My experience is that quite a few software development organizations cover up a what is essentially a "death march" by using agile terminology. They don't follow any recognized agile development methodology nor is the effort a proper waterfall development. There is just enough agile terminology to make it sound like an agile development. The effort usually fails and of course management would rather blame the methodology or the developers rather than admit they couldn't do what they said they would.
Prior to the advent of small GPS tracking systems, the police did not need a warrant to put you under surveillance and follow you using human beings known as police officers. All this ruling means is that the police can now perform the same function more efficiently using an electronic device. No one has any expectation of privacy except within their own home.
Once you are outside of your dwelling, you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy." Just try some nude sun bathing on your front lawn tomorrow and see whether claiming a "reasonable expectation of privacy" works as a defense. Better yet, try a little lascivious romp with the spouse or significant other and see how much privacy you have.
But who says that the ISP can't include packet framing overhead in their speed claim?
I remember when Detroit used to spec engine output by the horsepower and torque at the back of the engine; not after any losses due to the things like power steering, air conditioning, etc. At some point the FTC made the manufacturers use net horsepower. Since everybody made the same shift, the relationship between different products was unchanged; just the absolute number changed. The same applies here. If all ISPs factor in the same overhead, nothing changes except the absolute numbers.
My recommendation is that people look at a site like DSL Reports (http://www.dslreports.com/) to get an idea of what they'll actually see.
As a guess, the "up to" speed is what you would see if you download something from one of their servers (e.g., retrieved your e-mail). They can't control how fast anyone else's server serves data nor how fast the other server's provider is. You might see something served that fast from across the Internet but don't count on it; too many variables.
Besides, the "up to" speed is a lot faster than any speed estimate that involves realistic usage. Go figure that they quote it.
From what I have read in various sources, most of the terrorists' communication is in code. That is, plain language words and phrases have a specific meaning. They don't use encryption since the very act of encrypting their communication draws attention to it. Something like, "My cousin's wedding is Wednesday," could mean that their planned attack will happen on Wednesday... or this guy's cousin really is getting married on Wednesday. Encrypting such a message just draws attention to it.
Getting access to something like a Blackberry server won't stop the terrorists from communicating. It might give local companies an advantage if the government makes what should be proprietary information available.
The big stuff that would be worth mounting a mission to de-orbit typically isn't the problem. The little, tiny, hard to track bits of space rubish is the real problem.
The big stuff can usually be avoided since it is easily tracked. The little, tiny stuff is effectively a bullet travelling at 17,000 or so miles an hour. It's too small to track and one piece of such junk can ruin your spaceship. Plus, there is a lot more of it than the few, big, defunct satellites that you might want to attach a balloon to.
Reading through quite a few response, it's pretty clear that there are those of us who prefer a good plot, well acted and directed and those who prefer special effects. I've watched some really good movies in black and white and also some foreign films with only English subtitles (almost like watching a silent film but you can still hear the emotion in the actors' voices and whether they are whispering, etc.). I didn't need anything more than the movie as I saw it to really enjoy it. I've also seen some just god awful crap that was supposed to be wonderful because of special effects, 3D or whatever.
A movie with a good story line and good acting doesn't need special effects to be good. For some movies, special effects, 3D surround sound, color and whatever else aren't enough to turn it into anything worth wasting your time watching. As an example, "Avatar" had a two bit, recycled plot (big bad corporations is willing to kill off indigenous people for profit) that wouldn't have gotten beyond the late night re-runs if it hadn't been in 3D with lots of CGI effects. I'll take a movie like "Black Book" that had a great plot and acting but no 3D any time over "Avatar".
Because the costs of burning oil are externalized - one person burns it, the rest of the world gets to breathe it, and cope with global warming.
Exactly. And all plug-in electric cars do is relocate the pollution from the tailpipe to the electric utility's smokestack. Interesting comparison in Scientific American a month or so ago as to whether driving a plug-in electric actually decreases the owner's carbon footprint or not. The answer is that it depends on where you live. The article was specific to the U.S. but, for most areas of the country, driving a plug-in INCREASES your carbon footprint.
Why don't we stop having the government subsidize both big oil and electric cars and then let the free market determine which is the most cost effective technology? This concept, if implemented, could be applicable to other areas of the economy.
Of course this means that the politicians won't be able to control us as much as they have in the past by screwing with the market to pervert our choices to what they think (read as what the lobbyists pay them to think) is best. Politicians do what is in there own interest. This usually means doing whatever it takes that will get them re-elected. Money from businesses, PACs, special interest groups, unions, etc. is usually the answer to getting re-elected; not doing what is in their constituent's best interest.
