I have always been a fan of SDFX, where D is up and X is down. Forward usually used more often than reverse, so having it in the home row is convenient. Plus it frees up the entire QWERTY row for other quick selects.
That number is just for the dragon capsule. Falcon 1 was fully privately funded and I haven't been able to find info on how much it cost to develop. The Falcon 9 has received $396 millon in funding from NASA as part of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, and from what I have heard that is close to it's full development costs.
The same people that interpret all the rest of the vague, subjective, conflicting law that comes out of congress - the courts. Sen Paul's bill states that any provisions in a bill which are not related to the subject of the bill will be void. Thus if the government attempts to enforce any sections of law introduced by such bills, it will be appealed and potentially struck down by the courts.
Any self-restraint by the congress is highly desirable, but they are not the final authority.
Yeah, one month can be pretty short notice to actually fix, test, and release some more complicated bugs. But in this cas,e Nvidia never even responded to people who notified them of the exploit. If I reported a security hole and they acknowledged it and let me know the were working on fixing it, then I would give them far more than a month to fix it. But if they just ignored me, then I'd release it after a month too.
That link you posted is over a year old, and does not accurately reflect the situation today. Here is yesterday's announcement of the lawsuit CPSC has filed, and the actual text of the complaint(PDF).
Basically, the Buckyballs labeling was changed to indicate 14+ less than a month after being notified by the CPSC that they needed to do so (28-30 in PDF). Since then the CPSC has decided that no warnings, packaging or other changes can be effective at preventing kids from ingesting them (35-40,46-48), and therefore are seeking a complete stop-sale and full recall of all Buckyballs regardless of how they were labeled or are labeled in the future.
Actually expansion to other countries is the biggest factor causing them to operate in the red (their screw-up in the US just added to that).
In September 2010, we began international operations by offering our streaming service in Canada. In September 2011, we expanded our streaming service to Latin America and the Caribbean. In January 2012, we launched our streaming service in the UK and Ireland. We anticipate significant contribution losses in the International streaming segment in 2012.
Now you hear them whine about being "the internet's showroom" - they think people come in to look and then go buy online instead.
Not to mention that they hardly showroom any real hardware anymore. When I bought my mp3 player 7 years ago I bought it in a retail store because I wanted to interact with it first to see how I liked the interface, and if the hardware felt flimsy. Now I walk into a retail store, and the "display units" all have cardboard screens.
I'm not sure why people complain about the game not working on their platform.
That isn't what people are complaining about. They tried to get it running in Wine with full understanding that it might work or might not. They are complaining because they got banned for even trying. A battle.net ban means that they can no longer play any recent Blizzard game they have purchased, multiplayer or single player, online or offline. It would be like a Hasbro coming into my house and stealing all the board games I have purchased from them because they think I used disallowed house rules, when in reality I was just playing on a different table then they expected. It is a gross violation of consumer rights.
As the mandate is to give money to private insurers, and not the government itself.
No, there is a fine if you don't don't have insurance, which does go to the government. This is the tax in question and the Supreme Court held it to be valid. Given the all the millions of other special cases that our tax code includes, all of which penalize people for not doing what the government wants, this isn't surprising. If the bill made it a crime with criminal penalties for not holding insurance, then the Supreme Court may have ruled otherwise, but it didn't. You still have the full right to not hold insurance, you will just be taxed up the wazoo for it.
I agree with you that you shouldn't try to force something on the kid if he doesn't like it. However, at that age there are there are an innumerable number of things that he has never been exposed to, and has no idea whether he likes them or not. Exposing your kids to different things, especially ones that are good for him in general (reading) or had positive impact on your life (like sci-fi) is part of being a good parent. If he doesn't latch onto it, then fine, let it be and move onto something else, but the guy should try, and finding stories that are at the right level for his kid will avoid turn him off unnecessarily.
Neither. My point is that just because technology makes something possible doesn't suddenly make it ethically right, or even inevitable. When guns made it far easier to kill someone it did not mean that we needed to throw out our laws on murder as obsolete. Nor did it mean that all guns had to be banned in order to have a reasonably safe society. But these are the absurd extremes that pirates (like the AC) and media industry insist must be true.
Look the world changed, and we now have guns and artillery. They are the single greatest boon to hunting, personal and national security in the past 1000 years. Guns are fundamentally instruments of death at the hands of anyone regardless of their personal strength, and nearly for free.
We have a choice between strong right to life and the ownership of guns. We cannot have both as they are in direct conflict with one another.
