FoxConn has several locations, so not all 400K employees are in one place, but the biggest location is probably several times larger than anything you've ever imagined a single company could be. The name of the town escapes me for the moment.
I'm confused, but I haven't dug through their schema at all, so, if they're an index, don't they have some sort of cross-referencing information to tell you where the picture came from or what it's a picture of? If all they have is the picture and maybe its filename, what sort of searching can you do?
Looking at something and copying it are two very different things.
(Albeit, it's literally impossible to look at something on the web without making a local copy, at least in RAM, which may be saved to a temporary file on disk and retained for years, or until the authorities toss out your hard drive because the retention period for evidence in your case has lapsed...)
Copying something and serving it to the public are two very different things.
It's not tax-free, it's duty-free; it applies international export tax rates to goods still sitting on local soil, where the tax rate is probably different.
Companies that export products can elect to set aside a portion of their production for different tax treatment; they have to segregate the product storage physically, and secure it, to ensure that the units never get intermingled with the other group. They can even have their entire output from a factory classed that way, such that if an employee wants to take a unit home (if the company allows employees to buy units from the factory), the employee has to fill out federal importation paperwork just to get the unit out of the building it was made in.
Which is geeky, but doesn't relate to the fact that there's no good reason online purchases aren't taxed. It's just not done, yet, because the argument that it will slow the online economy still holds political force.
Human beings are not connected by a hive mind. Every one of them has to be told something individually. Even in a broadcast situation, you have to put out enough photons and phonons in enough directions to get the message to all the ears. And anyone who isn't in the room when you do it will cause you or someone else (or a webserver) to repeat the message to them personally.
And then NASA points at the regulations for parts acquisitions and shows that it's Congress that demanded this sort of reliability out of everything because they were tired of paying for stuff that worked during the demonstration but fell apart after one ride.
1. "Big Brother" is a false analogy here. Government does have the right to regulate any business transaction whatsoever. There's no "snooping" needed. You're required by the law to license your business, report your business activities, and pay taxes on it.
2. Gambling by individuals is still illegal in most jurisdictions in the U.S. Making it available over the internet will just allow people to break those laws.
3. Poker is only slightly gambling. If you can show that everyone at the table has those "100k hands" in their experience, then I'll agree they're playing on skill alone (some good, some fish). But until someone knows their own abilities, it's purely gambling.
4. Online poker and gambling are wide open to cheating, either by the server operators or by teams of players.
5. Your being disgusted is not a forceful argument for failing to regulate a business, especially business this susceptible to crime and the exploitation of addiction (go ahead, make an analogy to alcohol and bars; i'll point out that bars are required by law to stop serving you when you're visibly intoxicated, which typically takes only a few drinks and costs only a few dozen dollars; the numbers are piddling compared to the depths of trouble you can get yourself into in one night of online martingaling).
And lots of people are making money off of illegal online gaming.
What they're missing (because they're probably being paid to miss it) is that the systems that need to be improved to choke off the flow of money from the U.S. to the gambling operators are exactly the systems that need to be improved to choke off the flow of money from the U.S. to terrorist organizations. Legalizing online gaming will only reduce the effort to close those cashflow portals. Which will give a big boost to funding terror.
I don't know why you're kidding. People sell stuff in online venues for real money all the time. Those transactions should be taxed. And if barter in online goods is trackable, that can be taxed as well.
Though I'm not sure if the U.S. Treasury is set up to store a barrow full of zorkmids anywhere...
So what Apple is doing is, instead of modulating the flow of iPads using pricing fluctuations to soak up the excess value it sees resellers as getting, it's insisting you pay with something that requires you to identify yourself to them. I.e., in addition to the money you give them, you give them personally identifying information. That's the additional value they get in the purchase, to make up for the price increase they're refusing to implement.
But by making it a "no cash" criterion instead of a "show me some ID" criterion, all they're really doing is keeping legitimate buyers from getting the goods. Legitimate buyers who can't get credit to pay with plastic. Poor people.