Why is it that the same people who scream bloody murder about the PATRIOT Act or the DMCA have no problems with having the government using its coercive power of taxation to alter what should be an individual's free choice?
I was thinking of the insolvent welfare states such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.
Quite a bit of how well a welfare state works depends on the deeper ethics of the people involved. The Norse countries tend to have a "work hard and share" ethic that works for them. The countries mentioned above seem to have an ethic of "don't work and take from somebody foolish enough to work". They are now reaping the fruits of that ethic.
Before wealth can be shared, it must be created. Penalize the creation of wealth through taxation at your own risk. And, yes, the U.S. is now in the same boat thanks to politicians who can't balance a cheque book, let alone understand economics.
In our current society the most important label is "victim." Once you or your somewhat defined demographic group can achieve the official label of victim, the largess of the non-victims (also known as taxpayers) is yours for the grovelling. Keep in mind that both the lawmakers who bestow victimhood and the bureaucracy take their cut from what is extorted from the taxpayers as their part of the squeeze.
BTW, this isn't limited to the United States. Lots of countries have made official victimhood the most desirable status one can aspire to. Unfortunately, their additional experience with leeching taxpayers to pay their victims has created a dearth of taxpayers. Funny how that happens.
One of the complaints in the book was that most of the traditional media outlets were dropping their science coverage. That was one of the points the authors made.
Don't blame the media. Joe Public would rather hear the lurid details of the latest scandal than hear about some scientific discovery that could change his life. The media just follows the audience to boost their ratings/readership. The argument in the book was we have to change Joe Public and get him interested in science.
Sounds like the same old shit to me. Yet another puritan trying to prove that evil caffeine either isn't good for you or its affects are imaginary. All I can say is bullshit.
I owe my undergraduate degree to coffee. I was working either swing shift (2nd and 3rd shift depending on day) or straight graveyard (40 hour work week of all 3rd shift plus full load of classes) by my senior year. I was also drinking about 10 to 15 cups of coffee a day. I was running a continuous experiment on myself as to the affects of consuming large quantities of caffeine and, let me tell you, lack of my magic coffee (cream only; no sugar) was a sure sentence for becoming comatose and snoring.
I've heard this claim before but none of the researchers has ever explained how a boring meeting late in the day can suddenly bring on the symptoms of lack of caffeine while a good cup of joe brought to and consumed at such a meeting wards off such symptoms. Does the boredom of such a meeting somehow suck the caffeine from my body and I suddenly find myself sleepy and inattentive? And consuming the coffee only gives me a psychological lift because I believe the coffee will wake me up? Somehow, I don't think so.
I've cut my coffee consumption down to four or five cups a day of the real stuff. Still, I may end up drinking some brewed decaf late in the day because I really like the taste of coffee. I drink only decaf after about 6:00 pm because the real stuff keeps me awake if I drink it too late in the evening. This would also seem to contradict the sited study since, by its theory, my baseline caffeine consumption should keep a single cup of coffee from affecting me or it should only bring me back to baseline; not awake until 2:00 or 3:00 am (been there; done that).
Sorry but, based on personal experience, bullshit. Somebody's grant should get revoked for bogus research.
The connection is easy. Computer users in third world countries usually don't buy Windows. It's a clever plot on Bill's part with Melinda's blessing to cut down on the number of non-Windows users.
(and I bet you thought that no one on/. could turn an article on contraception into something anti-Microsoft. Ta-Da!!!)
Only if the punishment for the crime becomes commensurate with the value of the object. Of course, I'd use the "old west" measure that stealing a horse is a hanging offense and go from there. That would make stealing a car and anything more valuable capital offenses.
BTW, when I find someone's valuables (e.g., a jewelry box in the middle of the street), I try to find the owner and return the property. Call me old fashioned.
It is still considered theft if someone enters my house and takes some of my belongings even if I leave my door is unlocked. Ditto for leaving the keys in my car and someone takes it or leaving the car running unattended while I go into a store or something.
For some reason a lot of/. people seem to think that not securing your property suddenly makes it fair game for anyone who wants to take it. The crime occurs when someone takes something that doesn't belong to them regardless of how well or how poorly it is secured.
Personally, I lock my doors, don't leave my keys in my car, set up a RADIUS server for my wireless authentication, etc. I'd rather my stuff not get stolen or my network get broken into in the first place. There was a time when people respected other people's privacy and property. That doesn't seem to happen any more.
