As we've seen in recent months, oil price can vary depending on a number of factors. Some of those factors are supply, others can be political.
Development of alternative resources won't happen overnight... it takes a lot of time and price will especially (or only?) be competitively low once the usage base is large enough. I would say that major investments on several levels are required before prices are anywhere similar -- even in a situation of gradual price increases of oil.
The question is then: will the ones who develop such technology first be the ones who benefit most?
To take one example, the proposed amendment to Rule 37(f) says that responding parties should not be subject to sanctions when information is destroyed "because of the routine operation of the party's electronic information system." This rule would encourage strategic actors to design or purchase systems that routinely destroy data they might otherwise save if not for the potential litigation costs of preserving incriminating documents.
That would certainly work to the advantage of those not eager to be confronted with old memos:-)
I think it's better to stick to these agreements in the long run: it is both an intuitive an scientific fact that (oil) supplies will run out sooner or later. If we reach near that point without well-developed alternative technology and infrastructure, that would be a bigger disaster.
It comes at a price perhaps on the short term, but it gives a number of benefits: not only can alternative energy resources potentially come cheaper than conventional ones, it is a given that a worldwide demand for these will grow at some point in the future. Having technology, research and patents ready gives a major economic edge... it is exportable technology after all.
So.. I don't think it will damage the U.S. economy that much within the next 10 years or so, but it will be relatively damaging in the sense that reliance on foreign technology and resources remains.
Yes, but with access to the code and (some) documentation, the theoretical limit for support -- including completely customizing the entire application -- is much higher.
Isn't this basically a Beowulf-type cluster with just many many nodes? Exactly where lies the innovation? The fact that a cluster of many processors have a lot of computing power is not exactly new.
The more high-profile OSS projects mostly do have quite extensive documentation and various mailingslists and forums to support it. Plus, if official support is lacking, it is always possible to get some sort of support from a third-party company as they have exactly the same access to the software as the original developers. With other words: the spectrum of support you *can* get is much larger, even if the support you *do* get (on the smaller) projects may be lower on average.
This reminds me of the spherical robot in The Incredibles.
I'm not sure I agree with their marketing talk though: they claim that a single security officer can cost op to $200k for 24 hours. That seems rather steep...
It has been mentioned that deep linking can be relatively easily detected using the "referer" information. Doesn't it make more sense to use exactly that information to block access or redirect it to the main page?
Yes, Google would survive even if they block access to everywhere but Timbuktu. However, it would be an utterly unwise business decision. You seem to suggest that they should block access to hundreds of millions of people and let the competition take over their entire marketshare there. Remember that there are *always* companies very willing to fill lucrative gaps.
If you want to do business in a country, you have to comply with that country's laws. Otherwise, you have no business doing business there.
Also note that France represents the other European countries as much as Canada represents all American countries.
Well, it certainly looks like a positive sign that opposition does have a real effect.
One question though: what can be the potential outcome of this "fresh start"? Does it mean that a slightly revised version can get ratified anyway? (i.e. how good or bad is this news?)
I don't see what's special about this... it makes normal business sense to pick up customers that may be becoming available... it's not even typically unethical in my opinion.
Don't worry, the last time any of my boxes was rooted was on the 10th of June 2002. I remember that day and all the trouble well enough to keep my systems up to date:-)
If you're bashing me because you thought that I claim that uptime should take any priority over security: well, I do not hold that position.
We routinely patch other software running on our systems, but those do not involve reboots and are easier to fix in case of problems. I do not see a problem with wishing for a lower frequency of mandatory upgrades of the kernel. What makes an upgrade mandatory is the fact that it is vulnerable, not that a manager demands it.
As for the problem with your admins: I get the impression that most of the burden of an intrusion does not fall on their shoulders. If it did, they would be a lot more paranoid about security and would take more initiatives in fixing (potential) problems.
Given that I'm getting lousy uptimes on my Linux servers because of the mandatory kernel upgrades, I certainly welcome a (constructive) critical look at Linux kernel security.
Releasing code?
on
Wish Cancelled
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
What is the exact reason for cancellation? Is it financial or what? Does it make sense to continue this project under e.g. the GPL model?
It's a waste to let all the hard work just be for nothing.
I'm also curious about possible light levels in well-lit rooms. I suspect that LCD screens offer better visibility (at equal power consumption) than projectors... is that true?
The main point for a projector of course is that the image area is very easy to adjust and that the cost/area is much lower.
Perhaps many people are trusting and caring and nice to take pleas seriously. At the same time, they haven't yet properly learned that anything they get in their mailbox through spam can safely be dismissed as scams. The better keyword would be "uninformed" or otherwise "unexperienced".
I have a special folder for 419 spams... it's amusing and easy to recognize as they all follow the same pattern. Yes, it is surprising that even intelligent people can fall for such scams if they let their greed get in the way. On the other hand, more admirable emotions can also get in the way of common sense.
Well, there are some differences between the two products: in the case of music files, they are passive chunks of data that can be recorded from radio too. In the other case, the software itself may be able to give information in a spyware-esque way to the vendor... wouldn't that make more sense (for them)?
Since they put "commercialized GPS" on there, I guess "commercialized Internet" might be a valid option - it would certainly cover the sub-applications like web, voip, email, etc.
Having worked with a variety of optimization algorithms, would it make sense to consider the optimization itself as the 'innovation', where the actual algorithm used is secondary? Perhaps this can be optimized further with other algorithms or using the most appropriate one for different cases... ?
Slashdot Mirror
How would their position be better? I mean... how does such a treaty stifle this type of research?
As we've seen in recent months, oil price can vary depending on a number of factors. Some of those factors are supply, others can be political.
