I don't know how it's *actually* enforced, but if I were running the scheme there'd be undercover spot checks -- I'd send people in to sell some copper and demand payment in cash, perhaps the first time or perhaps after they've been through the whole check thing a few times, and see if they get anywhere.
I had a can labelled "unleaded petrol" stolen out of my shed a few weeks ago. It was full of diesel. I really, really hope somebody tried to use it as petrol without checking.:)
Don't forget to put everything behind a ServiceLocator, just in case you need to switch implementations without recompiling. And any code you write should use dependency injection just to make sure it's totally configurable, and any specific algorithms you implement should be extracted to Strategy objects. Also: every class must have an associated interface that declares all its public methods, just because things are clearer if you do that.
Any idiot who can make a/. post should realize there should be a WP7 dual core phone from any of Nokia, HTC, Samsung or the like by now, considering we're about a year after the equivalent on android, and it is, other than Nokia, the same hardware vendors using in many cases essentially the same hardware.
Any idiot, that is, who isn't aware that WP7 runs on the WinCE6 kernel, which does not support SMP.
Presumably WP8 will upgrade to WEC7, the successor to WinCE6, which does support SMP systems, and then you'll start seeing your dual core Windows Phones.
So, it has nothing to do with MS exerting control over the suppliers -- they couldn't do it even if MS did let them, because the software just isn't capable of it.
your proposition ignores the fact that in programming you have a lot of plausible deniability in form of the programming mistake
You do. I do. The NSA don't. Seriously -- if you heard there was a "bug" in NSA-provided code that effectively allowed back door access to people's phones, would you consider for more than a couple of seconds the possibility that it was accidental?
The primary benefit of Python 3 is that as a cleaner language it's easier to learn. If you're already a regular Python 2 user, you are not in the group of people who will benefit from the changes. I'm an irregular Python user, and Python 3 looks a *lot* more attractive to me.
Where on the server side have you looked? certainly for server side web application development C#/ASP.NET is gaining ground - you only have to look at job listings where there's rarely a Java job in sight, but hundreds of ASP.NET jobs. I think Java is still important, and still my preferred option on some projects, but it's definitely been losing ground quite rapidly on both server and client side for quite some time now.
GP didn't say server side, he said enterprise side. Yes, there certainly are a lot of ASP.NET jobs being advertised, but my suspicion is most of these are jobs that a few years ago would have been PHP jobs, not Java ones. How many of those ASP.NET jobs are using heavyweight enterprisey stuff (message queue, service bus, WCF/SOA) versus simple database-backed web sites? Most of those big projects still seem to be in Java, at least to me.
There's no need for servers to talk IPv6. They'll function perfectly well through 6->4 tunnels, and everyone will be happy. It's the client-end infrastructure that needs fixing, and any service that does peer-to-peer connection. These are the areas that will fail when clients stop receiving IPv4 addresses.
Who's going to pay for the billions of IPv4 devices that need to be replaced in order to offer IPV6 only services to folks?
The people who were stupid enough to buy them?
We've known for fifteen years that this day would come. By early estimates, it should already have happened. The tools needed to avoid the problem have been in place for over ten years, now. Anybody still using IPv4-only hardware is doing so because either (1) they make their hardware last much longer than everyone else or (2) they bought it cheap because it lacks functions that the rest of us knew were important.
In a dual-stack lite setup, this might still happen: there may still be IPv4 only nodes, such as XP boxes.
In my tests of my company's network, XP worked perfectly acceptably with IPv6. I believe there are some issues with its DHCP implementation, but for most purposes it seems to work well enough.
And ARM is great for in order, no speculation, no branch prediction, ultra power sipping designs.
The Cortex A9 core is dual-issue, out-of-order, speculative, and uses 2-level dynamic branch prediction. This doesn't seem to have adversely effected its power consumption in relation to previous designs, and it doesn't appear that the instruction set has made this difficult for them to implement.
Please stop. Contrary to what stupid people say, there is nutrition in Mcdonalds burger. Plenty, in fact. there is also a load ton of fat and salt. And HFCS is no different then Cane Sugar or beat sugar.
