Scum, like Goldman Sachs, will use anything to try to line their own pockets. Carbon trading is an inferior solution that financial systems prefer to outright taxes and regulations because they will find ways to profit from the trading schemes and divert money away from the public good and into the pockets of the wealthy elite. However, trading schemes do actually produce results, sulfur emissions have dropped around 50% due to the trading scheme imposed on those emissions in the states. Of course, countries that implemented taxes actually had the rates drop around 60% and countries that simply regulated how much could be produced saw drops in the range of 70%, if I remember correctly.
Canada pulled out of the treaty because the party forming the government is ideologically opposed to government, climate change and international agreements on anything that isn't trade. They would have used whatever excuses they thought sounded plausible at the time.
You're missing the obvious, if they are buying carbon credits, they're actually paying for the release of at least some of their pollution which is an improvement over paying for none of it. Why? Simple economics, anything a company has to pay for, it will look for ways to reduce what they're paying. That means once there's a cost for carbon emissions they will actually have a financial reason to reduce them. It's not a guarantee that they will be reduced, but it's a step in the right direction.
That's true, the Conservative Party of Canada who currently form the Government of Canada tend to base their views on what's "best" for Alberta, where they control all but one of the seats. The Prime Minister moved to Alberta as a child and has essentially become a caricature of Albertan disgruntlement with rest of Canada. It looks like the government was facing over $9 billion in fines for failing to act on Kyoto, mostly due to the tar sands projects which they haven't even bothered to monitor.
Although the CPC blames the previous Liberal Government, the CPC has been in charge for almost 6 years now. The Liberals didn't do much to meet the targets, the CPC has never had any intention of even trying to reach the targets. They've been actively working to sabotage international agreements since they came to power.
My time is worth more than $1.5 an hour (last time I check that was approximately what TV stations sell viewer time for). I'm willing to pay for good channels with commercial free content (one exception: they're allowed to advertise their own shows).
I think every ballot should have an explicit "none of the above" that must be reported. If none of the above wins, all candidates are dismissed and may not run again until the next normal election cycle. A run off election with an entirely new slate of candidates must be held as soon as possible.
Well, I have it on good authority than the General Multidynamics patent on "breathing with lungs", granted in 2047, comes pretty close to doing so. Apparently they find it more profitable to not license the patent to anyone who isn't an employee. Unfortunately for them, while they are prosecuting the 9.6 billion violators, Gosoft Utilities is granted the 2048 patent on "drinking with your mouth", the ensuing legislative battle ends up with the "liquidation" of 95% of both companies employees, that is until Microshiba is granted the 2049 patent on "liquidating employees". Then it just gets really messy.
Much as I dislike Microsoft, I don't think that's actually the only issue. There has been many changes that would impact code quality over the years. Setting aside the differences in language construction. There has been a broadening of the pool of people who write software, and many people have learned "how to program" so they could get a job. It seems likely that in the 1970s if you were in computers and programming it was because you enjoyed it and took pride in it. Since the 90s, there has been an influx of people for whom it is "just a job". That alone would see a substantial decline in quality, however, on top of that the "newbies" are mostly being taught how to start programming in Java now. That means for most programmers, if you are learning Cobol it's not your first language. That means you can expect the average level of experience of Cobol programmers to be much higher than that of Java programmers.
Those two factors might be enough to explain most of the difference by themselves, but there are still a host of other factors that could contribute to this result, for example, hobbyist (as opposed to professional) programmers are much more likely to create Java projects than Cobol projects because Java resources (such as do-it-yourself) tutorials are more commonly available than the equivalent Cobol resources.
Well, I have never even seen any vulnerable Cobol web applications, have you? There are probably millions of vulnerable PHP applications.
And I'll have none of your crypto-fascist "percentage" nonsense. We only deal in hard FACTS. The kind that use only capital letters. Although, it is true that PHP is more secure than Java by deisgn. Since PHP has 3 capital letters and is symmetrical, although they should probably change it's name to BHB for true symmetrical redundancy.
Secunia says the phpMyAdmin 3.x branch has had 20 advisories spread over 4 years (2008-2011), 95% of which have been patched (5% have a vendor workaround), 10% of the issues were rated "highly critical", 5% were rated "moderately critical", 70% were rated "less critical" and 15% rated "not critical". No issues fell into the highest category "extremely critical". Half of the issues were cross-site scripting issues, and the two "highly critical" issues seem to require that someone already have logged into phpMyAdmin before they could exploit the issues (of improperly sanitized database fields).
Looking at the details seems to indicate that it's actually pretty secure. By contrast Uubuntu 11.10 has racked up 22 Secunia advisories and 89 vulnerabilities in 2 months. Would you then consider Ubuntu to be "bug-ridden"? Raw numbers can be deceptive.
