You are deliberately misunderstanding. His argument (and belief) is that the government makes things worse for everyone, including the poor, by permuting the market. I.e., he really does believe the poor would be better off without government assistance and the like.
A real argument here would weigh in on the relative merits of a thing called a "public good," an idea from economics that states there are some things that the market cannot effectively offer.
Municipal water is without a doubt (to me) a good example of a public good.
Many spams also misrepresent the identity of the sender. Misrepresenting identity in a business transaction (or proposed one) has been a felony, like, forever. A couple of spammers were given like "10" for this a while back. Their offense? Their spams forged the "from" field to indicate that they were from insiders at the companies they were spamming to. They're using soap on a rope now.
Managers should start by giving the example, as any manager should be right in the middle of the bullpen,...
That's what I do. Two other managers I know do the same thing.
We actually operate a hybrid bullpen setting. 8 "cubes" opened up in the middle and closed off on one end form the bullpen, with a table in the center. Eight cubes facing on the outside represent people that feel that they wouldn't work well in the bullpen.
Mind, I don't believe most of 'em, and think it's more of a comfort-level thing, but so it goes. We have enough volunteers for the bullpen, and this way we don't clash overly much with worker values when the workers care a lot about where they work.
What I'd/prefer/ is that this arrangement have a little more internal space, and the central area be a big laptop docking zone. We could then pull the outsiders in occasionally, for special projects and jam sessions, but they could all then retreat when needed.
It's not particularly that organizations don't recognize that individual variation exists, but more that there are all sorts of justifiable organic reasons why its hard to do anything about it. I.e., supposing I knew for an observable fact that you personally produced 10X code more than everyone else, insofar as you were in an office, but that everyone else produced 1.2X more code if they were in a bullpen. What do you suppose would happen if I gave you the office? See where this is going? Offices are expensive. This is a business, you know.
The approach I personally prefer, and would use if I could afford in my own business, would be like this:
1. Every programmer: a laptop. 2. A small private space, to be occupied generally a good 50% of the day. 3. A shared bullpen, provisioned for laptops, agile and pair programming, where programmers would land together for the other half of the day. Bullpens are project-specific, of course.
I've worked in all settings, even had an office (that I was often not in) for well over a decade. My experience is that it's not the office, and it's not the cubicle that generates the most overall group productivity for programmers, but rather the "open lab". I.e., "the pit".
The programmers quickly learn to tune out the noise, and only attend to what's relevant, like someone calling out their name. Humans are good at that.
Well, I think that if your offended by the (somewhat) respectful fashion of referring to an attorney as a shark, you'd refer to them as this instead: Annelida Clitellata.
Please, your Honor, don't actually make me testify. Instead, let's just pretend that I testified, and you can then act as if I made the most compelling argument possible, and find for the plaintiff.
I, too, am annoyed by their minimum size. My guess is that the size they chose has something to do with the base cost of the other circuitry (RAID like hardware) they have present. With smaller sizes, the cost per GB will start to look particularly bad, so they upped the minimum size and are going after premium buyers for now.
BTW, for reference, I have a Dell PERC5e controller and 10 10K 300GB SAS drives. Configured in RAID-5, these drives manage to sustain just over 200MB/s on read. If the device performs as promised, at 700MB/s sustained read and 600MB/s sustained write, this level of performance is truly incredible and will provide for lots of interesting niche solutions at a minimum.
Further, flash prices are dropping 30% annually. That will put the device in range of even more niche solutions pretty quickly.
To me, there is no question of the utility of high speed flash. There is some good question on whether or not a board solution for it is likely to sustain in the market. I'd rather have a device that can pull 375MB/s sustained, in a SAS form factor. I could then leverage those devices into solutions with ordinary RAID cards if I so chose, with commodity parts and the like.
But I can see the appeal of the card, with the extra headroom of the PCI bus. Do you recall Gigabytes IRAM device? There was much criticism that this used the SATA interface and not the PCI bus, as much of the b/w and latency advantages of the RAM were lost due to the interface. This would be particularly interesting if you were, say, a vendor of enterprise storage hardware and wanting to use the device for your transaction log.
A project I work with closely from a military type wanting to know the author of a particular 3 line bug fix, their email address, nationality, etc. As the fix was about 2 years old we had his name but no current contact info. He went away disappointed. Not heard anything like that happen since.. but some in the military could probably do with some education.
Don't take this wrong, but honestly, it sounds like some people working for the military could use a little education, also. For something simple, like a 3 line bug fix, all it takes is a third party (*cough*, your company) to review the code and pronounce it "good". I'm overstating here, a little, but truthfully: not by much.
This is the same thing done by Red Hat. They are stakeholding the open source they integrate and distribute. I.e., the government accepts the provenance of RH's software, in one fell swoop, as Red Hat's. That's how it gets in. Truly.
