company policy on ransom payments before they approach pirate infested waters.
So, out of interest, would you tell the sailors beforehand that you will kill them if they get captured by pirates, or would you only hire crew who were willing to lay down their life for your future profitability or would you wait for crew who didn't ask what your policy is?
Well, I guess this is just the prisoners' dilemma. She has no idea whether they'll pay. However if they don't nobody will invest in pirates ever again. If they do then she'll have established that they are trustworthy and it's in the pirates' interests to pay up if they ever want any more money.
The first payment is the highest risk. Has potential for huge rewards.
Doubt it, but the problem is if you want to get through there to get to Somalia.
Box up the weapons on one side, transport them by ground to the other side, unload back onto the ship. I think you can drive the Panama Canal route faster then it takes a ship to go through it because cars don't have to deal with the canal locks.?
How do you get them to the ground though? We've established that many countries have these issues with weapons entering their national waters. They tend to have even more issues with weapons actually being unloaded.
The government is still be far the most obvious candidate. The messages would need a lot of trawling for something that might be useful. For businesses the information would be out of date in a few days. For law enforcement the information could potentially be useful for several months. It's not certain but I'd say the likelihood of this being the government is greater than the collective likelihood of everyone else.
Then burn it for fucking firewood and keep yourself warm.
And be warm while you starve to death? Or you can use it for piracy and not starve to death.
Having received the shitty end of the stick, even the REALLY shitty end, is not an excuse for their actions. It is possible to have pity for someone yet still hold them accountable - why have we forgotten that?
But it makes no difference whether it's an excuse or not. If they don't see any other choice they're going to become pirates. Why do you expect them to give a stuff about morality? It's a simple economic decision. Die of starvation or risk death as a pirate. The risk of death isn't going to deter them until it becomes more certain than starvation.
Another question - if the ONLY option faced by ALL the fishermen in Somalia is piracy, why are they not all doing it? Perhaps there are other options than piracy - others seem to have chosen not to take to the high seas.
Good question. And one the international community should be looking into. I really doubt Somalians and those along the Nigerian Delta have lower inherent morality than their neighbouring countries. There's a reason they're going into piracy Deal with the problems and everybody wins.
If you are in the territorial waters of a foreign country you are subject to their laws and some places take a fairly dim view of killing another person even in self defense. Especially if you are not a citizen of that country and the (alleged) pirate is a citizen.
Somalia has no functioning government.
But other nations do. They might actually take a dim view of murder. and to foreigners bringing guns in.
However, the risk of being blown in to a fine pink mist might deter me.
Okay. What are your other options? Fishing? The illegal foreign governments are doing nothing to prevent large industrial trawlers from overfishing in your area. Unlikely you'll catch enough to survive. Farming? Well, I'm sure the local "government" will make sure you almost have enough to eat. Setting up a business? That needs capital. Most of these people can't even afford shoes. The boat is worthless for purposes other than piracy.
I don't know the situation well enough to comment (and I doubt that you do, either). However, you also seem to skip something: if one enters piracy - the use of deadly force to steal stuff - one is explicitly accepting the risks that go along with it: death induced by those who fight back.
Well said.
I think when you take a life of piracy, the risk of death is pretty much a given. I think the alternative though is that if you don't resort to piracy then you'll starve. I am aware that the situation is complicated. There are certainly reasons that Somalians have resorted to piracy when many other nations haven't. Poverty is a factor but with other nations dumping toxic waste and over fishing, and suffering no legal repercussions, piracy must seem a pretty obvious means to survival. When there clearly is no law being enforced, and the locals are suffering as a result, I can't really say I blame them for breaking the law. The international community would do well to put at least some of their effort into dealing with their own criminals.
It's an indication that they don't care that much about their employees. If someone in management called me an IT guy I'd assume they simply have no idea what I do for a job. I'd feel a little undervalues that they thought what I did was exactly the same as what the guy who set up the network did and what the database admin did.
Maybe they do care and I'm reading too much into this, but a lot of other people will as well.
The movie studios need to put up with the piracy or leave the industry. People like to get free stuff. They can get free stuff. But it seems it's possible to make money even when this happens. Perhaps you should try that. Or not. Someone else will work out a way.
The plain truth of the matter is that it isn't the ISP's problem. The problem belongs to the person who is harmed. Maybe it shouldn't but the world simply isn't fair like that.
But the license for the software says "if you aren't happy with this, return the software for a full refund."
Well, it depends on the version. The retail version of XP home says that. XP Pro says return the product. The OEM version of XP home says return the software but adds the proviso that you have to do so in accordance with the manufacturer's return policy which may indeed only have provision for returning the entire product.
It would be like buying a car and the tires said "these tires will not work off road (including gravel roads and dirt roads)" and that restriction wasn't told to you until after you pay for the car. But, you have the option to return the tires for a full refund and get whatever other ones you want. Does that mean that if you bought the car, you should ignore that option, and if you don't like the tires, then return the whole car? After all, returning something when instructed to return it if you don't want it is somehow a bad thing.
Well, if it said that you had to do in in accordance with the manufacturer's return policy and the manufacturer only offered the option of returning the car then I fail to see the difference. Or for that matter the point of the analogy?
Slashdot Mirror
C is faster, and I have no reason to doubt your figures for applications that are written entirely in compiled low level languages. Are you factoring in the amount of work done by mySQL? I expect that's actually a fair chunk of the CPU time and I believe that is written in C.
And that's where the "better" analogy fails. If you were to take my cellphone away because I was drunk, I'd be grateful when sober even though you had technically stolen from me. If you were to take it away because I was stupid, that's theft, because you are in no position to make the decision for me.
