You seem not to understand the meaning of the word "inherent". A degree is sought by many employers because they have assigned a very specific value to the thing - they've made it a requirement for particular positions. As an employer I could just as easily _discredit_ you for having a degree if I wanted to. Indeed, I will often pass over a resume very quickly if it is weighted heavily towards academic accomplishments as apposed to creative skills or real-world experience. If you consider the degree for it's _inherent_ properties, what does it really represent? It certifies that you have completed the requirements for a program. It is no guarantee that you will be suitable for a job. For my parents' generation, a degree effectively granted one gainful employment for his entire career, but that is a custom that society has all but completely dismissed.
It's not useless. Most companies require it for you to be able to work for them.
That argument makes no sense. It's like saying "Daylight savings time is not useless. It is used all over America and Europe, and if you didn't obey it, you would be getting in to work at the wrong time every day!"
Just because something has become engrained (or legislated) into our culture doesn't make it inherently good or useful. I would expect that anyone arguing against the usefulness of a degree would also argue that employers should not require them.
"I am to be held accountable". Suppose he is not fired, and furthermore, our criminal justice system fails to hold him accountable through some appropriate punishment such as a life sentence... it seems then that by Mueller's own comment, the onus must ultimately fall on us, the citizens, to hold him accountable somehow. I have to applaud the man for at least having the conscience to demand punishment for something so unforgivable.
Better yet, have it poll a file on your web server which you can use to tell it to activate the built-in camera and send you images of whoever stole your laptop. A command-line utility exists for OSX which can simply dump an image to a file, which you can then simply |mail.
Hell, activate a keylogger while you're at it, and you'd have no trouble finding out exactly who they are.
The number one thing that people screw up is to start a business around an idea because it's interesting to work on, it can get funded, it's been done successfully before, the sector is hot, exit valuations are good, etc.
The ONLY successful ideas I have ever seen start with a _customer_. The first thing you say when somebody asks you what your idea is should be to describe who will buy it and why. Not what it is. I can't tell you how many entrepreneurs I've heard touting their latest venture with a pitch such as: "Think of it as a cross between grid computing and a web of trust, and it uses these applets that run on your back-end server... etc etc". This drivel often comes from seemingly smart people who have had impressive successes in the past. But who the fsck is the customer?
What is really astonishing is that it's the worst of these ideas, which happen to have just the right buzzwords du jour, which get funded by VCs. And it just gets more out of control from there. Even today, 7 years after the dot bomb, I know of several companies which have grown to 100+ employees and are on their fifth round of venture money without a profit in sight.
If your customer is not the #1 thing on your mind at all times, don't even bother!...trite, I know.
(BTW dot coms DID have customers - it's just that the customer was not the guy buying you non-existent product, but rather the "bigger fool" who would buy your company. They eventually failed for the EXACT same reason - people kept starting companies even after they could no longer identify that customer.)
MT[TB]F has become a completely BS metric because it is so poorly understood. It only works if your failure rate is linear with respect to time. Even if you test for a stupendously huge period of time, it is still misleading because of the bathtub curve effect. You might get an MTBF of say, two years, when the reality is that the distribution has a big spike at one month, and the rest of the failures forming a wide bell curve centered at say, five years.
Suppose a tire manufacturer drove their tires around the block, and then observed that not one of the four tires had gone bald. Could they then claim an enormous MTBF? Of course not, but that is no less absurd than the testing being reported by hard drive manufacturers.
Why would SCO want to depose Jones? SCO officials declined to comment about the matter. But in the past, company officials have said that Jones and her blog, called "Groklaw," were acting as a front for IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people )--an assertion they may hope to prove in a legal setting.
Sounds pretty far fetched, but so what even if she is? Is that even illegal?
What are the grounds for a subpoena? I don't think she has ever made even a passing hint that she has any inside knowledge of anything. On the contrary, it's all just commentary on publicly available filings.
However, I will say that the timing and content of her blog post is totally consistent with someone trying not to be found. Just rm -fP your files and don't log in to the server for a while. As long as you haven't left a trail through billing or domain registration, you'd be nearly impossible to find.
