Actually, it's pretty clear how he did it. He helped privatize all of the national industries in exchange for stock from the cronies he gave the industries to. It would basically be like Obama saying "hey, Warren Buffet, buddy - take the US Forest Service and do whatever you want with it - but I get 20% of the profits!"
Ironically, it was a display of the purest form of the capitalism he pretends to protest - fairly close to the way the 19th century railroad and oil robber barons made their fortunes in the US. Except he managed to do it while being a politician making bald faced lies to his people and the world at the same time, which makes it even more impressive.
"Aaaaaa... little piece of Poland, a little piece of France. A little piece of Portugal, and Austria perchance. A little slice of Turkey, and all that that entails And then a piece of England Scotland lreland and Wales A little nip of Norway, a little spot of Greece A little hunk of Hungary, oh what a lovely feast A little bite of Belgium, and now for some dessert Armenia Albania, and Russia wouldn 't hurt..."
English - being a very imprecise language - is largely about context. The meaning and pronunciation of many English words is often completely dependent on that context, in fact. In this case "divest X of Y" means Y is a subset being removed from X. Pretty trivial when you break it down.
So, yeah, it's my first language, and I used it to intuitively understand the correct meaning of the (yes, somewhat complex) sentence described. Not my problem if you couldn't do the same.
Sure, obviously the cause can't be directly traced to those initiatives, but it can be *correlated* with the drop in smoking, which is enough to make the OP's sarcastic comment as to how it was ineffective invalid.
And, big deal that there is a couple percent change in the data you can't explain. All sampled surveys have a margin of error so that's fairly irrelevant to the 25 year trend. And if you look at the data since '96 the deviation is a low lower - likely because they have started taking larger samples. Again, makes no real different to the point.
Why would they raise tuition? This would be like you selling "that cool but perverted lamp" you had in your living room because you realized some people don't want to see it when they come to your house. Didn't affect your life, and you got $50 from that weird guy down the block for it, so now you can go invest in other, less perverted lamps that will make you just as much gain on your investment (which for lamps or fossil fuels, is currently VERY LITTLE).
You think you are being facetious, but in many areas it's the truth. In the most populous state in the US, these sorts of initiatives have been pretty fucking effective...
1) it WASN'T $18B in coal stock, That's the entire endowment.
2) selling stock doesn't mean you are GIVING IT AWAY.
If I told the slashdot crowd I thought Microsoft was immoral, and I was selling the $1M I had in their stock (which they'd mostly love, I'm sure), am I losing $1M? No. I'm transferring my investments somewhere else. It's not an issue of not "using that money" somewhere else, etc, they are just reinvesting it. So they decided that coal was a bad bet, and want to put it into something else, big fucking deal! Yes, PUT THAT MONEY into sustainable energy. Or put it into long term investments and then put the profits into sustainable energy, who cares.
Holy fucking shit I can't believe how clueless people seem to be on basic investing.
No, the summary isn't wrong, you just READ IT WRONG.
Stanford University announced Tuesday that it would divest its $18.7 billion endowment of stock in coal-mining companies.
I (and many others, I assume) read it correctly that is would divest ( ( its $18.7B endowment ) of stock in coal mining ). Big deal. There was some context involved, sure, but it was only an issue if you are so clueless as to think that a university would have over $18B in stock in coal companies alone.
You clearly were not clueless enough to think they had that much coal stock... just clueless enough to misparse the sentence;) Oh well....
Set it at 200% if you want. Laws are meaningless unless they're enforced. There are already anti-abuse provisions. When is the last time they were enforced?
Oh, I'd say they are being enforced "in force" in the Valley these days. Now is not the time to fuck with employment law in tech companies...
What does that have to do with it? For example. as far as I can tell there is no MIPS support at all.
If you look at the OpenSSL Makefile/config, it's been ported to literally HUNDREDS of platforms. Of course, all of those have a basic C compiler. Probably 10% would be supported by AdaCore.
And, of course, yes, if you wanted to port OpenSSL to a proprietary platform and not release the source, that's perfectly acceptable given the OpenSSL license.
