Some baseless rambling by a non-governing member of the opposition. The government of the day is against the idea completely. He could introduce a Private Member's Bill, but let me put it this way:
You could lose a finger for every Private Member's Bill that made it into law in Canada in the last 100 years, and still be able to touch type 60 wpm.
Good point. I would like to add that most computer security practices may be valid, and even useful, but those in charge of establishing security with computing act like their pet app/website/bank/hardware is the most important thing on Earth, period. Oh, and it's also implicitly trusted, so the user should grant it access to... well... everything.
Problem one results in the situation where five minutes of your time invested in security for this pet app or service is not that significant, but having 30 groups of security requirements needing five minutes.... whoa, there, son! You want me to do what??
Problem two results in the user being nagged into defeating the very security the other 29 services are simultaneously building.
It's little wonder that giving up and going commando is so attractive to users.
There is no problem with the supply, and not much of a problem with known reserves.
The situation is essentially the same with any operation that requires capital to set up, and mining operations in particular require large capital expenditures and time to plan... prices must rise before anyone will go looking, they must rise some more before anyone goes digging, and there is always an inevitable lag between "prices rose" and "so let's start digging" to "we have output".
And, since mining is a fairly extensive operation, there is always worry that increased supply will then depress prices, not to mention economic health which affects demand, and those projected prices constitute the necessary rationale to determine profitability and sustainability of the mine, and thus find capital to move on the whole shebang.
This is no different than any oil, gas or mineral operation. No shortage = no activity.
"... 'No one [in the US] wants to be first to jump into the market because of the cost of building a separation plant,' Hedrick explained.... [S]uch a plant requires thousands of stainless steel tanks holding different chemical solutions to separate out all the individual rare earths. The upfront costs seem daunting. Hedrick estimated that opening just one mine and building a new separation plant might cost anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion and would require a minimum of eight years...."
It's expensive any way you hash it for data plans when out-of-country. You could ask providers, but in my experience they see it as a license to print money.
Were it me, I'd have a data plan in the nation I spent the most time in, and pick up a pay-as-you-go phone for when I'm out-of-country, using a laptop for data via WiFi, etc. The Wall-Mart phone is cheap, in either Canada or the US, for example.
You might have to keep the data smartphone powered off when out-of-country, or turn off data functions (be sure they're off, though). You can use your vocemail message to list the number for the pay-as-you-go phone. You might be able to use call forwarding, if you can be sure it won't cost you money to have it forwarded to the other phone. But data? There's no cheap option I'm aware of.
Another option would involve you piggybacking on someone else's plan, as a second phone on the account, when on your shortest stint out-of-country (in your case, when in the USA). Parents, friends, etc might be willing to go along with it. You get the advantage of a reasonably cheap data plan based on the contract rate, which is usually lowest.
There's really no good solution for short-term data plans, as far as I know. But, since cellular plans are about as unique as opinions (everyone's is different) it's really tough to give an answer without specifics, such as exactly where you will be while in the US and what provider options exist in that particular location.
I was struck by the information provided in TFA about the billed prices and the negotiated payments.
(If you didn't bother reading it) several times she mentions that her insurer paid a negotiated rate for a procedure or drug, and that negotiated rate varied when she switched jobs and changed insurers. Discounts she mentions varied roughly from perhaps 20% to sometimes far more than 50%; individual insurers would negotiate what they were willing to pay for something and the hospital would agree to consider that amount to be paid in full, regardless of the hospital's standard billed amount for that "something".
It led me to wonder whom, actually, pays the full amount? Then it struck me. The uninsured do.
"... Why do iTunes or Safari need the system to be restarted? I'm only forced to reboot my Win7 machine due to patches... Hmm, I think once in the time I've had it...."
I just click click on the Software Update window to bring it into focus when it gives me the reboot screen, and then click back on whatever I was working on and carry on for hours or sometimes, days. It will run fine until you shutdown normally... like tonight, next week, whatever.
Samba (although it's probably AFP... unless one of the two computers is a Windows box) isn't the cause of the slowdown, probably. Since it's a design studio, and since the files are resident on a designer's machine, it's likely the designer is using Adobe apps. They use a proprietary disk-based VM (avoiding the OS's VM on Windows or OSX) and typically they will reserve many times the size of the open document(s) the guy's trying to work on, and do plenty of large swaps, especially with any operation that involves manipulating the data in the file (just about every function in Photoshop, for example). They also use their own clipboard, again, avoiding the OS's.
Most designers would dedicate a second drive solely to Adobe VM, actually, because it hogs drives so much. It's also possible the bonehead is using Screen Sharing, which in essence means he's actually using the designer's CPU and Applications, along with all that comes with that overhead-wise, as well, instead of the apps and RAM resident on his own machine.
AFP (and Samba) work very well speed-wise. I have no trouble streaming audio or video, hiccup free, over either, while using the LAN and CPUs for other tasks at the same time. So, the network access itself almost certainly isn't going to be the issue, on either machine.
It sounds like the bonehead is basically eating the poor designer's CPU cycles, RAM and drive access when the user is attempting to do work that really amounts to tasks that the machine should be dedicated to.
I don't see a problem whatsoever with this. If it's patented, it's patented. If it's not, you're interfering with trade and innovation by claiming it is.
It's no different than plagiarism or copying [usually open-source] code and claiming it as your own work... passing off someone's (copyrighted, which is automatic) work as your own, and putting your own copyright mark on it. That's not legal either.
In this case, they are claiming a patent that they don't own (anymore, or never will, in the case of fraudulent "patent pending" marks) as their own. Expired patents belong to me, you, everyone. Yet by their subterfuge, they intend deny us our right to the patent.
Like the topic says... live by the sword, die by the sword.
"... There exists no site anywhere I've ever seen that indicates that the loaned amount exceeds the deposits at that location...."
100% wrong. They take the $1000 deposit, put the $1000 in to the reserve, and write a check, based on that reserve, for ten grand to a borrower (although that is a simplified explanation; it's the essence of banking systems). Banks create money out of thin air. They absolutely do not put $100 of that deposit in reserve and lend the other $900.
