I speak as someone who's (a long damn time ago) worked as a marketing/engineering liaison and worn custom-made shirts and really nice suits. Your point reminds me of the fury I felt when I read those moronic comments about Mark Zuckerberg not respecting investors by wearing his hoodie to Wall Street meetings. Ahem. He created something huge which the investment bankers wanted a piece of. Shouldn't they have been obligated to show respect to him? Why the fuck was it supposed to be the other way around????
Hell, I don't even like Facebook, but the idea that MZ owed respect to the investment bankers was absurd and offensive.
What always fascinated me about MIT is the seeming lack of a "university neighborhood." It was like MIT people never left campus and had no social lives to speak of. I think it went out of business, but one of the few bars close to campus was themed like a laboratory, where you drank beer out of beakers. During the day, people would scurry out of the buildings to the food trucks, awkwardly scarf down their lunches, and then scurry back. I used to love watching them try to play Frisbie when the sun came out, which I can can only describe with a direct quote from Dodgeball: "It's like watching a bunch of retards trying to hump a doorknob out there." I had always thought the jokes about just how nerdy MIT was were exaggerations, but that has to be the highest concentration of nerd-stereotypes that I have ever seen; super-smart, interesting people, but I can certainly see how the Charm School has lasted 20 years.
I spent 4.25 years there, and you're full of shit.
If nobody reads the damn thing, how can it be profitable? And if it isn't profitable, why are they distributing it?
They're paid by the businesses to be listed. Zero people can read it, and it will still be highly profitable as long as their sales people can convince businesses otherwise.
We've only got two Mac Minis in the family. One has been running continuously since 2005, the other continuously only since 2010. The optical drive on the older one stopped working, but otherwise they've been trouble free.
I've had two in a data center for more years than I can remember, literally. (One was originally a G4--it didn't die, I upgraded because I wanted to run later software.)
I've got 30+ at a client site. Some of the earlier models, especially G4 era, were prone to hard drive failure. You'd better count on about 10%/year replacement. With the later models, it's been years since a drive failed.
And all those 1u/2u etc servers from Dell are apparently very externally inconsistent.. new rack standards all the time it seems.
They are not price competitive with the mini. At the low end, with Dell, to get a rack server that is priced like a Mac mini, you have to drop down to a Celeron processor with 1/2 the RAM.
First, when the employees cash in their stock options, they become liable for tax on the profits. The article doesn't mention that, which would only be slightly misleading, but that little comment at the end ("That's not to say that Facebook employees' salaries didn't get taxed.") implies that only their salaries got taxed, which is not true.
Second, the employee stock options did cost the company money--although there is no direct expense, that dilution of stockholder equity reduces the stock price. Not only today, but it was most certainly a factor when the IPO was priced.
Third, if they're getting a refund of $429 million, I'm pretty sure that's money that they overpaid and are getting back, whereas the summary is worded in a way to try make you think they never paid anything at all in 2012, and now the feds are handing them a check for $429 million.
Fourth, if you read the article instead of just the summary, it gets even worse. Facebook had a billion $ profit in 2012, after years of large losses which have been carried forward. This year they applied a billion of the accumulated prior losses in order to pay tax on $0. They have $3 billion in those prior losses still, so the article states that's $3 billion in taxes they won't pay, which is a bald-faced lie--that's $3 billion on which they will pay no tax, not $3 billion in taxes they won't pay.
Chandra. His family wasn't exactly destitute though.
Exactly my point, the genius who cannot possibly scrape together $99 is probably a myth. That means that not only does he not have $99, not only can he not save up $99 in a few years (remember that's for life, not per paper or per year), not only does he not have a mentor or patron who can scrape up $99, he does not have 9 friends who could provide $10 each. Yeah, right. That's not a genius with a publishable paper, that's a lunatic with a delusion...
So, in this portion of the third world... US$99 is not *so* terrible. Of course, you can still publish without a formal project approval (and that's what I have usually done), but it will be harder to do so in the author-pays journals.
Especially since it's $99 for life, not per paper, not even per year.
Android devices can be updated regularly, and are. The only, ONLY time you see stories about malware viruses and other crap like that, for both iOS and Android, is when people install apps from untrusted sources.
Bullshit, there have been plenty of reports of malware in the google play store, and malware infections from web surfing.
$99 is a trivial amount, EVERY author has the ability to pay that.
Only in developed nations. But even in the 3rd world, it will not be a barrier to anyone with a university or employer affiliation, only to the solo "lone wolf genius" without job or sponsor, which is a scenario so unlikely it might as well be fiction--but I guarantee it will be brought up...
In other words, we still have some of the problems that open access should solve. While we no longer have the issue of individuals being unable to access knowledge, we are still saying that research can only be done by those with university affiliations or who are wealthy.
A $99 one-time fee does not limit this to the "wealthy". If you can't afford $99, you're not likely to be able to do any meaningful research either.