On the other hand, I can and have bought ia32 and ia64 computers without Windows pre-installed on them.
You are still totally missing the point that Microsoft sells software, not computers. Windows is a totally separable part of the system, developed by a different company, who receives ACTUAL REVENUE WHICH IS EXTRACTED FROM YOU because your PC supplier would not sell it to you without the OS. That's what makes it a "tax".
OTOH, Apple's cost of goods for a machine with the OS installed is precisely the same as one without. Just because you have arbitrarily assigned some value to the OS does not mean that your dollars are actually paying for a separable part of the product that you don't want. See the difference?
I have a problem with paying for software that I already own, something I would do if I were to buy a new computer from either Apple* or from one of the major PC manufacturers.
I get where you're coming from, but you're ignoring the fact that Microsoft is selling you the OS, whereas Apple is selling you the computer.
An OEM copy of Windows has a very real out of pocket cost to the consumer, which is included in the price of the PC and actually paid to Microsoft by the manufacturer, even if you immediately wipe the machine and install Linux, or migrate your Windows installation from your previous machine that you're decomissioning.
In the Apple case, the OS is not a separable part of the system with intrinsic value of its own, except in the contrived case where you are not going to run MacOS on your Mac. They don't get additional revenue by "sneaking" an unneeded copy onto your new machine - it's just part of the machine.
I don't actually own a Mac, even though I have considered buying one.
It is a new silver 15" and it's fantastic. I got a MBP when they first came out and it was a POS - all kinds of hardware bugs, so I had to return it. However, they seem to have fixed all the issues in the latest generation.
The VM feels just as fast as a native machine for CPU and filesystem stuff. I haven't attempted to benchmark it - this is just subjective "real world" feel. For graphics it might be slower, but I don't use games or 3D apps, so I don't notice.
I have not had a single compatibility issue. In fact everything just works so well you don't even notice all the individual little things that work just fine, such as two-finger trackpad scrolling, USB devices, drag and drop, etc. Some things like wireless networking actually work _better_ in the VM than on a native windows install, because they're handled by MacOS and abstracted to a simpler virtual drivers that the VM uses.
Yes, you don't get an OEM copy of Windows. Instead, you're forced to pay for an OEM copy of OSX included as part of the system's price, much like Windows is included as part of the system price of, say, a Dell.
I don't have a problem paying for the software that I want to run - do you?
I suppose if you wanted a MacBook _only_ for running Windows, which is conceivable, then you might have an issue with OSX being included. But that's not my situation.
Microsoft sees the writing on the wall. People are getting clued in to the fact that you don't need to suffer running a Windows PC in order to run Windows apps.
Every day I need to use multiple linux VMs and several Windows-only engineering apps, but I prefer to do as much as possible (especially email and desktop apps) in MacOS. With Parallels, the whole problem of needing multiple machines is completely solved, and the Coherence feature "just works". I can fit my whole life on one MacBook now instead of a clunky fugly Dell laptop, and I feel like my productivity has doubled.
I can totally see why Microsoft sees VMs as a threat. They give you the Windows apps you're forced to use due to Microsoft lock-in, but they let you get your work done on a good, modern, reliable OS. I can keep using the Windows XP license I already have, and because it runs in a VM I can upgrade my "hardware" without ever getting nagged about license keys. And as long as I buy my hardware from Apple, I'm not going to be forced to buy the OEM copy included with a new PC. And I sure as heck don't have to upgrade to Vista any time soon.
The new bread of zombies have wised up to port 25 blocking / throttling and like to funnel everything through the MTA for the domain to which they are connected.
But that doesn't make this any less effective. We're not looking at the _receiving_ side, we are catching the _senders_.
A sender is still going to open connections and send data just as quickly, whether he's consolidating recipients by MTA or not. The number of attempted recipients may be higher, but the detection would be exactly as effective.
I realize most of us here would ordinarily prefer for our ISPs to just move bits around, but it seems like they are in a pretty good position to curb spam if they were to start look at traffic patterns like this. If some DSL customer suddenly starts opening hundreds of outgoing SMTP connections, that would be a pretty reliable sign that his machine is pwned. Just block or throttle port 25, and send the customer an email telling him to fix his computer, and keep it blocked until he does - or he contacts abuse@ with a legitimate explanation. Not filtering based on the contents of the data should let them maintain plausible deniability and common carrier status.
