So let's take this to the next level. How do you keep an employee from taking that training you just paid for and leaving for what the employee sees as greener pastures?
Pay them what they're (now) worth ?
(That is to say, whatever the "greener pastures" are going to pay.)
If you are running 10 processes on 10 servers on one physical machine... isn't easier and more efficient to run 100 processes on one instance of Linux?
That depends entirely on how you measure "easier" and "efficient".
Maybe they're not interested in "hackability" because they've never had the opportunity.
No, they're not interested in "hackability" for the same reason they're not interested in turning their own engines, lighting their fireplaces by rubbing two sticks together, or washing their clothes by beating them next to the local river.
They said the same thing about the internet, twenty years ago. And yet look what the hackers of the world built out of the refuse of wires and chips that the corporations of then said was useless and had no commercial value. Now they're fighting to tax it, control it, and some countries have declared it an inalienable human right to have it.
You seem to have a much different recollection of the internet 20 years ago than I do.
Maybe it has no value to them, but that's because they don't know the value of it yet. It's our job to find it and tell them.
No, it's their job to define what they want, and other people's jobs to deliver it. What you are proposing is akin to dictatorship, not democracy.
You just haven't been around long enough to realize the purpose of your own learning yet. Your individuality, your knowledge and talents, are not for your own gratification. The purpose of the democratic process, which the internet comes closest in form and function, is not to create a great country, or great works, but to create great people.
If you think the internet is creating "great people", you need to spend some time on 4chan and Facebook.
Hacking is therefore the highest form of the democratic process; Not because of what we do, but for what we share.
Please. Ease up on the mental masturbation just a bit. The people responsible for shaping the world as we know it today were sharing their knowledge and talents before "hacking" was even a word.
Yeah, but who's heard of the Nokia N900, or even knows what that means, outside geek circles? On the other hand, billboards and TVs everywhere are blasting out "Droid does". For bringing a hackable system to the masses, Android has it beat.
But "the masses" aren't interested in hacking it, thus making said hackability essentially irrelevant to anyone who isn't in "geek circles" anyway.
I think it may also have something to do with Europe's generally different opinion of extending credit to anyone. I started receiving offers in the mail from anyone and everyone when I turned 18, my girlfriend (who is German) couldn't get a credit card with a limit over 200 Euros to save her life because she doesn't have established credit.
Really ? When we arrived in Switzerland a few years back, I had a credit card with a $20k limit within a couple of months of arriving (basically, a week or two after my B permit was finalised). When we recently moved to the US, however, I couldn't even borrow a measly $5k to help buy a car (worth probably 2-3x that), even though I'd been working for the same company for 5 years, earned over $100k/yr and probably would have paid it back within a month or two.
Mark my words, what we ended up with is going to be even worse than the mess we had before, [...]
What's interesting is it's basically identical to the system in Switzerland (compulsory health insurance from private companies, subsidies for the poor), and there it seems to work quite well (base on my few years living there).
(Not that I think it will work in the US - way too much corruption here from what I've seen so far.)
Race does not have any impact on evolution. It's not a matter of fearing people who look different. That sort of shallow thinking will leave you open to booty traps because any hottie who looks good will be able to get close to you and kill you. Why? Because the enemy is going to come in a beautiful form that you'll accept and slowly poison you.
Newsflash: most people threatening your life won't be have elaborate long-term strategies for doing so.
How is being free from racial bias a disability of any kind? Just because it's new and it fails to be part of the average human ability pool?
It's not being free from racial bias, it's being free from any sort of social fear.
For an example of why this can be a disability, consider one of these people stopping in the wrong neighbourhood to ask directions from the group of guys holding petrol cans and matches standing around a burning car.
I can't really take a political group seriously when they base their entire position on copyright infringement. When they can actually show me they want to change copyright, without taking away the rights of all the existing and future copyright holders, I might change my mind. It also seems like they all just want to get free stuff. Nothing more.
Actually I just checked the Victorian and NSW Road Rules and no such 2-second rule exists.
