Further proof to support your point: the US Declaration of Independence sites as one the grievances against George III that he tried to deny the colonists their rights as "Englishmen". So obviously those rights must have been previously recognized in England, for the colonists to have assumed they had them.
Thank you, this can't be said often enough. YouTube has no problem leaving up videos from Islamists and neonazis calling for the destruction of Israel and the subjugation of women, Christians, pagans, and pretty much anyone else who doesn't follow those groups agendas. But post one video detailing what those groups believe, and your account will get turned off before you can say "Godwin".
Just goes to show that just coz you have a shed load of money, doesn't mean you have the first clue how you got it. Sure he does, you're just confusing the goal of longterm viability for Yahoo! with Icahn's goal of doubling his investments every 10 years (or whatever metric he uses). Yahoo! might be a good investment for the long haul, but Icahn isn't interested in the long haul. Come to think of it, most investors aren't.
You're already modded up pretty high, so I'll respond instead of modding again.
Here's my anecdotal experience as a user of AdWords: several years ago, I started an online store to sell tabletop games. Started with just GW stuff (Warhammer and 40k), but planned on expanding into other areas before the divorce threw a monkey wrench into the works. In any event, all of my advertising was done through Yahoo and Google's ad systems.
The results? Between the two, the store turned a profit within three months. Even though I kept the max amount per click very low (like a dime a click), I still got hundreds of clicks per day, and about 10% of those actually bought something.
Before this experience, I was like most Slashdot readers. I don't typically click on ads, so I assumed that most people don't. Turns out, they do, and they do all day long.
Anyone who tells you online advertising doesn't work has never used it themselves as a seller of a product or service.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and state that GW will do at least one of the following with Warhammer online:
Change the rules for how magic works from one version to the next.
Each time a new "world" is opened and new races are added, the most recent race will have access to skills, classes, or inventory that completely destroys everything that existed before.
The first version will let you create your own avatar with no extra fees. Later versions will require you to purchase equipment for your character directly from a "shop" run by the GW servers.
Additionally, all of your inventory will have to be visible on your character. If the other guy can't see it, it doesn't exist. Which will mean updating your character all the freakin' time.
By subscribing to White Dwarf, you'll get access to cheat codes that others won't have, allowing you to defeat opponents with ease. All in the name of driving subscriptions to their crappy magazine.
Only if your motivation for the layoff was to wreck your employee's life. Which is not the motivation behind layoffs, it's to keep the business a going concern by reducing overhead.
A more apt comparison would be the boss who makes an employee's life a living hell, driving him to quit, then actively prevents him from getting a new job, leading to the scenario you described. In that case, I'd think there probably would be civil remedies to the former employee's survivors.
Wow, I can't wait to see how the writers of The Big Bang Theory will use this new theory to move Leonard's and Penny's love story along. Maybe Sheldon will make an oblique reference to it?
Nah, wouldn't have worked. Obi Wan knew who Vader really was. He implied that with the I-don't-want-to-answer-these-questions look in the first one, and said it openly in the third.
My Answer: you are too young. Too young to actually remember when Hollywood had the ability to crank out thoughtful, meaningful, entertaining, and relevant films. Yeah, Buster Keaton and the Marx Brothers were extremely thoughtful. Not to mention Birth of a Nation, some seriously thought provoking stuff there.
Not as much of a win as keeping them in-country the entire time. Except that impoverished countries are missing another critical element to escaping poverty: capital. When their best and brightest go forth and earn lots of money, then either send it home or come back, it acts as a catalyst that can fuel further development.
Even in countries with lots of natural resources (Nigeria, for example), there's very little if any capital floating around. You can't expect someone to create a multi-billion dollar company from scratch.
I don't think Iraq or Afghanistan has much of a Navy to worry about. No, but Iran and China do. Not compared to ours, true, but both counties have submarines; China has ballistic missile subs, and Iran has torpedoes that travel over 200 mph underwater.
Even if.Net does do something similar, that's only going to apply to a given application. It won't be in play for the entire system. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Things like that are better handled in IPTABLES, or in the application itself. Those do not fall under the purview of SELinux which is about controlling access to the resource (not rate limiting or rationing out a resource). iptables would be good for killing incoming connections, but first you have to detect them. AFAIK, it doesn't provide a way to throttle connections (if it does, please share). The application itself should, but if it doesn't you can limit how much memory is available to it (which should prevent it from forking, though it can have other, unintended, consequences, as well).
You could also set net.core.rmem_max and..wmem_max to low values, preventing the TCP stack from having enough memory to handle too many connections. It would take some tweaking to find the right balance. Perhaps a better version of the same concept would be to have a script that monitors the number of established connections for a service, and when it hits some threshold starts throttling back on those settings using the/proc filesystem. Once the connections drop down, then reset them to their original settings.
To be fair to the people working in government who did help, the delays were mostly the fault of the horse judge Bush put in charge of FEMA. Once he was removed from the situation and had his duties transferred to a Coast Guard Admiral everything got working properly. So blame and his crony for the delay, but don't say no one did anything.
The Bush administration is notorious for this, and Rove a magician: imagine, they even tried to bring doubt to what the definition of 'is' is. Your troll fu is weak. Even people in comas know it was Clinton who made that famous statement, not Bush or his cronies.
The worst-case loss in the event of a total failure of a single computer is one developer's local changeset(s), but that's the exact same risk when working with a centralized system as well. A developer's uncommitted work can always be lost if precautions aren't taken. This is why you have nightly cron jobs that check in a developers work on a regular basis, before the nightly backups of the central repository kick off. It's not perfect, but it helps, and most devs get used to it pretty quickly (and are grateful for it when the inevitable hard drive crash happens on their workstation).
