My office employs mostly nerds who are into comic books, StarvWars, video games, etc. When a major new game version comes out, the office mostly shuts down for the day as everyone stays home to play the new release of the game.
If a dozen of my co-workers are downloading the new Star Wars fan flick the day it comes out, Bittorrent is much more efficient than regular ftp or http downloads. Only one copy need be downloaded from the far-away server to our office. Mostly everybody copies it around the office, downloading from each other over the local LAN. That's WAY more efficient than downloading a dozen copies from a server 1,000 miles away. (In actual practice maybe twice the file size may be downloaded over the internet, which is six times more efficient than downloading a dozen copies over the internet).
In less extreme cases, it's still more efficient to download mostly from other people in Texas than from the origin server in California.
On the other hand, there is some overhead. In worst cases, Bittorrent can use more bandwidth than ftp.
Also there are of course several ways to measure efficiency. Bittorrent is normally time-efficient. It's bandwidth efficient in that rather than requiring someone to buy a high upstream speed connection, it uses the idle upstream bandwidth that people are already paying for anyway. It can often be less bandwidth efficient in that there is overhead, using more total bandwidth.
So whether or not it's efficient very much depends on a) the specific situation and b) which type of efficiency you're interested in.
You wouldn't ADMIT doing that. The word "reasonable" appears often in law. They may have be ordered to produce he data "promptly". The law generally requires one to act "in good faith". You can be slow, but admitting that you're PURPOSELY being slow responding to process is probably admitting that you're breaking the law.
They could, without saying anything, be slow. if ordered to turn over 30,000 emails, they could print out the body of each one on paper, without the meta-data, and deliver them in boxes several months later rather than just sending them as a 100 MB file. That's how our soon-to-be president responds to a subpoena, anyway.
There is an important unknown or two. When a stupid criminal records a video of themselves driving your car they stole and posts it to Youtube, then the police ask for the name of the person who uploaded it, maybe it's good for Youtube/Google to respond. We know that *some* of the requests are bad, we don't know what percentage.
I received a request for information from law enforcement in a high-profile case once. A teenage girl had gone missing. Foul play appeared likely. Someone on my message board was posting with the name of the missing girl (an unusual name). The detective asked if I had the email address used to set up the account or anything else which could help them get in touch with the person and rule out the possibility that it really was the missing girl who was posting. Or alternatively, if a convict who had done handyman work for the family of the missing girl was posting under her name, again the detective would want to talk to that person.
> financial planning should be a public school subject in every grade from K through 12 to teach these skills. Even though I suspect you are extrapolating from anecdote and it's just not true for most poor people, I would still favour that as it can only help (I doubt it is a cure, but it may help make a cure easier to reach).
> So maybe ask yourself - why isn't it ? Why is there hardly a public school on earth that teaches the subject of financial management at all ?
I agree too it's not a a "cure" - some people, probably most, will AT LEAST try out the "easier way" to confirm for themselves that it really is stupid. Some will do dumb often no matter what they are taught. But damn we should be teaching this stuff.
I was happy to learn the other day that high schools ARE starting to teach it much more. I took a class from one particular provider that was really good. Their high school has really caught on in the last few years - about 30% of high schools now teach their curriculum.
Particularly they teach what you described as "Why do we not teach people how interest works - and how evil credit cards are". They basically teach that any debt other than a mortgage is quite suspect, and Capital One is a trap.
> without that resource, the elites would make rather less money ? I'm not even sure that's true, cheaper labour does save a business money - but it also costs it income.
Their are of course some predatory businesses. pay day lenders come to mind. In general, "business" probably does a lot better selling to people who can afford iPads and cars than to people who can't. I think -most- businesses do better when everyone's economic situation is better.
You asked about my family history. In brief, my dad's family was extremely poor by US standards. His childhood home had no floor, just the dirt. They ate meat on Sundays, rabbits or squirrels they killed. His first saw a toothbrush when he was about six or eight years old. He became very successful financially, mostly by working extremely hard. Initially the Navy offered the opportunity to go from nothing to something, if he was willing to work for it. After the Navy he worked for companies. Once the whole family went with him for business trip, on the corporate jet. When he died, when I was seven, my mom re-entered the workforce after being a stay-at-home mom for several years. She worked extremely hard to maintain a similar standard of living.
My parents didn't teach me much about personal finance - the trap of credit cards and note lots, etc. heck, my mom was at work until late, so we kids were basically home alone. We did see the example of hard work. From a young age I took it upon myself to learn about compound interest, etc, reading Kiplinger's magazine when I was twelve.
