C'mon, now, a real perl monger would have written Lingua::Hebrew, then compiled the lyrics into bytecode. Since Latin and Klingon are both supported, Hebrew seems like a reasonable next step.
And so it goes that Adobe becomes the enemy of self-employed graphic designers everywhere, attempting to destroy the artist who's barely scraping by.
If they really can't afford $50/mo (I presume they use WiFi at McDonald's) then why wouldn't they just keep using the version they have? Nobody who is a professional graphic artist and cannot afford $50/mo needs to always have the latest-and-greatest.
You correctly identify why the economics of open source are superior. That doesn't change the fact that most people aren't willing to pay up front for the costs of correct software.
But do you let those VM's go out and play on the global Internet (or even a non-isolated LAN)? By the clueful tone of your post, I'm guessing not. Yes, legacy systems suck, but they can't last forever so competent management has a plan to replace them, especially if they're rickety, and competent IT has a plan to protect/isolate them.
And yet somehow we all know that Slashdot is becoming more irrelevant. Weird.
For something timeless like this story I don't really care that it's been posted elsewhere (what is that anyway, aspie or OCD?). I find Slashdot to be a reasonable filter of interesting items, so I keep looking at it and I skip stories I've seen elsewhere.
But at the same time, adding and deleting friends has been mostly broken for at least 5 months. Multiple bug reports and no response or fix - it's not clear to me that there's anybody at Slashdot other than those approving stories.
Did they all get told to go try out Dice.com? If nobody is there, its continued existence isn't in question, it's simply a matter of when. Systems need maintenance to continue to function. I hope that's not the case.
If I make a medical device that has a serious software bug and goes awall and kills people I'm held responsible
And if you discover that software bug and issue fixes and notices and your customers fail to implement the fix, is it still your fault?
This one... OK, this makes me a little twitchy... isn't Microsoft's fault.
It's 2013. Why are they still running IE8 for anything where security is a concern? Windows 7 has been out for 4 years and IE9 for 2. IE10 is out, and two months should be enough to do a patch deployment, but even if it's borderline, by most accounts IE9/10 are not the horrible bags of garbage that the old versions were.
Who is not doing patch management? Who is allowing XP machines near critical systems? Who chose IE8 over Firefox when that decision was made? Did somebody specify an IE6-only solution prior to that, ignoring standards and best practices, leading to a chain reaction of a mess? Who is not cleaning that up?
Answer those questions and you'll find those responsible for today's vulnerable IT landscape.
And, of course the primary responsibility lies with those coordinating the attacks. But we know those people are out there. If a clerk forgets to close up the store at night and goes home with the front door open, it's not that he is responsible for the burglars' actions, but he's also not doing his job and won't be working there the next day.
The reasoning in/Quill/ is fairly amazing. In excerpt:
Under the Articles of Confederation, State taxes and duties hindered and suppressed interstate commerce; the Framers intended the Commerce Clause as a cure for these structural ills. See generally The Federalist Nos. 7, 11 (A. Hamilton). It is in this light that we have interpreted the negative implication of the Commerce Clause.... Accordingly, Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States mayburden interstate mail order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes.
The ellipsis being a long retelling of how the Court has systematically weakened the Commerce Clause over its many decisions, from decisions that completely upheld the intent as late as 1868 to their present day abandonment of it.
If you as customer do need a 'real' IP, then there always is the option to get a more expensive option.
There's no real need to upcharge either - customers who are negatively affected could simply be placed on a 1:1 list, and everybody else would continue to share the pool.
But maybe they can trade the retirement system free phone service in exchange for their/8 instead.
why on earth BT is not capable of doing this is beyond me.
yes, apparently it is. I'm almost positive it's not beyond BT's Internet engineers why BT isn't capable of 'just using' IPv6 (without also implementing 'CGN' to make it work to the IPv4 Internet).
The Internet didn't exist when the Constitution was written, FYI. It may need some updating.
