Yeah I realized it was supposed to be funny after I responded to it (while it was "Score:0") and saw the "(Score:4, Funny)". I totally understand all the aspects of the humor after rereading it with its intended purpose.
While platinum and iridium (or irridium if we want to go with your spelling) are more corrosion-resistant than iron, they are not corrosion-proof. "Not a big factor" is fine for short periods of time. The hundreds of years this thing is expected to exist and the extreme precision that it is supposed to remain accurate to are enough to make "not a big factor" a "big enough factor" to worry about. If not, it would have been made out of whatever it is your brain is made out of. That appears to lose mass quite quickly.
You are correct. I should have said mass. I'm sure I would have picked up on it after several more proof reads, but this is Slashdot after all. We aren't expected to read the article, why should we read our own posts?
A kilogram is NOT defined that way, it is converted from pounds that way. It was originally defined as the weight of one litre of water. It is now defined as being equal to a prototype held at the International Bureau for Weights and Measures.
So far it seems that most of the responders here have missed half of the purpose of HTTPS. Sure, using HTTPS vs. HTTP means that the traffic is being encrypted between your web browser and the server, but that is only half of the reason to use HTTPS. The other half is that there is a certificate on the server you are going to that verifies the authenticity of the site. That certificate is signed by a trust chain, the root of which, is installed into your browser as a trusted authority. Websites use HTTPS to prove to you that you are communicating with the correct site, not just to make the traffic invisible to prying eyes. The need for verification of who the server is sending its email to is usually totally unnecessary since the company sending the email relied upon the customer to supply the correct one.
I'm going to make a blog post titled, "Is Making Government More Open and Connected a Bad Idea?" and we can power the world with the spinning heads of/. readers.
IANAL...He was their agent, and I believe that means that anything he did during the exercise of his duties they are responsible for. If they don't like his actions, they can dismiss him, but I don't think that has any bearing on the openness of the code.
Like I attempted to say, a free market isn't something that occurs, kinda like Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny, anywhere but in someones imagination. And, I'll agree, a lot of regulation (I'm assuming we are only referring to regulation relating to commerce) is due to special interest groups, however saying that "most is" is FAR from accurate. Most regulation is due to business owners trying to cheat their customers or pollute the environment. The Government, being the representation of the people, told said corrupt business owners that this was not tolerable and that if you want to continue to do business with us you are going to have to follow our rules. You may THINK that you are bigger than your customers, but your customers are in fact the Government (you remember, "of the people, by the people, for the people"). The only regulations I can see that make things worse are those that are generated at the behest of big business.
And there are still choices with regulation, it is just harder to cheat (if you say you are selling X then the customer better be getting X) and you have to include more of the costs of the product when you sell it (like the cost of NOT polluting the environment). Study your history. You will see that if big business is free to do what they want, they will pay their employees pennies a day and destroy the environment. This isn't conjecture, it has happened and would certainly happen again without regulation. Proof of this is the fact that business get hit with environmental pollution fines and ship jobs overseas where they don't have to pay as much.
Now, try playing Monopoly(tm) without any rules. The Banker will always win. To make the game fair and enjoyable to everyone, rules get put into place. The only choice that is available in the imaginary "free market" that isn't available under regulation is the choice to cheat.
According to The Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This isn't saying that the right to life and liberty are it (it even adds "pursuit of Happiness" to your list). It is saying there are a bunch of "unalienable Rights", and "that among these" are the ones listed.
Without proper health care, none of the other three are possible, and are being denied to an individual who is denied that. I would even postulate that it is also in the list.
Now, I don't believe it is my job (or my government's) to pay for someone else's health care. But I do believe that if someone walks into a hospital and requests care for a life or limb health issue that it should be provided, no questions asked. Anything less should be considered a crime. How that care is paid for can be determined at a later time. If a hospital or clinic doesn't want to accept the risk of the potential financial loss, they are free to choose a different business to perform.
Now, a "free market" is a fallacy. It has never existed and never will. It is an ideological concept used to teach theoretical economics. The attempt to apply it to the real world does not work. It should also be pointed out that every "government regulation" was put in place because something didn't work right. I personally think it is because the believers in the "free market" never take into account that the market must exist under the purview of a government, and it is the nature of any government to grow larger and larger until it collapses from its own weight, being taken apart by its constituents and replaced by something that will eventually fulfill the same fate.