"... Not Wikipedia, not Google, not out of the nutter's ass. There exists no rule that lets a bank lend more than they have taken in deposits. Period...."
"... In order to lend 900% of their deposits, they would have to borrow money from other banks using the loan collateral as their collateral - they can't just pull money out of their asses...."
That's not how banks work. The OP was right. Banks create money out of nothing... if you don't understand that, you completely miss why banks are important to an economy.
The reserve ratio (which is nowhere near as high as 10%, by the way, although it does vary by statute from time to time) represents what the bank needs on hand to satisfy regulatory requirements for reserves.
If you deposit a dollar, the bank literally does write a cheque for $10 to a qualified borrower (with a 10% reserve ratio example) with money it created simply by assessing your risk as a borrower as someone likely to pay it back. The "other $9" is essentially summoned out of thin air.
Banks literally create money by writing a check against funds that it literally does not have, but that can happen only if someone borrows it. They can't loan you cash, but they can loan you via a check and then trade it for cash. The reason? The money is printed by the bank; it doesn't come from a vault.
The vault has the reserves, and nothing more.
They don't lend out the money they have on deposit; that is where the reserve comes from.
So, Dunn & Bradstreet reports that 19% of all companies in all industries are run by women.
And then it tells us 3% of tech firms were founded by women.
And then it tells us that 1% of high-tech firms "as in Silicon Valley" were founded by women.
Finally, it tells us that 9% of Venture Capital investments go to women-led companies (in some nebulous undefined "historical" time period) and for 2007 the figure is 3%.
Let's see here... 1% women led companies in Silicon Valley. 3% of VC funding.
1%. Hmmm.
3%. Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Sounds like the article, which purports to concentrate on technology firms, seems to suggest the women-led companies in Silicon Valley have no trouble whatsoever getting funding, and lots of it.
And only 3% of tech firms and 1% of high-tech firms (as in Silicon Valley) were founded by women. Look at the executive teams of any of the Valley's tech firms -- minus a couple of exceptions like Padmasree Warrior of Cisco -- you won't find any women CTOs. Look at the management teams of companies like Apple -- not even one woman. It's the same with the VC firms -- male dominated. You'll find some CFOs and HR heads, but women VCs are a rare commodity in venture capital. And with the recent venture bloodbath, the proportion of women in the VC numbers is declining further. It's no coincidence that only one of the 84 VCs on the 2009 TheFunded list of top VCs was a woman.... Additionally, it is harder for women to obtain funding than for men.... historically, women-led companies have received less than 9% of venture capital investments; in 2007, the proportion of funded female CEOs dropped to 3%."
"... There is not a car on the road today that doesn't have higher power brakes than engine. The ratio is beyond ridiculous for smaller cars... my little ancient saturn accelerates at barely 120 HP yet brakes at something near 600 HP...."
I would agree that, generally speaking, the brakes should be able to overcome the engine in a modern road car. Having said that, I can also envision situations where that may not work as well as one would hope. Imagine someone driving on a typical US two-lane highway. You want to pass. You find a safe area, good sight lines, and hit the throttle. At the end of your passing maneuver, you should probably be doing about 80~95 mph. Then you release the pedal, and the car continues to accelerate. Let's, for the sake of argument, say you start to take control of the situation when the car is doing 100 mph (after a bit of "whoa! what the???"). Apply brakes hard. 100 mph is a significantly different issue than 60 mph when it comes to braking, engine racing or no engine racing. It's a relatively hard-on-the-equipment situation. I found a chart online... again, for the sake of argument, let's say it's correct.
After 79 meters, you would have stopped from 70 mph. From 100 mph, you are still traveling at 77 mph at that distance; partly due to more distance traveled in the same 1-second reaction time; 21 meters @ 70 vs 30 meters @ 100. We could lop off the reaction time, since we'll assume the highway is clear in your (correct) lane and you aren't panicking. yet.
That still leaves 58 meters with 0 reaction time from 70 vs 118 meters from 100. That's roughly a 100% increase in the time the vehicle is under full braking, and zero throttle to resist the braking effort. Add some throttle, which I agree by itself does not mean the brakes cannot overcome them, throw in perhaps the brakes are in adequate but not in excellent condition, that would be a challenging situation. If the vehicle uses conventional "street" pads which are not designed for multiple high speed stops, they may start gassing off long before the vehicle has slowed to a safe speed to pull over and check things out (more than half the braking distance... the high speed leg takes more time and distance). If there is air in the brake lines, or water, which is a fairly common condition of an in-service car, that may start to compress in the hydraulic fluid. The fluid may start to boil at the caliper. And so on.
There is no reason why a car should not be able to stop under a high speed throttle stuck condition, if everything works in a fortuitous fashion. It's what happens when the all the possible points of failure start to compound that you might have an issue. If you don't stop the car with your first hard braking attempt, brake effectiveness with street spec pads will be reduced considerably for the next stop. I would agree that it's a silly strategy to conclude the brakes "aren't working right" and to let off, allowing the vehicle to re-accelerate. But I can see it happening.
Pilots generally will tell you that if something goes wrong in a flight, it's no biggie. There is almost always a way to deal with such a failure and either continue the flight or land with good probability of a decent relatively safe landing. Pilots are taught what can go wrong, and what to do when each of them do go wrong. What they also will tell you is that a fatal accident usually involves not one, but sometimes two things going wrong, and they might not tell you, but I can assure you, they are damn afraid of three things going wrong in succession. That is the basic recipe for a non-survivable flight.
We don't, and probably won't, know what series of events transpired with the fatal accidents involving what appears to be throttle issues, with Toyota cars being the ones currently in th
"... Throttle return springs are, I gather, a not entirely uncommon failure point. It's a specific line item check on Club Time Trials; I know this because the inspector and I had to try to figure out how to inspect the throttle return spring on my Audi, which also has a "fly by wire" throttle...."