And guess what - there's a process for that! If the Constitution is amended to give the Federal Government the power to enforce non-uniform taxes across State boundaries, then the current "Internet Sales Tax" would not be unconstitutional.
You seem to have a very romanticized reading of the constitution
Only if you view the Rule of Law as romantic (which many do).
and are ignoring all the precedents set in actual implementation.
Ignoring, no. I understand that many SCOTUS decisions are wrong and ought to be overturned.
I think you are native born citizen of America, who got citizenship without doing any hard work.
Correct, being born requires little work. What happened after that, you don't have information about.
Not like me, I am an immigrant and I studied the constitution in theory and in practice, and I chose America voluntarily.
If you're suggesting you've studied the US Constitution, the State constitutions, the process of the formation of the General Government, and the case law around it more than I have, then you're probably wrong. If you accept that laws which are passed that are contrary to the Constitution are valid, then you've missed the point of a Supreme Law and the bargain that the States made in forming the General Government in your studies. Try reading the Federalist Papers (and the Anti-Federalist papers for the range of perspectives at the time).
I certainly won't argue against the point that many of the legislators and judges are corrupt or that the Rule of Law is largely in effect in the US anymore.
In fact the Obamacare law was uphled by Justice Roberts precisely because the government can pretty much tax anything and compel people to pay for anything for any reason.
No. If you'd like to understand the taxing powers issues and Roberts's decision, I recommend this paper.
Congress also has got the power to levy taxes; the SCOTUS ruled on that recently, so don't expect any change there for quite a while.
If you're talking about the PPACA case (NIFB v. Sebelius), Roberts's opinion found that the individual mandate was a tax, but he carefully skipped finding what kind of tax it was.
The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain in- dividuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Be- cause the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.
Some claim this was an intentional fumble, meant to elicit a further appeal. In any case, he claims the tax is a Constitutional one, thereby being valid. He does not claim that any kind of imagined tax is Constitutional because that would be clearly wrong.
Maybe you should actually read the Constitution before you spout off your talk radio style nonsense.
Perhaps you should read your history and the Federalist Papers before you decide what the purposes of the Federal Government and the Interstate Commerce clauses are. Hint: Interstate Commerce was being taxed, and this was considered a big enough problem to justify a Federal government.
The Fed already has jurisdiction over interstate commerce, so it seems like this would fit right in with what they already do.
Taxing power is delegated separately from the Interstate Commerce power. In fact, one of the rationales for the Federal Government in the first place was to prevent the States from assessing taxes on Interstate Commerce, as they did under the Articles of Confederation.
You're already supposed to be paying this tax
No, I'm not, I live in one of the five States without a sales tax. The Feds would like me to be a tax collector for other states. That's anathema to Federalism - collecting the taxes from their citizens is the other States' problem.
Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society.
Yes, lawyers play an important part in perpetuating the State mechanism.
lawyers maintain order in society and in order to throw it into chaos they need to get rid of the lawyers.
Only if you accept that the State represents order rather than being the primary source of chaos, preventing just regulatory mechanisms from replacing its role. Indeed, peaceful regulation of society would be revolutionary.
Let's be clear - legally it's a National Sales Tax - "Internet" is just the wrapping paper it's in. Only a fool would expect it to not be expanded in the future, should it become Law (and survive the Constitutional challenge filed the next day).
If a State does not want to enforce its own sales tax laws, that's not the burden of people in other States, nor do the Feds have the authority to impose it. Well, assuming the US Constitution still has any validity.
Not on price, though it appears that this generation of Atom and Core are not very different. I suspect they will continue to converge in future generations until there are various flavors in a wider range of the same base technology.
"How Stuff Works" isn't the best reference for recent metabolic research. Try Pubmed.
A small amount of sucrose is broken down by stomach acid and absorbed into the bloodstream, so you'll feel that quickly (but glucose is the preferred sugar for diabetics who need a quick shot of sugar, because it does not need to be metabolized first, ignoring the 5-6 fructose conversion).