I basically thought that because my parents were did pretty well financially, I would too. Like it was automatic that successful parents have successful kids, as if the amount of my paycheck and savings account were in my DNA. I would have known better if I had thought about how my dad grew up. His parents were among the poorest of the poor in America, he was the vice president of an oil company. Since having upper middle-class parents doesn't provide automatic success, at 20 years old I was homeless. I lived in the empty lot behind the Target store, along with the people who panhandled on the street corner.
Over the next ten years I made some good decisions and some bad. I owned multiple cars, then sometimes had to hide one from the repo man. By about ten years ago I had already made most of the mistakes someone can make, so I began to make smart financial decisions most of the time.
I'll close with these two thoughts: > you've been raised by people who had limited choices and even more limited finances - and thus had neither the means nor the ***possibility*** of learning good financial planning.
My dad's backwoods upbringing made it -harder- for him to lear
Ps to my other reply. I've lived under a tarp behind Target. I've lived in a delapidated mobile home that was offered for sale for $2,500 (I rented, with a roommate, for $150 each). Now I own a 3,500 sq foot home in a desirable part of town. My comments about the decisions we make and the consequences aren't a theory; I'm not guessing. I've lived it both ways.
There's -some- truth to that for the truly poor people in the world, those living on less than a dollar a day.
In the US, though an attractive argument, BELIEVING that causes poor choices, but the assertion simply isn't true. Have you ever noticed that the vast majority of lump-sum lottery winners are broke within three years? If lack of seed money were the problem, $50 million dollars would solve that, many times over. The fact is, they normally go from having $50 million to broke very quickly - by continuing to do things that result in being broke. Things like buying lottery tickets.
I've worked with a lot of guys just getting out of prison and homeless guys. There are basically two paths they can choose when it comes to buying groceries:
Plan A) get six frozen meals ($12), a four pack of toilet paper ($3), two cold sodas ($3). Total $18. Repeat every few days.
Plan B) get a pound of dry rice and a few other things to make nine meals ($13), an EIGHT pack of toilet paper ($5), and no soda. Total $18. A couple days later, you don't need toilet paper - you got an eight pack. You have a few ingredients left over. You had a $20 bill and invested $2 in the larger pack of toilet paper, skipping the soda. Next trip, if you love soda, buy a 2-liter for a dollar. More soda costs less - two liters is cheaper than 20 ounces, and the big bag of beans for $3 rather than the can for $2.
That's the facts I've seen - even when you have only $20, you can invest buy getting the economy pack of one essential such as toilet paper or staple food, by just one week skipping the soda or lottery ticket. With the savings, you can buy the economy size of next item next week.
It truly IS a problem if you believe that you can only afford two cans of beans, a four pack of toilet paper, and a cold soda. That'll keep you broke. A bag of beans, an 8 pack of toilet paper, and a 2 liter of soda wil cost less and last longer.
That's true, we'll continue to do stupid things. You and I will do stupid occassionally.
> Everyone already knows smoking is bad for you... driving without a seat belt is bad for you
Far fewer people smoke today than before the education and other efforts. More people use seatbelts more often than 50 years ago. So these efforts are not useless, they do work to some degree. And I just smoked a cigarette; they aren't 100% effective.
>> And then are still in desperation because of poor choices.
> So what you're saying is "we cannot trust people to decide where best to spend money; instead, we must trust the government to spend it for them"? > if you cannot trust people to make good choices...
People making choices about their own lives do in fact frequently fall into short-term thinking. We do things that we prefer at the moment, and we don't like the long term consequences. 90% of my "bad choices" have been of that variety. Politicians making decisions about other peoples' lives made bad choices too. Not just bad in the long term, but also bad in the short term (for the populace). So no, having decisions be made be politicians doesn't prevent bad decisions. The history of centrally-controlled economies strongly indicates that bureaucrats make WORSE decisions than individuals make for themselves.
What can we do about the fact that people make bad decisions / short term decisions? Certainly we can try to educate people, so they can at least make informed choices. They'll still make bad decisions based on short term desires. We can try to train kids. When my daughter asks for a cookie, I can say "you can have one cookie now or two cookies after dinner." That may help, but she'll still do stupid sometimes.
The bottom line is that people do stupid, self-destructive things based on their immediate desire rather than long term well-being, and they always will. Some people will make worse decisions that others. Some will mature sooner and mature more, making decisions like going to school, setting aside savings, and choosing jobs where they can learn and advance over jobs that are more pleasant. Those who think short term will enjoy high school for four years, those who think long term will enjoy retirement for thirty years. Nothing will change that fact.
> DOS was terrible. Single user and no security what-so-ever.
Before DOS, there were multi-user network operating systems. Which ran on $100,000 computers. Getting rid of the multi-user and network (and the therefore the need for security) to make a DISK Operating System rather than a network OS allowed to to run on PERSONAL computers. That was awesome. Then the internet happened.
