Or you just release XCode for Windows/Linux. You don't maintain a whole operating system in order to publish an IDE! I mean it's not like it would be very hard to port the compilers.
It's not idiotic at all. It increases the voting power of the state's population. With winner-take-all, it makes campaigning in smaller states more valuable compared to a larger state where it's proportional. So the smallest states adopt it and then you have a domino effect.
It may also have to do with the fact that California has invested in higher education more than any other state. Look where the founders of these companies come from! It may also have to do with California having things like public transportation so that people can actually get to work. The weather in Florida is just as good as California and no earthquakes. We have no tech industry to speak of and much lower taxes.
Theft off of the back of the truck seems way more profitable. You get a lot of packages at once. Plus if you know where the truck is coming from, you can predict whether you're stealing something of value. If it comes from the toilet paper factory, you won't rob it. If it's an electronics distributor, you have dollar signs in your eyes. Well if you are a thief you do.
This happens in the US too. I just missed a shipment from UPS the other day. They hold at the nearest location which in my case is a UPS store two miles up the road. USPS holds it at the post-office. Low-value items can be delivered without a signature. It's not a very profitable criminal enterprise to steal low-value packages!
I believe that signature required is the default. Most of us have, at some point, checked a box indicating that it's okay to leave the package without a signature. The reason we do that is that thefts are very rare. Stealing a package is relatively high risk and you might not get anything of value. You come up to my house, steal a box, and find out that it's a 10lb bag of rice ordered from Amazon. You'd be better off just shoplifting it directly. At least then you get to pick the food that you steal!
This is a function of not making it a career. Give good people the same financial incentives as you would managers and give them professional independence and you would get good people. Part of Indian culture is that your manager is practically a diety. But global companies don't work that way. Your post mostly supports my original thesis that there are good and bad people in India. The good people aren't always reaching their potential because nobody is investing in their development.
More likely they tend to produce what you ask for. India has turned out a lot of people with IT credentials who are not very competent. But so has the US. I remember during the.com era working with a lot of people who made a big salary and weren't contributing very much. There are great people to hire in India. There are terrible people to hire. The difference is that, usually, in the US, we higher employees directly and screen them carefully because we're going to invest in them. In India, US companies say they need ten people and get ten bodies. If they don't work out, you can sever ties at no great loss, so the vetting isn't as good. I work with great people from India who are full-time employees. If you hire a random outsourcing sweat-labor shop, you'll get what you pay for. Of course a guy in India still costs 1/5 what I do, so I can't blame anybody for wanting to get the lower price. Especially if they can do the same work.
And this works just fine for hot water heaters where you can just pull the power out from under them at any time. It doesn't work well for clothes dryers, refrigerators, et cetera.
Time of day pricing shifts demand. The IoT portion is what allows us to shift use. I can't run home from the office at 3pm to start the clothes dryer because power suddenly gets cheap. But it could start itself based on current prices. Historically our use shifting was crude. Middle of the night was cheaper so just put stuff on a delay. But with the advent of renewables the curve is much more complicated.
If the goal is to organize the world's information, it doesn't make any sense to drop the only source of information from the DPRK. Granted it's a terrible source, but this solution still makes no sense. It's reasonable to try to identify fake news. Maybe this channel deserves a disclaimer. But to cut it off is really inane. I wonder if this was reviewed by a human or just an algorithmic failure.
The point of a replaceable battery is that you may sometimes replace it. There are really two meanings of replaceable batteries. It could be a time-consuming operation designed for only when the battery no longer holds sufficient charge. Or it could be a process where the batteries can be replaced regularly. Most laptop batteries are in the latter category. You can carry a spare and, when the battery is depleted, simply insert the new battery. If you actually do this, though, eventually things will get loose. Plus in the Lenovo laptop case it meant you could switch to a new replaceable battery without shutting down.
Lenovo has a great solution in some of their laptops. One soldered-on battery and one replaceable battery. That way if the replaceable battery comes loose, your laptop doesn't suddenly shut down. You can switch to a spare battery without rebooting. If the soldered-on battery eventually does you can still use the laptop as if it weren't present. This is a great solution.
I prefer a replaceable battery. I use over-the-ear headphones with a replaceable battery. But it sucks in some ways. The headphones themselves have no charging port so I have to change the battery every time it goes dead. After some time the plastic cover stops fitting so snugly. Then I finally lost the plastic cover. Now the battery is exposed. Then the spring that holds the battery became less rigid and I started losing batteries. Now I don't use t.he noise-cancelling feature. Time for a new set. It would be better if the battery could charge via USB or lightning but such a thing doesn't exist.
They both involve plugging something into the computer. This is the new/. Your administrative assistant probably knows more about the exploit than the current overlords.
This should be modded -1. You can have any requirement you want but you it means nothing if you don't have enforcement. Requiring a permit is necessary to enforcement. It allows for the permit to be revoked. You could, of course, just have a "default allow" unless explicitly prohibited system but this has very difficult practical enforcement issues. For example, on the roads, it may be impossible to externally identify somebody who has had their permission revoked. But if a permit has to be obtained and prominently displayed it is suddenly easy to see a vehicle missing the permit.