We can't do this on our personal or company internet connections because we only see individual messages coming from many different IPs, but on the other end of the connection, or even at the backbone level, this strikes me as a pretty solid solution. They could even just tag the packets with the evil bit and let us decide if we want to filter them or not.
Indeed. Light travels just under 2 centimetres in the 16 GHz period.
So? Who says that the clock domain stretches from one side of the die to the other? I'm no guru on CPU architecture but I would be surprised if anything switching at the maximal rate were not confined to a much smaller area.
Why is there a "[sic]" in there? That is in fact how you spell the word, and it is used correctly in that context (having the meaning "imply" or "entail").
Imply, implicate, and entail are NOT synonyms.
Implicate can mean "to require as a necessary circumstance", i.e, a prerequisite (not a result). Here, the antitrust concerns would arise *as a result of* disclosure of the pricing information. Even "imply" would not be correct here, but "entail" would be OK.
If I had to guess I'd say:
Average receipt: $250
Customers per hour per checkstand: 10
Active checkstands: 10
Saturday hours: 8.5
250 * 10 * 10 * 8.5 ~= $200K total saturday cash flow
[...]because we lead exceedingly boring lives[...]
Speak for yourself.... life would probably be less boring if you'd go out and do something instead of sitting playing a video game in the first place!
Anyway, I'd suggest that they serve as not merely a passtime, but rather an outlet, or a release for things we can't do in waking life, because we are limited by physics, law, morals, etc. Hmmm... sound familiar? Freud believe that our dreams serve this purpose of "wish fulfillment" while we sleep. To me gaming seems identical - a way to unplug and enter a fantasy world where the mind can be temporarily freed from the hindrances of the ego and the physical world.
Cloning a passport has become no harder or easier thanks to RFID. But Identity theft will become much much easier.
Couldn't one kill the RFID chip by putting the passport in a microwave oven for a minute?
I can't imagine the rubber-stamper at immigration control not letting me through because he can't read my RFID tag... I'm sure a good percentage of non-zapped passports would fail to scan for one reason or another. If enough people did it, then they justn wouldn't be able to rely on them, period.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you trying to say there's no fiduciary value to education?
No, that's not what I was trying to say. Did you learn that word in college?
You seem not to understand the meaning of the word "inherent". A degree is sought by many employers because they have assigned a very specific value to the thing - they've made it a requirement for particular positions. As an employer I could just as easily _discredit_ you for having a degree if I wanted to. Indeed, I will often pass over a resume very quickly if it is weighted heavily towards academic accomplishments as apposed to creative skills or real-world experience. If you consider the degree for it's _inherent_ properties, what does it really represent? It certifies that you have completed the requirements for a program. It is no guarantee that you will be suitable for a job. For my parents' generation, a degree effectively granted one gainful employment for his entire career, but that is a custom that society has all but completely dismissed.
It's not useless. Most companies require it for you to be able to work for them.
That argument makes no sense. It's like saying "Daylight savings time is not useless. It is used all over America and Europe, and if you didn't obey it, you would be getting in to work at the wrong time every day!"
Just because something has become engrained (or legislated) into our culture doesn't make it inherently good or useful. I would expect that anyone arguing against the usefulness of a degree would also argue that employers should not require them.
What operating system it runs?
How on earth is that flamebait? It's a perfectly meaningful, interesting question.
In what way is he to be held accountable?
It's an interesting comment.
"I am to be held accountable". Suppose he is not fired, and furthermore, our criminal justice system fails to hold him accountable through some appropriate punishment such as a life sentence... it seems then that by Mueller's own comment, the onus must ultimately fall on us, the citizens, to hold him accountable somehow. I have to applaud the man for at least having the conscience to demand punishment for something so unforgivable.
