Users stopped entering the www. long ago. Any web site operator already needs to work on the assumption that many won't.
There's a difference between supporting it and encouraging it. If a million users go directly to www.sitename.invalid instead of sitename.invalid, causing a redirect or proxy operation, that's a win, even if another million go to sitename.invalid. What Google does here is encouraging the wasteful behavior.
Indeed. One of the main reasons for admins naming the web domain names www. was to reduce unnecessary traffic and load on machines resolving to the domain name itself. Users being taught to not enter www. defeats this purpose.
Another reason was to identify the purpose of the DNS entry in a non-URL context. There's seldom any confusion about what www.foobar.invalid and news.foobar.invalid DNS entries point to.
I know some people think he's a smart guy, but he's been doing some awfully questionable and/or dumb stuff lately.
For every person that's more stupid than three quarters of the population, there's 25% of the population for which it's true that he's smarter than them. That's an awful lot of people.
You're a landlubber, I take it? The Atlantic waves are quite an obstacle for a 2m boat. Even drifting tar (and garbage) is a problem when you're that small.
The first two were found in the basement turbine room a few days after the accident. But if "out of Fukushima" implies "out of" as opposed to "in", sure.
Or, if they already have 100 local films, simply reducing the catalog of everything else to 300 titles, rotated on a regular (perhaps even daily) basis.
Netflix and Amazon aren't going to be spending a dime more than they do now on European made stuff.
You're thinking short term. Yes, it's easier for Netflix and others to comply by chopping the US content until the EU content ratio becomes high enough, but that's stage one. EU lawmakers think a bit farther ahead than that, and realise that longer term, Netflix et al will be more likely to add a new European movie/series if that also means they get to add another US movie/series that makes them money. So the long term result is that EU movies and series will have an easier time being accepted, and EU culture will be better served.
The time to check for flaws is before putting it on your trusted network, not afterwards. Someone was allowed to make the decision to put a 3rd party IP based security system on the same network as trusted resources, without first evaluating it for security. This seems like a management problem to me.
How some other company operates and sells their products can't really represent Google's own development practices.
No, but it shows that they use and rely on 3rd party unverified and ill designed programs, giving it access to their networks. That does taint their own products, even if everything they themselves did were safe and secure - to misuse a metaphor, it's fruit from a poisonous tree.
And in my experience, there's no such thing as "a project too big and can't be split into smaller pieces." I absolutely do not believe such a thing is possible, unless the project is to write a single algorithm in a single method, and spend 3-months sprint doing it.
The easiest example are external resources that have longer delivery time. But also internally, if you have to e.g. run a 4 week test for regulatory reasons, or prime a machine learning algorithm with real-time data that happens in a particular time frame. The agile answer is then "sorry, we cannot commit to this", and the corporate answer is then to hire or contract to someone who will get it done, and wonder why they pay you.
*Solution: Write the plan on True Scotsman brand paper.
Yeah, the "you're not doing agile right" mantra as the explanation for failure, and repeated in every agile "state of the union address" is becoming tiresome. You'd think that if there were a right way that made the companies and customers more happy, we'd all be drifting that way and things would get better and better, simply because those doing it right would outcompete the others. This is not what we observe happening.
The flip side is that you never do any of the work that by nature is too big for a sprint. Projects get interminably delayed and finally cancelled because they are too big and can't be split into smaller pieces. Or you try and fail miserably. Sometimes agile is like attempting to jump a chasm in three small leaps.
I'd like to see more upfront evaluation of what would be the best approach for any given task. Sometimes agile fits the bill, and sometimes not. Uncritically going for agile as a panacea that solves all problems leads to exactly as many problems as it solves.
A 2mm hole would leak about 0.001 m^2 of air a second, assuming that the air leaks at mach 1. So, certainly noticeable to detectors, but with the total volume of the ISS it's not that much, unless you let it run for hours and hours.
Read my post again. What I wondered about wasn't air loss through the hole, but how they would know it was a condition that would not suddenly worsen.
It will be interesting to hear what is the source of the leak - it is apparently 2mm in diameter and I'm wondering if this would be a meteorite or a piece of space debris.
Interesting. To me, an earthling and not a spaceman, that seems like a rather large hole given the pressure differentials. I'm surprised that it didn't lead to an immediate alert - how would they know it was a hole that would stay a hole, and not say a crack that could suddenly widen? I'm sure they know what they're doing, quite well, but I'd like to read more about this and how they reached the conclusion that it was safe to let them sleep.
The language isn't named after the mathematician, though. My first thought was Julia from Nineteen Eighty-Four, but that's not the case either. From an interview of one of the creators:
InfoWold: Why the name, Julia?
Karpinski: That's everybody's favorite question. There's no good reason, really. It just seemed like a pretty name.
If I get a resume with user@well.com, or even better, well.com!iris!user, It might bubble closer to the top. Otherwise, as long as it well formed, I don't really care.