Well, I think "bug-ridden" is more than a little bit of exaggeration, I can't remember the last time I ran into a bug in phpMyAdmin. However, if you have multiple people who need access to the database on an infrequent basis, it's easier to run one internal web application that has a tunnel configured to the database servers than to maintain and support the client application on a dozen different machines.
Your line of reasoning is a little off, you could use the same argument against every labor saving invention in the history of mankind (No spears for you caveman! Lest you forget how to properly kill a deer with your bare hands!). phpMyAdmin is very useful for doing a lot DB work quickly. I use it practically every day. It's an invaluable tool for developers, for examples, who are managing their own local databases and a useful tool for support personnel who can be trusted with some database access but aren't going to learn full SQL and the MySQL CLI interface.
Sysadmins who don't know exactly what they're doing aren't sysadmins, they're "unqualified applicants", and it's the job of the person doing the hiring to reject them and tell them to go learn what they're doing. Whether that's HR or an individual manager, it's their failure if they're hiring incompetent people.
I don't know how about Steve Ballmer saying saying that Windows 7 would be Vista just a whole lot better? Or PC World publishing an article indicating that the early releases of Windows 7 were nearly identical to Windows Vista in not just appearance, but also performance and behavior.
I'm not sure what you don't get about the fact that it's a lot easier to change the name of a product than it is to build a new operating system. Vista isn't the same O/S as XP which wasn't the same operating system as Windows 95 because they're fundamentally different in how they operate. Windows 7 and Vista? Fundamentally the same.
And anyone who doesn't think Windows has a marketing driven naming scheme isn't paying attention.
Do a search on Google for "Phone Icons", the majority of phone icons are either blue or green. That means there's a close to 50% chance that Samsung's icon would be the same color as Apples. Samsung's device isn't even the same dimensions as a iPhone, you may have seen images that seem to indicate otherwise, but they were doctored to look that way by Apple. In my book if you think it's a good idea to use Photoshop to manufacture your primary evidence, you've already lost the case.
From what people are saying this will be different enough that it slaps people in the face with "different" when they start it up. Since Windows 95, the Windows UI has been fairly consistent. I'd say you're probably right, the new "full screen start menu" will have to be truly amazing and useful or it will be DOA.
Many people consider Windows 7 to really be a re-branded version of Vista SP1 that you had to pay for. There's a compelling argument to be made that there's enough similarity that the two are no more different than Windows 2008 and Windows 2008 R2 and that the naming schemes are arbitrary marketing decisions.
I think I've heard that before, isn't that what they told me about Windows NT, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8?
"They" have killed quite a few people for being a "dangerous terrorist". The only difference is this guy also had American citizenship. If you were going to be worried about this you should have started worrying when they started killing people. It shouldn't suddenly change everything because this time, the bad guy who was assassinated was an American.
I'm simultaneously amused and disgusted by your delusional belief that the nationality of the victim is more important than the murder. You've reminded me of the reason you're on my list of idiots and fools.
Only if the managers who made the decisions stick around. If they take their bonuses and leave, then it may be the guy who ends up cleaning up the mess who also gets the blame. After all there wasn't a problem until he pointed out that the work wasn't going to get done on time, and now he's spending so much money to fix a problem that was only supposed to be a small fraction of that to start with...
Office politics can be as stupid and unrealistic as the real stuff. Also once the decision has been made, some people can become completely unable to accept that it was a mistake or that it should have been done differently. They'll blame someone else for hiring the wrong outsourced IT company or not tracking the project closely enough.
The way thing work now, that's never going to really happen. It's the MBA effect. The goal of an MBA is increasing ROA, there are two ways to do that, either increase revenues or decreases assets. One is hard to do, the other is pure profit for the current quarter. That's why many projects (and factories for that matter) get outsourced. Reduce the assets and the magic number goes up. Brag about it to your peers and get promoted to some other job, the sucker who comes after you gets to clean up the mess.
The "it will cost more later" argument won't do anything as long we allow disposable idiots to run businesses. That why it's so remarkable when someone who doesn't consider it their one and only goal to increase a magic number comes along and leads a company to (temporary) greatness. There's a convincing argument that Google, Apple, even Microsoft (among others), became huge because their CEOs looked beyond the numbers games and actually cared about the companies they were working on. Dell's the current example for the idiot CEOs who only care about numbers that don't actually mean anything, Dell gradually sold off it's assets to a Chinese company, now that very same company is in the process of cutting Dell out of all the businesses it used to own. Why? Because Dell doesn't own anything but a brand name and a web site, now.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no. Global Warming is quite real.