The majority of sucrose is metabolized by the sucrase produced at the microvilli of the small intestine.
HFCS is like consuming pre-digested sucrose. The fructose and glucose are both absorbed fully and quickly and the liver gets easily overwhelmed by the fructose. There are studies where they do side-by-side comparisons of the two and measure the triglyceride levels in the blood shortly after - it's a stark difference. Check out the research.
And you really need to read up on how sucrose is what we call a disaccharide composed of equal parts glucose and fructose
And how does the glycosidic bond get hydrated? You're talking about component monosaccharides, I'm talking about metabolic processing rates. Rates, rates, rates (just to be clear). The liver does not have the capacity to process an infinite amount of fructose - it's rate limited. Intestinal sucrase production rates balances the liver's processing rate.
One must consider the whole system, not just tally a simple molecular inventory.
That still doesn't reflect any better on the Snopes editors, but it means you can't really draw any conclusions one way or the other.
Agreed. Just based on the Snopes article, it could be that some bottlers were still using sugar when Coca Cola Classic was introduced. More research would be required to say anything either way about whether the claim is a myth or not.
You're saying that with most of the earth's surface covered by water, you think a little more from antarctica would cause the Sahara to become green?
That's what's called an example. The global warming alarmists are quick to point out that if the glaciers melt, sea levels will rise catastrophically and the atmosphere will greatly humidify.
I'm merely suggesting that some level of humidification will prove to be beneficial, from areas such as Antarctica to areas such as the Sahara. I don't think it's possible to build a tunnel directly connecting the two.
That environment would not look exactly like 1989's.
Slashdot Mirror
C'mon, now, a real perl monger would have written Lingua::Hebrew, then compiled the lyrics into bytecode. Since Latin and Klingon are both supported, Hebrew seems like a reasonable next step.
And so it goes that Adobe becomes the enemy of self-employed graphic designers everywhere, attempting to destroy the artist who's barely scraping by.
If they really can't afford $50/mo (I presume they use WiFi at McDonald's) then why wouldn't they just keep using the version they have? Nobody who is a professional graphic artist and cannot afford $50/mo needs to always have the latest-and-greatest.
You correctly identify why the economics of open source are superior. That doesn't change the fact that most people aren't willing to pay up front for the costs of correct software.
we have to make due with Win-XP VMs
But do you let those VM's go out and play on the global Internet (or even a non-isolated LAN)? By the clueful tone of your post, I'm guessing not. Yes, legacy systems suck, but they can't last forever so competent management has a plan to replace them, especially if they're rickety, and competent IT has a plan to protect/isolate them.
BTW, *epic* rant.
If a bug is found 20 years after your software is released then there is still a bug and you should still offer a patch.
Forever, for free? Or are you planning to pay $10K up front for Windows 3.1? Or $99/yr for software maintenance on it?
And yet somehow we all know that Slashdot is becoming more irrelevant. Weird.
For something timeless like this story I don't really care that it's been posted elsewhere (what is that anyway, aspie or OCD?). I find Slashdot to be a reasonable filter of interesting items, so I keep looking at it and I skip stories I've seen elsewhere.
But at the same time, adding and deleting friends has been mostly broken for at least 5 months. Multiple bug reports and no response or fix - it's not clear to me that there's anybody at Slashdot other than those approving stories.
Did they all get told to go try out Dice.com? If nobody is there, its continued existence isn't in question, it's simply a matter of when. Systems need maintenance to continue to function. I hope that's not the case.
If I make a medical device that has a serious software bug and goes awall and kills people I'm held responsible
And if you discover that software bug and issue fixes and notices and your customers fail to implement the fix, is it still your fault?
This one ... OK, this makes me a little twitchy ... isn't Microsoft's fault.