.Although most of the time, in my experience, the poor are about as financially savvy as most of the middle class. It's just that they have less of a buffer. Some idiots might take out $1000/mo car loans, but most probably will not.
True, but there are always legitimate expenses that people not having a buffer are hit harder by. The stove broke? Ca-ching. Uncle Sebastian needs a new wheelchair and co-payments are 20%? Ca-ching. I feel fairly certain that there are unscrupulous people who will issue loans against the UBI at exorbitant rates, just like with payday loans but even longer term.
Unless a new type of currency is issued that's only legal tender for payments but NOT for debts, I don't see any way around there being exploitation of UBI recipients as easy targets for usury.
I can tell you my forecast: Someone will figure out that since there are no strings attached, they can offer these people loans at high interest, paid for by the $1k per month. So they'll be just as poor as before, but perhaps have a car for a while, and someone else gets richer.
These days, most people watch movies from the couch, and not even a tape or disc, but streaming. The effort to start watching a movie isn't high anymore. On average, movies are still longer than TV shows, so you do put more effort in after it has started.
But I think the main reason for dscrepancies is that most movies are one-offs. TV shows, people either stop watching, or get drawn in, and then it will either be love or dislike. So reviews tend to be useless, because they'll either be followers or those who switched the show off and have no idea how it developed. With a movie, on the other hand, most reviewers will have watched the whole thing, and apart from a few franchises and cult movies, there's very little fandom going on.
The demand is also for the original effort put in the development.
That demand has already been met when software is released, and is out of the equation. But that doesn't stop other demands for which there is a limited supply.
That certain inalienable Rights are not as widely accepted by other Countries actually speaks volumes about their lack of Civil Rights compared to the U.S., rather than that those Rights are somehow not "acceptable".
Except that many other countries recognize inalienable rights that the US doesn't, including right to privacy in public, rights to vote, right to a new start after serving a sentence, rights to healthcare and right to a roof above your head. The US of A is way down the list of human rights, and needs to shut up. The US bill of rights was forward-thinking centuries ago, but has stuck on archaic while the world has moved forward.
These days it also seems to involve a persistent long-term effort to provide bug fixes and security updates for software that's already been produced.
And here is where supply/demand kicks in again. The demand isn't for the copy of software, but for humans: Customer support, quality control and management that can understand the problem a customer has, and developers who can maintain other people's old code. Those are in limited supply, and far from free.
Slashdot Mirror
Users stopped entering the www. long ago. Any web site operator already needs to work on the assumption that many won't.
There's a difference between supporting it and encouraging it.
If a million users go directly to www.sitename.invalid instead of sitename.invalid, causing a redirect or proxy operation, that's a win, even if another million go to sitename.invalid.
What Google does here is encouraging the wasteful behavior.
Indeed. One of the main reasons for admins naming the web domain names www. was to reduce unnecessary traffic and load on machines resolving to the domain name itself. Users being taught to not enter www. defeats this purpose.
Another reason was to identify the purpose of the DNS entry in a non-URL context. There's seldom any confusion about what www.foobar.invalid and news.foobar.invalid DNS entries point to.
I know some people think he's a smart guy, but he's been doing some awfully questionable and/or dumb stuff lately.
For every person that's more stupid than three quarters of the population, there's 25% of the population for which it's true that he's smarter than them. That's an awful lot of people.
He has changed the world, period.
For the better?
Sure the Atlantic can be a tough place, but 79 days?
The Mayflower took 66 days to cross, and was much bigger.
You're a landlubber, I take it?
The Atlantic waves are quite an obstacle for a 2m boat.
Even drifting tar (and garbage) is a problem when you're that small.
The first two were found in the basement turbine room a few days after the accident. But if "out of Fukushima" implies "out of" as opposed to "in", sure.
Or, if they already have 100 local films, simply reducing the catalog of everything else to 300 titles, rotated on a regular (perhaps even daily) basis.
Netflix and Amazon aren't going to be spending a dime more than they do now on European made stuff.
You're thinking short term. Yes, it's easier for Netflix and others to comply by chopping the US content until the EU content ratio becomes high enough, but that's stage one. EU lawmakers think a bit farther ahead than that, and realise that longer term, Netflix et al will be more likely to add a new European movie/series if that also means they get to add another US movie/series that makes them money. So the long term result is that EU movies and series will have an easier time being accepted, and EU culture will be better served.
The time to check for flaws is before putting it on your trusted network, not afterwards. Someone was allowed to make the decision to put a 3rd party IP based security system on the same network as trusted resources, without first evaluating it for security. This seems like a management problem to me.
How some other company operates and sells their products can't really represent Google's own development practices.
No, but it shows that they use and rely on 3rd party unverified and ill designed programs, giving it access to their networks. That does taint their own products, even if everything they themselves did were safe and secure - to misuse a metaphor, it's fruit from a poisonous tree.
And in my experience, there's no such thing as "a project too big and can't be split into smaller pieces." I absolutely do not believe such a thing is possible, unless the project is to write a single algorithm in a single method, and spend 3-months sprint doing it.