HFCS has 5% more fructose and 5% less glucose than Cane sugar;)
HFCS is a name given to a wide variety of different mxtures of glucose and fructose. What you say is true of HFCS55, but 42% of the production of HFCS is HFCS42, which has 8% less fructose. This means that on average, HFCS has about the same amount of fructose as sucrose does.
As an amateur lacking in equipment, I'd say my primary issue with SMD components is that I can't prototype with them on stripboard. Sure, I can use an SMD resistor between two tracks, or if I'm feeling adventurous a 4-contact SOIC or PLCC device can sit between two tracks and over a break, but anything more complicated just doesn't fit -- transistors always have a contact that doesn't align right, and a 6-pin or higher SOIC chip will sit with two legs on each track. So anything I want to do with these more complex SMD components means breaking out the copper-clad board, printing up a design on etch-resist transfer paper, and etching it, which for me is an error-prone process that more often results in a wasted board than anything actually useful.
The market cannot adequately cope with the problem of allocating resources in terms of fossil fuels because:
1. The fuel is under the original control of and is brought to market by actors who do not have any responsibility for meeting the full costs of use of the fuel (i.e. cleanup of emissions after use) 2. Short-term thinking has lead to market-controlled pricing designed to sell at the highest possible revenue a resource that is depleting, without considering the long-term consequences, when rationing would be a more appropriate choice for long-term considerations (simply put, the current owners of the fuel, typically middle-eastern governments, do not especially care if the resource runs dry, because they use a smaller than average share of it and will benefit from higher prices driven by lack of supply)
The fact that these relevant considerations have no influence on the market price of the fuel means that government must step in and levy tax. Now the question is at what level should that tax be placed? My personal thoughts are that current taxes are too low, even here in Europe where taxes are much higher than in the US.
If economics were a rigorous discipline, he wouldn't need data to provide an opposing point: the simple fact that the approach has been tried in multiple countries but those attempts provided no data to substantiate it would be enough to cast a severe doubt over it, and anyone saying categorically that it was correct would be essentially ignored unless they could provide evidence for *their* assertions. Of which there is none. Yet the theory's adherents are still respected, and still get very high paying advisory positions, despite the fact that the theory they are suggesting we organize our entire economy around has zero evidence in favour and at least anecdotal evidence against (i.e. the attempts to use it by Reagan and Thatcher were both followed shortly thereafter by particularly bad recessions).
Copyright reform isn't really about pirating copies of the latest blockbuster film. Frankly, that'll be pretty-much unaffected by any proposed changes to copyright. The real issues lie elsewhere, which is why "pirate party" is a *really* bad name for this group. I really think they ought to agree on a different name that puts the emphasis on the groups of people who *would* benefit from their proposals (mostly, "pirates" wouldn't).
Principally, the benefits are:
1. Consumer rights. Copyright is currently used as a means to enable the media companies to sell the same thing multiple times, because they want to keep getting revenue. But this comes at the expense of inconveniencing the people who legitimately have a right because they've bought it the first time. CDs that can't be ripped to people's preferred playback devices. Broadcast TV that has copy-protection flags that stop recorders working (which isn't advertised ahead of time, and most people just put down to faulty recorders when they fail to work, so people end up missing content they've paid for and have a right to see). Ebooks that can't be read by book-to-voice software because their DRM isn't licensed for it. Films that can't be played on hardware that is technically capable of it because one link in the chain doesn't have an approved encryption key. Lack of ability to view content on open platforms. Libraries that are unable to duplicate digital content for preservation. Legally-protected DRM is a huge pain to many users of content whose use *should* be legal.
2. Artist's rights. It is becoming more and more common for artists to find themselves under legal threat for such issues as "unconscious copying", "stealing ideas" and similar. Yet copying has always been part of how we produce art, and these legal cases threaten to subvert that, holding up the development of new art.
The case is irrelevant - it is old law, and not representative of the current legal situation. It is also widely misinterpreted, because Ford's reasons for withholding dividends are often misattributed to a desire to do public good -- he wanted to do no such thing, but rather starve the complainants (the founders of the Dodge motor co) of resources that they were using to set up in competition to him.