Which makes Apple elitist. As if we didn't already know that about them.
since when was weather on this planet equivalent to an ideal gas?
Considering the atmosphere anything other than an ideal gas is dealing with its behavior on a scale even smaller and less perturbing than the butterfly effect.
I don't doubt we'll find some gross contribution of the 2- and 3-lobed nature of most atmospheric molecules, but if the result is significantly different from what was proved here I'll be surprised, as it's unphysical to presume such a thing. (Hint, all that rotation of aspherical objects absorbs energy that would otherwise be kept in translation, meaning small perturbations are even less likely to result in propagation, just a lot of spinning locally that propagates more slowly...)
An ideal gas is not a chaotic system.
Are you saying it would be impossible to induce weather in an ideal gas? That putting heat from the sun in one side and rotating it around on a sphere (either a perfect one or one as imperfect as ours) wouldn't result in wind and cyclones in chaotic patterns?
Again, totally unphysical. You're claiming the opposite of what is true. There are tons of studies of such systems using models that presume homogeneous media.
You're talking out of your arsehole, and slashdot is collectively too ignorant to call you for it, hence you've been modded informative.
First of all, I was being informative, and apparently insightful, but someone at least as dumb as you wasted a mod point on calling me a troll.
But you took the time to work your dumbness up into language and type it into an edit box and hit Preview and Submit, and never once considered that you were projecting. Which makes you dumb and psychologically self-defeating.
One of the issues with chaotic systems is that there are regions in the regime where a small perturbation DOES expand without limit and small changes produce large effects. Weather is such a system.
The size you mean by "small" got way bigger with this proof. You can no longer expect it even theoretically to extend to the scale of a butterfly within a regional air mass. Now you need something bigger, like the scale of a convective flow from sun shining on a mountainside within a regional air mass. That sort of "small" is going to be bigger than the small perturbation examined by these guys in their proof.
Actually, people who think Google even knew how much data they would be collecting when they turned on the sniffer must not have ever worked outside an anal-retentive database shop.
In the real world, espeically in Google's half of the real world, space is cheap and data is to be mined, not cultivated. You generally don't care how large things are or what sort of cruft comes along with the data fields you want. Structures have hundreds of properties, and you have shit to get done, so you find yours, put their names in your code, and go to lunch.
Someone said, "we want a wardriving map. To do that we need to collect the headers of wireless traffic , so turn on the sniffer". Then went off to write a line or two of Python code to pull the location and connectivity info from the data files they'd be getting back, and another line to stuff it into the Google Maps API.
Everyone below them turned on the sniffer and started storing data. Did they care what else they were collecting? No. Did they know they were breaking the law? No. Did they know that they were taking too much data? No. They were doing what their boss told them to do and it wasn't hurting anyone that they could see.
As others have said, 600 GB, worldwide, over the life of the project, being less than a disk drive these days, would be way below Google's radar for "a big file", and it's not one big file. It's a bunch of little files loaded to the server farm from the StreetView cars every day, along with a pile of huge image files. I'd be surprised if anyone had any inkling of how big they were supposed to be vs. how big they were. You don't, and you're thinking about the size disparity as a concept, when they didn't have a reason to.
So it's likely nobody was analyzing the data for length, and it's almost certain nobody was culling it for the private data, since they didn't need it to make their map. I'm completely not surprised it went on as long as it did.
It's there to meet character-count limitations. For no good reason, the major "wire services" still apply them. And you are correct, it's a tiresome misuse of an arcanity in the language.
Slashdot Mirror
FoxConn has several locations, so not all 400K employees are in one place, but the biggest location is probably several times larger than anything you've ever imagined a single company could be. The name of the town escapes me for the moment.
The alternative to capitalism is subsistence farming for everyone,
Um, no.
You're confusing industrialism and capitalism.
Or you could go with communism, which by necessity is state organized oppression of those who disagree with how things are done.
Um, no.
You're confusing communism and totalitarianism.
I'm confused, but I haven't dug through their schema at all, so, if they're an index, don't they have some sort of cross-referencing information to tell you where the picture came from or what it's a picture of? If all they have is the picture and maybe its filename, what sort of searching can you do?