A friend of mine bought a Surface Pro because it was the most suitable for art work, with the pressure-sensitive screen. This is slightly interesting because Apple has traditionally been the choice of graphic artists, and Apple is strong in tablets. But not tablets for graphic artists.
But OMG this is a -private investigator- using false pretenses on the phone! I've -never- heard of a PI who is calling confirm employment history ever saying "this is Ray from National Finance", or "friending" the subject on Facebook while listing the subject's high school as their own, as though they went to the same high school. I certainly never did any of that when I was a PI, or heard of any other PI using false pretenses.
Except of course for most the cases we worked. That's what PIs do.
> Is it to get people to write code for them for free?
Yes. AT&T and BT both need much of the same code. It's inefficient for them to both write separate, incompatible implementations. Better for AT&T to share the initial code base, then when BT makes improvements or adds things, AT&T can use BT's work too.
Also, it's entirely possible that if AT&T kept their code proprietary, the industry as a whole would largely standardize on some OTHER code base. Then AT&T would be stuck with a huge mass of outdated, incompatible code. By open sourcing a reasonably good system, it encourages others in the industry to use it, so that the industry tends to standardize on what AT&T is already invested in.
Kernel programmer here (though I barely qualify for the title).
The stock kernel includes all the basics of software-defined networking - bridging, firewalls, etc. Obviously that's just a small percentage of the kernel, less than 1% of the kernel's 15 million lines. Which means the kernel does basic SDN in no more than about 150,000 lines. Why AT&T needed to add 50 times as much is a legitimate question. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, like many software projects, they used ten times as much code as needed for the job, resulting in ten times as many bugs.
From your Amazon link: Limited Android compatibility.... Not compatible with... Amazon, Samsung, LG, phones and tablets.
I did consider wrt. Partly I had trouble finding recommendations for fairly recent (high power) hardware for WRT. Also the default bridging setup is imperfect, so I'd be tearing out the WRT routing/bridging code and doing my own anyway.
I almost mentioned Arduino in my post. Absolutely sometimes Pi are used when they are overkill and an Arduino would be well suited. In fact, I have four Arduinos (including two $4 chips and two full Arduinos), amd had no reason to buy a Pi until yesterday.
Having said that, my earlier post said a Pi could run a haunted house. An Arduino could run one mummy.
Putting a Pi in each prop would be overkill. On the other hand, a design with 8 Arduinos in 8 props communicating with each other might be better done with one Pi.
There are of course a large number of different devices of varying power, complexity and cost. You probably don't want to learn all of them, though. The following four devices cover most needs without being too much over powered or underpowered:
a) Relay b) Arduino c) Raspberry Pi d) Full-size PC/server
Fortunately the last two both run Linux, so that's only one system to learn, and relays should be easy to learn.
The cell phone doesn't have general-purpose IO; it can't interface with physical components such as motors, servos, sensors, switches, etc. You mentioned "programming on Android" - if you want to write SOFTWARE you can do that on your computer - your desktop or laptop. The Pi is particularly useful for creating HARDWARE. A great example is in a haunted house - you have motion sensors or light beams to sense when someone rounds a corner and that triggers the mummy to pop up, the strobe lights to flash, etc. That's the Pi's specialty - combining software with the physical world via GPIO. Maybe you're building a DIY 3D printer or CNC machine - you're using software to control motors and things based on various sensors and switches. An Android phone or garage sale computer can't do that so readily.
You mentioned the comparison to a cheap Android phone for more purely software tasks. The cheapest Android phone I found in a quick Google search was on clearance for $17. For $35, the Pi is within $20 of that price point, and has millions of people doing projects with it and documenting how they did it. That cheap cell phone has a lot of unknowns. One real problem I've encountered - phones like to sleep when they're idle. Setting it to stay awake keeps the screen on, which sometimes drains the battery faster than it can be charged. On the phones I tested, I certainly can't leave the GPS running with an active app, the battery will die even with the charger connected. That's one example of many types of problems that pop up when re-purposing hardware that's not designed for tinkering projects. A pi is designed for embedded projects, and with millions of users any problems are well known and any solutions documented. Even if I don't need GPIO, using the standard tinkerer platform, the RPi, is well worth the extra $20.
Some people use the HDMI interface to connect a TV, using it as a media center. Most Android phones don't have HDMI, though some tablets do. It is reasonably well suited to that role.
My current project today with my RPi 3 is a transparent wired ethernet to wifi bridge, a reverse access point. An Android phone doesn't even HAVE a wired ethernet port, but if some device DID have it, why choose some random device that's poorly documented, if at all, when I can use the most common platform, and have the full power of Linux, customized however I want? As you may know, over 95% of the world's fastest supercomputers run Linux, massive numbers of powerful network devices run Linux, and yet it also runs routers with 4MB of storage and 8MB of RAM - it's a very powerful and flexible OS.