How is that an assumption about your scheduling? It's an invitation to a meeting, if you can't make it or don't want to, you are free to decline the invitation or even just ignore it. But, it would be nice if your dentist could send you an appointment reminder with a link that would put it in your calendar so when your boss is wondering where you are he can look at the calendar (no, telling your boss has no effect on them knowing where you are when they want you). Or perhaps your friend could send you an email to go do something that would require you to take off early Friday and include a link to update your calendar. Or maybe some vendor could send you an invitation to meet them for lunch with multiple times for the event and you could pick one. Or maybe a customer needs to meet you to schedule a time they can call you so you send them a meeting invite, Or maybe even the people from SANS sending you an email after you register with a link to update your calendar to say you won't be at work for that week.
Being in your company has nothing to do with wanting information in your calendar, and you are the person that gets to decide if it is worth putting in the calendar or not.
This works for the little guys that only do work for home users or small mom & pop business, but the little guys that actually work for a medium to large businesses won't likely be able to work under the table. The businesses will want to take the expense deduction for the payment.
An architect is not just a building designer, and they don't just provide a service. Anybody can design a building. In order to have a building you design built, an architect must approve the design. An architect must take many classes in engineering and is certified by the state similarly to an engineer. When an architect puts his name on a building he/she isn't just saying, "look at the cool building I designed". They are certifying that if built according to the specifications it will be structurally sound. They are the ones that determine how large a beam is needed to hold up a roof or what thickness of glass is required in the exterior windows, etc. They are also (at least at this level of building) typically at the build site to oversee construction and ensure that the proper techniques are being performed to meet the structural requirements of the building. In other words, if the building is faulty due to design flaws, it is the architect that is responsible as they verified that it was flaw free. If the building is not built correctly, it is the architects responsibility to assure that the faults are reported even if they are not fixed. Fixing them may require deviation from the original plan due to costs of fixing vs. costs of redoing, but a sound building is still a requirement of their job.
I wasn't saying that Microsoft would buy the XO machines, but rather that they could make a clone of the XO and distribute it. "Off-the-shelf" for you and me isn't the same thing as "off-the-shelf" for Microsoft. If the software that runs on their clone also runs on the XO, then it might be an incentive for people to "upgrade" (read trash) their XO's.
I think you may be missing a piece here. If M$ can get XP to run on the XO then they can buy several (hundred?) million units and give them away (what is a few hundred million to Billy G?). They would already have XP on them when the children receive them. Microsoft could probably do one better and have them built with slight hardware improvements as well. They were willing to take a similar hit on the XBox to secure the market share for consoles. I doubt they would be unwilling to spend some money to secure the computing future of the entire third world.
I say do it the other way around. Make Windows the standard and measure every other OS in Window Security Units. Then you can have a measurement on the box sort of like how Scoville Units are used for hot sauce.
This is kind of like saying that if the NY Giants are playing a football game against the Podunk County Pee Wee League's Hometown Hornets that we should say that the game should be over in the first 10 seconds. For any intelligent spectator (us nerds) the outcome of the game is obvious. To say it should only last 10 seconds goes against the very rules of the game. The "early motions to dismiss" are motions that are attempting to say the basic requirements to file suit aren't being met. Like ensuring both teams have 11 players to put on the field. As long as there are disputed claims and no settlement, there is a case to litigate.
We are in the process if digitizing almost every document ever produced (since the NACA days even). This is a lot more data than you would expect. You can find the publicly available documents at http://ntrs.nasa.gov./ The problem isn't the physical ability to scan documents, but rather the manpower required to verify the images scanned in are accurate and that various pieces of metadata are collected accurately (for example, Author name or Title, which can be found in 100's of places within a document). We are currently processing about 100 documents a day (depending on the number of pages).
About a year ago my eye doctor switched me from Acuvue to Biomedics 55. I've been wearing contact lenses for almost 25 years, and they are the most comfortable lenses I have ever worn. You may want to ask your doctor about them even if J&J drop the lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. You made me laugh.
Yeah I realized it was supposed to be funny after I responded to it (while it was "Score:0") and saw the "(Score:4, Funny)". I totally understand all the aspects of the humor after rereading it with its intended purpose.