You are aware that cruise control itself had to go through a similar review process to the one being proposed here, aren't you? The regulating body (NTSB in the case of cruise control, I think, it was approved before I was born) had to approve the designs and implementations since it's an electronic safety system.
This situation has not yet been presented to a court. Again I'm not a lawyer, but I would strongly advise against committing a crime and using an incriminating password as a means of hiding digital evidence. The case before the court hasn't presented this situation.
No. That's just the flamebait summary. The judge ruled that giving up your passcode is "non-testimonial in nature" and therefore allowed. The original 1988 case provided other examples of non-testimonial actions such as participating in a lineup wearing certain clothes and/or providing a blood sample that are also considered non-testimonial in nature.
Nobody is changing the interpretation of the law. There isn't precedent wrt whether or not giving up your password is "testimonial in nature." The trial judge has ruled that it is not " testimonial in nature" and therefore must be revealed. The decision is consistent with 1998 DOE which drew identical conclusions about another type of evidence. An appeals court may reverse and decide that the two are not analogous enough and your phone password is testimonial in nature but it would be the appeals court that would be testing the boundaries of the 1998 ruling, not the trial court.
I went and re-read the 1988 case before posting. (Yeah I'll get modded into oblivion for that). Seems that the judge has it right here and the summary is just flamebait.
The 1988 case determined that one can not be compelled to make statements that are "testimonial in nature." The judge here is saying that giving the passcode is not "testimonial in nature." There is no precedent on whether or not the passcode for your phone is "testimonial in nature." What was decided in 1988 is that a letter authorizing the receiving bank to release any records that they may or may not have is not testimonial in nature.
References to the key vs combination is only in a dissent and not relevant here. There's nothing in the judge's ruling that contradicts 1998 DOE. The case from 1998 was pretty clear. You can be compelled to do things that are "non-testimonial in nature" and a letter authorizing the release of bank records that may or may not exist is non-testimonial.
We now have a new type of evidence and the courts will have to make a new determination about what is testimonial vs non-testimonial wrt that new type of evidence.
I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. This is not legal advice.
It like the (bad, old) joke
Lawyer (to murder suspect): Do you know what the penalty for perjury is?
Suspect: No, but I'm pretty sure it's better than the penalty for murder.
Slashdot Mirror
The 2-in-1 tablets running Windows are pretty cool.
Or you just release XCode for Windows/Linux. You don't maintain a whole operating system in order to publish an IDE! I mean it's not like it would be very hard to port the compilers.
It's not idiotic at all. It increases the voting power of the state's population. With winner-take-all, it makes campaigning in smaller states more valuable compared to a larger state where it's proportional. So the smallest states adopt it and then you have a domino effect.
It may also have to do with the fact that California has invested in higher education more than any other state. Look where the founders of these companies come from! It may also have to do with California having things like public transportation so that people can actually get to work. The weather in Florida is just as good as California and no earthquakes. We have no tech industry to speak of and much lower taxes.
Which I think means we both agree that shoplifting is a smarter criminal enterprise and hence why so few packages are actually stolen.
Theft off of the back of the truck seems way more profitable. You get a lot of packages at once. Plus if you know where the truck is coming from, you can predict whether you're stealing something of value. If it comes from the toilet paper factory, you won't rob it. If it's an electronics distributor, you have dollar signs in your eyes. Well if you are a thief you do.
This happens in the US too. I just missed a shipment from UPS the other day. They hold at the nearest location which in my case is a UPS store two miles up the road. USPS holds it at the post-office. Low-value items can be delivered without a signature. It's not a very profitable criminal enterprise to steal low-value packages!
I believe that signature required is the default. Most of us have, at some point, checked a box indicating that it's okay to leave the package without a signature. The reason we do that is that thefts are very rare. Stealing a package is relatively high risk and you might not get anything of value. You come up to my house, steal a box, and find out that it's a 10lb bag of rice ordered from Amazon. You'd be better off just shoplifting it directly. At least then you get to pick the food that you steal!
This is a function of not making it a career. Give good people the same financial incentives as you would managers and give them professional independence and you would get good people. Part of Indian culture is that your manager is practically a diety. But global companies don't work that way. Your post mostly supports my original thesis that there are good and bad people in India. The good people aren't always reaching their potential because nobody is investing in their development.
More likely they tend to produce what you ask for. India has turned out a lot of people with IT credentials who are not very competent. But so has the US. I remember during the .com era working with a lot of people who made a big salary and weren't contributing very much. There are great people to hire in India. There are terrible people to hire. The difference is that, usually, in the US, we higher employees directly and screen them carefully because we're going to invest in them. In India, US companies say they need ten people and get ten bodies. If they don't work out, you can sever ties at no great loss, so the vetting isn't as good. I work with great people from India who are full-time employees. If you hire a random outsourcing sweat-labor shop, you'll get what you pay for. Of course a guy in India still costs 1/5 what I do, so I can't blame anybody for wanting to get the lower price. Especially if they can do the same work.