The easiest example are external resources that have longer delivery time. But also internally, if you have to e.g. run a 4 week test for regulatory reasons, or prime a machine learning algorithm with real-time data that happens in a particular time frame. The agile answer is then "sorry, we cannot commit to this", and the corporate answer is then to hire or contract to someone who will get it done, and wonder why they pay you.
*Solution: Write the plan on True Scotsman brand paper.
Yeah, the "you're not doing agile right" mantra as the explanation for failure, and repeated in every agile "state of the union address" is becoming tiresome. You'd think that if there were a right way that made the companies and customers more happy, we'd all be drifting that way and things would get better and better, simply because those doing it right would outcompete the others. This is not what we observe happening.
The flip side is that you never do any of the work that by nature is too big for a sprint. Projects get interminably delayed and finally cancelled because they are too big and can't be split into smaller pieces. Or you try and fail miserably. Sometimes agile is like attempting to jump a chasm in three small leaps.
I'd like to see more upfront evaluation of what would be the best approach for any given task. Sometimes agile fits the bill, and sometimes not. Uncritically going for agile as a panacea that solves all problems leads to exactly as many problems as it solves.
A 2mm hole would leak about 0.001 m^2 of air a second, assuming that the air leaks at mach 1. So, certainly noticeable to detectors, but with the total volume of the ISS it's not that much, unless you let it run for hours and hours.
Read my post again. What I wondered about wasn't air loss through the hole, but how they would know it was a condition that would not suddenly worsen.
It will be interesting to hear what is the source of the leak - it is apparently 2mm in diameter and I'm wondering if this would be a meteorite or a piece of space debris.
Interesting. To me, an earthling and not a spaceman, that seems like a rather large hole given the pressure differentials. I'm surprised that it didn't lead to an immediate alert - how would they know it was a hole that would stay a hole, and not say a crack that could suddenly widen? I'm sure they know what they're doing, quite well, but I'd like to read more about this and how they reached the conclusion that it was safe to let them sleep.
The language isn't named after the mathematician, though.
My first thought was Julia from Nineteen Eighty-Four, but that's not the case either. From an interview of one of the creators:
If I get a resume with user@well.com, or even better, well.com!iris!user, It might bubble closer to the top. Otherwise, as long as it well formed, I don't really care.
.Although most of the time, in my experience, the poor are about as financially savvy as most of the middle class. It's just that they have less of a buffer. Some idiots might take out $1000/mo car loans, but most probably will not.
True, but there are always legitimate expenses that people not having a buffer are hit harder by. The stove broke? Ca-ching. Uncle Sebastian needs a new wheelchair and co-payments are 20%? Ca-ching. I feel fairly certain that there are unscrupulous people who will issue loans against the UBI at exorbitant rates, just like with payday loans but even longer term.
Unless a new type of currency is issued that's only legal tender for payments but NOT for debts, I don't see any way around there being exploitation of UBI recipients as easy targets for usury.
I can tell you my forecast: Someone will figure out that since there are no strings attached, they can offer these people loans at high interest, paid for by the $1k per month. So they'll be just as poor as before, but perhaps have a car for a while, and someone else gets richer.
These days, most people watch movies from the couch, and not even a tape or disc, but streaming. The effort to start watching a movie isn't high anymore.
On average, movies are still longer than TV shows, so you do put more effort in after it has started.
But I think the main reason for dscrepancies is that most movies are one-offs. TV shows, people either stop watching, or get drawn in, and then it will either be love or dislike. So reviews tend to be useless, because they'll either be followers or those who switched the show off and have no idea how it developed. With a movie, on the other hand, most reviewers will have watched the whole thing, and apart from a few franchises and cult movies, there's very little fandom going on.
Meaning that if that were to occur, the lowest level in Missouri (230 feet above sea level) wouldn't be flooded.
By seawater.
Mississippi River flooding worse now than any time in past 500 years
What if you sleep standing upright ?
Then you're Mr. Ed, the stable genius.
The demand is also for the original effort put in the development.
That demand has already been met when software is released, and is out of the equation.
But that doesn't stop other demands for which there is a limited supply.
That certain inalienable Rights are not as widely accepted by other Countries actually speaks volumes about their lack of Civil Rights compared to the U.S., rather than that those Rights are somehow not "acceptable".
Except that many other countries recognize inalienable rights that the US doesn't, including right to privacy in public, rights to vote, right to a new start after serving a sentence, rights to healthcare and right to a roof above your head.
The US of A is way down the list of human rights, and needs to shut up. The US bill of rights was forward-thinking centuries ago, but has stuck on archaic while the world has moved forward.
These days it also seems to involve a persistent long-term effort to provide bug fixes and security updates for software that's already been produced.
And here is where supply/demand kicks in again. The demand isn't for the copy of software, but for humans: Customer support, quality control and management that can understand the problem a customer has, and developers who can maintain other people's old code. Those are in limited supply, and far from free.