I agree. I'm wondering what's so different from her 'most painstaking ways possible' than what the rest of those in her field did? It's very common for the majority of the students in the field to struggle to understand concepts, references and information. That's why we go to school; we don't go to school to be told things we already know.
In the first instance, this will help departments to do something as simple as share documents with each other more easily.
If they are currently running MS Office, how would switching to OpenOffice help share documents with each other? The same 'difficulties' of moving a file from one computer to another still exist.
http://consortiumnews.com/2014... is an interesting read. The authors though, do need some practice at diplomatic writing; it would be easier to take seriously if the snide remarks weren't snuck in there.
This is a story about how 'real' people hate secure things. Nerds are all about creating encryption and security that requires knowing a secret key. Real world people deal with the fact that they forget secret keys, and want companies to restore their data for them. So for companies to keep customers, they have to create workarounds for the secret keys.
As a result the only way to for sure secure something, is to not depend upon companies who have 'real' people for customers.
They could have chosen a digital broadcast TV standard that was backwards-compatible with the older signalling system. It existed. It was one of the choices.
Instead they went with a brand-new protocol, that made all old TVs obsolete, unless they bought an expensive converter box and antenna. The result? Relatively few people in the U.S. watch broadcast TV anymore. Instead they pay outrageous fees for cable.
There really wasn't a surge in cable subscribers leading up to the switch to digital in the US. Probably one of the reasons why they could pull off the switch is because of the fact that the vast majority of households have a pay for TV service, which wouldn't be affected by the switch.
So we have a service that the users aren't for whatever reason will to pay enough to support. That sounds to me like a service that wasn't worth the bother, at least being run by the Provo government.
Exactly. If businesses looked at the market and say 'we couldn't get enough customers to pay for the service' the business doesn't invest in that project, and that's exactly what happened here. Businesses didn't do it, but the city did. But the city didn't act like a government (ie. tax everyone because it benefits everyone/majority), it acted like a business in a venture that business felt was too risky to take on.
To sum it up, Provo gave up millions of dollars a year in revenue for the opportunity to have Google come to town and charge them for the same Internet that they already had for free while simultaneously offending all business owners by kicking them off the network and sticking them with the bill.
Provo was caught between two right wing ideals, being pro business/growth and being anti government. Provo knew that a fiber network in the city would make the city more appealing to businesses and residences. Enough people were excited about business and growth opportunities in it that they were able to get a bond passed to build the network. But, the only way to appease the anti-government folks was to not increase taxes on the population and only have customers pay back the bond. The anti-government folks remember how big bad government forced sewage lines, paved roads, electricity and phone lines on them (or their parents), and they sure weren't going to let government fool them one more time.
Who in hell thought it was a good idea to use a system where a single piece of information, consisting of just a few bytes, gives someone a blank check to my bank account?
Someone trying to lower the costs of moving money around. The system currently has one big important factor to it, and that's the fact that if anybody tries to break the trust of the big players, the big players won't let them back into the system. So they can have as little security as possible, because of the belief that the desire to continue to do business with the big players will keep everybody in check.
I try to avoid taking anything if I can and usually find that a 4-6 hour nap, with an extra blanket, a shower afterwards, and clean bedding will take care of whatever bug I happen to have in less than 24 hours.
My wife on the other hand has a pharmacy on her nightstand and when she gets a bug, which is much more often than I do, it also lasts longer.
Bandwidth is not a limited resource in the same way.
A lot of hardware is pretty dynamic these days. If only a little bit of data is coming across they switch to lower power settings, but if lots of data is coming across they'll switch to higher power consumption settings. So the more data that gets moved around the more electricity is going to be consumed.
I, personally, like the idea of paying for what you use. Provided that there is competition. Otherwise the "average" will keep dropping as people try to limit their expenses and the price will keep creeping up.
Even with no competition, isn't it better than a monopoly over charging the majority, to subsidize the few large consumers?
If he was a little bit older the news wouldn't be reporting the age. The age is just creating a bias where there doesn't need to be one. It's just playing on a certain group of peoples fears that all young people are out to get them. It probably stems from guilt about how they find certain people achieving more in life than they did, and at first you could handle that because they were older. But then as they got older the achievers became younger and they never learnt how to cope with that.