Development of alternative resources won't happen overnight... it takes a lot of time and price will especially (or only?) be competitively low once the usage base is large enough. I would say that major investments on several levels are required before prices are anywhere similar -- even in a situation of gradual price increases of oil.
The question is then: will the ones who develop such technology first be the ones who benefit most?
Cool. Does the final movie include the entire series?
To take one example, the proposed amendment to Rule 37(f) says that responding parties should not be subject to sanctions when information is destroyed "because of the routine operation of the party's electronic information system." This rule would encourage strategic actors to design or purchase systems that routinely destroy data they might otherwise save if not for the potential litigation costs of preserving incriminating documents.
:-)
That would certainly work to the advantage of those not eager to be confronted with old memos
I think it's better to stick to these agreements in the long run: it is both an intuitive an scientific fact that (oil) supplies will run out sooner or later. If we reach near that point without well-developed alternative technology and infrastructure, that would be a bigger disaster.
It comes at a price perhaps on the short term, but it gives a number of benefits: not only can alternative energy resources potentially come cheaper than conventional ones, it is a given that a worldwide demand for these will grow at some point in the future. Having technology, research and patents ready gives a major economic edge... it is exportable technology after all.
So.. I don't think it will damage the U.S. economy that much within the next 10 years or so, but it will be relatively damaging in the sense that reliance on foreign technology and resources remains.
Yes, but with access to the code and (some) documentation, the theoretical limit for support -- including completely customizing the entire application -- is much higher.
Isn't this basically a Beowulf-type cluster with just many many nodes? Exactly where lies the innovation? The fact that a cluster of many processors have a lot of computing power is not exactly new.
The more high-profile OSS projects mostly do have quite extensive documentation and various mailingslists and forums to support it. Plus, if official support is lacking, it is always possible to get some sort of support from a third-party company as they have exactly the same access to the software as the original developers. With other words: the spectrum of support you *can* get is much larger, even if the support you *do* get (on the smaller) projects may be lower on average.
This reminds me of the spherical robot in The Incredibles.
I'm not sure I agree with their marketing talk though: they claim that a single security officer can cost op to $200k for 24 hours. That seems rather steep...
It has been mentioned that deep linking can be relatively easily detected using the "referer" information. Doesn't it make more sense to use exactly that information to block access or redirect it to the main page?
Yes, Google would survive even if they block access to everywhere but Timbuktu. However, it would be an utterly unwise business decision. You seem to suggest that they should block access to hundreds of millions of people and let the competition take over their entire marketshare there. Remember that there are *always* companies very willing to fill lucrative gaps.
If you want to do business in a country, you have to comply with that country's laws. Otherwise, you have no business doing business there.
Also note that France represents the other European countries as much as Canada represents all American countries.
Well, it certainly looks like a positive sign that opposition does have a real effect.
One question though: what can be the potential outcome of this "fresh start"? Does it mean that a slightly revised version can get ratified anyway? (i.e. how good or bad is this news?)
I don't see what's special about this... it makes normal business sense to pick up customers that may be becoming available... it's not even typically unethical in my opinion.
Don't worry, the last time any of my boxes was rooted was on the 10th of June 2002. I remember that day and all the trouble well enough to keep my systems up to date :-)
If you're bashing me because you thought that I claim that uptime should take any priority over security: well, I do not hold that position.
We routinely patch other software running on our systems, but those do not involve reboots and are easier to fix in case of problems. I do not see a problem with wishing for a lower frequency of mandatory upgrades of the kernel. What makes an upgrade mandatory is the fact that it is vulnerable, not that a manager demands it.
As for the problem with your admins: I get the impression that most of the burden of an intrusion does not fall on their shoulders. If it did, they would be a lot more paranoid about security and would take more initiatives in fixing (potential) problems.
Given that I'm getting lousy uptimes on my Linux servers because of the mandatory kernel upgrades, I certainly welcome a (constructive) critical look at Linux kernel security.
What is the exact reason for cancellation? Is it financial or what? Does it make sense to continue this project under e.g. the GPL model?
It's a waste to let all the hard work just be for nothing.
I'm also curious about possible light levels in well-lit rooms. I suspect that LCD screens offer better visibility (at equal power consumption) than projectors... is that true?
The main point for a projector of course is that the image area is very easy to adjust and that the cost/area is much lower.
The screens on the first page look nifty. It would be even cooler if they joined better (i.e. no thick dark bars).
Perhaps many people are trusting and caring and nice to take pleas seriously. At the same time, they haven't yet properly learned that anything they get in their mailbox through spam can safely be dismissed as scams. The better keyword would be "uninformed" or otherwise "unexperienced".
I have a special folder for 419 spams... it's amusing and easy to recognize as they all follow the same pattern. Yes, it is surprising that even intelligent people can fall for such scams if they let their greed get in the way. On the other hand, more admirable emotions can also get in the way of common sense.
Well, I do suppose that you deserve some praise for giving your raping habit a break ;-)
Hhm.. I haven't had a TV for the past years actually. Waste of time :-) Besides, bittorrent gives easier access to movies anyway.
Well, there are some differences between the two products: in the case of music files, they are passive chunks of data that can be recorded from radio too. In the other case, the software itself may be able to give information in a spyware-esque way to the vendor... wouldn't that make more sense (for them)?
Since they put "commercialized GPS" on there, I guess "commercialized Internet" might be a valid option - it would certainly cover the sub-applications like web, voip, email, etc.
First Post doesn't count as innovation IMHO ;-)
Having worked with a variety of optimization algorithms, would it make sense to consider the optimization itself as the 'innovation', where the actual algorithm used is secondary? Perhaps this can be optimized further with other algorithms or using the most appropriate one for different cases... ?