Your point is well taken, but on race vehicles with carburetors, it's mandatory to have dual throttle return springs... the second one's there to deal with failure of the first. It's also installed on production vehicles. Similarly, on motorcycles it's mandatory to have dual throttle cables; one pulls, the other pushes. Failure of one cable, or the return spring, does not mean you can't close the throttle. Braking systems on cars are designed in such a way that despite the common master cylinder, that master cylinder has two separate hydraulic systems with a common brake pedal. Typically if one system fails (say, broken brake line in right front wheel causing loss of all hydraulic fluid and thus braking) the other system maintains some braking effort. They're usually tied so that right front and left rear are on one system while left front and right rear on the other, giving even braking, relatively, to avoid pulling to one side (much).
It would seem that the problem is not the fly-by-wire per se, but that there may not be a redundant fail-safe system in place to deal with failure. It would not surprise me one bit to learn that what Toyota is installing in the recalled vehicles is such a redundant system, possibly mechanical backup, possibly electronic.
Yeah, could be cents per kg; I had to read off a chart, but the chart clearly stated $USD per KG. Probably mislabeled.
Rather than focus on my decimal error, the point was, that no-one in the US eats cane or beet-derived sugars, because they are subject to import restrictions and tariffs to make them equal to or higher than the US domestic price of corn sugar, and no-one anywhere else eats corn-derived sugars because even with the largest rise in sugar prices in 40 years, corn sugar is still 33% more than "real" sugar.
I had a secure certificate for eMail encryption. Took about a day to figure out how to use it, get it implemented in my mail program, how to inform other eMail users the procedure to decrypt my messages, get the certificate signed by Thawte, etc. As it turned out, only one other person I corresponded with had implemented eMail encryption.
Then one day, the certificate expired. Do you think I could wade my way through the obscure techno-babble of the Thawte website to renew my certificate? If you answered "yes", you'd be wrong. I couldn't even figure out what kind of certificate I had when wading through the obtuse language at Thawte.
Someone has to make this easier than getting 24 bit video at something bigger than 640x480 to work on obscure hardware with a new Linux distro. That was a piece of cake in comparison.
To this day I have no idea what Thawte wanted me to do to renew the certificate.
The US doesn't actually buy any sugar to speak of anyway. Prohibitive import tariffs on sugar, to placate the corn lobby, is longstanding policy.
The world price of sugar has increased 300% in the last year, to $US 50/kg, unless you live in the US... then it's $US 75/kg. Which just happens to be both the world and US domestic price of corn-derived sugars.
From TFA: "... "There will be no (criminal) charges whatsoever," Luque said...." "... Students were evacuated from Millennial Tech Magnet Middle School in the Chollas View neighborhood Friday afternoon after an 11-year-old student..."
That's right. Criminal charges against an 11-year old.
As it turns out, California has no Minimum Age for Criminal Responsibility (MACR), so if they wanted to, they could have brought charges against the student.
"... My main worry about this that the GPS system has a particular set of vulnerabilities that either don't exist or are less significant for a terrestrial system. Solar flares and other space environment risks come to mine, as does capture via hacking and attack via interceptor satellites...."
The particular set of vulnerabilities for Loran-C is it's only available in coastal areas and the Great Lakes.
Maybe there are risks from solar events, but since at least half the GPS satellites are on the "dark side" of the Earth at any given time, it's probably more along the lines of an annoyance than a full service outage. You can always use the Russian sats as a backup, or use a GPS that tracks both.
Capture via hacking, and attack by interceptor satellites, means there's a war on, or it's about to start. A very big one.
Head to shore, now. That should be no problem at all, since if you're operating an ocean-going vessel, you already know how to navigate the old way. Right?
I don't really read much (or as much) into this as some might suggest.
From the parent post: "... Google has decided to 'review the feasibility of [its] business operations in China,'..."
I see: 'Google is looking at the China operation, and is planning to revise it's strategy there.'
"... [consider] no longer censoring results in Google.cn, and if necessary, to 'shut down Google.cn, and potentially [Google's] offices in China...."
I see: 'We're approaching this without assumptions or limits. All options are on the table. We're doing this to foster the widest possible debate and the widest possible set of solutions, because that is the best way to approach any problem.'
I don't see 'Google may pull out of China.' That is only possible, let alone likely, if no other solution arises as a result of the review, which I find very unlikely indeed.
Somewhat unrelated to the above: From TFA: "... Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves...."
In other words, they did achieve their objective; they got two accounts of human rights activists and the subject lines, which certainly can be incriminating to a paranoid security apparatus looking to focus on individuals with further investigation. There is no reason to assume, as Google seems to, that the objective was to hack into every human rights activist's account. One lead may be all that's required to mark the operation a success by the perpetrators or their masters.
"... Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers...."
Same as previous comment. Not just two, but dozens of accounts were compromised. There is no reason to believe that a successful operation, which involved hacking of mail accounts in general, required the attack on gMail to be more effective than any other vector.
"... We launched Google.cn in January 2006 [...]. At the time we made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.... * The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard..."
Translation: 'We have hesitated to reconsider our approach to China, because it's a potential Gold Mine. But we're trying to figure out how to still mine the Gold and stand up for our principles, which we've either previously compromised on, or ignored, in order to continue to earn revenue, or exploit the revenue potential, from China.'
* This line goes here:... We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China...."
Translation: 'We're not going anywhere, but we're unilaterally violating the deal we made with Chinese Authorities, so we might get kicked out.'
First of all, congratulations on recognizing some important truths about your situation... that you are new to the workforce in general, that you are new there, that you had probably not go around telling people how to do their jobs, and so on. Off to a great start in the work-a-day world, there.
Now about the particulars of your office... what you are observing is the culture of that office. Just like in school and after school, so far in your time here on the planet, you have to accept cultural norms for the group you intend to fit in with. And trust me... you want to fit in at work. There is a real financial penalty for not doing so; in essence you will be out of the loop and miss important opportunities if you fail on that score.
That doesn't mean you can't be a leader at work; it means you have to lead within the culture. That doesn't mean you must be a leader at work; it means you have to follow within the culture. Whatever fits your personal style, ambitions, and goals, go there accordingly.