For my bridge, I copied the stock Raspbian image to a micro SD card, ran less than a dozen commands, and had a bridge that works better than anything I can buy. The bridges available for sale cost more than the Pi, and they all have some drawback that creates problems for my use case - they put the wired media on a different subnet, a different network, than the wifi it's attached to and they NAT it. That's not what I want. Other, still more expensive options fail to handle the MAC addresses properly. My Pi project can do exactly what I want it to do, at a cost lower than buying a Netgear or Linksys bridge, and I know I can make any changes I desire as my needs change.
Android has 71% of the MOBILE market in Europe, including OEM-cusromized versions which aren't what Google published. Personally, I wouldn't call less than 71% "complete control of the entire supply".
Just curious, are you drunk, or are you stoned? Citigroup's trading and reporting systems aren't open source, quite the opposite; they are closely guarded secrets.
Are you confused because the output is required to be in a specified format?
About half of what you said makes sense. For example:
> It's not 1990 guys... > Why can't google use Font Size instead of BIGGER smaller. WTF is that.
font-size was introduced in html 3.2 January 1997 and deprecated in December of the same year. Why? Because you don't KNOW what font size is appropriate for my eyes on the screen I happen to be looking at right this moment. What you DO know is "this part should be the small print" and "this part should be big print". Larger and smaller are correct. font-size=9 is wrong. It was an experiment, and it took less than a year to realize it was a complete failure.
It is a crime to treat classified information with "gross negligence". Director Comey said Clinton was "extremely careless" on at least 110 occasions.
"Gross negligence" and "extremely careless" are synonyms, so basically he said she's guilty of at least 110 counts.
He also said no federal prosecutor working for Obama would prosecute HILLARY CLINTON for this crime, but anyone else who did the same thing should expect to be prosecuted.
If there is only one programming task that your company will ever need, it might make sense to not have it done well. MIGHT because very frequently a good programmer can look at the entire system around a piece of software and recommend an approach that will save X hours of labor (money) every week, for the life of the system. As an example from my last job, there were a lot of separate pieces of software in the system. People would routinely download a report from system A, copy and paste it into system B, and use system B to transform it for entry into system C. A, B, C all stored their data on the data on the database server. Which means that all that manual work of entering and copy-pasting every week was just a way of getting data from the database into the database! Rather than re-implementing system B as originally requested, I was able to skip all of that amd replace it with a scheduled query that AUTOMATICALLY copied the data from the A database into the C database directly. That saved four hours of work every week.
In most real companies, there's more than one job to do. Rather than spending this week working on bugs in code I wrote last month, I can do a new task this week, because I didn't write crap last month.
In most cases, the lowest total cost is quality work, by someone who will charge 50% more per hour, and accomplish 100% more useful work.
More specifically, "no if you have some eye sight, enough to do common tasks through a combination of memory and site." My primary visually-impaired client knows that to do a certain routine task, he clicks the upper left menu, selects the first option, sets the select box to item #2, then clicks the submit on the lower right. He can't easily read the text on these UI elements, but knowing what he's looking for and where they always are, he can find them. People with good eyesight can probably relate to how they can move around their own house in near complete darkness, because they know where everything is. You only have to recognize the objects you already know, not identify unknown objects.
The best way to piss him off is to "improve" (change) the UI. For him, at least, any new OS would be very difficult. It's much easier for him to use a system he already knows well.
Others have mentioned the "war of drugs" term was coined in 1971. This was in response to the violent drug gangs that rose to prominence in the late 1960s and early 1970s. New York and Detroit was especially dangerous.
Look up Frank Lucas aka "Superfly", Griselda Blanco aka Black Widow aka the Godmother, Felix Mitchell aka "The Cat", etc.
Blanco alone is responsible for at least 200 murders.
If you want to talk about Reagan, compare the situation in the cities in 1979 vs 1989. Fact is, the drug gangs were greatly reduced during that time frame, though Los Angeles continued to have a problem during the 20 years of democrat control of California that followed.
When I last changed jobs, I spent much of that two weeks cleaning up documentation and writing a simple and direct "introduction to the position" document for my replacement. During that time, my boss and backup did my normal duties. In doing so, she ran into a few hurdles, some questions. I was there to assist. By the day I left, she had been doing my daily job for two weeks. (While interviewing, I arranged for our workload to be light for the following few weeks).
At my current job, my boss recently quit. During his two weeks, he spent probably 60 hours documenting like crazy and demonstrating stuff for those of us he left behind. That was VERY helpful for us.
Slashdot Mirror
My office employs mostly nerds who are into comic books, StarvWars, video games, etc. When a major new game version comes out, the office mostly shuts down for the day as everyone stays home to play the new release of the game.