If the traffic lights or traffic arrows (as the case may be) change to yellow or red while the driver is stopped and the driver has entered the intersection, the driver must leave the intersection as soon as the driver can do so safely.
You can find the Victorian Road Rules linked from here and the NSW ones here.
After reading a bit more it looks like this is actually defined in the Australian Road Rules, here (p49).
I'd be willing to bet that this is an impossible standard to force people to adhere to. You're backed up behind somebody stopping to turn right (or in Australia and other LH-drive countries, to turn left). They turn, but you enter the light at 5 MPH (~8 KPH). The light is green as you enter, but turns yellow. Long story short, you'd have to cram your foot all the way to the floor to make it out in time....
The (minimum) length of an orange phase in Australia is 4 seconds. If you can't clear an intersection in 6 seconds, then you shouldn't have entered it.
With that said, I believe the GP post is incorrect. If you have entered an intersection legally, then you can take as long as you want to clear it, so long as you aren't holding up traffic. That's certainly the law in Queensland.
If you're doing 35mph and the light turns red when you're 10 feet from the intersection, the SAFE thing to do is blow the red light... not lock up your breaks and go careening into the next lane to avoid breaking a silly ordinance.
No, the "SAFE" thing to do is to put down the phone/book/computer/whatever and pay attention to what you're doing.
If you only realised you needed to stop when the light went red 10 feet before you entered the intersection, then your actual driving error happened about 200 feet back up the road.
You must have not driven in any city or metropolitan area then. There are a lot of times where there is just no way to get past an unprotected left turn unless you get in the intersection, sit until the light turns red (and I mean red... people will continue to keep charging through on yellows), then get through.
This is not considered running a red in any place I've ever drive (Australia, USA, most of Europe).
"Running a red" means *entering* the intersection on a red light. If you're already in it when the light turns red, it's perfectly legal (and, indeed, required) for you to clear the intersection.
Yet the single picture violation does not tell anybody whether or not you entered the intersection illegally. Merely that you were in the intersection when it turned red... that is not illegal.
Red light cameras are triggered by you _entering_ the intersection, not by being in it. If you get your picture taken, it's because you entered the intersection after it went red.
As to the OP, absolutely this is all about revenue, [...]
This certainly appears to be true in the US, where intersections with cameras have noticably shorter orange periods. In sane countries, the minimum length of the orange is defined by road safety standards, and intersections that don't follow that standard (by having a longer orange period) typically only do so with very good reason (eg: higher than normal speed limit).
Every child porn case I've come across started as abuse first, and then turned into a video production.
You've never heard of Traci Lords ?
How about those cases of teenagers sending around pictures and videos of themselves having sex/masturbating/posing/etc ? Or conflicts of international law, where legal porn in one place is child pornography in another ?
I can agree that is necessary to have some images for educational purposes such as those offered by wikipedia, but by allowing lolicon and similar images to become acceptable I feel as if an important social barrier may have been breeched.
How do you feel about "gore porn" films like Saw and Hostel, then ?
Can you make an argument why it's ok to watch someone being tortured and dismembered, depicted by actual people and realistic visual and sound effects, but not ok to look at supposedly underage individuals in sexual situations, depicted by completely unrealistic cartoon imagery ?
Well, I agree that evolution is a theory (I wish people would do a better job of remembering that). I don't agree that it is ridiculously strong, particularly if you are talking about evolution as the origin of life.
Evolution makes no claims about the origins of life.
In the first place, it violates the second law of thermodynamics. That ought to be sufficient argument against it.
It does not. The Earth is not a closed system.
As we learn more about the complexity of the cell, and of DNA, the amount of information contained therein becomes ever more staggering. Five billion years is simply insufficient for any known mechanism to allow that much information to occur through random chance.
Evolution is not "random chance".
Beyond all that, there are no known examples of intermediate species. Considering how much evolution must have occurred (if we assume evolution to be correct) there ought to be scads of intermediate forms walking the planet today. Where are they?
There are a plethora of "intermediate species".
In conclusion, you clearly do not understand even the basics of Evolutionary Theory, and hence should refrain from criticising it.