It's OK to work harder than those around you. Don't get me wrong, here. But, if you do decide that's how you're going to play it, work smart. Wait to get noticed, don't call attention to what you think is hard work. It may not be, actually. You don't really know how or why the people around you are there, or what the company values in them as employees, going beyond just what they do for "work".
Here's a hot tip... make an effort to get along with other employees. Even the ones no-one else seems to get along with. That is an attribute that can get your ass saved when things are not so rosy and somebody has to go. No guarantees... some companies do actually see you as just a number, but sooner or later you will end up somewhere where that isn't the case, and then it will provide job security, as far as there is such a thing, anyway.
And when I say "make an effort", that's exactly what I mean. Suck it up, go with the flow, and avoid being seen as a griper. It's OK to hear griping, it's OK to listen to griping, and it's OK to hang out with everyone. Just don't add fuel to the fire yourself. You can listen without adding fuel to the fire; don't enthusiastically agree with every little grumble.
Different workplaces, different companies, different careers; they all have a culture. Some places treat you like a slave; some people are OK with that because they enjoy working hard, and if there are long term employees around, chances are they pay well for slavery. Some places are about keeping it fun on the job, while still excelling at the work they do. Those are the hardest to fit in with, actually. You can't just simply work your way through them.
You don't have to change your personality, or try to be someone you're not. That won't work, actually. Be yourself but be seen as a team player. Management knows (or should know) they need all kinds of people to succeed.
Regardless, a work culture is important. Learn it and live within it, and make your mark with "the bosses" by doing well within that culture. If you can't live within it, move on.
Another scheme to control content, embedded in hardware. What a fan-fucking-tastic idea.
People who just finished getting all HDCP-enabled can just go out and buy new stuff. The consumer is a conduit of money, and the consumer has more than enough laying around, being wasted on stuff we don't sell, so we'll just compel him... ONCE AGAIN... to buy a bunch of new stuff. LIke, every four years. For life.
Clueless Movie Mogul; to Boardroom: "... Because this new scheme is so today, and our old scheme is so yesterday. Oh, and... you won't believe what we are going to come up with tomorrow! I'm so EXCITED!! I can't say much, but it's coming in 2013, we haven't even mentioned it to anyone yet, so... Sworn To Secrecy, Everybody... but... the consumer will be able to watch movies. Yeah, you heard it right, folks! Actually watch them! Once they buy them in the proposed unique encrypted new digital format, of course. And get some new hardware, of course. Plus we still gotta agree on a few details of the standard we're proposing. Plus... "
"... When you (or a library) loan out a book, or sell a used copy, no new copy is made. There's an inherent limit on the number of other people who can read it, since they're all reading the same physical copy...."
You are of course absolutely correct there. No argument.
"... That's very different from posting an unlocked copy on the 'net, for anyone to download [sic]..."
Yes, but HOW is is different? The mechanism of distribution is different.
Copyright exists to allow the author to control the distribution of his work, so that he may profit from it's creation. It specifically places no limit on the extent of it's disemenation once published, because that is not the intent of copyright; the intent is exactly the opposite... to encourage the disemenation of the work. That is why there are limits on copyright enshrined in legislation. The introduction of lending libraries required legislation to end litigation based on that form of disemenation, and placed a limit on the legal rights enjoyed by the copyright owner.
There almost always a limit on copyright enshrined in legislation whereby if you make a copy of a book by hand, without mechanical reproduction, you are exempt from copyright violation regarding the creation of your handmade copy. That is another limit on the legal rights enjoyed by the copyright owner. At one time, all books were copied by hand and all handmade copies were stored in libraries. Authors earned nothing from duplication of the work. Then came the printing press. The press is a technological innovation that allowed authors wide dissemenation of their work. It also allowed anyone who could set type to make copies of another's work.
Because the disemenation was considered a public good, there was fear that the ease in printing by relatively numerous publishers unrelated to the author may cause authors to keep important works to themselves; perhaps limiting disemenation to lectures, for example. So, legislation was created that enshrined the right of an author to control distribution and to the exclusive right to profit from any distribution for a limited period of time. That is a response to a technical advance. Over time, other technical advances arrived, and legislation was formed to both address the new technology and enshrine limited benefit to the copyright owner.
Lending libraries are an example of not a technical advance, but a process. None the less, legislation was proposed to deal with the change in disemenation resulting from that new process. Computers are both a technological advance and a new process; a technical means to render print, and a process whereby everything is a copy, even within a single stand-alone, non-networked machine. Over time, legislation was created to deal with the new method. The legislation is still evolving. However, as an example of a limit on copyright related to the new development, most nations specifically allow you to copy virtually anything from storage into memory in order to use the work, and most allow you the right to create a backup of a work.
Limits on copyright go hand-in-hand with grants of copyright. It is not a universal, unlimited right, and never has been. It is not "very different from posting an unlocked copy on the 'net, for anyone to download". It is essentially exactly the same. Throughout history, there has always been new methods of distribution that arise, and this is no different. The legislation regarding copyright and the internet itself is still evolving. Again, throughout history, the new methods always enjoyed a period of disruption, a time when there was, in essence, a free-for-all.
We are in that time now. It is perfectly normal, in fact inevitable, and will happen again and again. Certainly you can argue that "it's very different", implying someone is getting away with something they have no right to. But, there are always limits placed on copyright when new technology requires
Does anyone else find it interesting that this movie can open in theaters worldwide, and in major American markets like Los Angeles and New York, without a peep from Nintendo, but the moment it goes online, the beast awakens? Did Nintendo even know about the film before it was posted for all on the web?
There may be nothing to it, but it does appear, at least, that Nintendo doesn't have any feelers at all in the real world, while actively hunting on the web.
Slashdot Mirror
Some baseless rambling by a non-governing member of the opposition. The government of the day is against the idea completely. He could introduce a Private Member's Bill, but let me put it this way:
You could lose a finger for every Private Member's Bill that made it into law in Canada in the last 100 years, and still be able to touch type 60 wpm.