I've never put Katherine Heigl online.
Your scheme is a fraud.
Looking at something and copying it are two very different things.
(Albeit, it's literally impossible to look at something on the web without making a local copy, at least in RAM, which may be saved to a temporary file on disk and retained for years, or until the authorities toss out your hard drive because the retention period for evidence in your case has lapsed...)
Copying something and serving it to the public are two very different things.
Hindsight is a virtual department in most software organizations.
Keep up that attitude, and we'll put it on a Pro-Herpes-Drug ad.
If terrorism isn't fought, it grows until it's the most likey cause of death.
So we fight terrorism. And ebola.
It's not tax-free, it's duty-free; it applies international export tax rates to goods still sitting on local soil, where the tax rate is probably different.
Companies that export products can elect to set aside a portion of their production for different tax treatment; they have to segregate the product storage physically, and secure it, to ensure that the units never get intermingled with the other group. They can even have their entire output from a factory classed that way, such that if an employee wants to take a unit home (if the company allows employees to buy units from the factory), the employee has to fill out federal importation paperwork just to get the unit out of the building it was made in.
Which is geeky, but doesn't relate to the fact that there's no good reason online purchases aren't taxed. It's just not done, yet, because the argument that it will slow the online economy still holds political force.
Next time you open an MER story on /., do this:
ctrl-F
695
Enter
pause
F5
pause
ctrl-F
695
Enter
then go on with your life because it will be there.
Human beings are not connected by a hive mind. Every one of them has to be told something individually. Even in a broadcast situation, you have to put out enough photons and phonons in enough directions to get the message to all the ears. And anyone who isn't in the room when you do it will cause you or someone else (or a webserver) to repeat the message to them personally.
There. All better. Now go play.
And then NASA points at the regulations for parts acquisitions and shows that it's Congress that demanded this sort of reliability out of everything because they were tired of paying for stuff that worked during the demonstration but fell apart after one ride.
Their Usenet newsreader sucks.
Therefore, "too smart for their own good" is an illogical conclusion.
1. "Big Brother" is a false analogy here. Government does have the right to regulate any business transaction whatsoever. There's no "snooping" needed. You're required by the law to license your business, report your business activities, and pay taxes on it.
2. Gambling by individuals is still illegal in most jurisdictions in the U.S. Making it available over the internet will just allow people to break those laws.
3. Poker is only slightly gambling. If you can show that everyone at the table has those "100k hands" in their experience, then I'll agree they're playing on skill alone (some good, some fish). But until someone knows their own abilities, it's purely gambling.
4. Online poker and gambling are wide open to cheating, either by the server operators or by teams of players.
5. Your being disgusted is not a forceful argument for failing to regulate a business, especially business this susceptible to crime and the exploitation of addiction (go ahead, make an analogy to alcohol and bars; i'll point out that bars are required by law to stop serving you when you're visibly intoxicated, which typically takes only a few drinks and costs only a few dozen dollars; the numbers are piddling compared to the depths of trouble you can get yourself into in one night of online martingaling).
And lots of people are making money off of illegal online gaming.
What they're missing (because they're probably being paid to miss it) is that the systems that need to be improved to choke off the flow of money from the U.S. to the gambling operators are exactly the systems that need to be improved to choke off the flow of money from the U.S. to terrorist organizations. Legalizing online gaming will only reduce the effort to close those cashflow portals. Which will give a big boost to funding terror.
I don't know why you're kidding. People sell stuff in online venues for real money all the time. Those transactions should be taxed. And if barter in online goods is trackable, that can be taxed as well.
Though I'm not sure if the U.S. Treasury is set up to store a barrow full of zorkmids anywhere...
So what Apple is doing is, instead of modulating the flow of iPads using pricing fluctuations to soak up the excess value it sees resellers as getting, it's insisting you pay with something that requires you to identify yourself to them. I.e., in addition to the money you give them, you give them personally identifying information. That's the additional value they get in the purchase, to make up for the price increase they're refusing to implement.