Performance sensitive? really? most crypto is NOT performance sensitive at all and you could easily sacrifice some performance for more secure/reviewed code. I would imagine there are very few mostly fringe cases where the performance is more critical in which cases they should be uses modified versions not having hacks put into the main code stream.
First: how do YOU know whether crypto is performance sensitive or not "at all", because it's entirely dependent on the use of it.
Second: yes, it's absolutely performance sensitive because the trend is becoming to use HTTPS for everything. On a server that means the whole front end can greatly benefit from faster crypto, and on client side one of the most popular current Internet applications - video streaming - often uses crypto for DRM so the entire video stream needs to be decrypted in real time. Sorry, Netflix is not a "fringe case".
I have personally ported OpenSSL to at least 6 embedded systems, one of which was so proprietary they wrote their own C/C++ compiler. Good luck finding an Ada compiler for that.
his makes it great for low-level, performance sensitive programs like OSes, compilers,
Aaand... performance sensitive like, say... crypto? There isn't much code more performance sensitive than crypto libraries, which is one of OpenSSL's main uses. In fact, there are a whole bunch of native assembler implementations for x86, MIPS, ARM, PPC, etc to achieve that low level performance. Clearly you have never actually looked at the OpenSSL code base...
though the Chevy Volt comes close; it's not a pure series design because there is a mechanical linkage between the gasoline motor and the wheels that is used at high speeds.
Actually, it appears that is not entirely correct... From the lead engineer of the Volt:
There is no "direct" mechanical linkage between the Volt's gas engine and the wheels, rather there is an indirect linkage that is accomplished by meshing the power output of the engine with the power output of one of the other two electric motors. Motor Trend's reporting that the magic cutoff speed of 70 mph is what the car uses to determine whether or not to make the engine to partially drive the wheels is incorrect. The engine is used to partially drive the wheels when the car calculates that it will be a more efficient use of the engine's power. There is no hard cutoff point.
Still, that seems a little bit of semantics on his part; it's clearly not a "true series hybrid" if it is bypassing the electric motor in any way. But it's understandable that they wouldn't want to turn the mechanical energy to electrical and then back to mechanical if the car knows that will *lose* efficiency in the process...
Bzzt, wrong. I said SERIES HYBRID (since that's the use case for this new engine as well). And the Chevy Volt, as a series hybrid, most definitely still gets tax credits.
Efficiency information was there, I guess the dumbed-down article linked from the post didn't feel like including it. This link (that was in TFA) has much more interesting details:
Summary is, not only does it have 42% efficiency (for reference, efficient DI gas engines are about 35%, and diesel about 40%), it allows for a lighter, simpler engine with reduced cooling and lubrication requirements. Higher efficiency, lower weight, fewer moving parts all just generally contribute to a lower TCO, which would be a great thing, as series hybrids are still not particularly cheap (at least without their current subsidies)...
Actually, in the scheme of things on a major highway with good cell coverage, yes they are rare. Especially considering by his actions he'd basically simultaneously distract everyone in the area with a dropped call, compounding the likelihood of an accident greatly.
Did you even RTFA? His jammer also actually blocked communication between the police and their dispatch. I assume that means it would probably block firefighters, paramedics, and other emergency vehicles.
And besides, someone is on their phone and it cuts out, it's going to distract them even MORE than just using it. Could have very well caused more accidents than it prevented.
And guess what OnStar, many nav systems, etc also use? The cellular network, duh. I could go on, but it's clear this douche had no business doing this, and imagined but unlikely positive side effects of an illegal act don't need to weigh in at all...
And in fact it's way beyond that. A significant number of people are now using IP-based telephony, radio, TV services, etc, which of course are all highly regulated and have been for ages.
No one said "essential for survival", anyway, the OP's post was pointless. As INFRASTRUCTURE, we're talking essential for maintaining an expected standard of living and promoting growth and development of communities and businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's pretty clear how he did it. He helped privatize all of the national industries in exchange for stock from the cronies he gave the industries to. It would basically be like Obama saying "hey, Warren Buffet, buddy - take the US Forest Service and do whatever you want with it - but I get 20% of the profits!"
Ironically, it was a display of the purest form of the capitalism he pretends to protest - fairly close to the way the 19th century railroad and oil robber barons made their fortunes in the US. Except he managed to do it while being a politician making bald faced lies to his people and the world at the same time, which makes it even more impressive.