How so? I accept that the Big Bang happened, and can be logically explained. However, I also believe there was a higher power at play that created it. Namely %DEITY%.
Do you have a suggestion as to where %DEITY% came from ?
At what point do you acknowledge there was a genesis (if at all) and what caused it and for what reason?
nowhere at any point neither the person i am discussing or me talked about 'building your own software in house'. it was about modifying/amending/adding modules to the open source software, in case you dont like something open source project's management did, forced upgrades, or missing features, or security fixes.
I know, that's why I only referred to in-house software in passing (most non-trivially-sized organisations, in my experience, have at least a couple of in-house applications they need to maintain).
you need only 1 at most 2 people to follow through with this. that also depends on your size, still its much much cheaper to try to whore off yourself to microsoft vendors.
Usually it's not, in no small part because most businesses aren't in the business of software development - hence the reason they let other companies who *are* in the business of software development (eg: Microsoft) do that work for them.
a good example is register globals off change in php5. its now default off, because it is considered a security risk if a developer is not strict in using it. therefore it is turned off, supposedly breaking bazillions of websites along with innumerable ecommerce websites running on oscommerce and similar carts. however, actually, none of those sites had experienced any issues with that. they didnt have to hire developers to amend php code in order to refuse the upgrade either. they just hired people to amend their software for token amounts of money, therefore fixing their issue in the manner they like - some went compatible, some still retained register globals. and business went on without getting disrupted.
That's a pretty atrocious example for demonstrating why OSS is better, given the fact PHP is OSS was utterly irrelevant to the solution.
Slashdot Mirror
So let's take this to the next level. How do you keep an employee from taking that training you just paid for and leaving for what the employee sees as greener pastures?
Pay them what they're (now) worth ?
(That is to say, whatever the "greener pastures" are going to pay.)
Lets use this example: Is a pierced male nipple somehow less sexual than a pierced female nipple, purely because a man can display his chest freely?
Yes.
If you are running 10 processes on 10 servers on one physical machine... isn't easier and more efficient to run 100 processes on one instance of Linux?
That depends entirely on how you measure "easier" and "efficient".
Maybe they're not interested in "hackability" because they've never had the opportunity.
No, they're not interested in "hackability" for the same reason they're not interested in turning their own engines, lighting their fireplaces by rubbing two sticks together, or washing their clothes by beating them next to the local river.
They said the same thing about the internet, twenty years ago. And yet look what the hackers of the world built out of the refuse of wires and chips that the corporations of then said was useless and had no commercial value. Now they're fighting to tax it, control it, and some countries have declared it an inalienable human right to have it.
You seem to have a much different recollection of the internet 20 years ago than I do.
Maybe it has no value to them, but that's because they don't know the value of it yet. It's our job to find it and tell them.
No, it's their job to define what they want, and other people's jobs to deliver it. What you are proposing is akin to dictatorship, not democracy.
You just haven't been around long enough to realize the purpose of your own learning yet. Your individuality, your knowledge and talents, are not for your own gratification. The purpose of the democratic process, which the internet comes closest in form and function, is not to create a great country, or great works, but to create great people.
If you think the internet is creating "great people", you need to spend some time on 4chan and Facebook.
Hacking is therefore the highest form of the democratic process; Not because of what we do, but for what we share.
Please. Ease up on the mental masturbation just a bit. The people responsible for shaping the world as we know it today were sharing their knowledge and talents before "hacking" was even a word.
Yeah, but who's heard of the Nokia N900, or even knows what that means, outside geek circles? On the other hand, billboards and TVs everywhere are blasting out "Droid does". For bringing a hackable system to the masses, Android has it beat.
But "the masses" aren't interested in hacking it, thus making said hackability essentially irrelevant to anyone who isn't in "geek circles" anyway.
I think it may also have something to do with Europe's generally different opinion of extending credit to anyone. I started receiving offers in the mail from anyone and everyone when I turned 18, my girlfriend (who is German) couldn't get a credit card with a limit over 200 Euros to save her life because she doesn't have established credit.