That code really is indecipherable. Here is something a little more straightforward:
/,"m _".chr(72)." c 2". /,shift)){(K,L)=split(/=/,K .(30+M));print " "x2}}}a( ;W=J[C];H=I[C];X=int(A/2)-1
#!/usr/bin/perl
$_='A=15; B=30; select(stdin); $|=1; select(stdout);$|=1; system
"stty -echo -icanon eol \001"; for C(split(/\s/,"010.010.010.010
77.77 022.020.020 330.030.030 440.044.000 055.550.000 666.060.".
"000")){D=0;for E(split(/\./,C)){F=0;for G(split("",E)){C[P][F++
][D]=G} D++}J[P]=F; I[P++] =D}%L=split(/
chr(74)." a _m");sub a{for K(split(/
);K=L{K};K=~s/_/L/; printf "%c[K",27}}sub u{a("a=40");for D(0..B
-1){for F(0..A-1){M=G[F][D];if(R[F][D]!=M) {R[F][D]=M;a("m"."=".
(5+D).";".(F*2+5)); a("a=".(40+M).";"
"m=0;0 a=37;40")}sub r{(N)=@_;while(N--) {Q=W;W=O=H;H=Q;for F( 0
..Q-1){for D(0..O-1) {Q[F][D]=K[F][D]}}for F(0..O-1){for D(0..Q-
1){K[F][D]= Q[Q-D-1][F]}}}}sub l{for F(0..W-1){for D(0..H-1){(K[
F][D]&& ((G[X+F][Y+D])|| (X+F<0)||(X+F>=A)|| (Y+D>=B)))&& return
0}}1}sub p{for F(0..W-1){for D(0..H-1){(K[F][D]>0)&&(G[X+F][Y+D]
=K[F][D]) }}1}sub o{for F(0..W-1){for D(0..H-1){(K[F][D]>0)&&(G[
X+F][ Y+D]=0)}}}sub n{C=int(rand(P))
;Y=0;for F(0..W-1){for D(0..H-1){K[F][D]= C[C][F][D]}}r(int(rand
(4)));l&&p}sub c{d:for(D=B;D>=0;D--){for F(0..A-1){G[F][D]||next
d}for(D2=D;D2>=0; D2--){for F(0..A-1){G[F][D2]= (D2>1)?G[F][D2-1
]:0; }}u;}}a ("m=0;0 a=0;37;40 c");print "\n\n".4x" "." "x(A-4).
"perltris\n".(" "x4)."--"xA."\n".((" "x3)."|"." "x(A*2)."|\n")xB
.(" "x4). "--"xA."\n";n;for(;;) {u;R=chr(1); (S,T)=select(R,U,V,
0.01);if(S) {Z=getc;}else {if($e++>20){Z=" ";$e=0;}else{next;} }
if(Z eq "k"){o;r(1);l||r(3);p}; if(Z eq "j"){o;X--;l||X++;p}; if
(Z eq "l"){o;X++;l||X--;p};if(Z eq " "){o;Y++;(E=l)||Y--;p;E|| c
|c|c|c|c|n||goto g;};if(Z eq "q"){last;}}g: a("a=0 m=".(B+8).";0
" ); system "stty sane"; '; s/([A-Z])/\$$1/g; s/\%\$/\%/g; eval;
Better yet, have it poll a file on your web server which you can use to tell it to activate the built-in camera and send you images of whoever stole your laptop. A command-line utility exists for OSX which can simply dump an image to a file, which you can then simply |mail.
Hell, activate a keylogger while you're at it, and you'd have no trouble finding out exactly who they are.
The number one thing that people screw up is to start a business around an idea because it's interesting to work on, it can get funded, it's been done successfully before, the sector is hot, exit valuations are good, etc.
...trite, I know.
The ONLY successful ideas I have ever seen start with a _customer_. The first thing you say when somebody asks you what your idea is should be to describe who will buy it and why. Not what it is. I can't tell you how many entrepreneurs I've heard touting their latest venture with a pitch such as: "Think of it as a cross between grid computing and a web of trust, and it uses these applets that run on your back-end server... etc etc". This drivel often comes from seemingly smart people who have had impressive successes in the past. But who the fsck is the customer?