While platinum and iridium (or irridium if we want to go with your spelling) are more corrosion-resistant than iron, they are not corrosion-proof. "Not a big factor" is fine for short periods of time. The hundreds of years this thing is expected to exist and the extreme precision that it is supposed to remain accurate to are enough to make "not a big factor" a "big enough factor" to worry about. If not, it would have been made out of whatever it is your brain is made out of. That appears to lose mass quite quickly.
You are correct. I should have said mass. I'm sure I would have picked up on it after several more proof reads, but this is Slashdot after all. We aren't expected to read the article, why should we read our own posts?
I guess I missed the humor tag in your original post.
A kilogram is NOT defined that way, it is converted from pounds that way. It was originally defined as the weight of one litre of water. It is now defined as being equal to a prototype held at the International Bureau for Weights and Measures.
I can only imagine it fluctuating as a result of corrosion. For example, if it were iron the act of rusting would alter the weight.
So far it seems that most of the responders here have missed half of the purpose of HTTPS. Sure, using HTTPS vs. HTTP means that the traffic is being encrypted between your web browser and the server, but that is only half of the reason to use HTTPS. The other half is that there is a certificate on the server you are going to that verifies the authenticity of the site. That certificate is signed by a trust chain, the root of which, is installed into your browser as a trusted authority. Websites use HTTPS to prove to you that you are communicating with the correct site, not just to make the traffic invisible to prying eyes. The need for verification of who the server is sending its email to is usually totally unnecessary since the company sending the email relied upon the customer to supply the correct one.
I'm going to make a blog post titled, "Is Making Government More Open and Connected a Bad Idea?" and we can power the world with the spinning heads of /. readers.
IANAL...He was their agent, and I believe that means that anything he did during the exercise of his duties they are responsible for. If they don't like his actions, they can dismiss him, but I don't think that has any bearing on the openness of the code.
Oh come on, it isn't any harder than hitting a womp rat from a T-16. That should have been totally planned for.
You are basing your belief on VERY old data.
http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?97,18003,18003
This post was made in March, '05, so for the "5 years now" puts it back to 2000.
HTH
Forrest
...are you also implying that anyone that is smart enough to evade the police is 'above the law'?
By definition, yes.
Like I attempted to say, a free market isn't something that occurs, kinda like Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny, anywhere but in someones imagination. And, I'll agree, a lot of regulation (I'm assuming we are only referring to regulation relating to commerce) is due to special interest groups, however saying that "most is" is FAR from accurate. Most regulation is due to business owners trying to cheat their customers or pollute the environment. The Government, being the representation of the people, told said corrupt business owners that this was not tolerable and that if you want to continue to do business with us you are going to have to follow our rules. You may THINK that you are bigger than your customers, but your customers are in fact the Government (you remember, "of the people, by the people, for the people"). The only regulations I can see that make things worse are those that are generated at the behest of big business.
And there are still choices with regulation, it is just harder to cheat (if you say you are selling X then the customer better be getting X) and you have to include more of the costs of the product when you sell it (like the cost of NOT polluting the environment). Study your history. You will see that if big business is free to do what they want, they will pay their employees pennies a day and destroy the environment. This isn't conjecture, it has happened and would certainly happen again without regulation. Proof of this is the fact that business get hit with environmental pollution fines and ship jobs overseas where they don't have to pay as much.
Now, try playing Monopoly(tm) without any rules. The Banker will always win. To make the game fair and enjoyable to everyone, rules get put into place. The only choice that is available in the imaginary "free market" that isn't available under regulation is the choice to cheat.
According to The Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This isn't saying that the right to life and liberty are it (it even adds "pursuit of Happiness" to your list). It is saying there are a bunch of "unalienable Rights", and "that among these" are the ones listed.
Without proper health care, none of the other three are possible, and are being denied to an individual who is denied that. I would even postulate that it is also in the list.
Now, I don't believe it is my job (or my government's) to pay for someone else's health care. But I do believe that if someone walks into a hospital and requests care for a life or limb health issue that it should be provided, no questions asked. Anything less should be considered a crime. How that care is paid for can be determined at a later time. If a hospital or clinic doesn't want to accept the risk of the potential financial loss, they are free to choose a different business to perform.