Really ? When we arrived in Switzerland a few years back, I had a credit card with a $20k limit within a couple of months of arriving (basically, a week or two after my B permit was finalised). When we recently moved to the US, however, I couldn't even borrow a measly $5k to help buy a car (worth probably 2-3x that), even though I'd been working for the same company for 5 years, earned over $100k/yr and probably would have paid it back within a month or two.
The US credit system is utterly insane.
So what is it, exactly, that makes Windows 7 better from a usability perspective? I'm curious.
It doesn't have incredibly annoying UI misfeatures like focus-follows-mouse and highlight copy ?
Mark my words, what we ended up with is going to be even worse than the mess we had before, [...]
What's interesting is it's basically identical to the system in Switzerland (compulsory health insurance from private companies, subsidies for the poor), and there it seems to work quite well (base on my few years living there).
(Not that I think it will work in the US - way too much corruption here from what I've seen so far.)
Race does not have any impact on evolution. It's not a matter of fearing people who look different. That sort of shallow thinking will leave you open to booty traps because any hottie who looks good will be able to get close to you and kill you. Why? Because the enemy is going to come in a beautiful form that you'll accept and slowly poison you.
Newsflash: most people threatening your life won't be have elaborate long-term strategies for doing so.
How is being free from racial bias a disability of any kind? Just because it's new and it fails to be part of the average human ability pool?
It's not being free from racial bias, it's being free from any sort of social fear.
For an example of why this can be a disability, consider one of these people stopping in the wrong neighbourhood to ask directions from the group of guys holding petrol cans and matches standing around a burning car.
I can't really take a political group seriously when they base their entire position on copyright infringement. When they can actually show me they want to change copyright, without taking away the rights of all the existing and future copyright holders, I might change my mind. It also seems like they all just want to get free stuff. Nothing more.
s/copyright/slavery/g
The two-second rule applies in NSW and Victoria
Actually I just checked the Victorian and NSW Road Rules and no such 2-second rule exists.
If the traffic lights or traffic arrows (as the case may be) change to yellow or red while the driver is stopped and the driver has entered the intersection, the driver must leave the intersection as soon as the driver can do so safely.
You can find the Victorian Road Rules linked from here and the NSW ones here.
After reading a bit more it looks like this is actually defined in the Australian Road Rules, here (p49).
I'd be willing to bet that this is an impossible standard to force people to adhere to. You're backed up behind somebody stopping to turn right (or in Australia and other LH-drive countries, to turn left). They turn, but you enter the light at 5 MPH (~8 KPH). The light is green as you enter, but turns yellow. Long story short, you'd have to cram your foot all the way to the floor to make it out in time....
The (minimum) length of an orange phase in Australia is 4 seconds. If you can't clear an intersection in 6 seconds, then you shouldn't have entered it.
With that said, I believe the GP post is incorrect. If you have entered an intersection legally, then you can take as long as you want to clear it, so long as you aren't holding up traffic. That's certainly the law in Queensland.
If you're doing 35mph and the light turns red when you're 10 feet from the intersection, the SAFE thing to do is blow the red light... not lock up your breaks and go careening into the next lane to avoid breaking a silly ordinance.
No, the "SAFE" thing to do is to put down the phone/book/computer/whatever and pay attention to what you're doing.
If you only realised you needed to stop when the light went red 10 feet before you entered the intersection, then your actual driving error happened about 200 feet back up the road.
You must have not driven in any city or metropolitan area then. There are a lot of times where there is just no way to get past an unprotected left turn unless you get in the intersection, sit until the light turns red (and I mean red... people will continue to keep charging through on yellows), then get through.
This is not considered running a red in any place I've ever drive (Australia, USA, most of Europe).
"Running a red" means *entering* the intersection on a red light. If you're already in it when the light turns red, it's perfectly legal (and, indeed, required) for you to clear the intersection.
Yet the single picture violation does not tell anybody whether or not you entered the intersection illegally. Merely that you were in the intersection when it turned red... that is not illegal.
Red light cameras are triggered by you _entering_ the intersection, not by being in it. If you get your picture taken, it's because you entered the intersection after it went red.
