OP is stating that UL caused him to make products LESS SAFE to receive their endorsement, which is absurd. You, on the other hand, are arguing that making a product "less safe" is somehow more profitable for UL, which is patently ridiculous.
And no, I'm not "indirectly" saying that safer == more expensive, I am SAYING that "safer (whatever THAT means) increases manufactured cost", which, in my experience, is true; and I've built products both for UL and CSA approvals.
In a word: bullshit. You're presenting the notion that companies would not cut corners without a watchdog. The IDEA that a company would make a product "too safe" for UL to approve is prima facie nonsense. Yeah, we WANTED to make it more expensive, but those bastards at UL wouldn't let us". LOL. This just in: given the opportunity, people will cheat. Full stop.
Now if the European Commission only had any respect for its member nations' constitutions...
Re:Important Stuff (For the discussion)
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Carly is a woman of singular achievements. To become the single most reviled person in an industry that includes Larry Ellison, Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs requires a level of dedication to details that few of us can even aspire to, much less attain.
Sorry, "smoking leads to lung disease" isn't dismissable as religion, and simply denying it isn't 'skepticism'. The current crop of oil-company-shill climate denialists are no different than the tobacco company liars of a generation ago.
Didn't recognize the name, or the individual Wikipedia picture of him, then saw the crew photo of him with Alan Shepard, and said, "Oh, of course...". Getting old myself; probably time for my Geritol and a nap...
No, it means that if you're a member, you get to (help) write the benchmark.
CAR ANALOGY: Say you're an auto manufacturer, and your cars do 0-40 in 5 seconds, but your competitor's does it in 6. Meanwhile, their car goes 0-70 in 8 seconds, while yours takes 9. Choosing which test becomes the spec makes all the difference.
I hate to break it to you, but Intel's been cheating on benchmarks since the late 70's. There have been countless stories through the years about how their compilers and processors have detected that they're running Whetstone, or SPECmark or whatever, and done something out-of-band as a result. There have also been numerous attempts by them to game the benchmark standards themselves. Think the Volkswagon diesel cheat on steroids -- Intel is famous for it.
When you say you're buying Intel for performance, you're saying that you're really buying Intel for brand-name recognition.
I'd love to see a language as (obviously) sleazy and duplicitous as Washington/Madison Avenue English. Something completely content-free, where the real meaning is 180 degrees out of phase to what's being said.
Slashdot Mirror
Something to blame AGW on!!!!!!
C'mon, you guys, that's some funny shit! Lighten up!
Since we're being picky, you forgot the /noeverlastinggobbstopper /nometapopbottle part.
SET DEF SomeOtherVaxOnAnotherPlanet:[DriveSomebodyToldMeAbout]
Kurai arashi no yorudeshita.
Latency: it's what data craves.
Yeah, imagine having to present a passport to get into and out of a country! Soon the UK will be a scientific backwater like the US!
For those of you making up your own "atomic/nukular blow job" jokes:
STOP IT!!!
Sorry, making fun of a loser doesn't make OP a racist. Accusing him of it, however, DOES make you an idiot.
Like how they linked Kevin Bacon to Al Qaeda?
OP is stating that UL caused him to make products LESS SAFE to receive their endorsement, which is absurd. You, on the other hand, are arguing that making a product "less safe" is somehow more profitable for UL, which is patently ridiculous.
And no, I'm not "indirectly" saying that safer == more expensive, I am SAYING that "safer (whatever THAT means) increases manufactured cost", which, in my experience, is true; and I've built products both for UL and CSA approvals.
In a word: bullshit. You're presenting the notion that companies would not cut corners without a watchdog. The IDEA that a company would make a product "too safe" for UL to approve is prima facie nonsense. Yeah, we WANTED to make it more expensive, but those bastards at UL wouldn't let us". LOL. This just in: given the opportunity, people will cheat. Full stop.
...set up a Tor relay node. Easy peasy.
Now if the European Commission only had any respect for its member nations' constitutions...
Carly is a woman of singular achievements. To become the single most reviled person in an industry that includes Larry Ellison, Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs requires a level of dedication to details that few of us can even aspire to, much less attain.
Sorry, "smoking leads to lung disease" isn't dismissable as religion, and simply denying it isn't 'skepticism'. The current crop of oil-company-shill climate denialists are no different than the tobacco company liars of a generation ago.
I've been in dozens of those meetings:
Lone Idiot: "Let's make a million of them for the first run and see if anybody buys them."
Everybody else: "Let's not."
Refresh my memory, how many US launches were atop "U.S. Army" boosters again?
Didn't recognize the name, or the individual Wikipedia picture of him, then saw the crew photo of him with Alan Shepard, and said, "Oh, of course...". Getting old myself; probably time for my Geritol and a nap...
That's from The Tao of Programming or The Zen of Programming, (can't remember which) both by Geoffrey James. Lovely little books.
Yup, gasoline is currently less than 2$ at the pump. Thank $DEITY we didn't have to elect Newt Gingrich to make that happen :-P
No, it means that if you're a member, you get to (help) write the benchmark.
CAR ANALOGY: Say you're an auto manufacturer, and your cars do 0-40 in 5 seconds, but your competitor's does it in 6. Meanwhile, their car goes 0-70 in 8 seconds, while yours takes 9. Choosing which test becomes the spec makes all the difference.
I hate to break it to you, but Intel's been cheating on benchmarks since the late 70's. There have been countless stories through the years about how their compilers and processors have detected that they're running Whetstone, or SPECmark or whatever, and done something out-of-band as a result. There have also been numerous attempts by them to game the benchmark standards themselves. Think the Volkswagon diesel cheat on steroids -- Intel is famous for it.
When you say you're buying Intel for performance, you're saying that you're really buying Intel for brand-name recognition.
I'd love to see a language as (obviously) sleazy and duplicitous as Washington/Madison Avenue English. Something completely content-free, where the real meaning is 180 degrees out of phase to what's being said.
Every bit as reliable as when they say "This is only temporary...".