Now, a "free market" is a fallacy. It has never existed and never will. It is an ideological concept used to teach theoretical economics. The attempt to apply it to the real world does not work. It should also be pointed out that every "government regulation" was put in place because something didn't work right. I personally think it is because the believers in the "free market" never take into account that the market must exist under the purview of a government, and it is the nature of any government to grow larger and larger until it collapses from its own weight, being taken apart by its constituents and replaced by something that will eventually fulfill the same fate.
As long as I could reschedule them to be seen when I'm not around that would be fine :)
How is that an assumption about your scheduling? It's an invitation to a meeting, if you can't make it or don't want to, you are free to decline the invitation or even just ignore it. But, it would be nice if your dentist could send you an appointment reminder with a link that would put it in your calendar so when your boss is wondering where you are he can look at the calendar (no, telling your boss has no effect on them knowing where you are when they want you). Or perhaps your friend could send you an email to go do something that would require you to take off early Friday and include a link to update your calendar. Or maybe some vendor could send you an invitation to meet them for lunch with multiple times for the event and you could pick one. Or maybe a customer needs to meet you to schedule a time they can call you so you send them a meeting invite, Or maybe even the people from SANS sending you an email after you register with a link to update your calendar to say you won't be at work for that week.
Being in your company has nothing to do with wanting information in your calendar, and you are the person that gets to decide if it is worth putting in the calendar or not.
This works for the little guys that only do work for home users or small mom & pop business, but the little guys that actually work for a medium to large businesses won't likely be able to work under the table. The businesses will want to take the expense deduction for the payment.
An architect is not just a building designer, and they don't just provide a service. Anybody can design a building. In order to have a building you design built, an architect must approve the design. An architect must take many classes in engineering and is certified by the state similarly to an engineer. When an architect puts his name on a building he/she isn't just saying, "look at the cool building I designed". They are certifying that if built according to the specifications it will be structurally sound. They are the ones that determine how large a beam is needed to hold up a roof or what thickness of glass is required in the exterior windows, etc. They are also (at least at this level of building) typically at the build site to oversee construction and ensure that the proper techniques are being performed to meet the structural requirements of the building. In other words, if the building is faulty due to design flaws, it is the architect that is responsible as they verified that it was flaw free. If the building is not built correctly, it is the architects responsibility to assure that the faults are reported even if they are not fixed. Fixing them may require deviation from the original plan due to costs of fixing vs. costs of redoing, but a sound building is still a requirement of their job.
I wasn't saying that Microsoft would buy the XO machines, but rather that they could make a clone of the XO and distribute it. "Off-the-shelf" for you and me isn't the same thing as "off-the-shelf" for Microsoft. If the software that runs on their clone also runs on the XO, then it might be an incentive for people to "upgrade" (read trash) their XO's.
I think you may be missing a piece here. If M$ can get XP to run on the XO then they can buy several (hundred?) million units and give them away (what is a few hundred million to Billy G?). They would already have XP on them when the children receive them. Microsoft could probably do one better and have them built with slight hardware improvements as well. They were willing to take a similar hit on the XBox to secure the market share for consoles. I doubt they would be unwilling to spend some money to secure the computing future of the entire third world.
I say do it the other way around. Make Windows the standard and measure every other OS in Window Security Units. Then you can have a measurement on the box sort of like how Scoville Units are used for hot sauce.
This is kind of like saying that if the NY Giants are playing a football game against the Podunk County Pee Wee League's Hometown Hornets that we should say that the game should be over in the first 10 seconds. For any intelligent spectator (us nerds) the outcome of the game is obvious. To say it should only last 10 seconds goes against the very rules of the game. The "early motions to dismiss" are motions that are attempting to say the basic requirements to file suit aren't being met. Like ensuring both teams have 11 players to put on the field. As long as there are disputed claims and no settlement, there is a case to litigate.
We are in the process if digitizing almost every document ever produced (since the NACA days even). This is a lot more data than you would expect. You can find the publicly available documents at http://ntrs.nasa.gov./ The problem isn't the physical ability to scan documents, but rather the manpower required to verify the images scanned in are accurate and that various pieces of metadata are collected accurately (for example, Author name or Title, which can be found in 100's of places within a document). We are currently processing about 100 documents a day (depending on the number of pages).
About a year ago my eye doctor switched me from Acuvue to Biomedics 55. I've been wearing contact lenses for almost 25 years, and they are the most comfortable lenses I have ever worn. You may want to ask your doctor about them even if J&J drop the lawsuit.