If you're in a highly-distributed development environment like Linux, where the developers are spread across multiple continents and have very little shared infrastructure and a high need to work independently of each other (either because of preference or because they don't want their work stalled by another undersea cable cut half a world away), then yes using a centralized VCS like Subversion is stupid.
I'd say the important differential between SVN/CVS and Git/Mercurial is the independent infrastructure. If you have thousands of developers working on a large project (or projects), spread around the world, you can still use a central repository (or maybe a collection of them) to manage source control. As long as they share a common infrastructure (eg, a WAN), it makes no difference if it's 10 guys in a start-up, or IBM working on their latest upgrade to Websphere.
Having said all that, there are tons of open source projects who use SVN for large teams of developers (Django comes to mind as one example) who have no problem using SVN for source control.
There's no reason you can't have a central "official" repository that everyone "pushes" their changes to. How is that substantially different from what the OP described?
In any event, anyone advocates distributed version control has never been responsible for protecting the work of hundreds of developers working in multiple timezones/continents. Enterprises cannot afford the cost in time and money to back up every single workstation; developers have to be given a way to sync their work, at least once a day, with a central repository that can protected against data loss.
But the department needs to spend its budget or else face cuts next year. That's understandable, but aren't there other things they can spend tax payers' money on?
Slashdot Mirror
Further proof to support your point: the US Declaration of Independence sites as one the grievances against George III that he tried to deny the colonists their rights as "Englishmen". So obviously those rights must have been previously recognized in England, for the colonists to have assumed they had them.
Thank you, this can't be said often enough. YouTube has no problem leaving up videos from Islamists and neonazis calling for the destruction of Israel and the subjugation of women, Christians, pagans, and pretty much anyone else who doesn't follow those groups agendas. But post one video detailing what those groups believe, and your account will get turned off before you can say "Godwin".
I'm sure engineers in the 40's said the same thing about computers and vacuum tubes, until solid state electronics were discovered in the 50's.
Don't assume something is impossible just because we don't know how to do it yet.
Just goes to show that just coz you have a shed load of money, doesn't mean you have the first clue how you got it. Sure he does, you're just confusing the goal of longterm viability for Yahoo! with Icahn's goal of doubling his investments every 10 years (or whatever metric he uses). Yahoo! might be a good investment for the long haul, but Icahn isn't interested in the long haul. Come to think of it, most investors aren't.
You're already modded up pretty high, so I'll respond instead of modding again.
Here's my anecdotal experience as a user of AdWords: several years ago, I started an online store to sell tabletop games. Started with just GW stuff (Warhammer and 40k), but planned on expanding into other areas before the divorce threw a monkey wrench into the works. In any event, all of my advertising was done through Yahoo and Google's ad systems.
The results? Between the two, the store turned a profit within three months. Even though I kept the max amount per click very low (like a dime a click), I still got hundreds of clicks per day, and about 10% of those actually bought something.
Before this experience, I was like most Slashdot readers. I don't typically click on ads, so I assumed that most people don't. Turns out, they do, and they do all day long.
Anyone who tells you online advertising doesn't work has never used it themselves as a seller of a product or service.
Only if your motivation for the layoff was to wreck your employee's life. Which is not the motivation behind layoffs, it's to keep the business a going concern by reducing overhead.
A more apt comparison would be the boss who makes an employee's life a living hell, driving him to quit, then actively prevents him from getting a new job, leading to the scenario you described. In that case, I'd think there probably would be civil remedies to the former employee's survivors.
Wow, I can't wait to see how the writers of The Big Bang Theory will use this new theory to move Leonard's and Penny's love story along. Maybe Sheldon will make an oblique reference to it?
I have a number to a good divorce lawyer, now that you need one. If you're interested.
Nah, wouldn't have worked. Obi Wan knew who Vader really was. He implied that with the I-don't-want-to-answer-these-questions look in the first one, and said it openly in the third.
Are you saying the kid was petrified around Natalie Portman?
Great, now I had to explain to my non-nerdy wife what the hell "rick rolling" is, so she could understand my loud outburst of laughter.
75% of IT professionals hate their children.
Even in countries with lots of natural resources (Nigeria, for example), there's very little if any capital floating around. You can't expect someone to create a multi-billion dollar company from scratch.
Even if .Net does do something similar, that's only going to apply to a given application. It won't be in play for the entire system. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Cool, thanks, I'll be sure to read through those.
You could also set net.core.rmem_max and
To be fair to the people working in government who did help, the delays were mostly the fault of the horse judge Bush put in charge of FEMA. Once he was removed from the situation and had his duties transferred to a Coast Guard Admiral everything got working properly. So blame and his crony for the delay, but don't say no one did anything.
If you're in a highly-distributed development environment like Linux, where the developers are spread across multiple continents and have very little shared infrastructure and a high need to work independently of each other (either because of preference or because they don't want their work stalled by another undersea cable cut half a world away), then yes using a centralized VCS like Subversion is stupid.
I'd say the important differential between SVN/CVS and Git/Mercurial is the independent infrastructure. If you have thousands of developers working on a large project (or projects), spread around the world, you can still use a central repository (or maybe a collection of them) to manage source control. As long as they share a common infrastructure (eg, a WAN), it makes no difference if it's 10 guys in a start-up, or IBM working on their latest upgrade to Websphere.Having said all that, there are tons of open source projects who use SVN for large teams of developers (Django comes to mind as one example) who have no problem using SVN for source control.
In any event, anyone advocates distributed version control has never been responsible for protecting the work of hundreds of developers working in multiple timezones/continents. Enterprises cannot afford the cost in time and money to back up every single workstation; developers have to be given a way to sync their work, at least once a day, with a central repository that can protected against data loss.