As to the OP, absolutely this is all about revenue, [...]
This certainly appears to be true in the US, where intersections with cameras have noticably shorter orange periods. In sane countries, the minimum length of the orange is defined by road safety standards, and intersections that don't follow that standard (by having a longer orange period) typically only do so with very good reason (eg: higher than normal speed limit).
I do agree with you, that anyone harming a child deserves to be caught. I, personally, feel they should be shot on sight.
So, without even a trial ?
Every child porn case I've come across started as abuse first, and then turned into a video production.
You've never heard of Traci Lords ?
How about those cases of teenagers sending around pictures and videos of themselves having sex/masturbating/posing/etc ? Or conflicts of international law, where legal porn in one place is child pornography in another ?
I can agree that is necessary to have some images for educational purposes such as those offered by wikipedia, but by allowing lolicon and similar images to become acceptable I feel as if an important social barrier may have been breeched.
How do you feel about "gore porn" films like Saw and Hostel, then ?
Can you make an argument why it's ok to watch someone being tortured and dismembered, depicted by actual people and realistic visual and sound effects, but not ok to look at supposedly underage individuals in sexual situations, depicted by completely unrealistic cartoon imagery ?
The "primordial soup" theory, one of the corner stones of evolution has been largely rejected by scientists
The "primordial soup theory" isn't even a _part_ of Evolutionary Theory, let alone a "cornerstone" of it.
Well, I agree that evolution is a theory (I wish people would do a better job of remembering that). I don't agree that it is ridiculously strong, particularly if you are talking about evolution as the origin of life.
Evolution makes no claims about the origins of life.
In the first place, it violates the second law of thermodynamics. That ought to be sufficient argument against it.
It does not. The Earth is not a closed system.
As we learn more about the complexity of the cell, and of DNA, the amount of information contained therein becomes ever more staggering. Five billion years is simply insufficient for any known mechanism to allow that much information to occur through random chance.
Evolution is not "random chance".
Beyond all that, there are no known examples of intermediate species. Considering how much evolution must have occurred (if we assume evolution to be correct) there ought to be scads of intermediate forms walking the planet today. Where are they?
There are a plethora of "intermediate species".
In conclusion, you clearly do not understand even the basics of Evolutionary Theory, and hence should refrain from criticising it.
How so? I accept that the Big Bang happened, and can be logically explained. However, I also believe there was a higher power at play that created it. Namely %DEITY%.
Do you have a suggestion as to where %DEITY% came from ?
At what point do you acknowledge there was a genesis (if at all) and what caused it and for what reason?
Why does there need to be a reason ?
nowhere at any point neither the person i am discussing or me talked about 'building your own software in house'. it was about modifying/amending/adding modules to the open source software, in case you dont like something open source project's management did, forced upgrades, or missing features, or security fixes.
I know, that's why I only referred to in-house software in passing (most non-trivially-sized organisations, in my experience, have at least a couple of in-house applications they need to maintain).
you need only 1 at most 2 people to follow through with this. that also depends on your size, still its much much cheaper to try to whore off yourself to microsoft vendors.
Usually it's not, in no small part because most businesses aren't in the business of software development - hence the reason they let other companies who *are* in the business of software development (eg: Microsoft) do that work for them.
a good example is register globals off change in php5. its now default off, because it is considered a security risk if a developer is not strict in using it. therefore it is turned off, supposedly breaking bazillions of websites along with innumerable ecommerce websites running on oscommerce and similar carts. however, actually, none of those sites had experienced any issues with that. they didnt have to hire developers to amend php code in order to refuse the upgrade either. they just hired people to amend their software for token amounts of money, therefore fixing their issue in the manner they like - some went compatible, some still retained register globals. and business went on without getting disrupted.
That's a pretty atrocious example for demonstrating why OSS is better, given the fact PHP is OSS was utterly irrelevant to the solution.
Apple, on the other hand, has never resorted to such tactics.
Say what ? Does "Upgrade to Quicktime Pro" mean anything to you ?