What is really astonishing is that it's the worst of these ideas, which happen to have just the right buzzwords du jour, which get funded by VCs. And it just gets more out of control from there. Even today, 7 years after the dot bomb, I know of several companies which have grown to 100+ employees and are on their fifth round of venture money without a profit in sight.
If your customer is not the #1 thing on your mind at all times, don't even bother!
(BTW dot coms DID have customers - it's just that the customer was not the guy buying you non-existent product, but rather the "bigger fool" who would buy your company. They eventually failed for the EXACT same reason - people kept starting companies even after they could no longer identify that customer.)
MT[TB]F has become a completely BS metric because it is so poorly understood. It only works if your failure rate is linear with respect to time. Even if you test for a stupendously huge period of time, it is still misleading because of the bathtub curve effect. You might get an MTBF of say, two years, when the reality is that the distribution has a big spike at one month, and the rest of the failures forming a wide bell curve centered at say, five years.
Suppose a tire manufacturer drove their tires around the block, and then observed that not one of the four tires had gone bald. Could they then claim an enormous MTBF? Of course not, but that is no less absurd than the testing being reported by hard drive manufacturers.
IBM wrote that wiki page. And the book in question does not exist. Don't bother posting an amazon link. They're in on it too.
What are the grounds for a subpoena? I don't think she has ever made even a passing hint that she has any inside knowledge of anything. On the contrary, it's all just commentary on publicly available filings.
However, I will say that the timing and content of her blog post is totally consistent with someone trying not to be found. Just rm -fP your files and don't log in to the server for a while. As long as you haven't left a trail through billing or domain registration, you'd be nearly impossible to find.
On the other hand, I can and have bought ia32 and ia64 computers without Windows pre-installed on them.
You are still totally missing the point that Microsoft sells software, not computers. Windows is a totally separable part of the system, developed by a different company, who receives ACTUAL REVENUE WHICH IS EXTRACTED FROM YOU because your PC supplier would not sell it to you without the OS. That's what makes it a "tax".
OTOH, Apple's cost of goods for a machine with the OS installed is precisely the same as one without. Just because you have arbitrarily assigned some value to the OS does not mean that your dollars are actually paying for a separable part of the product that you don't want. See the difference?
I have a problem with paying for software that I already own, something I would do if I were to buy a new computer from either Apple* or from one of the major PC manufacturers.
I get where you're coming from, but you're ignoring the fact that Microsoft is selling you the OS, whereas Apple is selling you the computer.
An OEM copy of Windows has a very real out of pocket cost to the consumer, which is included in the price of the PC and actually paid to Microsoft by the manufacturer, even if you immediately wipe the machine and install Linux, or migrate your Windows installation from your previous machine that you're decomissioning.
In the Apple case, the OS is not a separable part of the system with intrinsic value of its own, except in the contrived case where you are not going to run MacOS on your Mac. They don't get additional revenue by "sneaking" an unneeded copy onto your new machine - it's just part of the machine.
I don't actually own a Mac, even though I have considered buying one.
O RLY?
It is a new silver 15" and it's fantastic. I got a MBP when they first came out and it was a POS - all kinds of hardware bugs, so I had to return it. However, they seem to have fixed all the issues in the latest generation.
The VM feels just as fast as a native machine for CPU and filesystem stuff. I haven't attempted to benchmark it - this is just subjective "real world" feel. For graphics it might be slower, but I don't use games or 3D apps, so I don't notice.
I have not had a single compatibility issue. In fact everything just works so well you don't even notice all the individual little things that work just fine, such as two-finger trackpad scrolling, USB devices, drag and drop, etc. Some things like wireless networking actually work _better_ in the VM than on a native windows install, because they're handled by MacOS and abstracted to a simpler virtual drivers that the VM uses.
It's actually kind of eerie how well it works!
Yes, you don't get an OEM copy of Windows. Instead, you're forced to pay for an OEM copy of OSX included as part of the system's price, much like Windows is included as part of the system price of, say, a Dell.
I don't have a problem paying for the software that I want to run - do you?
I suppose if you wanted a MacBook _only_ for running Windows, which is conceivable, then you might have an issue with OSX being included. But that's not my situation.