If a dozen of my co-workers are downloading the new Star Wars fan flick the day it comes out, Bittorrent is much more efficient than regular ftp or http downloads. Only one copy need be downloaded from the far-away server to our office. Mostly everybody copies it around the office, downloading from each other over the local LAN. That's WAY more efficient than downloading a dozen copies from a server 1,000 miles away. (In actual practice maybe twice the file size may be downloaded over the internet, which is six times more efficient than downloading a dozen copies over the internet).
In less extreme cases, it's still more efficient to download mostly from other people in Texas than from the origin server in California.
On the other hand, there is some overhead. In worst cases, Bittorrent can use more bandwidth than ftp.
Also there are of course several ways to measure efficiency. Bittorrent is normally time-efficient. It's bandwidth efficient in that rather than requiring someone to buy a high upstream speed connection, it uses the idle upstream bandwidth that people are already paying for anyway. It can often be less bandwidth efficient in that there is overhead, using more total bandwidth.
So whether or not it's efficient very much depends on a) the specific situation and b) which type of efficiency you're interested in.
You wouldn't ADMIT doing that. The word "reasonable" appears often in law. They may have be ordered to produce he data "promptly". The law generally requires one to act "in good faith". You can be slow, but admitting that you're PURPOSELY being slow responding to process is probably admitting that you're breaking the law.
They could, without saying anything, be slow. if ordered to turn over 30,000 emails, they could print out the body of each one on paper, without the meta-data, and deliver them in boxes several months later rather than just sending them as a 100 MB file. That's how our soon-to-be president responds to a subpoena, anyway.
There is an important unknown or two. When a stupid criminal records a video of themselves driving your car they stole and posts it to Youtube, then the police ask for the name of the person who uploaded it, maybe it's good for Youtube/Google to respond. We know that *some* of the requests are bad, we don't know what percentage.
I received a request for information from law enforcement in a high-profile case once. A teenage girl had gone missing. Foul play appeared likely. Someone on my message board was posting with the name of the missing girl (an unusual name). The detective asked if I had the email address used to set up the account or anything else which could help them get in touch with the person and rule out the possibility that it really was the missing girl who was posting. Or alternatively, if a convict who had done handyman work for the family of the missing girl was posting under her name, again the detective would want to talk to that person.
I'm 100% with you on:
> financial planning should be a public school subject in every grade from K through 12 to teach these skills.
Even though I suspect you are extrapolating from anecdote and it's just not true for most poor people, I would still favour that as it can only help (I doubt it is a cure, but it may help make a cure easier to reach).
> So maybe ask yourself - why isn't it ? Why is there hardly a public school on earth that teaches the subject of financial management at all ?
I agree too it's not a a "cure" - some people, probably most, will AT LEAST try out the "easier way" to confirm for themselves that it really is stupid. Some will do dumb often no matter what they are taught. But damn we should be teaching this stuff.
I was happy to learn the other day that high schools ARE starting to teach it much more. I took a class from one particular provider that was really good. Their high school has really caught on in the last few years - about 30% of high schools now teach their curriculum.
Particularly they teach what you described as "Why do we not teach people how interest works - and how evil credit cards are". They basically teach that any debt other than a mortgage is quite suspect, and Capital One is a trap.
> without that resource, the elites would make rather less money ? I'm not even sure that's true, cheaper labour does save a business money - but it also costs it income.
Their are of course some predatory businesses. pay day lenders come to mind. In general, "business" probably does a lot better selling to people who can afford iPads and cars than to people who can't. I think -most- businesses do better when everyone's economic situation is better.
You asked about my family history. In brief, my dad's family was extremely poor by US standards. His childhood home had no floor, just the dirt. They ate meat on Sundays, rabbits or squirrels they killed. His first saw a toothbrush when he was about six or eight years old. He became very successful financially, mostly by working extremely hard. Initially the Navy offered the opportunity to go from nothing to something, if he was willing to work for it. After the Navy he worked for companies. Once the whole family went with him for business trip, on the corporate jet. When he died, when I was seven, my mom re-entered the workforce after being a stay-at-home mom for several years. She worked extremely hard to maintain a similar standard of living.
My parents didn't teach me much about personal finance - the trap of credit cards and note lots, etc. heck, my mom was at work until late, so we kids were basically home alone. We did see the example of hard work. From a young age I took it upon myself to learn about compound interest, etc, reading Kiplinger's magazine when I was twelve.
I basically thought that because my parents were did pretty well financially, I would too. Like it was automatic that successful parents have successful kids, as if the amount of my paycheck and savings account were in my DNA. I would have known better if I had thought about how my dad grew up. His parents were among the poorest of the poor in America, he was the vice president of an oil company. Since having upper middle-class parents doesn't provide automatic success, at 20 years old I was homeless. I lived in the empty lot behind the Target store, along with the people who panhandled on the street corner.