If you want to be a good integrator for the government, then you can easily stakehold the open source you integrate (and distribute to your military customer) as well.
Mind you, I understand that the military contractors are having as much trouble navigating through the open source community as the military itself is. Keep in mind, that while this is true it represents an opportunity for both you and the company you work for to excel.
I work as an integrator and inserter of technology into military organizations.
Hence, I can say with some authority that they are, for the most part, Talready convinced. To best characterize them, it would be: "interested, but cautious". "Convinced, but careful". They want to save money, believe that open source can be good, but have certain matters of due dilligence that they need to attend to.
There remain "paperwork" issues of getting open source into SCIFs, particularly when the provenance of the open source is questionable. Not all open source is born equal, you know. Some is pretty shitty, and some is even written by people in countries that actually DO have active spying programs against us (if you were to say that because the source is there, and open for everyone to see, that this reduces risk, I would agree with you, however this statement that the risk "ought" to be less is sometimes insufficient for these classified area types, dontcha know).
BTW, there is a new DoD directive that has been issued, ordering all defense procurement to include an assessment of open source products as an alternative to proprietary software. How is this "not convinced"?
Well, since you're amusing me with a discussion of language, I'll agree that I mangled the language. The issue here is with the term "deliberate scam" as opposed to some accidental scam, which is really semantically challenged, thinking about it, as there is no such thing as a not deliberate scam.
I'll remind myself to drink more coffee in future mornings,
I find amusement in your sentiment that "you don't understand these people at all". I find the lot of 'em to be fucked up, mostly. To wit, while you are there, add Leviticus 20:13 to your translation.
Wycliffe's translation, which was done into the Middle English in the 14th century, is one of the oldest known English bibles. It uses the Middle English word "sle," which as you would correctly suppose is indeed a precursor to the modern English word "slay". In modern English, "slay" is somewhat archaic, but has more of a connotation towards murder, than not. I would say that are likely correct. Many early English works of the Bible (including Wycliffe's) were not translated from the original written languages at all, but rather were translated from Latin translations. Translations of translations. Errors would undoubtedly occur.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but even if I were, "thou shalt not kill" is how it has been taught for more than 1700 years now at least. The original phrase is, for all practical purpose, irrelevant. If "kill" is not sufficient, the translation should have been changed long before now.
Um, well you and I being nonbelievers, I can see what you are saying. But if you are a believer, you ought to be more concerned with what The One True God (tm) said than what humans "taught for 1700 years" (um, no -- not 1700! -- as English has not existed in its modern form for anything like that period of time, but this is a tangential point), shouldn't you?
In TFA, plaintiff's attorney claims "It's negligent misrepresentation." To me (and as far as I know, the law) negligence is not exercising the due care expected of one, given the wider standards of due care that other people or businesses take in similar situations. Supposing that plaintiff's merchandise is indeed fake, I would argue that it is surely appropriate to begin a process of discovery, to determine if Christies was negligent. One does have to wonder how they sold at auction fake merchandise, and what process they used to make sure it wasn't fake. This is something that they have every imperative to avoid.
Christies does have the opportunity to avoid the discovery process. They could settle, and probably should. Having the world find out that they auctioned off fake merchandise, however inadvertently, is damaging to their reputation per se, as is continuing press on the matter.
I mean really! You can't really "interpret" thou shalt not kill... that's unambiguous, entirely unambiguous.
Well. I'm an atheist. And care very little. Be that as it may, why is it you are so sure? "Kill" is a modern word. And an English word. Surely you don't think that they were speaking English back then, right? The Bible wasn't written in English. That part was... what?... Aramaic? Old Hebrew? What was the original word used, and what were its connotations? And why are you so sure that the English word "kill" is a precise and exact carry over of all the connotations of the original word used? This needs some splainin'.
Slashdot Mirror
Um. Have you ever tried making ice cream from 100% cream?
It won't come out like you expect.
More like frozen mousse than anything.
C//
You are deliberately misunderstanding. His argument (and belief) is that the government makes things worse for everyone, including the poor, by permuting the market. I.e., he really does believe the poor would be better off without government assistance and the like.
A real argument here would weigh in on the relative merits of a thing called a "public good," an idea from economics that states there are some things that the market cannot effectively offer.
Municipal water is without a doubt (to me) a good example of a public good.
C//
Many spams also misrepresent the identity of the sender. Misrepresenting identity in a business transaction (or proposed one) has been a felony, like, forever. A couple of spammers were given like "10" for this a while back. Their offense? Their spams forged the "from" field to indicate that they were from insiders at the companies they were spamming to. They're using soap on a rope now.