Microsoft sees the writing on the wall. People are getting clued in to the fact that you don't need to suffer running a Windows PC in order to run Windows apps.
Every day I need to use multiple linux VMs and several Windows-only engineering apps, but I prefer to do as much as possible (especially email and desktop apps) in MacOS. With Parallels, the whole problem of needing multiple machines is completely solved, and the Coherence feature "just works". I can fit my whole life on one MacBook now instead of a clunky fugly Dell laptop, and I feel like my productivity has doubled.
I can totally see why Microsoft sees VMs as a threat. They give you the Windows apps you're forced to use due to Microsoft lock-in, but they let you get your work done on a good, modern, reliable OS. I can keep using the Windows XP license I already have, and because it runs in a VM I can upgrade my "hardware" without ever getting nagged about license keys. And as long as I buy my hardware from Apple, I'm not going to be forced to buy the OEM copy included with a new PC. And I sure as heck don't have to upgrade to Vista any time soon.
Indeed, but what is surprising is not that they didn't notice the missing image, but that they agreed to participate at all.
The new bread of zombies have wised up to port 25 blocking / throttling and like to funnel everything through the MTA for the domain to which they are connected.
But that doesn't make this any less effective. We're not looking at the _receiving_ side, we are catching the _senders_.
A sender is still going to open connections and send data just as quickly, whether he's consolidating recipients by MTA or not. The number of attempted recipients may be higher, but the detection would be exactly as effective.
I realize most of us here would ordinarily prefer for our ISPs to just move bits around, but it seems like they are in a pretty good position to curb spam if they were to start look at traffic patterns like this. If some DSL customer suddenly starts opening hundreds of outgoing SMTP connections, that would be a pretty reliable sign that his machine is pwned. Just block or throttle port 25, and send the customer an email telling him to fix his computer, and keep it blocked until he does - or he contacts abuse@ with a legitimate explanation. Not filtering based on the contents of the data should let them maintain plausible deniability and common carrier status.
We can't do this on our personal or company internet connections because we only see individual messages coming from many different IPs, but on the other end of the connection, or even at the backbone level, this strikes me as a pretty solid solution. They could even just tag the packets with the evil bit and let us decide if we want to filter them or not.
Indeed. Light travels just under 2 centimetres in the 16 GHz period.
So? Who says that the clock domain stretches from one side of the die to the other? I'm no guru on CPU architecture but I would be surprised if anything switching at the maximal rate were not confined to a much smaller area.
Why is there a "[sic]" in there? That is in fact how you spell the word, and it is used correctly in that context (having the meaning "imply" or "entail").
Imply, implicate, and entail are NOT synonyms.
Implicate can mean "to require as a necessary circumstance", i.e, a prerequisite (not a result). Here, the antitrust concerns would arise *as a result of* disclosure of the pricing information. Even "imply" would not be correct here, but "entail" would be OK.
If I had to guess I'd say: Average receipt: $250 Customers per hour per checkstand: 10 Active checkstands: 10 Saturday hours: 8.5 250 * 10 * 10 * 8.5 ~= $200K total saturday cash flow
[...]because we lead exceedingly boring lives[...]
Speak for yourself.... life would probably be less boring if you'd go out and do something instead of sitting playing a video game in the first place!
Anyway, I'd suggest that they serve as not merely a passtime, but rather an outlet, or a release for things we can't do in waking life, because we are limited by physics, law, morals, etc. Hmmm... sound familiar? Freud believe that our dreams serve this purpose of "wish fulfillment" while we sleep. To me gaming seems identical - a way to unplug and enter a fantasy world where the mind can be temporarily freed from the hindrances of the ego and the physical world.
Cloning a passport has become no harder or easier thanks to RFID. But Identity theft will become much much easier.
Couldn't one kill the RFID chip by putting the passport in a microwave oven for a minute?
I can't imagine the rubber-stamper at immigration control not letting me through because he can't read my RFID tag... I'm sure a good percentage of non-zapped passports would fail to scan for one reason or another. If enough people did it, then they justn wouldn't be able to rely on them, period.