How about no parties? At least not as they exist now as legally ingrained parts of the electoral process. As factions the two parties have been more concerned with control of turf and spending to perpetuate the interests of their whatever constituencies keep them in power.
I think that there should still be parties, because a group of people should be able to find common ground and agree on things. The issue is that we vote for the representatives of a party. If instead a subset of issues was chosen to reflect important issues of the day, and the parties had to pick how they felt about each, and then we voted on how we felt about the issues, and the winner was the party with the closest approximation of the peoples desires; it would create incentives for there to be lots of parties.
Something happened to make him change his mind. Was he corrupted by power? Are the monied interests that powerful that they made him deny what he'd been teaching for years? Or is there something else afoot?
I think what happened is at the end of his first security briefing, he realized that he was actually responsible for a lot of bad situations and had a new stark view of reality.
the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
Given that my ignorance has equal rights before the law as your knowledge (at least when it comes to voting), is there a 'good' solution to the problem?
Or, every nation building new nuclear weapons could maybe scrap the idea and work on space exploration, fusion power, renewable food production, anagathics, or a hundred other good ideas that might actually be of some use instead of a one-time "End it all in case of national butthurt" button.
Great idea, then my country with our nuclear weapons can come it and steal your advancements.
I knew a guy who was an elevator repairman. His wife did her best to not watch movies with him where there was ever anything involving an elevator shaft because the movies always get it wrong. Typically the hero will enter a well lit elevator shaft; as someone who was constantly dealing with how they're not always well lit it bugged him to no end.
Need to update firmware? Have the IT guy at each store do it manually.
Wait, what? That's exactly the opposite of how a large shop runs their operations. You create an image that you want applied to all machines that match a certain profile, and then let the machines do the updates at a preconfigured time.
Slashdot Mirror
Nearly every time I do cross platform testing, it is Firefox-yup, Safari-yup, Chrome-yup, IE-NOPE.
Is that always with the latest versions of those browsers, or the versions which were around when IE 7 was launched?
I agree. I'm wondering what's so different from her 'most painstaking ways possible' than what the rest of those in her field did? It's very common for the majority of the students in the field to struggle to understand concepts, references and information. That's why we go to school; we don't go to school to be told things we already know.
In the first instance, this will help departments to do something as simple as share documents with each other more easily.
If they are currently running MS Office, how would switching to OpenOffice help share documents with each other? The same 'difficulties' of moving a file from one computer to another still exist.
http://consortiumnews.com/2014... is an interesting read. The authors though, do need some practice at diplomatic writing; it would be easier to take seriously if the snide remarks weren't snuck in there.
This is a story about how 'real' people hate secure things. Nerds are all about creating encryption and security that requires knowing a secret key. Real world people deal with the fact that they forget secret keys, and want companies to restore their data for them. So for companies to keep customers, they have to create workarounds for the secret keys.
As a result the only way to for sure secure something, is to not depend upon companies who have 'real' people for customers.
They could have chosen a digital broadcast TV standard that was backwards-compatible with the older signalling system. It existed. It was one of the choices. Instead they went with a brand-new protocol, that made all old TVs obsolete, unless they bought an expensive converter box and antenna. The result? Relatively few people in the U.S. watch broadcast TV anymore. Instead they pay outrageous fees for cable.
There really wasn't a surge in cable subscribers leading up to the switch to digital in the US. Probably one of the reasons why they could pull off the switch is because of the fact that the vast majority of households have a pay for TV service, which wouldn't be affected by the switch.
I still think it's ridiculous that BSkyB won, given the fact that they don't have a SkyDrive.
*we have*
Evolutionists want to teach evolution because they don't like religion.
No, that's wrong. Evolutionists want evolution taught because it is the best explanation was have for observed and verified facts.
So we have a service that the users aren't for whatever reason will to pay enough to support. That sounds to me like a service that wasn't worth the bother, at least being run by the Provo government.
Exactly. If businesses looked at the market and say 'we couldn't get enough customers to pay for the service' the business doesn't invest in that project, and that's exactly what happened here. Businesses didn't do it, but the city did. But the city didn't act like a government (ie. tax everyone because it benefits everyone/majority), it acted like a business in a venture that business felt was too risky to take on.