Anybody making arguments for the ethics of vigilantes or the benefits of human rights is yelling at the clouds. It doesn't matter if murder is unethical. It doesn't matter if it harms families. It doesn't matter if it hurts the economy. The benefits of guns are much more important.
There are several aspects of WP7 that I want to like, and on the surface should provide a better experience than other phone, but none of these things live up to their promise. The hubs are a good example.
From a user interaction point of view, I think the hubs are a really cool idea, and a better way to organize data. But the concept falls flat because there is no way for third parties to create hub "plugins" for other data sources, so you are limited into the ones that come with the system. Because, of this you end up accessing some people/music/pictures/etc through the hubs, and some through individual apps, which really isn't any more convenient than just doing it all through individual apps.
They are not getting rid of the other plans. Here is Verizon's site for the new plans, and it clearly states that the existing tiered plans aren't going away; just the unlimited plans.
This plan is for people who want unlimited voice, text and/or want to share a data plan over many devices. Not for anyone else. Definitely not for me. As someone who pays $10-15 a month for basic prepaid service, I think it is ridiculously expensive, and a good reminder of why I don't intend to get a data plan any time soon.
Now yes, I know that much finance work out there today is pretty nasty, especially stuff like HFT. That said, finance doesn't have to be unethical.
Yeah, but nearly all the hardcore data crunching jobs (which is what he is looking for) in finance are aimed at unethical things like developing proprietary algorithms for HFT, and finding the next big thing that will let them drive the economy into the ground for short-term profit.
Finance work, that is positively ethical, like small microfinance groups, don't need supercomputer-level simulations, they need competent web and backend developers. Large actuarial groups probably have a fair bit of data crunching going on, and I would consider that to be neutral ethically, so that is a possibility.
You are completely missing the point. Compliance with the DNT is voluntary. That is a fact, not my opinion of how things should be. It is a polite request not to be tracked, no more no less. Several large advertizing industry groups have agreed to respect this request, and things have been progressing nicely along those lines. MS actions are basically a big "fuck you" to groups who have previously been cooperative.
Taking an antagonistic approach to solving a problem only works you have something to back your actions up. If there were laws or regulations requiring advertisers to follow the DNT, then MS actions would be productive. If MS were instead to implement technical means of blocking tracking, their actions would be productive.
But implementing a solution that requires the cooperation of others to have any affect whatsoever, and then being a complete asshole to those people is beyond pointless.
Holy crap that sentence got garbled in editing. It should read: Furthermore, the advertizing industry groups that have had the most success with self-regulation efforts
Yeah, both the FTC guidelines and the current W3C DNT draft both state that users should opt-out of tracking, not opt-in. Furthermore, the advertizing industry groups like that have had the most successful with self-regulation efforts have flat-out said that while they will respect the user's chose to opt-out, they will ignore any system that opts users out automatically.
Microsoft's decision here is completely counter productive. At best, it means that sites will add code to ignore theDNT header if the UA is IE. At worst it will derail the entire process.
Games can be written 99% in OpenGL ES, and just the user controls will vary from platform to platform.
The part that needs to be rewritten are GUI panels, widgets, layout, etc. Since all these platforms have significantly different interaction models (not just appearance) then any attempt to use the same interface will result in very poor user experience. Furthermore, if you really do have an application that is just GUI forms, then it must not be a very complex, and shouldn't take long to redo.
Silverlight (and XNA, and Windows Phone 7, etc) basically refer to overlapping collections of.NET libraries (often referred to as profiles) which different environments support. The set of libraries that Xamarin provides for Android development is a superset of the libraries available in Silverlight 4. However the intent isn't for you to write Silverlight applications that happen to run on Android. The idea is to write all your common code using the.NET Base Class Libraries (BCL; which are included in the ECMA standard), and then write your interface using (wrappers) around the native libraries for Android (or iOS or WP7 or Silverlight or WPF or ASP), for each platform you release on.
I disagree (assuming he wasn't convicted with a very low BAC level that shouldn't be illegal). Neither your friend nor Dharun intended for people to die. Their level of punishment should be determined according to how much unnecessary risk they imposed on others through their reckless behavior, not the random chance of whether harm happened to occur or not. Your friend's behavior was far more likely to cause innocent death than Dharun's, and any reasonable person should know that drunk driving is dangerous (especially a repeat offender, which he would have to be to get 90 days). Your friend deserved a harsher punishment than Dharun.
Slashdot Mirror
I have always been a fan of SDFX, where D is up and X is down. Forward usually used more often than reverse, so having it in the home row is convenient. Plus it frees up the entire QWERTY row for other quick selects.