Good point. I would like to add that most computer security practices may be valid, and even useful, but those in charge of establishing security with computing act like their pet app/website/bank/hardware is the most important thing on Earth, period. Oh, and it's also implicitly trusted, so the user should grant it access to ... well ... everything.
Problem one results in the situation where five minutes of your time invested in security for this pet app or service is not that significant, but having 30 groups of security requirements needing five minutes .... whoa, there, son! You want me to do what??
Problem two results in the user being nagged into defeating the very security the other 29 services are simultaneously building.
It's little wonder that giving up and going commando is so attractive to users.
There is no problem with the supply, and not much of a problem with known reserves.
The situation is essentially the same with any operation that requires capital to set up, and mining operations in particular require large capital expenditures and time to plan ... prices must rise before anyone will go looking, they must rise some more before anyone goes digging, and there is always an inevitable lag between "prices rose" and "so let's start digging" to "we have output".
And, since mining is a fairly extensive operation, there is always worry that increased supply will then depress prices, not to mention economic health which affects demand, and those projected prices constitute the necessary rationale to determine profitability and sustainability of the mine, and thus find capital to move on the whole shebang.
This is no different than any oil, gas or mineral operation. No shortage = no activity.
" ... 'No one [in the US] wants to be first to jump into the market because of the cost of building a separation plant,' Hedrick explained. ... [S]uch a plant requires thousands of stainless steel tanks holding different chemical solutions to separate out all the individual rare earths. The upfront costs seem daunting. Hedrick estimated that opening just one mine and building a new separation plant might cost anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion and would require a minimum of eight years. ..."
Great Western Technologies, Troy Michigan
http://www.gwmg.ca/html/great-western-technologies-section/index.cfm
It's expensive any way you hash it for data plans when out-of-country. You could ask providers, but in my experience they see it as a license to print money.
Were it me, I'd have a data plan in the nation I spent the most time in, and pick up a pay-as-you-go phone for when I'm out-of-country, using a laptop for data via WiFi, etc. The Wall-Mart phone is cheap, in either Canada or the US, for example.
You might have to keep the data smartphone powered off when out-of-country, or turn off data functions (be sure they're off, though). You can use your vocemail message to list the number for the pay-as-you-go phone. You might be able to use call forwarding, if you can be sure it won't cost you money to have it forwarded to the other phone. But data? There's no cheap option I'm aware of.
Another option would involve you piggybacking on someone else's plan, as a second phone on the account, when on your shortest stint out-of-country (in your case, when in the USA). Parents, friends, etc might be willing to go along with it. You get the advantage of a reasonably cheap data plan based on the contract rate, which is usually lowest.
There's really no good solution for short-term data plans, as far as I know. But, since cellular plans are about as unique as opinions (everyone's is different) it's really tough to give an answer without specifics, such as exactly where you will be while in the US and what provider options exist in that particular location.
I was struck by the information provided in TFA about the billed prices and the negotiated payments.
(If you didn't bother reading it) several times she mentions that her insurer paid a negotiated rate for a procedure or drug, and that negotiated rate varied when she switched jobs and changed insurers. Discounts she mentions varied roughly from perhaps 20% to sometimes far more than 50%; individual insurers would negotiate what they were willing to pay for something and the hospital would agree to consider that amount to be paid in full, regardless of the hospital's standard billed amount for that "something".
It led me to wonder whom, actually, pays the full amount? Then it struck me. The uninsured do.
" ... Why do iTunes or Safari need the system to be restarted? I'm only forced to reboot my Win7 machine due to patches... Hmm, I think once in the time I've had it. ..."
I just click click on the Software Update window to bring it into focus when it gives me the reboot screen, and then click back on whatever I was working on and carry on for hours or sometimes, days. It will run fine until you shutdown normally ... like tonight, next week, whatever.
Samba (although it's probably AFP ... unless one of the two computers is a Windows box) isn't the cause of the slowdown, probably. Since it's a design studio, and since the files are resident on a designer's machine, it's likely the designer is using Adobe apps. They use a proprietary disk-based VM (avoiding the OS's VM on Windows or OSX) and typically they will reserve many times the size of the open document(s) the guy's trying to work on, and do plenty of large swaps, especially with any operation that involves manipulating the data in the file (just about every function in Photoshop, for example). They also use their own clipboard, again, avoiding the OS's.
Most designers would dedicate a second drive solely to Adobe VM, actually, because it hogs drives so much. It's also possible the bonehead is using Screen Sharing, which in essence means he's actually using the designer's CPU and Applications, along with all that comes with that overhead-wise, as well, instead of the apps and RAM resident on his own machine.
AFP (and Samba) work very well speed-wise. I have no trouble streaming audio or video, hiccup free, over either, while using the LAN and CPUs for other tasks at the same time. So, the network access itself almost certainly isn't going to be the issue, on either machine.
It sounds like the bonehead is basically eating the poor designer's CPU cycles, RAM and drive access when the user is attempting to do work that really amounts to tasks that the machine should be dedicated to.
I don't see a problem whatsoever with this. If it's patented, it's patented. If it's not, you're interfering with trade and innovation by claiming it is.
It's no different than plagiarism or copying [usually open-source] code and claiming it as your own work ... passing off someone's (copyrighted, which is automatic) work as your own, and putting your own copyright mark on it. That's not legal either.
In this case, they are claiming a patent that they don't own (anymore, or never will, in the case of fraudulent "patent pending" marks) as their own. Expired patents belong to me, you, everyone. Yet by their subterfuge, they intend deny us our right to the patent.
Like the topic says ... live by the sword, die by the sword.
" ... There exists no site anywhere I've ever seen that indicates that the loaned amount exceeds the deposits at that location. ..."
100% wrong. They take the $1000 deposit, put the $1000 in to the reserve, and write a check, based on that reserve, for ten grand to a borrower (although that is a simplified explanation; it's the essence of banking systems). Banks create money out of thin air. They absolutely do not put $100 of that deposit in reserve and lend the other $900.
" ... Not Wikipedia, not Google, not out of the nutter's ass. There exists no rule that lets a bank lend more than they have taken in deposits. Period. ..."
Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTRDeLGOKjk [ Part 1: The only one you absolutely need to watch to understand the system]
And if you want: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9xgtTRS-EQ [Part 2]
" ... In order to lend 900% of their deposits, they would have to borrow money from other banks using the loan collateral as their collateral - they can't just pull money out of their asses. ..."
That's not how banks work. The OP was right. Banks create money out of nothing ... if you don't understand that, you completely miss why banks are important to an economy.
The reserve ratio (which is nowhere near as high as 10%, by the way, although it does vary by statute from time to time) represents what the bank needs on hand to satisfy regulatory requirements for reserves.
If you deposit a dollar, the bank literally does write a cheque for $10 to a qualified borrower (with a 10% reserve ratio example) with money it created simply by assessing your risk as a borrower as someone likely to pay it back. The "other $9" is essentially summoned out of thin air.
Banks literally create money by writing a check against funds that it literally does not have, but that can happen only if someone borrows it. They can't loan you cash, but they can loan you via a check and then trade it for cash. The reason? The money is printed by the bank; it doesn't come from a vault.
The vault has the reserves, and nothing more.
They don't lend out the money they have on deposit; that is where the reserve comes from.
So, Dunn & Bradstreet reports that 19% of all companies in all industries are run by women.
And then it tells us 3% of tech firms were founded by women.
And then it tells us that 1% of high-tech firms "as in Silicon Valley" were founded by women.
Finally, it tells us that 9% of Venture Capital investments go to women-led companies (in some nebulous undefined "historical" time period) and for 2007 the figure is 3%.
Let's see here ... 1% women led companies in Silicon Valley. 3% of VC funding.
1%. Hmmm.
3%. Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Sounds like the article, which purports to concentrate on technology firms, seems to suggest the women-led companies in Silicon Valley have no trouble whatsoever getting funding, and lots of it.
And only 3% of tech firms and 1% of high-tech firms (as in Silicon Valley) were founded by women. Look at the executive teams of any of the Valley's tech firms -- minus a couple of exceptions like Padmasree Warrior of Cisco -- you won't find any women CTOs. Look at the management teams of companies like Apple -- not even one woman. It's the same with the VC firms -- male dominated. You'll find some CFOs and HR heads, but women VCs are a rare commodity in venture capital. And with the recent venture bloodbath, the proportion of women in the VC numbers is declining further. It's no coincidence that only one of the 84 VCs on the 2009 TheFunded list of top VCs was a woman. ... Additionally, it is harder for women to obtain funding than for men. ... historically, women-led companies have received less than 9% of venture capital investments; in 2007, the proportion of funded female CEOs dropped to 3%."
" ... There is not a car on the road today that doesn't have higher power brakes than engine. The ratio is beyond ridiculous for smaller cars... my little ancient saturn accelerates at barely 120 HP yet brakes at something near 600 HP. ..."
I would agree that, generally speaking, the brakes should be able to overcome the engine in a modern road car. Having said that, I can also envision situations where that may not work as well as one would hope. ... again, for the sake of argument, let's say it's correct.
Imagine someone driving on a typical US two-lane highway. You want to pass. You find a safe area, good sight lines, and hit the throttle.
At the end of your passing maneuver, you should probably be doing about 80~95 mph. Then you release the pedal, and the car continues to accelerate.
Let's, for the sake of argument, say you start to take control of the situation when the car is doing 100 mph (after a bit of "whoa! what the???").
Apply brakes hard.
100 mph is a significantly different issue than 60 mph when it comes to braking, engine racing or no engine racing. It's a relatively hard-on-the-equipment situation.
I found a chart online
http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/pdf/SpeedStoppingDistances.pdf It's a PDF
After 79 meters, you would have stopped from 70 mph. From 100 mph, you are still traveling at 77 mph at that distance; partly due to more distance traveled in the same 1-second reaction time; 21 meters @ 70 vs 30 meters @ 100. We could lop off the reaction time, since we'll assume the highway is clear in your (correct) lane and you aren't panicking. yet.
That still leaves 58 meters with 0 reaction time from 70 vs 118 meters from 100. That's roughly a 100% increase in the time the vehicle is under full braking, and zero throttle to resist the braking effort. Add some throttle, which I agree by itself does not mean the brakes cannot overcome them, throw in perhaps the brakes are in adequate but not in excellent condition, that would be a challenging situation. If the vehicle uses conventional "street" pads which are not designed for multiple high speed stops, they may start gassing off long before the vehicle has slowed to a safe speed to pull over and check things out (more than half the braking distance ... the high speed leg takes more time and distance). If there is air in the brake lines, or water, which is a fairly common condition of an in-service car, that may start to compress in the hydraulic fluid. The fluid may start to boil at the caliper. And so on.
There is no reason why a car should not be able to stop under a high speed throttle stuck condition, if everything works in a fortuitous fashion. It's what happens when the all the possible points of failure start to compound that you might have an issue. If you don't stop the car with your first hard braking attempt, brake effectiveness with street spec pads will be reduced considerably for the next stop. I would agree that it's a silly strategy to conclude the brakes "aren't working right" and to let off, allowing the vehicle to re-accelerate. But I can see it happening.
Pilots generally will tell you that if something goes wrong in a flight, it's no biggie. There is almost always a way to deal with such a failure and either continue the flight or land with good probability of a decent relatively safe landing. Pilots are taught what can go wrong, and what to do when each of them do go wrong. What they also will tell you is that a fatal accident usually involves not one, but sometimes two things going wrong, and they might not tell you, but I can assure you, they are damn afraid of three things going wrong in succession. That is the basic recipe for a non-survivable flight.
We don't, and probably won't, know what series of events transpired with the fatal accidents involving what appears to be throttle issues, with Toyota cars being the ones currently in th
" ... Throttle return springs are, I gather, a not entirely uncommon failure point. It's a specific line item check on Club Time Trials; I know this because the inspector and I had to try to figure out how to inspect the throttle return spring on my Audi, which also has a "fly by wire" throttle. ..."