C//
Servers on the internet exist to be accessed,...
Stop right there. This premise is flawed.
C//
Geeks don't like this ruling, though, because it's not black-and-white. A geek think that if it's open on the Internet, it ought to be legal.
If the geek leaves his door unlocked, does that mean that a burglar gets a get out of jail free card? Of course not.
C//
The new proteins are similar to those in the blood of the snow flea,...
Oh now that sounds delicious! Snow Flea Blood Ice Cream.
Thank you, Slashdot, for making me not able to eat Ice Cream today.
*wink*
C//
Managers should start by giving the example, as any manager should be right in the middle of the bullpen,...
/prefer/ is that this arrangement have a little more internal space, and the central area be a big laptop docking zone. We could then pull the outsiders in occasionally, for special projects and jam sessions, but they could all then retreat when needed.
That's what I do. Two other managers I know do the same thing.
We actually operate a hybrid bullpen setting. 8 "cubes" opened up in the middle and closed off on one end form the bullpen, with a table in the center. Eight cubes facing on the outside represent people that feel that they wouldn't work well in the bullpen.
Mind, I don't believe most of 'em, and think it's more of a comfort-level thing, but so it goes. We have enough volunteers for the bullpen, and this way we don't clash overly much with worker values when the workers care a lot about where they work.
What I'd
C//
It's not particularly that organizations don't recognize that individual variation exists, but more that there are all sorts of justifiable organic reasons why its hard to do anything about it. I.e., supposing I knew for an observable fact that you personally produced 10X code more than everyone else, insofar as you were in an office, but that everyone else produced 1.2X more code if they were in a bullpen. What do you suppose would happen if I gave you the office? See where this is going? Offices are expensive. This is a business, you know.
The approach I personally prefer, and would use if I could afford in my own business, would be like this:
1. Every programmer: a laptop.
2. A small private space, to be occupied generally a good 50% of the day.
3. A shared bullpen, provisioned for laptops, agile and pair programming, where programmers would land together for the other half of the day. Bullpens are project-specific, of course.
C//
That's nothing! They should try managing PhDs...
Herding cats, you meant to say, yes?
C//
I've worked in all settings, even had an office (that I was often not in) for well over a decade. My experience is that it's not the office, and it's not the cubicle that generates the most overall group productivity for programmers, but rather the "open lab". I.e., "the pit".
The programmers quickly learn to tune out the noise, and only attend to what's relevant, like someone calling out their name. Humans are good at that.
C//
*shrug*
A Network Appliance 3000 series (3020) will top out at around 275MB/sec. I have a 3020, a 3050, and a 3070...
FYI.
C//
Well, I think that if your offended by the (somewhat) respectful fashion of referring to an attorney as a shark, you'd refer to them as this instead: Annelida Clitellata.
Please, your Honor, don't actually make me testify. Instead, let's just pretend that I testified, and you can then act as if I made the most compelling argument possible, and find for the plaintiff.
Respectfully,
Carcharodon Carcharias, Esq.
I don't see how selection of ideas should have anything about chance to present them.
You are presuming that idea formation occurs in a vacuum. Could it be that ideas are refined over time as part of a collaborative process?
C//
I, too, am annoyed by their minimum size. My guess is that the size they chose has something to do with the base cost of the other circuitry (RAID like hardware) they have present. With smaller sizes, the cost per GB will start to look particularly bad, so they upped the minimum size and are going after premium buyers for now.
BTW, for reference, I have a Dell PERC5e controller and 10 10K 300GB SAS drives. Configured in RAID-5, these drives manage to sustain just over 200MB/s on read. If the device performs as promised, at 700MB/s sustained read and 600MB/s sustained write, this level of performance is truly incredible and will provide for lots of interesting niche solutions at a minimum.
Further, flash prices are dropping 30% annually. That will put the device in range of even more niche solutions pretty quickly.
To me, there is no question of the utility of high speed flash. There is some good question on whether or not a board solution for it is likely to sustain in the market. I'd rather have a device that can pull 375MB/s sustained, in a SAS form factor. I could then leverage those devices into solutions with ordinary RAID cards if I so chose, with commodity parts and the like.
But I can see the appeal of the card, with the extra headroom of the PCI bus. Do you recall Gigabytes IRAM device? There was much criticism that this used the SATA interface and not the PCI bus, as much of the b/w and latency advantages of the RAM were lost due to the interface. This would be particularly interesting if you were, say, a vendor of enterprise storage hardware and wanting to use the device for your transaction log.
C//
You could have a nice discussion if you didn't post AC. WTF?
A project I work with closely from a military type wanting to know the author of a particular 3 line bug fix, their email address, nationality, etc. As the fix was about 2 years old we had his name but no current contact info. He went away disappointed. Not heard anything like that happen since.. but some in the military could probably do with some education.