Scum, like Goldman Sachs, will use anything to try to line their own pockets. Carbon trading is an inferior solution that financial systems prefer to outright taxes and regulations because they will find ways to profit from the trading schemes and divert money away from the public good and into the pockets of the wealthy elite. However, trading schemes do actually produce results, sulfur emissions have dropped around 50% due to the trading scheme imposed on those emissions in the states. Of course, countries that implemented taxes actually had the rates drop around 60% and countries that simply regulated how much could be produced saw drops in the range of 70%, if I remember correctly.
Canada pulled out of the treaty because the party forming the government is ideologically opposed to government, climate change and international agreements on anything that isn't trade. They would have used whatever excuses they thought sounded plausible at the time.
You're missing the obvious, if they are buying carbon credits, they're actually paying for the release of at least some of their pollution which is an improvement over paying for none of it. Why? Simple economics, anything a company has to pay for, it will look for ways to reduce what they're paying. That means once there's a cost for carbon emissions they will actually have a financial reason to reduce them. It's not a guarantee that they will be reduced, but it's a step in the right direction.
That's true, the Conservative Party of Canada who currently form the Government of Canada tend to base their views on what's "best" for Alberta, where they control all but one of the seats. The Prime Minister moved to Alberta as a child and has essentially become a caricature of Albertan disgruntlement with rest of Canada. It looks like the government was facing over $9 billion in fines for failing to act on Kyoto, mostly due to the tar sands projects which they haven't even bothered to monitor.
Although the CPC blames the previous Liberal Government, the CPC has been in charge for almost 6 years now. The Liberals didn't do much to meet the targets, the CPC has never had any intention of even trying to reach the targets. They've been actively working to sabotage international agreements since they came to power.
I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. It sounds like he's willing to do the job for considerable less than some other people.
So be it.
My time is worth more than $1.5 an hour (last time I check that was approximately what TV stations sell viewer time for). I'm willing to pay for good channels with commercial free content (one exception: they're allowed to advertise their own shows).
I think every ballot should have an explicit "none of the above" that must be reported. If none of the above wins, all candidates are dismissed and may not run again until the next normal election cycle. A run off election with an entirely new slate of candidates must be held as soon as possible.
Otherwise known as the "Murdoch Recipe".
Well, I have it on good authority than the General Multidynamics patent on "breathing with lungs", granted in 2047, comes pretty close to doing so. Apparently they find it more profitable to not license the patent to anyone who isn't an employee. Unfortunately for them, while they are prosecuting the 9.6 billion violators, Gosoft Utilities is granted the 2048 patent on "drinking with your mouth", the ensuing legislative battle ends up with the "liquidation" of 95% of both companies employees, that is until Microshiba is granted the 2049 patent on "liquidating employees". Then it just gets really messy.
Woosh.
Much as I dislike Microsoft, I don't think that's actually the only issue. There has been many changes that would impact code quality over the years. Setting aside the differences in language construction. There has been a broadening of the pool of people who write software, and many people have learned "how to program" so they could get a job. It seems likely that in the 1970s if you were in computers and programming it was because you enjoyed it and took pride in it. Since the 90s, there has been an influx of people for whom it is "just a job". That alone would see a substantial decline in quality, however, on top of that the "newbies" are mostly being taught how to start programming in Java now. That means for most programmers, if you are learning Cobol it's not your first language. That means you can expect the average level of experience of Cobol programmers to be much higher than that of Java programmers.
Those two factors might be enough to explain most of the difference by themselves, but there are still a host of other factors that could contribute to this result, for example, hobbyist (as opposed to professional) programmers are much more likely to create Java projects than Cobol projects because Java resources (such as do-it-yourself) tutorials are more commonly available than the equivalent Cobol resources.
Well, I have never even seen any vulnerable Cobol web applications, have you? There are probably millions of vulnerable PHP applications.
And I'll have none of your crypto-fascist "percentage" nonsense. We only deal in hard FACTS. The kind that use only capital letters. Although, it is true that PHP is more secure than Java by deisgn. Since PHP has 3 capital letters and is symmetrical, although they should probably change it's name to BHB for true symmetrical redundancy.
Secunia says the phpMyAdmin 3.x branch has had 20 advisories spread over 4 years (2008-2011), 95% of which have been patched (5% have a vendor workaround), 10% of the issues were rated "highly critical", 5% were rated "moderately critical", 70% were rated "less critical" and 15% rated "not critical". No issues fell into the highest category "extremely critical". Half of the issues were cross-site scripting issues, and the two "highly critical" issues seem to require that someone already have logged into phpMyAdmin before they could exploit the issues (of improperly sanitized database fields).
Looking at the details seems to indicate that it's actually pretty secure. By contrast Uubuntu 11.10 has racked up 22 Secunia advisories and 89 vulnerabilities in 2 months. Would you then consider Ubuntu to be "bug-ridden"? Raw numbers can be deceptive.