No, still they require real names, unless you are already widely known by an established alias.
That number is just for the dragon capsule. Falcon 1 was fully privately funded and I haven't been able to find info on how much it cost to develop. The Falcon 9 has received $396 millon in funding from NASA as part of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, and from what I have heard that is close to it's full development costs.
Still, dirt cheap compared to previous rockets.
The same people that interpret all the rest of the vague, subjective, conflicting law that comes out of congress - the courts. Sen Paul's bill states that any provisions in a bill which are not related to the subject of the bill will be void. Thus if the government attempts to enforce any sections of law introduced by such bills, it will be appealed and potentially struck down by the courts.
Any self-restraint by the congress is highly desirable, but they are not the final authority.
Yeah, one month can be pretty short notice to actually fix, test, and release some more complicated bugs. But in this cas,e Nvidia never even responded to people who notified them of the exploit. If I reported a security hole and they acknowledged it and let me know the were working on fixing it, then I would give them far more than a month to fix it. But if they just ignored me, then I'd release it after a month too.
That link you posted is over a year old, and does not accurately reflect the situation today. Here is yesterday's announcement of the lawsuit CPSC has filed, and the actual text of the complaint(PDF).
Basically, the Buckyballs labeling was changed to indicate 14+ less than a month after being notified by the CPSC that they needed to do so (28-30 in PDF). Since then the CPSC has decided that no warnings, packaging or other changes can be effective at preventing kids from ingesting them (35-40,46-48), and therefore are seeking a complete stop-sale and full recall of all Buckyballs regardless of how they were labeled or are labeled in the future.
This is as bad as Zucker is describing it.
Actually expansion to other countries is the biggest factor causing them to operate in the red (their screw-up in the US just added to that).
In September 2010, we began international operations by offering our streaming service in Canada. In
September 2011, we expanded our streaming service to Latin America and the Caribbean. In January 2012, we
launched our streaming service in the UK and Ireland. We anticipate significant contribution losses in the
International streaming segment in 2012.
Now you hear them whine about being "the internet's showroom" - they think people come in to look and then go buy online instead.
Not to mention that they hardly showroom any real hardware anymore. When I bought my mp3 player 7 years ago I bought it in a retail store because I wanted to interact with it first to see how I liked the interface, and if the hardware felt flimsy. Now I walk into a retail store, and the "display units" all have cardboard screens.
I'm not sure why people complain about the game not working on their platform.
That isn't what people are complaining about. They tried to get it running in Wine with full understanding that it might work or might not. They are complaining because they got banned for even trying. A battle.net ban means that they can no longer play any recent Blizzard game they have purchased, multiplayer or single player, online or offline. It would be like a Hasbro coming into my house and stealing all the board games I have purchased from them because they think I used disallowed house rules, when in reality I was just playing on a different table then they expected. It is a gross violation of consumer rights.
As the mandate is to give money to private insurers, and not the government itself.
No, there is a fine if you don't don't have insurance, which does go to the government. This is the tax in question and the Supreme Court held it to be valid. Given the all the millions of other special cases that our tax code includes, all of which penalize people for not doing what the government wants, this isn't surprising. If the bill made it a crime with criminal penalties for not holding insurance, then the Supreme Court may have ruled otherwise, but it didn't. You still have the full right to not hold insurance, you will just be taxed up the wazoo for it.
I don't think that those ads have been implemented yet for the HTML5 video player. That might be the reason.
Hobby Lobby started putting out Christmas decorations this month. In June. I've decided not to shop there until they take them down.
I agree with you that you shouldn't try to force something on the kid if he doesn't like it. However, at that age there are there are an innumerable number of things that he has never been exposed to, and has no idea whether he likes them or not. Exposing your kids to different things, especially ones that are good for him in general (reading) or had positive impact on your life (like sci-fi) is part of being a good parent. If he doesn't latch onto it, then fine, let it be and move onto something else, but the guy should try, and finding stories that are at the right level for his kid will avoid turn him off unnecessarily.
Neither. My point is that just because technology makes something possible doesn't suddenly make it ethically right, or even inevitable. When guns made it far easier to kill someone it did not mean that we needed to throw out our laws on murder as obsolete. Nor did it mean that all guns had to be banned in order to have a reasonably safe society. But these are the absurd extremes that pirates (like the AC) and media industry insist must be true.
Look the world changed, and we now have guns and artillery. They are the single greatest boon to hunting, personal and national security in the past 1000 years. Guns are fundamentally instruments of death at the hands of anyone regardless of their personal strength, and nearly for free.