Your point is well taken, but on race vehicles with carburetors, it's mandatory to have dual throttle return springs ... the second one's there to deal with failure of the first. It's also installed on production vehicles.
Similarly, on motorcycles it's mandatory to have dual throttle cables; one pulls, the other pushes. Failure of one cable, or the return spring, does not mean you can't close the throttle.
Braking systems on cars are designed in such a way that despite the common master cylinder, that master cylinder has two separate hydraulic systems with a common brake pedal. Typically if one system fails (say, broken brake line in right front wheel causing loss of all hydraulic fluid and thus braking) the other system maintains some braking effort. They're usually tied so that right front and left rear are on one system while left front and right rear on the other, giving even braking, relatively, to avoid pulling to one side (much).
It would seem that the problem is not the fly-by-wire per se, but that there may not be a redundant fail-safe system in place to deal with failure. It would not surprise me one bit to learn that what Toyota is installing in the recalled vehicles is such a redundant system, possibly mechanical backup, possibly electronic.
Yeah, could be cents per kg; I had to read off a chart, but the chart clearly stated $USD per KG. Probably mislabeled.
Rather than focus on my decimal error, the point was, that no-one in the US eats cane or beet-derived sugars, because they are subject to import restrictions and tariffs to make them equal to or higher than the US domestic price of corn sugar, and no-one anywhere else eats corn-derived sugars because even with the largest rise in sugar prices in 40 years, corn sugar is still 33% more than "real" sugar.
I had a secure certificate for eMail encryption. Took about a day to figure out how to use it, get it implemented in my mail program, how to inform other eMail users the procedure to decrypt my messages, get the certificate signed by Thawte, etc. As it turned out, only one other person I corresponded with had implemented eMail encryption.
Then one day, the certificate expired. Do you think I could wade my way through the obscure techno-babble of the Thawte website to renew my certificate? If you answered "yes", you'd be wrong. I couldn't even figure out what kind of certificate I had when wading through the obtuse language at Thawte.
Someone has to make this easier than getting 24 bit video at something bigger than 640x480 to work on obscure hardware with a new Linux distro. That was a piece of cake in comparison.
To this day I have no idea what Thawte wanted me to do to renew the certificate.
The US doesn't actually buy any sugar to speak of anyway. Prohibitive import tariffs on sugar, to placate the corn lobby, is longstanding policy.
The world price of sugar has increased 300% in the last year, to $US 50/kg, unless you live in the US ... then it's $US 75/kg. Which just happens to be both the world and US domestic price of corn-derived sugars.
From TFA: ... "There will be no (criminal) charges whatsoever," Luque said. ..." ... Students were evacuated from Millennial Tech Magnet Middle School in the Chollas View neighborhood Friday afternoon after an 11-year-old student ..."
"
"
That's right. Criminal charges against an 11-year old.
As it turns out, California has no Minimum Age for Criminal Responsibility (MACR), so if they wanted to, they could have brought charges against the student.
" ... My main worry about this that the GPS system has a particular set of vulnerabilities that either don't exist or are less significant for a terrestrial system. Solar flares and other space environment risks come to mine, as does capture via hacking and attack via interceptor satellites. ..."
The particular set of vulnerabilities for Loran-C is it's only available in coastal areas and the Great Lakes.
Maybe there are risks from solar events, but since at least half the GPS satellites are on the "dark side" of the Earth at any given time, it's probably more along the lines of an annoyance than a full service outage. You can always use the Russian sats as a backup, or use a GPS that tracks both.
Capture via hacking, and attack by interceptor satellites, means there's a war on, or it's about to start. A very big one.
Head to shore, now. That should be no problem at all, since if you're operating an ocean-going vessel, you already know how to navigate the old way. Right?
I don't really read much (or as much) into this as some might suggest.
From the parent post: ... Google has decided to 'review the feasibility of [its] business operations in China,' ..."
"
I see: 'Google is looking at the China operation, and is planning to revise it's strategy there.'
" ... [consider] no longer censoring results in Google.cn, and if necessary, to 'shut down Google.cn, and potentially [Google's] offices in China. ..."
I see: 'We're approaching this without assumptions or limits. All options are on the table. We're doing this to foster the widest possible debate and the widest possible set of solutions, because that is the best way to approach any problem.'
I don't see 'Google may pull out of China.' That is only possible, let alone likely, if no other solution arises as a result of the review, which I find very unlikely indeed.
Somewhat unrelated to the above: ... Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves. ..."
From TFA:
"
In other words, they did achieve their objective; they got two accounts of human rights activists and the subject lines, which certainly can be incriminating to a paranoid security apparatus looking to focus on individuals with further investigation. There is no reason to assume, as Google seems to, that the objective was to hack into every human rights activist's account. One lead may be all that's required to mark the operation a success by the perpetrators or their masters.
" ... Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers. ..."
Same as previous comment. Not just two, but dozens of accounts were compromised. There is no reason to believe that a successful operation, which involved hacking of mail accounts in general, required the attack on gMail to be more effective than any other vector.
" ... We launched Google.cn in January 2006 [...]. At the time we made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China. ... * ..."
The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard
Translation: 'We have hesitated to reconsider our approach to China, because it's a potential Gold Mine. But we're trying to figure out how to still mine the Gold and stand up for our principles, which we've either previously compromised on, or ignored, in order to continue to earn revenue, or exploit the revenue potential, from China.'
* This line goes here: ... We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China. ..."
Translation: 'We're not going anywhere, but we're unilaterally violating the deal we made with Chinese Authorities, so we might get kicked out.'
First of all, congratulations on recognizing some important truths about your situation ... that you are new to the workforce in general, that you are new there, that you had probably not go around telling people how to do their jobs, and so on. Off to a great start in the work-a-day world, there.
Now about the particulars of your office ... what you are observing is the culture of that office. Just like in school and after school, so far in your time here on the planet, you have to accept cultural norms for the group you intend to fit in with. And trust me ... you want to fit in at work. There is a real financial penalty for not doing so; in essence you will be out of the loop and miss important opportunities if you fail on that score.