"All I want is peace. Peace. Peace!"
"Aaaaaa... little piece of Poland, a little piece of France.
A little piece of Portugal, and Austria perchance.
A little slice of Turkey, and all that that entails
And then a piece of England Scotland lreland and Wales
A little nip of Norway, a little spot of Greece
A little hunk of Hungary, oh what a lovely feast
A little bite of Belgium, and now for some dessert
Armenia Albania, and Russia wouldn 't hurt..."
Now you can wear beer goggles without actually getting drunk! It's a brave new world, my friend...
English - being a very imprecise language - is largely about context. The meaning and pronunciation of many English words is often completely dependent on that context, in fact. In this case "divest X of Y" means Y is a subset being removed from X. Pretty trivial when you break it down.
So, yeah, it's my first language, and I used it to intuitively understand the correct meaning of the (yes, somewhat complex) sentence described. Not my problem if you couldn't do the same.
Sure, obviously the cause can't be directly traced to those initiatives, but it can be *correlated* with the drop in smoking, which is enough to make the OP's sarcastic comment as to how it was ineffective invalid.
And, big deal that there is a couple percent change in the data you can't explain. All sampled surveys have a margin of error so that's fairly irrelevant to the 25 year trend. And if you look at the data since '96 the deviation is a low lower - likely because they have started taking larger samples. Again, makes no real different to the point.
Why would they raise tuition? This would be like you selling "that cool but perverted lamp" you had in your living room because you realized some people don't want to see it when they come to your house. Didn't affect your life, and you got $50 from that weird guy down the block for it, so now you can go invest in other, less perverted lamps that will make you just as much gain on your investment (which for lamps or fossil fuels, is currently VERY LITTLE).
and it really worked cause no one smokes anymore.
You think you are being facetious, but in many areas it's the truth. In the most populous state in the US, these sorts of initiatives have been pretty fucking effective...
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/N...
Yes, because the best way to solve a problem is to close your eyes, hold your breath, and hope it goes away.
WTF. Do people not understand that:
1) it WASN'T $18B in coal stock, That's the entire endowment.
2) selling stock doesn't mean you are GIVING IT AWAY.
If I told the slashdot crowd I thought Microsoft was immoral, and I was selling the $1M I had in their stock (which they'd mostly love, I'm sure), am I losing $1M? No. I'm transferring my investments somewhere else. It's not an issue of not "using that money" somewhere else, etc, they are just reinvesting it. So they decided that coal was a bad bet, and want to put it into something else, big fucking deal! Yes, PUT THAT MONEY into sustainable energy. Or put it into long term investments and then put the profits into sustainable energy, who cares.
Holy fucking shit I can't believe how clueless people seem to be on basic investing.
No, the summary isn't wrong, you just READ IT WRONG.
Stanford University announced Tuesday that it would divest its $18.7 billion endowment of stock in coal-mining companies.
I (and many others, I assume) read it correctly that is would divest ( ( its $18.7B endowment ) of stock in coal mining ). Big deal. There was some context involved, sure, but it was only an issue if you are so clueless as to think that a university would have over $18B in stock in coal companies alone.
You clearly were not clueless enough to think they had that much coal stock... just clueless enough to misparse the sentence ;) Oh well....
Set it at 200% if you want. Laws are meaningless unless they're enforced. There are already anti-abuse provisions. When is the last time they were enforced?
Oh, I'd say they are being enforced "in force" in the Valley these days. Now is not the time to fuck with employment law in tech companies...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
What does that have to do with it? For example. as far as I can tell there is no MIPS support at all.
If you look at the OpenSSL Makefile/config, it's been ported to literally HUNDREDS of platforms. Of course, all of those have a basic C compiler. Probably 10% would be supported by AdaCore.
And, of course, yes, if you wanted to port OpenSSL to a proprietary platform and not release the source, that's perfectly acceptable given the OpenSSL license.
"Multiple platforms" means nothing if it's not MY platforms (which looking at it in general, it's not).
Performance sensitive? really? most crypto is NOT performance sensitive at all and you could easily sacrifice some performance for more secure/reviewed code. I would imagine there are very few mostly fringe cases where the performance is more critical in which cases they should be uses modified versions not having hacks put into the main code stream.