But by making it a "no cash" criterion instead of a "show me some ID" criterion, all they're really doing is keeping legitimate buyers from getting the goods. Legitimate buyers who can't get credit to pay with plastic. Poor people.
Which makes Apple elitist. As if we didn't already know that about them.
they lost me at "DISH"...
She used to be taller.
since when was weather on this planet equivalent to an ideal gas?
Considering the atmosphere anything other than an ideal gas is dealing with its behavior on a scale even smaller and less perturbing than the butterfly effect.
I don't doubt we'll find some gross contribution of the 2- and 3-lobed nature of most atmospheric molecules, but if the result is significantly different from what was proved here I'll be surprised, as it's unphysical to presume such a thing. (Hint, all that rotation of aspherical objects absorbs energy that would otherwise be kept in translation, meaning small perturbations are even less likely to result in propagation, just a lot of spinning locally that propagates more slowly...)
An ideal gas is not a chaotic system.
Are you saying it would be impossible to induce weather in an ideal gas? That putting heat from the sun in one side and rotating it around on a sphere (either a perfect one or one as imperfect as ours) wouldn't result in wind and cyclones in chaotic patterns?
Again, totally unphysical. You're claiming the opposite of what is true. There are tons of studies of such systems using models that presume homogeneous media.
You're talking out of your arsehole, and slashdot is collectively too ignorant to call you for it, hence you've been modded informative.
First of all, I was being informative, and apparently insightful, but someone at least as dumb as you wasted a mod point on calling me a troll.
But you took the time to work your dumbness up into language and type it into an edit box and hit Preview and Submit, and never once considered that you were projecting. Which makes you dumb and psychologically self-defeating.
Fucking sad and fucking funny at the same time.
One of the issues with chaotic systems is that there are regions in the regime where a small perturbation DOES expand without limit and small changes produce large effects. Weather is such a system.
The size you mean by "small" got way bigger with this proof. You can no longer expect it even theoretically to extend to the scale of a butterfly within a regional air mass. Now you need something bigger, like the scale of a convective flow from sun shining on a mountainside within a regional air mass. That sort of "small" is going to be bigger than the small perturbation examined by these guys in their proof.
Actually, people who think Google even knew how much data they would be collecting when they turned on the sniffer must not have ever worked outside an anal-retentive database shop.
In the real world, espeically in Google's half of the real world, space is cheap and data is to be mined, not cultivated. You generally don't care how large things are or what sort of cruft comes along with the data fields you want. Structures have hundreds of properties, and you have shit to get done, so you find yours, put their names in your code, and go to lunch.
Someone said, "we want a wardriving map. To do that we need to collect the headers of wireless traffic , so turn on the sniffer". Then went off to write a line or two of Python code to pull the location and connectivity info from the data files they'd be getting back, and another line to stuff it into the Google Maps API.
Everyone below them turned on the sniffer and started storing data. Did they care what else they were collecting? No. Did they know they were breaking the law? No. Did they know that they were taking too much data? No. They were doing what their boss told them to do and it wasn't hurting anyone that they could see.
As others have said, 600 GB, worldwide, over the life of the project, being less than a disk drive these days, would be way below Google's radar for "a big file", and it's not one big file. It's a bunch of little files loaded to the server farm from the StreetView cars every day, along with a pile of huge image files. I'd be surprised if anyone had any inkling of how big they were supposed to be vs. how big they were. You don't, and you're thinking about the size disparity as a concept, when they didn't have a reason to.
So it's likely nobody was analyzing the data for length, and it's almost certain nobody was culling it for the private data, since they didn't need it to make their map. I'm completely not surprised it went on as long as it did.
if it doesn't have an OS, how do I denigrate its existence?
signed, /.
It's there to meet character-count limitations. For no good reason, the major "wire services" still apply them. And you are correct, it's a tiresome misuse of an arcanity in the language.
Good luck getting fact out of the first paragraph.
These days the lead is more likely to be a fluffy narration of some irrelevant action or location lightly connected to the actual story.