And right now, they have a very unique piece of property that will cost whatever they want to sell it for because they... wait for it... own it!
Legally, a domain is not property. (Not even the arguably-fictional "intellectual" kind.) Domains are treated by the law more as a service--a special kind of service where some would-be users have somewhat more rights to some specific instances...
One neighbour said he saw a van parked outside with some men working in the house. They weren't working but robbing the place. All they needed to do was look legit and no one would question them.
Yep, unoccupied house next to mine, one day all the furniture went away in a moving van driven by thieves...
NO ONE goes into a secure area without authorization. Period.
I did once. As a civilian no less. Stupid gits I worked for sent me out with spare parts and neglected to tell me that the small anonymous-looking complex in the middle of town with an obscure bland name was a military research facility. Guard was asleep, slumped over so far I didn't even see that the uniform was real military as opposed to generic rent-a-cop. I drove on in, thinking I was being nice not waking the guy up.
Oh boy, from what I heard, hilarity ensued in my wake. Fortunately this happened decades before 9/11/2001, so once concerned guards caught up to me (which happened *very* quickly), it was all smoothed over quickly and politely and I got on with my work--for me that is, I assume "polite" had no relationship to how the guard was treated...
(That said, I of course only made it into the outer foyer of a building--I doubt that there was any way I would have been able to get to my actual destination inside without signing in, getting a badge, and being escorted.)
Wow, so in this thread we have one person who personally blames RMS for Hurd being the way it is, and immediately afterwards a reply saying that RMS doesn't do any real work anyway. Which is it?
They're not mutually exclusive. If a project leader spends all his time bloviating instead of working on the project, that can explain lack of project progress. (Note: I really don't know to what extent this is the case here, just saying...)
Slashdot Mirror
Confusing the two is just unprofessional.
Zing! You rock!
I speak as someone who's (a long damn time ago) worked as a marketing/engineering liaison and worn custom-made shirts and really nice suits. Your point reminds me of the fury I felt when I read those moronic comments about Mark Zuckerberg not respecting investors by wearing his hoodie to Wall Street meetings. Ahem. He created something huge which the investment bankers wanted a piece of. Shouldn't they have been obligated to show respect to him? Why the fuck was it supposed to be the other way around????
Hell, I don't even like Facebook, but the idea that MZ owed respect to the investment bankers was absurd and offensive.
What always fascinated me about MIT is the seeming lack of a "university neighborhood." It was like MIT people never left campus and had no social lives to speak of. I think it went out of business, but one of the few bars close to campus was themed like a laboratory, where you drank beer out of beakers. During the day, people would scurry out of the buildings to the food trucks, awkwardly scarf down their lunches, and then scurry back. I used to love watching them try to play Frisbie when the sun came out, which I can can only describe with a direct quote from Dodgeball: "It's like watching a bunch of retards trying to hump a doorknob out there." I had always thought the jokes about just how nerdy MIT was were exaggerations, but that has to be the highest concentration of nerd-stereotypes that I have ever seen; super-smart, interesting people, but I can certainly see how the Charm School has lasted 20 years.
I spent 4.25 years there, and you're full of shit.
Phrenology!
Nope, not at all!
Phrenology on a computer! Which is obviously completely different and patent-worthy!
If we do not make our opposition to such disgusting (and mind-numbingly stupid) ideas known, then how the hell will social progress ever be made?
If nobody reads the damn thing, how can it be profitable? And if it isn't profitable, why are they distributing it?
They're paid by the businesses to be listed. Zero people can read it, and it will still be highly profitable as long as their sales people can convince businesses otherwise.
I'm guessing it's more about keeping details away from North Korea & Iran, not Russia.
You really think Iran doesn't get details if Russia does???
We've only got two Mac Minis in the family. One has been running continuously since 2005, the other continuously only since 2010. The optical drive on the older one stopped working, but otherwise they've been trouble free.
I've had two in a data center for more years than I can remember, literally. (One was originally a G4--it didn't die, I upgraded because I wanted to run later software.)
I've got 30+ at a client site. Some of the earlier models, especially G4 era, were prone to hard drive failure. You'd better count on about 10%/year replacement. With the later models, it's been years since a drive failed.
These things are bad enough as a "home server". Nevermind cramming an absurd number of them into a rack.
And yet, the article specifically addressed reliability.
And yet, my two have been running for about 6 years.
So, maybe the fan is good enough, and the heat management not as bad as you claim ;-)
And all those 1u/2u etc servers from Dell are apparently very externally inconsistent.. new rack standards all the time it seems.
They are not price competitive with the mini. At the low end, with Dell, to get a rack server that is priced like a Mac mini, you have to drop down to a Celeron processor with 1/2 the RAM.
Maybe they tried rolling back to an older version of the cert first.
No, first they would have tried reinstalling the current cert. Three times. Only then would they have moved on to rolling back to the prior version.