Consider that Disney's only films of note for the last 20 years have been Pixar movies, and that virtually every other thing they've done has been completely forgettable?
Pirates of the Caribbean. Tangled. National Treasure. Chronicles of Narnia. Lilo & Stitch. James & The Giant Peach. Pocahontas. The Lion King. Cool Runnings. Aladdin.
No, clearly you're right. Disney haven't made any memorable films in the last 20 years except through Pixar. I'm imagining the ones I listed above.
3) Allow corporations to do the right thing. In most states if you run a company and do anything other than maximize profits you can get sued by any share holder.
This notion is based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the fiduciary responsibility of the board of a company. You are not legally required to maximize profits. In general, the law does not involve itself in the minutiae of which decisions the directors should make. The requirements are simple:
1. That they act in good faith towards the shareholders 2. That they exercise reasonable care 3. That they have a reasonable belief that the decisions they make are in the best interest of the company
The "best interest of the company" is not solely maximizing profit, and courts will allow directors to make any decision that they have reasonable grounds for (e.g. improving public perception of the company), whether the decision is good or not.
There are a few exceptions to this, but generally they only apply to companies in severe financial trouble where the directors should be anticipating that the company will be declared bankrupt in the near future (at which point they do, in some cases, have a strict duty to maximize profits, as for a company due to be wound up in the near future there are few other considerations that are in the interests of the company).
Typically, directors are only successfully sued when they have acted fraudulently for personal gain or for gain of their associates at the expense of the shareholders.
IANAL, but I have researched this in depth due to getting pissed off with the constant anti-corporate propaganda you get in places like this.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know how it's *actually* enforced, but if I were running the scheme there'd be undercover spot checks -- I'd send people in to sell some copper and demand payment in cash, perhaps the first time or perhaps after they've been through the whole check thing a few times, and see if they get anywhere.
I had a can labelled "unleaded petrol" stolen out of my shed a few weeks ago. It was full of diesel. I really, really hope somebody tried to use it as petrol without checking. :)
Don't forget to put everything behind a ServiceLocator, just in case you need to switch implementations without recompiling. And any code you write should use dependency injection just to make sure it's totally configurable, and any specific algorithms you implement should be extracted to Strategy objects. Also: every class must have an associated interface that declares all its public methods, just because things are clearer if you do that.
I'm thinking of making the leap from C# 3.0 to C# 4.0. Does anyone have any advice?
Have you considered Java 7 as an appropriate alternative? You're much more likely to get a job as an Enterprise Architect if you make the switch.
Any idiot who can make a /. post should realize there should be a WP7 dual core phone from any of Nokia, HTC, Samsung or the like by now, considering we're about a year after the equivalent on android, and it is, other than Nokia, the same hardware vendors using in many cases essentially the same hardware.
Any idiot, that is, who isn't aware that WP7 runs on the WinCE6 kernel, which does not support SMP.
Presumably WP8 will upgrade to WEC7, the successor to WinCE6, which does support SMP systems, and then you'll start seeing your dual core Windows Phones.
So, it has nothing to do with MS exerting control over the suppliers -- they couldn't do it even if MS did let them, because the software just isn't capable of it.
your proposition ignores the fact that in programming you have a lot of plausible deniability in form of the programming mistake
You do. I do. The NSA don't. Seriously -- if you heard there was a "bug" in NSA-provided code that effectively allowed back door access to people's phones, would you consider for more than a couple of seconds the possibility that it was accidental?
The primary benefit of Python 3 is that as a cleaner language it's easier to learn. If you're already a regular Python 2 user, you are not in the group of people who will benefit from the changes. I'm an irregular Python user, and Python 3 looks a *lot* more attractive to me.
Where on the server side have you looked? certainly for server side web application development C#/ASP.NET is gaining ground - you only have to look at job listings where there's rarely a Java job in sight, but hundreds of ASP.NET jobs. I think Java is still important, and still my preferred option on some projects, but it's definitely been losing ground quite rapidly on both server and client side for quite some time now.