The idiots from the IT outsourcing firm should have done it the "dot com" way. Under pay him by the same amount but promise him lots of stock options with absurd vesting requirements. Too bad if the the stock options go under water and then disappear through a corporate buyout.
You may have better odds striking it rich in Vegas or by playing the lottery but stock options in lieu of salary are legal.
I support any FOSS license that does not attempt to tell others what they may do with their own code, as the GPL does and as no other license does. The code I write for my own use is generally released under the MIT/X/new BSD license.
The GPL doesn't require you to do any such thing for your own code. If, however, you modify someone else's GPLed code, you must respect the license they chose. You may not like this but don't complain that a lot of others do. It's their code and they have the same right as you to license their work as they see fit.
As for the attacks on the messengers, why should we let IBM divert attention away from their own actions? The signature on that letter is Mark Anzani, not Maureen O'Gara or Florian Mueller. Is the goal here to slam Microsoft just because IBM gave people a sliver of an opening to do so? Or is the goal to protect open source software from the threat of software patents?
As the old adage goes, you are known by the company you keep.
O'Gara and Mueller are not friends of open source regardless of how they pose their arguments in your favor. My goal is to do what's best for open source software. Their goal seems to be to destroy open source software. If they are for you, something stinks. It may not be your fault but something stinks.
Could be but with supporters like Maureen O'Gara and Florian Mueller, your cause is highly suspect. O'Gara has long been a paid shill for anything anti-Linux as evidenced by her "reporting" support of SCO in their whole "we own Linux" lawsuit. Ditto for Mueller and has hysterical attacks on the Munich Linux implementation.
If you want to be taken seriously, I'd suggest you request both of them stop saying anything about your case. Likewise, lose the sig. At least say which FOSS license you support instead of just saying that you are opposed to the GPL. Otherwise you have quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that The Register is right on target.
Sad the way someone can wrap themselves in some sort of open source banner then yell, "They're asserting software patents against open source!" and the slashdot herd follows along like a bunch of lemmings headed for a cliff. PJ has some interesting commentary in addition to what you quoted.
Slashdot Mirror
My experience is that quite a few software development organizations cover up a what is essentially a "death march" by using agile terminology. They don't follow any recognized agile development methodology nor is the effort a proper waterfall development. There is just enough agile terminology to make it sound like an agile development. The effort usually fails and of course management would rather blame the methodology or the developers rather than admit they couldn't do what they said they would.
Beware of agile-speak when job hunting.
Cheers,
Dave
Forget the knife! Clippy did it.
Cheers,
Dave
Prior to the advent of small GPS tracking systems, the police did not need a warrant to put you under surveillance and follow you using human beings known as police officers. All this ruling means is that the police can now perform the same function more efficiently using an electronic device. No one has any expectation of privacy except within their own home.
Cheers,
Dave
Once you are outside of your dwelling, you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy." Just try some nude sun bathing on your front lawn tomorrow and see whether claiming a "reasonable expectation of privacy" works as a defense. Better yet, try a little lascivious romp with the spouse or significant other and see how much privacy you have.
Cheers,
Dave
But who says that the ISP can't include packet framing overhead in their speed claim?
I remember when Detroit used to spec engine output by the horsepower and torque at the back of the engine; not after any losses due to the things like power steering, air conditioning, etc. At some point the FTC made the manufacturers use net horsepower. Since everybody made the same shift, the relationship between different products was unchanged; just the absolute number changed. The same applies here. If all ISPs factor in the same overhead, nothing changes except the absolute numbers.
My recommendation is that people look at a site like DSL Reports (http://www.dslreports.com/) to get an idea of what they'll actually see.
Cheers,
Dave
As a guess, the "up to" speed is what you would see if you download something from one of their servers (e.g., retrieved your e-mail). They can't control how fast anyone else's server serves data nor how fast the other server's provider is. You might see something served that fast from across the Internet but don't count on it; too many variables.
Besides, the "up to" speed is a lot faster than any speed estimate that involves realistic usage. Go figure that they quote it.
Cheers,
Dave
How long until we see a link to goatse.cx but it's 3D here on slashdot?
(if that doesn't turn your stomach, nothing will)
Cheers,
Dave
From what I have read in various sources, most of the terrorists' communication is in code. That is, plain language words and phrases have a specific meaning. They don't use encryption since the very act of encrypting their communication draws attention to it. Something like, "My cousin's wedding is Wednesday," could mean that their planned attack will happen on Wednesday... or this guy's cousin really is getting married on Wednesday. Encrypting such a message just draws attention to it.