And this works just fine for hot water heaters where you can just pull the power out from under them at any time. It doesn't work well for clothes dryers, refrigerators, et cetera.
Time of day pricing shifts demand. The IoT portion is what allows us to shift use. I can't run home from the office at 3pm to start the clothes dryer because power suddenly gets cheap. But it could start itself based on current prices. Historically our use shifting was crude. Middle of the night was cheaper so just put stuff on a delay. But with the advent of renewables the curve is much more complicated.
If the goal is to organize the world's information, it doesn't make any sense to drop the only source of information from the DPRK. Granted it's a terrible source, but this solution still makes no sense. It's reasonable to try to identify fake news. Maybe this channel deserves a disclaimer. But to cut it off is really inane. I wonder if this was reviewed by a human or just an algorithmic failure.
The point of a replaceable battery is that you may sometimes replace it. There are really two meanings of replaceable batteries. It could be a time-consuming operation designed for only when the battery no longer holds sufficient charge. Or it could be a process where the batteries can be replaced regularly. Most laptop batteries are in the latter category. You can carry a spare and, when the battery is depleted, simply insert the new battery. If you actually do this, though, eventually things will get loose. Plus in the Lenovo laptop case it meant you could switch to a new replaceable battery without shutting down.
But they aren't charging full price if you lose one of the earbuds. In fact, couldn't I save money by buying the left and right separately?
Lenovo has a great solution in some of their laptops. One soldered-on battery and one replaceable battery. That way if the replaceable battery comes loose, your laptop doesn't suddenly shut down. You can switch to a spare battery without rebooting. If the soldered-on battery eventually does you can still use the laptop as if it weren't present. This is a great solution.
I prefer a replaceable battery. I use over-the-ear headphones with a replaceable battery. But it sucks in some ways. The headphones themselves have no charging port so I have to change the battery every time it goes dead. After some time the plastic cover stops fitting so snugly. Then I finally lost the plastic cover. Now the battery is exposed. Then the spring that holds the battery became less rigid and I started losing batteries. Now I don't use t.he noise-cancelling feature. Time for a new set. It would be better if the battery could charge via USB or lightning but such a thing doesn't exist.
They both involve plugging something into the computer. This is the new /. Your administrative assistant probably knows more about the exploit than the current overlords.
This should be modded -1. You can have any requirement you want but you it means nothing if you don't have enforcement. Requiring a permit is necessary to enforcement. It allows for the permit to be revoked. You could, of course, just have a "default allow" unless explicitly prohibited system but this has very difficult practical enforcement issues. For example, on the roads, it may be impossible to externally identify somebody who has had their permission revoked. But if a permit has to be obtained and prominently displayed it is suddenly easy to see a vehicle missing the permit.
You are aware that cruise control itself had to go through a similar review process to the one being proposed here, aren't you? The regulating body (NTSB in the case of cruise control, I think, it was approved before I was born) had to approve the designs and implementations since it's an electronic safety system.
This situation has not yet been presented to a court. Again I'm not a lawyer, but I would strongly advise against committing a crime and using an incriminating password as a means of hiding digital evidence. The case before the court hasn't presented this situation.
No. That's just the flamebait summary. The judge ruled that giving up your passcode is "non-testimonial in nature" and therefore allowed. The original 1988 case provided other examples of non-testimonial actions such as participating in a lineup wearing certain clothes and/or providing a blood sample that are also considered non-testimonial in nature.
Nobody is changing the interpretation of the law. There isn't precedent wrt whether or not giving up your password is "testimonial in nature." The trial judge has ruled that it is not " testimonial in nature" and therefore must be revealed. The decision is consistent with 1998 DOE which drew identical conclusions about another type of evidence. An appeals court may reverse and decide that the two are not analogous enough and your phone password is testimonial in nature but it would be the appeals court that would be testing the boundaries of the 1998 ruling, not the trial court.
I went and re-read the 1988 case before posting. (Yeah I'll get modded into oblivion for that). Seems that the judge has it right here and the summary is just flamebait. The 1988 case determined that one can not be compelled to make statements that are "testimonial in nature." The judge here is saying that giving the passcode is not "testimonial in nature." There is no precedent on whether or not the passcode for your phone is "testimonial in nature." What was decided in 1988 is that a letter authorizing the receiving bank to release any records that they may or may not have is not testimonial in nature. References to the key vs combination is only in a dissent and not relevant here. There's nothing in the judge's ruling that contradicts 1998 DOE. The case from 1998 was pretty clear. You can be compelled to do things that are "non-testimonial in nature" and a letter authorizing the release of bank records that may or may not exist is non-testimonial. We now have a new type of evidence and the courts will have to make a new determination about what is testimonial vs non-testimonial wrt that new type of evidence. I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. This is not legal advice.
It like the (bad, old) joke Lawyer (to murder suspect): Do you know what the penalty for perjury is? Suspect: No, but I'm pretty sure it's better than the penalty for murder.