GP didn't say server side, he said enterprise side. Yes, there certainly are a lot of ASP.NET jobs being advertised, but my suspicion is most of these are jobs that a few years ago would have been PHP jobs, not Java ones. How many of those ASP.NET jobs are using heavyweight enterprisey stuff (message queue, service bus, WCF/SOA) versus simple database-backed web sites? Most of those big projects still seem to be in Java, at least to me.
There's no need for servers to talk IPv6. They'll function perfectly well through 6->4 tunnels, and everyone will be happy. It's the client-end infrastructure that needs fixing, and any service that does peer-to-peer connection. These are the areas that will fail when clients stop receiving IPv4 addresses.
Why do devices that are not being used need an address?
Who's going to pay for the billions of IPv4 devices that need to be replaced in order to offer IPV6 only services to folks?
The people who were stupid enough to buy them?
We've known for fifteen years that this day would come. By early estimates, it should already have happened. The tools needed to avoid the problem have been in place for over ten years, now. Anybody still using IPv4-only hardware is doing so because either (1) they make their hardware last much longer than everyone else or (2) they bought it cheap because it lacks functions that the rest of us knew were important.
In a dual-stack lite setup, this might still happen: there may still be IPv4 only nodes, such as XP boxes.
In my tests of my company's network, XP worked perfectly acceptably with IPv6. I believe there are some issues with its DHCP implementation, but for most purposes it seems to work well enough.
And ARM is great for in order, no speculation, no branch prediction, ultra power sipping designs.
The Cortex A9 core is dual-issue, out-of-order, speculative, and uses 2-level dynamic branch prediction. This doesn't seem to have adversely effected its power consumption in relation to previous designs, and it doesn't appear that the instruction set has made this difficult for them to implement.
while the single-core Medefield I just linked to is faster than dual--core A9's in the Iphone 4S and Galaxy Nexus, while using less power
Both of the benchmarks they ran are single-threaded, so you can only say that it's faster than a single core of those processors.
Please stop. Contrary to what stupid people say, there is nutrition in Mcdonalds burger. Plenty, in fact. there is also a load ton of fat and salt.
And HFCS is no different then Cane Sugar or beat sugar.
HFCS has 5% more fructose and 5% less glucose than Cane sugar ;)
HFCS is a name given to a wide variety of different mxtures of glucose and fructose. What you say is true of HFCS55, but 42% of the production of HFCS is HFCS42, which has 8% less fructose. This means that on average, HFCS has about the same amount of fructose as sucrose does.
As an amateur lacking in equipment, I'd say my primary issue with SMD components is that I can't prototype with them on stripboard. Sure, I can use an SMD resistor between two tracks, or if I'm feeling adventurous a 4-contact SOIC or PLCC device can sit between two tracks and over a break, but anything more complicated just doesn't fit -- transistors always have a contact that doesn't align right, and a 6-pin or higher SOIC chip will sit with two legs on each track. So anything I want to do with these more complex SMD components means breaking out the copper-clad board, printing up a design on etch-resist transfer paper, and etching it, which for me is an error-prone process that more often results in a wasted board than anything actually useful.
The APIs provided to interface with the system are more than adequately documented. The pin-outs are documented. What else do you really need?
You do realise that that junk costs less to run than you have likely saved by switching lights from incandescent to LEDs, right?
No, it's the market's responsibility
Then we're doomed.
The market cannot adequately cope with the problem of allocating resources in terms of fossil fuels because:
1. The fuel is under the original control of and is brought to market by actors who do not have any responsibility for meeting the full costs of use of the fuel (i.e. cleanup of emissions after use)
2. Short-term thinking has lead to market-controlled pricing designed to sell at the highest possible revenue a resource that is depleting, without considering the long-term consequences, when rationing would be a more appropriate choice for long-term considerations (simply put, the current owners of the fuel, typically middle-eastern governments, do not especially care if the resource runs dry, because they use a smaller than average share of it and will benefit from higher prices driven by lack of supply)
The fact that these relevant considerations have no influence on the market price of the fuel means that government must step in and levy tax. Now the question is at what level should that tax be placed? My personal thoughts are that current taxes are too low, even here in Europe where taxes are much higher than in the US.