It's 2013. Why are they still running IE8 for anything where security is a concern? Windows 7 has been out for 4 years and IE9 for 2. IE10 is out, and two months should be enough to do a patch deployment, but even if it's borderline, by most accounts IE9/10 are not the horrible bags of garbage that the old versions were.
Who is not doing patch management? Who is allowing XP machines near critical systems? Who chose IE8 over Firefox when that decision was made? Did somebody specify an IE6-only solution prior to that, ignoring standards and best practices, leading to a chain reaction of a mess? Who is not cleaning that up?
Answer those questions and you'll find those responsible for today's vulnerable IT landscape.
And, of course the primary responsibility lies with those coordinating the attacks. But we know those people are out there. If a clerk forgets to close up the store at night and goes home with the front door open, it's not that he is responsible for the burglars' actions, but he's also not doing his job and won't be working there the next day.
</ick>
The reasoning in /Quill/ is fairly amazing. In excerpt:
The ellipsis being a long retelling of how the Court has systematically weakened the Commerce Clause over its many decisions, from decisions that completely upheld the intent as late as 1868 to their present day abandonment of it.
If you as customer do need a 'real' IP, then there always is the option to get a more expensive option.
There's no real need to upcharge either - customers who are negatively affected could simply be placed on a 1:1 list, and everybody else would continue to share the pool.
But maybe they can trade the retirement system free phone service in exchange for their /8 instead.
why on earth BT is not capable of doing this is beyond me.
yes, apparently it is. I'm almost positive it's not beyond BT's Internet engineers why BT isn't capable of 'just using' IPv6 (without also implementing 'CGN' to make it work to the IPv4 Internet).
The Internet didn't exist when the Constitution was written, FYI. It may need some updating.
And guess what - there's a process for that! If the Constitution is amended to give the Federal Government the power to enforce non-uniform taxes across State boundaries, then the current "Internet Sales Tax" would not be unconstitutional.
You seem to have a very romanticized reading of the constitution
Only if you view the Rule of Law as romantic (which many do).
and are ignoring all the precedents set in actual implementation.
Ignoring, no. I understand that many SCOTUS decisions are wrong and ought to be overturned.
I think you are native born citizen of America, who got citizenship without doing any hard work.
Correct, being born requires little work. What happened after that, you don't have information about.
Not like me, I am an immigrant and I studied the constitution in theory and in practice, and I chose America voluntarily.
If you're suggesting you've studied the US Constitution, the State constitutions, the process of the formation of the General Government, and the case law around it more than I have, then you're probably wrong. If you accept that laws which are passed that are contrary to the Constitution are valid, then you've missed the point of a Supreme Law and the bargain that the States made in forming the General Government in your studies. Try reading the Federalist Papers (and the Anti-Federalist papers for the range of perspectives at the time).
I certainly won't argue against the point that many of the legislators and judges are corrupt or that the Rule of Law is largely in effect in the US anymore.
In fact the Obamacare law was uphled by Justice Roberts precisely because the government can pretty much tax anything and compel people to pay for anything for any reason.
No. If you'd like to understand the taxing powers issues and Roberts's decision, I recommend this paper.
Congress also has got the power to levy taxes; the SCOTUS ruled on that recently, so don't expect any change there for quite a while.
If you're talking about the PPACA case (NIFB v. Sebelius), Roberts's opinion found that the individual mandate was a tax, but he carefully skipped finding what kind of tax it was.
Some claim this was an intentional fumble, meant to elicit a further appeal. In any case, he claims the tax is a Constitutional one, thereby being valid. He does not claim that any kind of imagined tax is Constitutional because that would be clearly wrong.
Maybe you should actually read the Constitution before you spout off your talk radio style nonsense.
Perhaps you should read your history and the Federalist Papers before you decide what the purposes of the Federal Government and the Interstate Commerce clauses are. Hint: Interstate Commerce was being taxed, and this was considered a big enough problem to justify a Federal government.