Getting access to something like a Blackberry server won't stop the terrorists from communicating. It might give local companies an advantage if the government makes what should be proprietary information available.
Cheers,
Dave
The big stuff that would be worth mounting a mission to de-orbit typically isn't the problem. The little, tiny, hard to track bits of space rubish is the real problem.
The big stuff can usually be avoided since it is easily tracked. The little, tiny stuff is effectively a bullet travelling at 17,000 or so miles an hour. It's too small to track and one piece of such junk can ruin your spaceship. Plus, there is a lot more of it than the few, big, defunct satellites that you might want to attach a balloon to.
Cheers,
Dave
Reading through quite a few response, it's pretty clear that there are those of us who prefer a good plot, well acted and directed and those who prefer special effects. I've watched some really good movies in black and white and also some foreign films with only English subtitles (almost like watching a silent film but you can still hear the emotion in the actors' voices and whether they are whispering, etc.). I didn't need anything more than the movie as I saw it to really enjoy it. I've also seen some just god awful crap that was supposed to be wonderful because of special effects, 3D or whatever.
A movie with a good story line and good acting doesn't need special effects to be good. For some movies, special effects, 3D surround sound, color and whatever else aren't enough to turn it into anything worth wasting your time watching. As an example, "Avatar" had a two bit, recycled plot (big bad corporations is willing to kill off indigenous people for profit) that wouldn't have gotten beyond the late night re-runs if it hadn't been in 3D with lots of CGI effects. I'll take a movie like "Black Book" that had a great plot and acting but no 3D any time over "Avatar".
Cheers,
Dave
Exactly. And all plug-in electric cars do is relocate the pollution from the tailpipe to the electric utility's smokestack. Interesting comparison in Scientific American a month or so ago as to whether driving a plug-in electric actually decreases the owner's carbon footprint or not. The answer is that it depends on where you live. The article was specific to the U.S. but, for most areas of the country, driving a plug-in INCREASES your carbon footprint.
Cheers,
Dave
Why don't we stop having the government subsidize both big oil and electric cars and then let the free market determine which is the most cost effective technology? This concept, if implemented, could be applicable to other areas of the economy.
Of course this means that the politicians won't be able to control us as much as they have in the past by screwing with the market to pervert our choices to what they think (read as what the lobbyists pay them to think) is best. Politicians do what is in there own interest. This usually means doing whatever it takes that will get them re-elected. Money from businesses, PACs, special interest groups, unions, etc. is usually the answer to getting re-elected; not doing what is in their constituent's best interest.
Why is it that the same people who scream bloody murder about the PATRIOT Act or the DMCA have no problems with having the government using its coercive power of taxation to alter what should be an individual's free choice?
Cheers,
Dave
I run VMware ESXi for network simulations and penetration testing. Having a core for each VM makes a big difference.
Cheers,
Dave
I was thinking of the insolvent welfare states such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.
Quite a bit of how well a welfare state works depends on the deeper ethics of the people involved. The Norse countries tend to have a "work hard and share" ethic that works for them. The countries mentioned above seem to have an ethic of "don't work and take from somebody foolish enough to work". They are now reaping the fruits of that ethic.
Before wealth can be shared, it must be created. Penalize the creation of wealth through taxation at your own risk. And, yes, the U.S. is now in the same boat thanks to politicians who can't balance a cheque book, let alone understand economics.
Cheers,
Dave
In our current society the most important label is "victim." Once you or your somewhat defined demographic group can achieve the official label of victim, the largess of the non-victims (also known as taxpayers) is yours for the grovelling. Keep in mind that both the lawmakers who bestow victimhood and the bureaucracy take their cut from what is extorted from the taxpayers as their part of the squeeze.
BTW, this isn't limited to the United States. Lots of countries have made official victimhood the most desirable status one can aspire to. Unfortunately, their additional experience with leeching taxpayers to pay their victims has created a dearth of taxpayers. Funny how that happens.
Cheers,
Dave
One of the complaints in the book was that most of the traditional media outlets were dropping their science coverage. That was one of the points the authors made.
Don't blame the media. Joe Public would rather hear the lurid details of the latest scandal than hear about some scientific discovery that could change his life. The media just follows the audience to boost their ratings/readership. The argument in the book was we have to change Joe Public and get him interested in science.
Cheers,
Dave
Sounds like the same old shit to me. Yet another puritan trying to prove that evil caffeine either isn't good for you or its affects are imaginary. All I can say is bullshit.