That doesn't mean you can't be a leader at work; it means you have to lead within the culture. That doesn't mean you must be a leader at work; it means you have to follow within the culture. Whatever fits your personal style, ambitions, and goals, go there accordingly.
It's OK to work harder than those around you. Don't get me wrong, here. But, if you do decide that's how you're going to play it, work smart. Wait to get noticed, don't call attention to what you think is hard work. It may not be, actually. You don't really know how or why the people around you are there, or what the company values in them as employees, going beyond just what they do for "work".
Here's a hot tip ... make an effort to get along with other employees. Even the ones no-one else seems to get along with. That is an attribute that can get your ass saved when things are not so rosy and somebody has to go. No guarantees ... some companies do actually see you as just a number, but sooner or later you will end up somewhere where that isn't the case, and then it will provide job security, as far as there is such a thing, anyway.
And when I say "make an effort", that's exactly what I mean. Suck it up, go with the flow, and avoid being seen as a griper. It's OK to hear griping, it's OK to listen to griping, and it's OK to hang out with everyone. Just don't add fuel to the fire yourself. You can listen without adding fuel to the fire; don't enthusiastically agree with every little grumble.
Different workplaces, different companies, different careers; they all have a culture. Some places treat you like a slave; some people are OK with that because they enjoy working hard, and if there are long term employees around, chances are they pay well for slavery. Some places are about keeping it fun on the job, while still excelling at the work they do. Those are the hardest to fit in with, actually. You can't just simply work your way through them.
You don't have to change your personality, or try to be someone you're not. That won't work, actually. Be yourself but be seen as a team player. Management knows (or should know) they need all kinds of people to succeed.
Regardless, a work culture is important. Learn it and live within it, and make your mark with "the bosses" by doing well within that culture. If you can't live within it, move on.
Another scheme to control content, embedded in hardware. What a fan-fucking-tastic idea.
People who just finished getting all HDCP-enabled can just go out and buy new stuff. The consumer is a conduit of money, and the consumer has more than enough laying around, being wasted on stuff we don't sell, so we'll just compel him ... ONCE AGAIN ... to buy a bunch of new stuff. LIke, every four years. For life.
Clueless Movie Mogul; to Boardroom: ... Because this new scheme is so today, and our old scheme is so yesterday. Oh, and ... you won't believe what we are going to come up with tomorrow! I'm so EXCITED!! I can't say much, but it's coming in 2013, we haven't even mentioned it to anyone yet, so ... Sworn To Secrecy, Everybody ... but ... the consumer will be able to watch movies. Yeah, you heard it right, folks! Actually watch them! Once they buy them in the proposed unique encrypted new digital format, of course. And get some new hardware, of course. Plus we still gotta agree on a few details of the standard we're proposing. Plus ... "
"
" ... When you (or a library) loan out a book, or sell a used copy, no new copy is made. There's an inherent limit on the number of other people who can read it, since they're all reading the same physical copy. ..."
You are of course absolutely correct there. No argument.
" ... That's very different from posting an unlocked copy on the 'net, for anyone to download [sic] ..."
Yes, but HOW is is different? The mechanism of distribution is different.
Copyright exists to allow the author to control the distribution of his work, so that he may profit from it's creation. It specifically places no limit on the extent of it's disemenation once published, because that is not the intent of copyright; the intent is exactly the opposite ... to encourage the disemenation of the work. That is why there are limits on copyright enshrined in legislation. The introduction of lending libraries required legislation to end litigation based on that form of disemenation, and placed a limit on the legal rights enjoyed by the copyright owner.
There almost always a limit on copyright enshrined in legislation whereby if you make a copy of a book by hand, without mechanical reproduction, you are exempt from copyright violation regarding the creation of your handmade copy. That is another limit on the legal rights enjoyed by the copyright owner. At one time, all books were copied by hand and all handmade copies were stored in libraries. Authors earned nothing from duplication of the work. Then came the printing press. The press is a technological innovation that allowed authors wide dissemenation of their work. It also allowed anyone who could set type to make copies of another's work.
Because the disemenation was considered a public good, there was fear that the ease in printing by relatively numerous publishers unrelated to the author may cause authors to keep important works to themselves; perhaps limiting disemenation to lectures, for example. So, legislation was created that enshrined the right of an author to control distribution and to the exclusive right to profit from any distribution for a limited period of time. That is a response to a technical advance. Over time, other technical advances arrived, and legislation was formed to both address the new technology and enshrine limited benefit to the copyright owner.
Lending libraries are an example of not a technical advance, but a process. None the less, legislation was proposed to deal with the change in disemenation resulting from that new process. Computers are both a technological advance and a new process; a technical means to render print, and a process whereby everything is a copy, even within a single stand-alone, non-networked machine. Over time, legislation was created to deal with the new method. The legislation is still evolving. However, as an example of a limit on copyright related to the new development, most nations specifically allow you to copy virtually anything from storage into memory in order to use the work, and most allow you the right to create a backup of a work.
Limits on copyright go hand-in-hand with grants of copyright. It is not a universal, unlimited right, and never has been. It is not "very different from posting an unlocked copy on the 'net, for anyone to download". It is essentially exactly the same. Throughout history, there has always been new methods of distribution that arise, and this is no different. The legislation regarding copyright and the internet itself is still evolving. Again, throughout history, the new methods always enjoyed a period of disruption, a time when there was, in essence, a free-for-all.
We are in that time now. It is perfectly normal, in fact inevitable, and will happen again and again. Certainly you can argue that "it's very different", implying someone is getting away with something they have no right to. But, there are always limits placed on copyright when new technology requires
" ... Novelist Blames Piracy On Open Source Culture. ..."
In related news, everyone blames Novelists for the current culture.
Does anyone else find it interesting that this movie can open in theaters worldwide, and in major American markets like Los Angeles and New York, without a peep from Nintendo, but the moment it goes online, the beast awakens?
Did Nintendo even know about the film before it was posted for all on the web?
There may be nothing to it, but it does appear, at least, that Nintendo doesn't have any feelers at all in the real world, while actively hunting on the web.