Over the next ten years I made some good decisions and some bad. I owned multiple cars, then sometimes had to hide one from the repo man. By about ten years ago I had already made most of the mistakes someone can make, so I began to make smart financial decisions most of the time.
I'll close with these two thoughts:
> you've been raised by people who had limited choices and even more limited finances - and thus had neither the means nor the ***possibility*** of learning good financial planning.
My dad's backwoods upbringing made it -harder- for him to lear
Ps to my other reply. I've lived under a tarp behind Target. I've lived in a delapidated mobile home that was offered for sale for $2,500 (I rented, with a roommate, for $150 each). Now I own a 3,500 sq foot home in a desirable part of town. My comments about the decisions we make and the consequences aren't a theory; I'm not guessing. I've lived it both ways.
There's -some- truth to that for the truly poor people in the world, those living on less than a dollar a day.
In the US, though an attractive argument, BELIEVING that causes poor choices, but the assertion simply isn't true. Have you ever noticed that the vast majority of lump-sum lottery winners are broke within three years? If lack of seed money were the problem, $50 million dollars would solve that, many times over. The fact is, they normally go from having $50 million to broke very quickly - by continuing to do things that result in being broke. Things like buying lottery tickets.
I've worked with a lot of guys just getting out of prison and homeless guys. There are basically two paths they can choose when it comes to buying groceries:
Plan A) get six frozen meals ($12), a four pack of toilet paper ($3), two cold sodas ($3). Total $18. Repeat every few days.
Plan B) get a pound of dry rice and a few other things to make nine meals ($13), an EIGHT pack of toilet paper ($5), and no soda. Total $18. A couple days later, you don't need toilet paper - you got an eight pack. You have a few ingredients left over. You had a $20 bill and invested $2 in the larger pack of toilet paper, skipping the soda. Next trip, if you love soda, buy a 2-liter for a dollar. More soda costs less - two liters is cheaper than 20 ounces, and the big bag of beans for $3 rather than the can for $2.
That's the facts I've seen - even when you have only $20, you can invest buy getting the economy pack of one essential such as toilet paper or staple food, by just one week skipping the soda or lottery ticket. With the savings, you can buy the economy size of next item next week.
It truly IS a problem if you believe that you can only afford two cans of beans, a four pack of toilet paper, and a cold soda. That'll keep you broke. A bag of beans, an 8 pack of toilet paper, and a 2 liter of soda wil cost less and last longer.
That's true, we'll continue to do stupid things. You and I will do stupid occassionally.
> Everyone already knows smoking is bad for you ... driving without a seat belt is bad for you
Far fewer people smoke today than before the education and other efforts. More people use seatbelts more often than 50 years ago. So these efforts are not useless, they do work to some degree. And I just smoked a cigarette; they aren't 100% effective.
>> And then are still in desperation because of poor choices.
> So what you're saying is "we cannot trust people to decide where best to spend money; instead, we must trust the government to spend it for them"?
> if you cannot trust people to make good choices...
People making choices about their own lives do in fact frequently fall into short-term thinking. We do things that we prefer at the moment, and we don't like the long term consequences. 90% of my "bad choices" have been of that variety. Politicians making decisions about other peoples' lives made bad choices too. Not just bad in the long term, but also bad in the short term (for the populace). So no, having decisions be made be politicians doesn't prevent bad decisions. The history of centrally-controlled economies strongly indicates that bureaucrats make WORSE decisions than individuals make for themselves.
What can we do about the fact that people make bad decisions / short term decisions? Certainly we can try to educate people, so they can at least make informed choices. They'll still make bad decisions based on short term desires. We can try to train kids. When my daughter asks for a cookie, I can say "you can have one cookie now or two cookies after dinner." That may help, but she'll still do stupid sometimes.
The bottom line is that people do stupid, self-destructive things based on their immediate desire rather than long term well-being, and they always will. Some people will make worse decisions that others. Some will mature sooner and mature more, making decisions like going to school, setting aside savings, and choosing jobs where they can learn and advance over jobs that are more pleasant. Those who think short term will enjoy high school for four years, those who think long term will enjoy retirement for thirty years. Nothing will change that fact.
> DOS was terrible. Single user and no security what-so-ever.
Before DOS, there were multi-user network operating systems. Which ran on $100,000 computers. Getting rid of the multi-user and network (and the therefore the need for security) to make a DISK Operating System rather than a network OS allowed to to run on PERSONAL computers. That was awesome. Then the internet happened.
A friend of mine bought a Surface Pro because it was the most suitable for art work, with the pressure-sensitive screen. This is slightly interesting because Apple has traditionally been the choice of graphic artists, and Apple is strong in tablets. But not tablets for graphic artists.