I owe my undergraduate degree to coffee. I was working either swing shift (2nd and 3rd shift depending on day) or straight graveyard (40 hour work week of all 3rd shift plus full load of classes) by my senior year. I was also drinking about 10 to 15 cups of coffee a day. I was running a continuous experiment on myself as to the affects of consuming large quantities of caffeine and, let me tell you, lack of my magic coffee (cream only; no sugar) was a sure sentence for becoming comatose and snoring.
I've heard this claim before but none of the researchers has ever explained how a boring meeting late in the day can suddenly bring on the symptoms of lack of caffeine while a good cup of joe brought to and consumed at such a meeting wards off such symptoms. Does the boredom of such a meeting somehow suck the caffeine from my body and I suddenly find myself sleepy and inattentive? And consuming the coffee only gives me a psychological lift because I believe the coffee will wake me up? Somehow, I don't think so.
I've cut my coffee consumption down to four or five cups a day of the real stuff. Still, I may end up drinking some brewed decaf late in the day because I really like the taste of coffee. I drink only decaf after about 6:00 pm because the real stuff keeps me awake if I drink it too late in the evening. This would also seem to contradict the sited study since, by its theory, my baseline caffeine consumption should keep a single cup of coffee from affecting me or it should only bring me back to baseline; not awake until 2:00 or 3:00 am (been there; done that).
Sorry but, based on personal experience, bullshit. Somebody's grant should get revoked for bogus research.
Cheers,
Dave
RFC 1925
Cheers,
Dave
The connection is easy. Computer users in third world countries usually don't buy Windows. It's a clever plot on Bill's part with Melinda's blessing to cut down on the number of non-Windows users.
(and I bet you thought that no one on /. could turn an article on contraception into something anti-Microsoft. Ta-Da!!!)
Cheers,
Dave
P.S. For the humor impaired, just kidding.
Only if the punishment for the crime becomes commensurate with the value of the object. Of course, I'd use the "old west" measure that stealing a horse is a hanging offense and go from there. That would make stealing a car and anything more valuable capital offenses.
BTW, when I find someone's valuables (e.g., a jewelry box in the middle of the street), I try to find the owner and return the property. Call me old fashioned.
Cheers,
Dave
It is still considered theft if someone enters my house and takes some of my belongings even if I leave my door is unlocked. Ditto for leaving the keys in my car and someone takes it or leaving the car running unattended while I go into a store or something.
For some reason a lot of /. people seem to think that not securing your property suddenly makes it fair game for anyone who wants to take it. The crime occurs when someone takes something that doesn't belong to them regardless of how well or how poorly it is secured.
Personally, I lock my doors, don't leave my keys in my car, set up a RADIUS server for my wireless authentication, etc. I'd rather my stuff not get stolen or my network get broken into in the first place. There was a time when people respected other people's privacy and property. That doesn't seem to happen any more.
Cheers,
Dave
The idiots from the IT outsourcing firm should have done it the "dot com" way. Under pay him by the same amount but promise him lots of stock options with absurd vesting requirements. Too bad if the the stock options go under water and then disappear through a corporate buyout.
You may have better odds striking it rich in Vegas or by playing the lottery but stock options in lieu of salary are legal.
Cheers,
Dave
The GPL doesn't require you to do any such thing for your own code. If, however, you modify someone else's GPLed code, you must respect the license they chose. You may not like this but don't complain that a lot of others do. It's their code and they have the same right as you to license their work as they see fit.
As the old adage goes, you are known by the company you keep.
O'Gara and Mueller are not friends of open source regardless of how they pose their arguments in your favor. My goal is to do what's best for open source software. Their goal seems to be to destroy open source software. If they are for you, something stinks. It may not be your fault but something stinks.
Cheers,
Dave
Could be but with supporters like Maureen O'Gara and Florian Mueller, your cause is highly suspect. O'Gara has long been a paid shill for anything anti-Linux as evidenced by her "reporting" support of SCO in their whole "we own Linux" lawsuit. Ditto for Mueller and has hysterical attacks on the Munich Linux implementation.
If you want to be taken seriously, I'd suggest you request both of them stop saying anything about your case. Likewise, lose the sig. At least say which FOSS license you support instead of just saying that you are opposed to the GPL. Otherwise you have quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that The Register is right on target.
Cheers,
Dave
Here's the link to The Register article that spawned Groklaw's News Picks coverage:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/26/ibm_turbohercules_response/
Sad the way someone can wrap themselves in some sort of open source banner then yell, "They're asserting software patents against open source!" and the slashdot herd follows along like a bunch of lemmings headed for a cliff. PJ has some interesting commentary in addition to what you quoted.
Cheers,
Dave