Anyway, my question: who the hell uses Java as a browser plugin anyway?
Enterprisey bullshit: HR/time tracking apps, medical apps, CRM, and so on...
a GI Joe Seal Team Six bin Laden's Lair play set
Actually, that would be cool...
Eh? I don't even know what that sentence was trying to say, but certainly not what was written...
First, when the employees cash in their stock options, they become liable for tax on the profits. The article doesn't mention that, which would only be slightly misleading, but that little comment at the end ("That's not to say that Facebook employees' salaries didn't get taxed.") implies that only their salaries got taxed, which is not true.
Second, the employee stock options did cost the company money--although there is no direct expense, that dilution of stockholder equity reduces the stock price. Not only today, but it was most certainly a factor when the IPO was priced.
Third, if they're getting a refund of $429 million, I'm pretty sure that's money that they overpaid and are getting back, whereas the summary is worded in a way to try make you think they never paid anything at all in 2012, and now the feds are handing them a check for $429 million.
Fourth, if you read the article instead of just the summary, it gets even worse. Facebook had a billion $ profit in 2012, after years of large losses which have been carried forward. This year they applied a billion of the accumulated prior losses in order to pay tax on $0. They have $3 billion in those prior losses still, so the article states that's $3 billion in taxes they won't pay, which is a bald-faced lie--that's $3 billion on which they will pay no tax, not $3 billion in taxes they won't pay.
Chandra. His family wasn't exactly destitute though.
Exactly my point, the genius who cannot possibly scrape together $99 is probably a myth. That means that not only does he not have $99, not only can he not save up $99 in a few years (remember that's for life, not per paper or per year), not only does he not have a mentor or patron who can scrape up $99, he does not have 9 friends who could provide $10 each. Yeah, right. That's not a genius with a publishable paper, that's a lunatic with a delusion...
So, in this portion of the third world... US$99 is not *so* terrible. Of course, you can still publish without a formal project approval (and that's what I have usually done), but it will be harder to do so in the author-pays journals.
Especially since it's $99 for life, not per paper, not even per year.
Android devices can be updated regularly, and are. The only, ONLY time you see stories about malware viruses and other crap like that, for both iOS and Android, is when people install apps from untrusted sources.
Bullshit, there have been plenty of reports of malware in the google play store, and malware infections from web surfing.
$99 is a trivial amount, EVERY author has the ability to pay that.
Only in developed nations. But even in the 3rd world, it will not be a barrier to anyone with a university or employer affiliation, only to the solo "lone wolf genius" without job or sponsor, which is a scenario so unlikely it might as well be fiction--but I guarantee it will be brought up...
In other words, we still have some of the problems that open access should solve. While we no longer have the issue of individuals being unable to access knowledge, we are still saying that research can only be done by those with university affiliations or who are wealthy.
A $99 one-time fee does not limit this to the "wealthy". If you can't afford $99, you're not likely to be able to do any meaningful research either.
And right now, they have a very unique piece of property that will cost whatever they want to sell it for because they ... wait for it ... own it!
Legally, a domain is not property. (Not even the arguably-fictional "intellectual" kind.) Domains are treated by the law more as a service--a special kind of service where some would-be users have somewhat more rights to some specific instances...
One neighbour said he saw a van parked outside with some men working in the house. They weren't working but robbing the place. All they needed to do was look legit and no one would question them.
Yep, unoccupied house next to mine, one day all the furniture went away in a moving van driven by thieves...
NO ONE goes into a secure area without authorization. Period.
I did once. As a civilian no less. Stupid gits I worked for sent me out with spare parts and neglected to tell me that the small anonymous-looking complex in the middle of town with an obscure bland name was a military research facility. Guard was asleep, slumped over so far I didn't even see that the uniform was real military as opposed to generic rent-a-cop. I drove on in, thinking I was being nice not waking the guy up.
Oh boy, from what I heard, hilarity ensued in my wake. Fortunately this happened decades before 9/11/2001, so once concerned guards caught up to me (which happened *very* quickly), it was all smoothed over quickly and politely and I got on with my work--for me that is, I assume "polite" had no relationship to how the guard was treated...
(That said, I of course only made it into the outer foyer of a building--I doubt that there was any way I would have been able to get to my actual destination inside without signing in, getting a badge, and being escorted.)
How memory is handled inside a computer is something developers care about, no user should be bothered with it.
And yet, users occasionally want to know how much memory they have...
Wow, so in this thread we have one person who personally blames RMS for Hurd being the way it is, and immediately afterwards a reply saying that RMS doesn't do any real work anyway. Which is it?
They're not mutually exclusive. If a project leader spends all his time bloviating instead of working on the project, that can explain lack of project progress. (Note: I really don't know to what extent this is the case here, just saying...)
I think animals should be able to watch whatever they wish...
Especially pandas and hippos ;-)