I just see the conclusion as backwards. Why do the police have the right to search an address book without a warrant? Doesn't that violate the 4th amendment?
hrm...
Are you suggesting that the managers are drunk?
I have no problem with allowing people to be stupid if it only endangers themselves. However, in the case of drink driving, or driving while distracted by a mobile phone other people get killed or injured through no fault of their own.
He's an employee! Not a slave. He's coming to a contractual arrangement to work for the employer in return for a salary, not to obey every little whim of the employer.
There are certain rights you can't sign away. Not sure whether this is one of them but were I an employer, I'd be very wary of looking at anything that I might reasonably expect would violate the employee's privacy.
It seems fairly sensible to me that a judge shouldn't hear a case where one side is represented by a close friend, and should disqualify himself immediately. I'm sure there are plenty of judges. If they're friends on facebook this policy should still apply.
Microsoft has plenty of skill and there's nothing from stopping them from buying it.
What Google is doing isn't so much of a concern as what they might do in the future. Their CEO clearly considers anything that I send to them to be public information. I'm not sure I agree with this policy.
Me, and just about everyone else I know.
While we may or may not have done something wrong, this most likely will not be revealed by our search histories. I like privacy because I enjoy my privacy. That's all there is too it. Why do I need to want to hide something so Google doesn't know about it?
I'm sick of Google. Is there an alternative search engine that might have some concept of privacy rights?
People like you are worse than Hatler!
Uhm... Because it kicks ass and already has a great image without investing time and money in it?
I assume sailors know the risk of being captured by pirates, and are briefed on company policy on ransom payments before they approach pirate infested waters.
So, out of interest, would you tell the sailors beforehand that you will kill them if they get captured by pirates, or would you only hire crew who were willing to lay down their life for your future profitability or would you wait for crew who didn't ask what your policy is?
Well, I guess this is just the prisoners' dilemma. She has no idea whether they'll pay. However if they don't nobody will invest in pirates ever again. If they do then she'll have established that they are trustworthy and it's in the pirates' interests to pay up if they ever want any more money.
The first payment is the highest risk. Has potential for huge rewards.
Doubt it, but the problem is if you want to get through there to get to Somalia.
How do you get them to the ground though? We've established that many countries have these issues with weapons entering their national waters. They tend to have even more issues with weapons actually being unloaded.
How do you propose going through the Panama canal or English Channel? You're entering national waters and leaving in a different place.
The government is still be far the most obvious candidate. The messages would need a lot of trawling for something that might be useful. For businesses the information would be out of date in a few days. For law enforcement the information could potentially be useful for several months. It's not certain but I'd say the likelihood of this being the government is greater than the collective likelihood of everyone else.
But other nations do. They might actually take a dim view of murder. and to foreigners bringing guns in.
However, the risk of being blown in to a fine pink mist might deter me.
Okay. What are your other options? Fishing? The illegal foreign governments are doing nothing to prevent large industrial trawlers from overfishing in your area. Unlikely you'll catch enough to survive. Farming? Well, I'm sure the local "government" will make sure you almost have enough to eat. Setting up a business? That needs capital. Most of these people can't even afford shoes. The boat is worthless for purposes other than piracy.
I don't know the situation well enough to comment (and I doubt that you do, either). However, you also seem to skip something: if one enters piracy - the use of deadly force to steal stuff - one is explicitly accepting the risks that go along with it: death induced by those who fight back.
Well said.
I think when you take a life of piracy, the risk of death is pretty much a given. I think the alternative though is that if you don't resort to piracy then you'll starve. I am aware that the situation is complicated. There are certainly reasons that Somalians have resorted to piracy when many other nations haven't. Poverty is a factor but with other nations dumping toxic waste and over fishing, and suffering no legal repercussions, piracy must seem a pretty obvious means to survival. When there clearly is no law being enforced, and the locals are suffering as a result, I can't really say I blame them for breaking the law. The international community would do well to put at least some of their effort into dealing with their own criminals.
It's an indication that they don't care that much about their employees. If someone in management called me an IT guy I'd assume they simply have no idea what I do for a job. I'd feel a little undervalues that they thought what I did was exactly the same as what the guy who set up the network did and what the database admin did.
Maybe they do care and I'm reading too much into this, but a lot of other people will as well.
And that is certainly a problem, but it's not a problem for the pirate groups or for the ISP. It's a problem for the creators of original content.
The movie studios need to put up with the piracy or leave the industry. People like to get free stuff. They can get free stuff. But it seems it's possible to make money even when this happens. Perhaps you should try that. Or not. Someone else will work out a way.
The plain truth of the matter is that it isn't the ISP's problem. The problem belongs to the person who is harmed. Maybe it shouldn't but the world simply isn't fair like that.
But the license for the software says "if you aren't happy with this, return the software for a full refund."
Well, it depends on the version. The retail version of XP home says that. XP Pro says return the product. The OEM version of XP home says return the software but adds the proviso that you have to do so in accordance with the manufacturer's return policy which may indeed only have provision for returning the entire product.
It would be like buying a car and the tires said "these tires will not work off road (including gravel roads and dirt roads)" and that restriction wasn't told to you until after you pay for the car. But, you have the option to return the tires for a full refund and get whatever other ones you want. Does that mean that if you bought the car, you should ignore that option, and if you don't like the tires, then return the whole car? After all, returning something when instructed to return it if you don't want it is somehow a bad thing.
Well, if it said that you had to do in in accordance with the manufacturer's return policy and the manufacturer only offered the option of returning the car then I fail to see the difference. Or for that matter the point of the analogy?