The Fed already has jurisdiction over interstate commerce, so it seems like this would fit right in with what they already do.
Taxing power is delegated separately from the Interstate Commerce power. In fact, one of the rationales for the Federal Government in the first place was to prevent the States from assessing taxes on Interstate Commerce, as they did under the Articles of Confederation.
You're already supposed to be paying this tax
No, I'm not, I live in one of the five States without a sales tax. The Feds would like me to be a tax collector for other states. That's anathema to Federalism - collecting the taxes from their citizens is the other States' problem.
BTW, constitutionally, the Government can tax anything for any reason. The power of taxation is absolute. There are no constitutional questions here.
That's 100% wrong. There are specific types of taxes the Federal Government is allowed to implement, as specified by the Constitution. Read it.
Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society.
Yes, lawyers play an important part in perpetuating the State mechanism.
lawyers maintain order in society and in order to throw it into chaos they need to get rid of the lawyers.
Only if you accept that the State represents order rather than being the primary source of chaos, preventing just regulatory mechanisms from replacing its role. Indeed, peaceful regulation of society would be revolutionary.
Let's be clear - legally it's a National Sales Tax - "Internet" is just the wrapping paper it's in. Only a fool would expect it to not be expanded in the future, should it become Law (and survive the Constitutional challenge filed the next day).
If a State does not want to enforce its own sales tax laws, that's not the burden of people in other States, nor do the Feds have the authority to impose it. Well, assuming the US Constitution still has any validity.
Not on price, though it appears that this generation of Atom and Core are not very different. I suspect they will continue to converge in future generations until there are various flavors in a wider range of the same base technology.
Perhaps one day I will purchase goods from grocery over internet and have them delivered by a drone directly in my kitchen?
So far the luddites are winning this argument.
"How Stuff Works" isn't the best reference for recent metabolic research. Try Pubmed.
A small amount of sucrose is broken down by stomach acid and absorbed into the bloodstream, so you'll feel that quickly (but glucose is the preferred sugar for diabetics who need a quick shot of sugar, because it does not need to be metabolized first, ignoring the 5-6 fructose conversion).
The majority of sucrose is metabolized by the sucrase produced at the microvilli of the small intestine.
HFCS is like consuming pre-digested sucrose. The fructose and glucose are both absorbed fully and quickly and the liver gets easily overwhelmed by the fructose. There are studies where they do side-by-side comparisons of the two and measure the triglyceride levels in the blood shortly after - it's a stark difference. Check out the research.
And you really need to read up on how sucrose is what we call a disaccharide composed of equal parts glucose and fructose
And how does the glycosidic bond get hydrated? You're talking about component monosaccharides, I'm talking about metabolic processing rates. Rates, rates, rates (just to be clear). The liver does not have the capacity to process an infinite amount of fructose - it's rate limited. Intestinal sucrase production rates balances the liver's processing rate.
One must consider the whole system, not just tally a simple molecular inventory.
That still doesn't reflect any better on the Snopes editors, but it means you can't really draw any conclusions one way or the other.
Agreed. Just based on the Snopes article, it could be that some bottlers were still using sugar when Coca Cola Classic was introduced. More research would be required to say anything either way about whether the claim is a myth or not.
You're saying that with most of the earth's surface covered by water, you think a little more from antarctica would cause the Sahara to become green?
That's what's called an example. The global warming alarmists are quick to point out that if the glaciers melt, sea levels will rise catastrophically and the atmosphere will greatly humidify.
I'm merely suggesting that some level of humidification will prove to be beneficial, from areas such as Antarctica to areas such as the Sahara. I don't think it's possible to build a tunnel directly connecting the two.
That environment would not look exactly like 1989's.
Kind of a non sequitur there. The 3 miles of ice started accumulating around 34 million years ago, long before human civilization existed.
Started, yes, but as my post said, charted coastlines are now covered with ice shelves, so it's been fairly rapid of late.