Don't take this wrong, but honestly, it sounds like some people working for the military could use a little education, also. For something simple, like a 3 line bug fix, all it takes is a third party (*cough*, your company) to review the code and pronounce it "good". I'm overstating here, a little, but truthfully: not by much.
This is the same thing done by Red Hat. They are stakeholding the open source they integrate and distribute. I.e., the government accepts the provenance of RH's software, in one fell swoop, as Red Hat's. That's how it gets in. Truly.
If you want to be a good integrator for the government, then you can easily stakehold the open source you integrate (and distribute to your military customer) as well.
Mind you, I understand that the military contractors are having as much trouble navigating through the open source community as the military itself is. Keep in mind, that while this is true it represents an opportunity for both you and the company you work for to excel.
Luck and progress,
C//
I work as an integrator and inserter of technology into military organizations.
Hence, I can say with some authority that they are, for the most part, Talready convinced. To best characterize them, it would be: "interested, but cautious". "Convinced, but careful". They want to save money, believe that open source can be good, but have certain matters of due dilligence that they need to attend to.
There remain "paperwork" issues of getting open source into SCIFs, particularly when the provenance of the open source is questionable. Not all open source is born equal, you know. Some is pretty shitty, and some is even written by people in countries that actually DO have active spying programs against us (if you were to say that because the source is there, and open for everyone to see, that this reduces risk, I would agree with you, however this statement that the risk "ought" to be less is sometimes insufficient for these classified area types, dontcha know).
BTW, there is a new DoD directive that has been issued, ordering all defense procurement to include an assessment of open source products as an alternative to proprietary software. How is this "not convinced"?
C//
Well, since you're amusing me with a discussion of language, I'll agree that I mangled the language. The issue here is with the term "deliberate scam" as opposed to some accidental scam, which is really semantically challenged, thinking about it, as there is no such thing as a not deliberate scam.
I'll remind myself to drink more coffee in future mornings,
C//
While this comment is well-taken, I'm suspecting that Christies would object to having the same level of authenticity for products as Ebay. :-)
C//
Exactly the reason why, if that were correct, the translation should have been updated by now, no?
You haven't looked in many modern translations of the Bible, have you?
Go here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/
Then select an English translation.
Then put in verse "Exodus 20:13".
I find amusement in your sentiment that "you don't understand these people at all". I find the lot of 'em to be fucked up, mostly. To wit, while you are there, add Leviticus 20:13 to your translation.
C//
Wycliffe's translation, which was done into the Middle English in the 14th century, is one of the oldest known English bibles. It uses the Middle English word "sle," which as you would correctly suppose is indeed a precursor to the modern English word "slay". In modern English, "slay" is somewhat archaic, but has more of a connotation towards murder, than not. I would say that are likely correct. Many early English works of the Bible (including Wycliffe's) were not translated from the original written languages at all, but rather were translated from Latin translations. Translations of translations. Errors would undoubtedly occur.
C//
Perhaps I'm wrong, but even if I were, "thou shalt not kill" is how it has been taught for more than 1700 years now at least. The original phrase is, for all practical purpose, irrelevant. If "kill" is not sufficient, the translation should have been changed long before now.
Um, well you and I being nonbelievers, I can see what you are saying. But if you are a believer, you ought to be more concerned with what The One True God (tm) said than what humans "taught for 1700 years" (um, no -- not 1700! -- as English has not existed in its modern form for anything like that period of time, but this is a tangential point), shouldn't you?
C//
In TFA, plaintiff's attorney claims "It's negligent misrepresentation." To me (and as far as I know, the law) negligence is not exercising the due care expected of one, given the wider standards of due care that other people or businesses take in similar situations. Supposing that plaintiff's merchandise is indeed fake, I would argue that it is surely appropriate to begin a process of discovery, to determine if Christies was negligent. One does have to wonder how they sold at auction fake merchandise, and what process they used to make sure it wasn't fake. This is something that they have every imperative to avoid.
Christies does have the opportunity to avoid the discovery process. They could settle, and probably should. Having the world find out that they auctioned off fake merchandise, however inadvertently, is damaging to their reputation per se, as is continuing press on the matter.
C//
I mean really! You can't really "interpret" thou shalt not kill... that's unambiguous, entirely unambiguous.
Well. I'm an atheist. And care very little. Be that as it may, why is it you are so sure? "Kill" is a modern word. And an English word. Surely you don't think that they were speaking English back then, right? The Bible wasn't written in English. That part was... what?... Aramaic? Old Hebrew? What was the original word used, and what were its connotations? And why are you so sure that the English word "kill" is a precise and exact carry over of all the connotations of the original word used? This needs some splainin'.
C//