We have a choice between strong right to life and the ownership of guns. We cannot have both as they are in direct conflict with one another.
Anybody making arguments for the ethics of vigilantes or the benefits of human rights is yelling at the clouds. It doesn't matter if murder is unethical. It doesn't matter if it harms families. It doesn't matter if it hurts the economy. The benefits of guns are much more important.
There are several aspects of WP7 that I want to like, and on the surface should provide a better experience than other phone, but none of these things live up to their promise. The hubs are a good example.
From a user interaction point of view, I think the hubs are a really cool idea, and a better way to organize data. But the concept falls flat because there is no way for third parties to create hub "plugins" for other data sources, so you are limited into the ones that come with the system. Because, of this you end up accessing some people/music/pictures/etc through the hubs, and some through individual apps, which really isn't any more convenient than just doing it all through individual apps.
They are not getting rid of the other plans. Here is Verizon's site for the new plans, and it clearly states that the existing tiered plans aren't going away; just the unlimited plans.
This plan is for people who want unlimited voice, text and/or want to share a data plan over many devices. Not for anyone else. Definitely not for me. As someone who pays $10-15 a month for basic prepaid service, I think it is ridiculously expensive, and a good reminder of why I don't intend to get a data plan any time soon.
Now yes, I know that much finance work out there today is pretty nasty, especially stuff like HFT. That said, finance doesn't have to be unethical.
Yeah, but nearly all the hardcore data crunching jobs (which is what he is looking for) in finance are aimed at unethical things like developing proprietary algorithms for HFT, and finding the next big thing that will let them drive the economy into the ground for short-term profit.
Finance work, that is positively ethical, like small microfinance groups, don't need supercomputer-level simulations, they need competent web and backend developers. Large actuarial groups probably have a fair bit of data crunching going on, and I would consider that to be neutral ethically, so that is a possibility.
That was already linked from the summary, and from you comment above it's clear that you didn't even bother to read it yourself.
You are completely missing the point. Compliance with the DNT is voluntary. That is a fact, not my opinion of how things should be. It is a polite request not to be tracked, no more no less. Several large advertizing industry groups have agreed to respect this request, and things have been progressing nicely along those lines. MS actions are basically a big "fuck you" to groups who have previously been cooperative.
Taking an antagonistic approach to solving a problem only works you have something to back your actions up. If there were laws or regulations requiring advertisers to follow the DNT, then MS actions would be productive. If MS were instead to implement technical means of blocking tracking, their actions would be productive.
But implementing a solution that requires the cooperation of others to have any affect whatsoever, and then being a complete asshole to those people is beyond pointless.
Holy crap that sentence got garbled in editing. It should read:
Furthermore, the advertizing industry groups that have had the most success with self-regulation efforts
Yeah, both the FTC guidelines and the current W3C DNT draft both state that users should opt-out of tracking, not opt-in. Furthermore, the advertizing industry groups like that have had the most successful with self-regulation efforts have flat-out said that while they will respect the user's chose to opt-out, they will ignore any system that opts users out automatically.
Microsoft's decision here is completely counter productive. At best, it means that sites will add code to ignore theDNT header if the UA is IE. At worst it will derail the entire process.
Games can be written 99% in OpenGL ES, and just the user controls will vary from platform to platform.
The part that needs to be rewritten are GUI panels, widgets, layout, etc. Since all these platforms have significantly different interaction models (not just appearance) then any attempt to use the same interface will result in very poor user experience. Furthermore, if you really do have an application that is just GUI forms, then it must not be a very complex, and shouldn't take long to redo.
Silverlight (and XNA, and Windows Phone 7, etc) basically refer to overlapping collections of .NET libraries (often referred to as profiles) which different environments support. The set of libraries that Xamarin provides for Android development is a superset of the libraries available in Silverlight 4. However the intent isn't for you to write Silverlight applications that happen to run on Android. The idea is to write all your common code using the .NET Base Class Libraries (BCL; which are included in the ECMA standard), and then write your interface using (wrappers) around the native libraries for Android (or iOS or WP7 or Silverlight or WPF or ASP), for each platform you release on.
I disagree (assuming he wasn't convicted with a very low BAC level that shouldn't be illegal).
Neither your friend nor Dharun intended for people to die. Their level of punishment should be determined according to how much unnecessary risk they imposed on others through their reckless behavior, not the random chance of whether harm happened to occur or not. Your friend's behavior was far more likely to cause innocent death than Dharun's, and any reasonable person should know that drunk driving is dangerous (especially a repeat offender, which he would have to be to get 90 days). Your friend deserved a harsher punishment than Dharun.