First: how do YOU know whether crypto is performance sensitive or not "at all", because it's entirely dependent on the use of it.
Second: yes, it's absolutely performance sensitive because the trend is becoming to use HTTPS for everything. On a server that means the whole front end can greatly benefit from faster crypto, and on client side one of the most popular current Internet applications - video streaming - often uses crypto for DRM so the entire video stream needs to be decrypted in real time. Sorry, Netflix is not a "fringe case".
I have personally ported OpenSSL to at least 6 embedded systems, one of which was so proprietary they wrote their own C/C++ compiler. Good luck finding an Ada compiler for that.
his makes it great for low-level, performance sensitive programs like OSes, compilers,
Aaand... performance sensitive like, say... crypto? There isn't much code more performance sensitive than crypto libraries, which is one of OpenSSL's main uses. In fact, there are a whole bunch of native assembler implementations for x86, MIPS, ARM, PPC, etc to achieve that low level performance. Clearly you have never actually looked at the OpenSSL code base...
Luckily the summary lost me at "If Silicon Valley is in a bubble — which it is – how will it finally burst?"
Ok, pretend to ask a question and answer it in the SAME sentence... yeah, it's bound to be a well thought out impartial article...
though the Chevy Volt comes close; it's not a pure series design because there is a mechanical linkage between the gasoline motor and the wheels that is used at high speeds.
Actually, it appears that is not entirely correct... From the lead engineer of the Volt:
There is no "direct" mechanical linkage between the Volt's gas engine and the wheels, rather there is an indirect linkage that is accomplished by meshing the power output of the engine with the power output of one of the other two electric motors.
Motor Trend's reporting that the magic cutoff speed of 70 mph is what the car uses to determine whether or not to make the engine to partially drive the wheels is incorrect. The engine is used to partially drive the wheels when the car calculates that it will be a more efficient use of the engine's power. There is no hard cutoff point.
Still, that seems a little bit of semantics on his part; it's clearly not a "true series hybrid" if it is bypassing the electric motor in any way. But it's understandable that they wouldn't want to turn the mechanical energy to electrical and then back to mechanical if the car knows that will *lose* efficiency in the process...
Bzzt, wrong. I said SERIES HYBRID (since that's the use case for this new engine as well). And the Chevy Volt, as a series hybrid, most definitely still gets tax credits.
Efficiency information was there, I guess the dumbed-down article linked from the post didn't feel like including it. This link (that was in TFA) has much more interesting details:
http://www.greencarcongress.co...
Summary is, not only does it have 42% efficiency (for reference, efficient DI gas engines are about 35%, and diesel about 40%), it allows for a lighter, simpler engine with reduced cooling and lubrication requirements. Higher efficiency, lower weight, fewer moving parts all just generally contribute to a lower TCO, which would be a great thing, as series hybrids are still not particularly cheap (at least without their current subsidies)...
Actually, he's asking the wrong question because IT and management are not mutually exclusive. IT is a field. Management is a position.
Actually, since he was using a *jammer*, it was definitely active vigilantism ;)
Actually, in the scheme of things on a major highway with good cell coverage, yes they are rare. Especially considering by his actions he'd basically simultaneously distract everyone in the area with a dropped call, compounding the likelihood of an accident greatly.
Did you even RTFA? His jammer also actually blocked communication between the police and their dispatch. I assume that means it would probably block firefighters, paramedics, and other emergency vehicles.
And besides, someone is on their phone and it cuts out, it's going to distract them even MORE than just using it. Could have very well caused more accidents than it prevented.
And guess what OnStar, many nav systems, etc also use? The cellular network, duh. I could go on, but it's clear this douche had no business doing this, and imagined but unlikely positive side effects of an illegal act don't need to weigh in at all...
Cab drivers are going have a hard time with that one.
And in fact it's way beyond that. A significant number of people are now using IP-based telephony, radio, TV services, etc, which of course are all highly regulated and have been for ages.
No one said "essential for survival", anyway, the OP's post was pointless. As INFRASTRUCTURE, we're talking essential for maintaining an expected standard of living and promoting growth and development of communities and businesses.