Well, I think "bug-ridden" is more than a little bit of exaggeration, I can't remember the last time I ran into a bug in phpMyAdmin. However, if you have multiple people who need access to the database on an infrequent basis, it's easier to run one internal web application that has a tunnel configured to the database servers than to maintain and support the client application on a dozen different machines.
Go back up the thread and re-read it. I don't have the patience to explain it to someone who can't be bothered to pay attention.
Your line of reasoning is a little off, you could use the same argument against every labor saving invention in the history of mankind (No spears for you caveman! Lest you forget how to properly kill a deer with your bare hands!). phpMyAdmin is very useful for doing a lot DB work quickly. I use it practically every day. It's an invaluable tool for developers, for examples, who are managing their own local databases and a useful tool for support personnel who can be trusted with some database access but aren't going to learn full SQL and the MySQL CLI interface.
Sysadmins who don't know exactly what they're doing aren't sysadmins, they're "unqualified applicants", and it's the job of the person doing the hiring to reject them and tell them to go learn what they're doing. Whether that's HR or an individual manager, it's their failure if they're hiring incompetent people.
I don't know how about Steve Ballmer saying saying that Windows 7 would be Vista just a whole lot better? Or PC World publishing an article indicating that the early releases of Windows 7 were nearly identical to Windows Vista in not just appearance, but also performance and behavior.
I'm not sure what you don't get about the fact that it's a lot easier to change the name of a product than it is to build a new operating system. Vista isn't the same O/S as XP which wasn't the same operating system as Windows 95 because they're fundamentally different in how they operate. Windows 7 and Vista? Fundamentally the same.
And anyone who doesn't think Windows has a marketing driven naming scheme isn't paying attention.
Do a search on Google for "Phone Icons", the majority of phone icons are either blue or green. That means there's a close to 50% chance that Samsung's icon would be the same color as Apples. Samsung's device isn't even the same dimensions as a iPhone, you may have seen images that seem to indicate otherwise, but they were doctored to look that way by Apple. In my book if you think it's a good idea to use Photoshop to manufacture your primary evidence, you've already lost the case.
From what people are saying this will be different enough that it slaps people in the face with "different" when they start it up. Since Windows 95, the Windows UI has been fairly consistent. I'd say you're probably right, the new "full screen start menu" will have to be truly amazing and useful or it will be DOA.
Many people consider Windows 7 to really be a re-branded version of Vista SP1 that you had to pay for. There's a compelling argument to be made that there's enough similarity that the two are no more different than Windows 2008 and Windows 2008 R2 and that the naming schemes are arbitrary marketing decisions.
It did?
I think I've heard that before, isn't that what they told me about Windows NT, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8?
"They" have killed quite a few people for being a "dangerous terrorist". The only difference is this guy also had American citizenship. If you were going to be worried about this you should have started worrying when they started killing people. It shouldn't suddenly change everything because this time, the bad guy who was assassinated was an American.
I'm simultaneously amused and disgusted by your delusional belief that the nationality of the victim is more important than the murder. You've reminded me of the reason you're on my list of idiots and fools.
Only if the managers who made the decisions stick around. If they take their bonuses and leave, then it may be the guy who ends up cleaning up the mess who also gets the blame. After all there wasn't a problem until he pointed out that the work wasn't going to get done on time, and now he's spending so much money to fix a problem that was only supposed to be a small fraction of that to start with...
Office politics can be as stupid and unrealistic as the real stuff. Also once the decision has been made, some people can become completely unable to accept that it was a mistake or that it should have been done differently. They'll blame someone else for hiring the wrong outsourced IT company or not tracking the project closely enough.
The way thing work now, that's never going to really happen. It's the MBA effect. The goal of an MBA is increasing ROA, there are two ways to do that, either increase revenues or decreases assets. One is hard to do, the other is pure profit for the current quarter. That's why many projects (and factories for that matter) get outsourced. Reduce the assets and the magic number goes up. Brag about it to your peers and get promoted to some other job, the sucker who comes after you gets to clean up the mess.
The "it will cost more later" argument won't do anything as long we allow disposable idiots to run businesses. That why it's so remarkable when someone who doesn't consider it their one and only goal to increase a magic number comes along and leads a company to (temporary) greatness. There's a convincing argument that Google, Apple, even Microsoft (among others), became huge because their CEOs looked beyond the numbers games and actually cared about the companies they were working on. Dell's the current example for the idiot CEOs who only care about numbers that don't actually mean anything, Dell gradually sold off it's assets to a Chinese company, now that very same company is in the process of cutting Dell out of all the businesses it used to own. Why? Because Dell doesn't own anything but a brand name and a web site, now.