But OMG this is a -private investigator- using false pretenses on the phone! I've -never- heard of a PI who is calling confirm employment history ever saying "this is Ray from National Finance", or "friending" the subject on Facebook while listing the subject's high school as their own, as though they went to the same high school. I certainly never did any of that when I was a PI, or heard of any other PI using false pretenses.
Except of course for most the cases we worked. That's what PIs do.
> Is it to get people to write code for them for free?
Yes. AT&T and BT both need much of the same code. It's inefficient for them to both write separate, incompatible implementations. Better for AT&T to share the initial code base, then when BT makes improvements or adds things, AT&T can use BT's work too.
Also, it's entirely possible that if AT&T kept their code proprietary, the industry as a whole would largely standardize on some OTHER code base. Then AT&T would be stuck with a huge mass of outdated, incompatible code. By open sourcing a reasonably good system, it encourages others in the industry to use it, so that the industry tends to standardize on what AT&T is already invested in.
Kernel programmer here (though I barely qualify for the title).
The stock kernel includes all the basics of software-defined networking - bridging, firewalls, etc. Obviously that's just a small percentage of the kernel, less than 1% of the kernel's 15 million lines. Which means the kernel does basic SDN in no more than about 150,000 lines. Why AT&T needed to add 50 times as much is a legitimate question. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, like many software projects, they used ten times as much code as needed for the job, resulting in ten times as many bugs.
From your Amazon link: ... ... Amazon, Samsung, LG, phones and tablets.
Limited Android compatibility.
Not compatible with
I did consider wrt. Partly I had trouble finding recommendations for fairly recent (high power) hardware for WRT. Also the default bridging setup is imperfect, so I'd be tearing out the WRT routing/bridging code and doing my own anyway.
Not sure why adding a $40 non-standard adapter to non-standard hardware is better than paying $35 for standard hardware that doesn't need an adapter.
I almost mentioned Arduino in my post. Absolutely sometimes Pi are used when they are overkill and an Arduino would be well suited. In fact, I have four Arduinos (including two $4 chips and two full Arduinos), amd had no reason to buy a Pi until yesterday.
Having said that, my earlier post said a Pi could run a haunted house. An Arduino could run one mummy.
Putting a Pi in each prop would be overkill. On the other hand, a design with 8 Arduinos in 8 props communicating with each other might be better done with one Pi.
There are of course a large number of different devices of varying power, complexity and cost. You probably don't want to learn all of them, though. The following four devices cover most needs without being too much over powered or underpowered:
a) Relay
b) Arduino
c) Raspberry Pi
d) Full-size PC/server
Fortunately the last two both run Linux, so that's only one system to learn, and relays should be easy to learn.
The cell phone doesn't have general-purpose IO; it can't interface with physical components such as motors, servos, sensors, switches, etc. You mentioned "programming on Android" - if you want to write SOFTWARE you can do that on your computer - your desktop or laptop. The Pi is particularly useful for creating HARDWARE. A great example is in a haunted house - you have motion sensors or light beams to sense when someone rounds a corner and that triggers the mummy to pop up, the strobe lights to flash, etc. That's the Pi's specialty - combining software with the physical world via GPIO. Maybe you're building a DIY 3D printer or CNC machine - you're using software to control motors and things based on various sensors and switches. An Android phone or garage sale computer can't do that so readily.
You mentioned the comparison to a cheap Android phone for more purely software tasks. The cheapest Android phone I found in a quick Google search was on clearance for $17. For $35, the Pi is within $20 of that price point, and has millions of people doing projects with it and documenting how they did it. That cheap cell phone has a lot of unknowns. One real problem I've encountered - phones like to sleep when they're idle. Setting it to stay awake keeps the screen on, which sometimes drains the battery faster than it can be charged. On the phones I tested, I certainly can't leave the GPS running with an active app, the battery will die even with the charger connected. That's one example of many types of problems that pop up when re-purposing hardware that's not designed for tinkering projects. A pi is designed for embedded projects, and with millions of users any problems are well known and any solutions documented. Even if I don't need GPIO, using the standard tinkerer platform, the RPi, is well worth the extra $20.
Some people use the HDMI interface to connect a TV, using it as a media center. Most Android phones don't have HDMI, though some tablets do. It is reasonably well suited to that role.
My current project today with my RPi 3 is a transparent wired ethernet to wifi bridge, a reverse access point. An Android phone doesn't even HAVE a wired ethernet port, but if some device DID have it, why choose some random device that's poorly documented, if at all, when I can use the most common platform, and have the full power of Linux, customized however I want? As you may know, over 95% of the world's fastest supercomputers run Linux, massive numbers of powerful network devices run Linux, and yet it also runs routers with 4MB of storage and 8MB of RAM - it's a very powerful and flexible OS.