To sum it up, Provo gave up millions of dollars a year in revenue for the opportunity to have Google come to town and charge them for the same Internet that they already had for free while simultaneously offending all business owners by kicking them off the network and sticking them with the bill.
Provo was caught between two right wing ideals, being pro business/growth and being anti government. Provo knew that a fiber network in the city would make the city more appealing to businesses and residences. Enough people were excited about business and growth opportunities in it that they were able to get a bond passed to build the network. But, the only way to appease the anti-government folks was to not increase taxes on the population and only have customers pay back the bond. The anti-government folks remember how big bad government forced sewage lines, paved roads, electricity and phone lines on them (or their parents), and they sure weren't going to let government fool them one more time.
Who in hell thought it was a good idea to use a system where a single piece of information, consisting of just a few bytes, gives someone a blank check to my bank account?
Someone trying to lower the costs of moving money around. The system currently has one big important factor to it, and that's the fact that if anybody tries to break the trust of the big players, the big players won't let them back into the system. So they can have as little security as possible, because of the belief that the desire to continue to do business with the big players will keep everybody in check.
I try to avoid taking anything if I can and usually find that a 4-6 hour nap, with an extra blanket, a shower afterwards, and clean bedding will take care of whatever bug I happen to have in less than 24 hours.
My wife on the other hand has a pharmacy on her nightstand and when she gets a bug, which is much more often than I do, it also lasts longer.
Yeah, what's up with that?
Bandwidth is not a limited resource in the same way.
A lot of hardware is pretty dynamic these days. If only a little bit of data is coming across they switch to lower power settings, but if lots of data is coming across they'll switch to higher power consumption settings. So the more data that gets moved around the more electricity is going to be consumed.
I, personally, like the idea of paying for what you use. Provided that there is competition. Otherwise the "average" will keep dropping as people try to limit their expenses and the price will keep creeping up.
Even with no competition, isn't it better than a monopoly over charging the majority, to subsidize the few large consumers?
How in the world does a 17 year old get intimate detailed knowledge of the internal workings of POS systems??
They're the only ones that Target hires to run it's systems. Anybody older would be too expensive.
If he was a little bit older the news wouldn't be reporting the age. The age is just creating a bias where there doesn't need to be one. It's just playing on a certain group of peoples fears that all young people are out to get them. It probably stems from guilt about how they find certain people achieving more in life than they did, and at first you could handle that because they were older. But then as they got older the achievers became younger and they never learnt how to cope with that.
How about no parties? At least not as they exist now as legally ingrained parts of the electoral process. As factions the two parties have been more concerned with control of turf and spending to perpetuate the interests of their whatever constituencies keep them in power.
I think that there should still be parties, because a group of people should be able to find common ground and agree on things. The issue is that we vote for the representatives of a party. If instead a subset of issues was chosen to reflect important issues of the day, and the parties had to pick how they felt about each, and then we voted on how we felt about the issues, and the winner was the party with the closest approximation of the peoples desires; it would create incentives for there to be lots of parties.
Something happened to make him change his mind. Was he corrupted by power? Are the monied interests that powerful that they made him deny what he'd been teaching for years? Or is there something else afoot?
I think what happened is at the end of his first security briefing, he realized that he was actually responsible for a lot of bad situations and had a new stark view of reality.
the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
Given that my ignorance has equal rights before the law as your knowledge (at least when it comes to voting), is there a 'good' solution to the problem?
I don't really find myself getting upset learning that the NSA is spying on foreign nations.
Or, every nation building new nuclear weapons could maybe scrap the idea and work on space exploration, fusion power, renewable food production, anagathics, or a hundred other good ideas that might actually be of some use instead of a one-time "End it all in case of national butthurt" button.
Great idea, then my country with our nuclear weapons can come it and steal your advancements.
I knew a guy who was an elevator repairman. His wife did her best to not watch movies with him where there was ever anything involving an elevator shaft because the movies always get it wrong. Typically the hero will enter a well lit elevator shaft; as someone who was constantly dealing with how they're not always well lit it bugged him to no end.
It will probably mean the lack of integration with any non-Android device.
Need to update firmware? Have the IT guy at each store do it manually.
Wait, what? That's exactly the opposite of how a large shop runs their operations. You create an image that you want applied to all machines that match a certain profile, and then let the machines do the updates at a preconfigured time.