If economics were a rigorous discipline, he wouldn't need data to provide an opposing point: the simple fact that the approach has been tried in multiple countries but those attempts provided no data to substantiate it would be enough to cast a severe doubt over it, and anyone saying categorically that it was correct would be essentially ignored unless they could provide evidence for *their* assertions. Of which there is none. Yet the theory's adherents are still respected, and still get very high paying advisory positions, despite the fact that the theory they are suggesting we organize our entire economy around has zero evidence in favour and at least anecdotal evidence against (i.e. the attempts to use it by Reagan and Thatcher were both followed shortly thereafter by particularly bad recessions).
Copyright reform isn't really about pirating copies of the latest blockbuster film. Frankly, that'll be pretty-much unaffected by any proposed changes to copyright. The real issues lie elsewhere, which is why "pirate party" is a *really* bad name for this group. I really think they ought to agree on a different name that puts the emphasis on the groups of people who *would* benefit from their proposals (mostly, "pirates" wouldn't).
Principally, the benefits are:
1. Consumer rights. Copyright is currently used as a means to enable the media companies to sell the same thing multiple times, because they want to keep getting revenue. But this comes at the expense of inconveniencing the people who legitimately have a right because they've bought it the first time. CDs that can't be ripped to people's preferred playback devices. Broadcast TV that has copy-protection flags that stop recorders working (which isn't advertised ahead of time, and most people just put down to faulty recorders when they fail to work, so people end up missing content they've paid for and have a right to see). Ebooks that can't be read by book-to-voice software because their DRM isn't licensed for it. Films that can't be played on hardware that is technically capable of it because one link in the chain doesn't have an approved encryption key. Lack of ability to view content on open platforms. Libraries that are unable to duplicate digital content for preservation. Legally-protected DRM is a huge pain to many users of content whose use *should* be legal.
2. Artist's rights. It is becoming more and more common for artists to find themselves under legal threat for such issues as "unconscious copying", "stealing ideas" and similar. Yet copying has always been part of how we produce art, and these legal cases threaten to subvert that, holding up the development of new art.
The case is irrelevant - it is old law, and not representative of the current legal situation. It is also widely misinterpreted, because Ford's reasons for withholding dividends are often misattributed to a desire to do public good -- he wanted to do no such thing, but rather starve the complainants (the founders of the Dodge motor co) of resources that they were using to set up in competition to him.
See notes here, paying particular attention to the "significance" section: http://www.enotes.com/topic/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
It must be about 5 years since I saw it. I haven't forgotten it yet. Something tells me I probably won't.
Consider that Disney's only films of note for the last 20 years have been Pixar movies, and that virtually every other thing they've done has been completely forgettable?
Pirates of the Caribbean. Tangled. National Treasure. Chronicles of Narnia. Lilo & Stitch. James & The Giant Peach. Pocahontas. The Lion King. Cool Runnings. Aladdin.
No, clearly you're right. Disney haven't made any memorable films in the last 20 years except through Pixar. I'm imagining the ones I listed above.
3) Allow corporations to do the right thing. In most states if you run a company and do anything other than maximize profits you can get sued by any share holder.
This notion is based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the fiduciary responsibility of the board of a company. You are not legally required to maximize profits. In general, the law does not involve itself in the minutiae of which decisions the directors should make. The requirements are simple:
1. That they act in good faith towards the shareholders
2. That they exercise reasonable care
3. That they have a reasonable belief that the decisions they make are in the best interest of the company
The "best interest of the company" is not solely maximizing profit, and courts will allow directors to make any decision that they have reasonable grounds for (e.g. improving public perception of the company), whether the decision is good or not.
There are a few exceptions to this, but generally they only apply to companies in severe financial trouble where the directors should be anticipating that the company will be declared bankrupt in the near future (at which point they do, in some cases, have a strict duty to maximize profits, as for a company due to be wound up in the near future there are few other considerations that are in the interests of the company).
Typically, directors are only successfully sued when they have acted fraudulently for personal gain or for gain of their associates at the expense of the shareholders.
IANAL, but I have researched this in depth due to getting pissed off with the constant anti-corporate propaganda you get in places like this.