For my bridge, I copied the stock Raspbian image to a micro SD card, ran less than a dozen commands, and had a bridge that works better than anything I can buy. The bridges available for sale cost more than the Pi, and they all have some drawback that creates problems for my use case - they put the wired media on a different subnet, a different network, than the wifi it's attached to and they NAT it. That's not what I want. Other, still more expensive options fail to handle the MAC addresses properly. My Pi project can do exactly what I want it to do, at a cost lower than buying a Netgear or Linksys bridge, and I know I can make any changes I desire as my needs change.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Android has 71% of the MOBILE market in Europe, including OEM-cusromized versions which aren't what Google published.
Personally, I wouldn't call less than 71% "complete control of the entire supply".
Thanks for pointing that out. It's interesting that of the 13 members, four are from Texas.
Just curious, are you drunk, or are you stoned?
Citigroup's trading and reporting systems aren't open source, quite the opposite; they are closely guarded secrets.
Are you confused because the output is required to be in a specified format?
About half of what you said makes sense. For example:
> It's not 1990 guys ...
> Why can't google use Font Size instead of BIGGER smaller. WTF is that.
font-size was introduced in html 3.2 January 1997 and deprecated in December of the same year. Why? Because you don't KNOW what font size is appropriate for my eyes on the screen I happen to be looking at right this moment. What you DO know is "this part should be the small print" and "this part should be big print". Larger and smaller are correct. font-size=9 is wrong. It was an experiment, and it took less than a year to realize it was a complete failure.
It is a crime to treat classified information with "gross negligence".
Director Comey said Clinton was "extremely careless" on at least 110 occasions.
"Gross negligence" and "extremely careless" are synonyms, so basically he said she's guilty of at least 110 counts.
He also said no federal prosecutor working for Obama would prosecute HILLARY CLINTON for this crime, but anyone else who did the same thing should expect to be prosecuted.
If there is only one programming task that your company will ever need, it might make sense to not have it done well. MIGHT because very frequently a good programmer can look at the entire system around a piece of software and recommend an approach that will save X hours of labor (money) every week, for the life of the system. As an example from my last job, there were a lot of separate pieces of software in the system. People would routinely download a report from system A, copy and paste it into system B, and use system B to transform it for entry into system C. A, B, C all stored their data on the data on the database server. Which means that all that manual work of entering and copy-pasting every week was just a way of getting data from the database into the database! Rather than re-implementing system B as originally requested, I was able to skip all of that amd replace it with a scheduled query that AUTOMATICALLY copied the data from the A database into the C database directly. That saved four hours of work every week.
In most real companies, there's more than one job to do. Rather than spending this week working on bugs in code I wrote last month, I can do a new task this week, because I didn't write crap last month.
In most cases, the lowest total cost is quality work, by someone who will charge 50% more per hour, and accomplish 100% more useful work.
More specifically, "no if you have some eye sight, enough to do common tasks through a combination of memory and site." My primary visually-impaired client knows that to do a certain routine task, he clicks the upper left menu, selects the first option, sets the select box to item #2, then clicks the submit on the lower right. He can't easily read the text on these UI elements, but knowing what he's looking for and where they always are, he can find them. People with good eyesight can probably relate to how they can move around their own house in near complete darkness, because they know where everything is. You only have to recognize the objects you already know, not identify unknown objects.
The best way to piss him off is to "improve" (change) the UI. For him, at least, any new OS would be very difficult. It's much easier for him to use a system he already knows well.
Others have mentioned the "war of drugs" term was coined in 1971. This was in response to the violent drug gangs that rose to prominence in the late 1960s and early 1970s. New York and Detroit was especially dangerous.
Look up Frank Lucas aka "Superfly", Griselda Blanco aka Black Widow aka the Godmother, Felix Mitchell aka "The Cat", etc.
Blanco alone is responsible for at least 200 murders.
If you want to talk about Reagan, compare the situation in the cities in 1979 vs 1989. Fact is, the drug gangs were greatly reduced during that time frame, though Los Angeles continued to have a problem during the 20 years of democrat control of California that followed.
When I last changed jobs, I spent much of that two weeks cleaning up documentation and writing a simple and direct "introduction to the position" document for my replacement. During that time, my boss and backup did my normal duties. In doing so, she ran into a few hurdles, some questions. I was there to assist. By the day I left, she had been doing my daily job for two weeks. (While interviewing, I arranged for our workload to be light for the following few weeks).
At my current job, my boss recently quit. During his two weeks, he spent probably 60 hours documenting like crazy and demonstrating stuff for those of us he left behind. That was VERY helpful for us.