US surveillance does not equate to NSA automatically. The provision in the law for US officials to request information from US-based companies on the data they hold from their customers is something that applies only to US. A country can easily protect its citizen from such sneaking around by preventing them to store any data on US sites. This would kill business for these companies outside the USA. That is what Schmidt is worried about in fact. That is what he means when he says it will cost US jobs.
Another problem would be the inability of human pilots to manage all the data required to operate such a ship. The human chemical supercomputer is a learning machine, not an operative machine. It is most valued were you need some kind of judgment or learn about something. In a space fighter it is useless.
If your panel is already full it is no longer legal. Either you change it for a larger one, either you merge circuits. In a house an electrical panel is rarely more than half-full.
The point is the CRTC has no competence to ask anything to Netflix. The CRTC mandate is not covering the Internet broadcasting at all. If I would be Netflix I would tell them to go to hell.
Currently, you already have the traditional broadcasters in Canada, like CBC, ICI Radio-Canada, TVA, etc, which are making content available through the internet without respecting the CRTC regulation when they broadcast the same program over cable or air. And to be very specific, all the broadcasters are in the obligation to broadcast with closed captions. There is no such obligation for internet content and I personally had already filed a complaint about this to the CRTC which told me exactly that, there is no provision in the law to enable them to regulate anything on the internet.
Conclusion: Go Netflix Go! Tell them to go to hell!
Well, Hawking was an example to illustrate the flaw in the reasoning of this guy. No need to be a superstar to have a right to live. You contribute life long to this society, you support the elders by your work and making the company you are working for profitable and improving the society. When day come it will be your turn to grow old, you are perfectly legitimate to believe the society will do the same for you, at least. Otherwise, the social contract is broken. The society is of no use for you, you are only an instrument for it and a disposable one. It changes many things about how you will live your life if you know in advance you are just used and disposed.
I don't believe Hawking is a bad example. The rational behind the reasoning of this guy is that Hawking should have die and let it go. And Hawking is proving the rational is wrong. It may be an extreme case, but it illustrates how the reasoning is wrong. Small contributions are still contributions and even if you no longer contribute, you still have people for whom you may be significant and nobody should decide at what age people should die or we should stop helping then to keep living. You have contributed life long and you are entitled to believe in your old days you have some right being taking care of. During your active life, you supported other old people and you should expect the same for you in your old days. Breaking this hidden social contract has consequences. Nobody will live his life the same way if he knows he will be treaten like a dog in his old days.
Are you coming back from dementia to tell us with precision and so many certitudes about it? I mean, you haven't been in the head of these people to judge. Don't confuse the distress of relatives with what you believe the patient is living.
Exactly! I wonder how he would rate the declining Stephen Hawking's contribution? There is many ways to contribute, being grandparents is one important contribution to society at my humble opinion. I can remember very well the contribution of my own grandparents. This guy is an idiot. For him, human beings are utilitarian and the next step is probably to have the society to terminate those he thinks are no longer contributing enough to it.
Because it was cheaper to put them right there instead as a stackable option. Stackable options are justified when you have to plug something into it. BT and WiFi do not need anything in extra. For the BT interface, it is really cheap in quantity and surely doesn't add more than 1$ to the board.while a stackable board will cost much more than that.
Easy? Do you know how helium is produced? The helium we currently have access to is the result of Earth crust radioactive elements disintegration.
How do you think you gonna produce efficiently and in a cost effective manner He in volume? Tell us, I am very interested to start a business to produce it and I will give you half the shares for your effort.
Since I read beyond the first couple sentences, I believe the OP is absolutely right. This has nothing to do with splitting Linux in two or many other forks as you wish.
It is the job of the distro to configure properly a kernel and everything else to fit the intent usage. You can compile your kernel and tweak it to be more appropriated for a server than a desktop and vice-versa. For those distros the customer expect everything to be done for him, this is up to the distro to provide the appropriate "customization". When I build my kernels, I pick the appropriate options for the intent use and tweak it up to the point I wish it to be. I install the packages I need for the exact usage I want and I customize them for the intent use. Yes, I am among those silly guys installing Gentoo. However, if I had to go with another distro, I would expect them to do this for me. That's why I would pay for a distro on a server, for example. But, since I am fluent enough with the kernel and everything else, I don't need this. But everyone must know you don't need to split anything to get what you want.
In short, this suggestion just let me think this guy doesn't know enough about Linux.
There is many places which are really good to use as radioactive waste dumps. The most stable rock plate in Canada, known as the canadian shield is 4,5 bn years old to 540 millions years old and is stable since then. Of course, you have to make an agreement with government of Canada to use it and pay some kind of fee to monitor and secure it, however it is a perfectly acceptable solution.
Rhetorical question, since without disposal sites, there is no need to have a way to get there and the solution was then to stock the waste on site until the political issues get resolved some day in the future. That wasn't putting the cart before the horse, that was putting the horses behind the cart and pushing it. However, the cart is hard to move like all political carts. The energy was needed and urgent problems had to be solved first.
Exactly! Sometimes people think a company should be after every tiny bit of the market and eat it all while many businesses never intent to capture all the opportunities. Only those with the highest ROI are worth going after. It is not because you want to buy a couple of Broadcom chips you deserve outstanding support.
Support costs money.
The above example from Apple is irrelevant in today's context. At the time Steve Jobs and Wosniak developed their computer, this was an emerging market. Personal computing was at its beginning and it was like the Internet in 1995, throwing a pile of money (support) at it worth it to capture emerging opportunities. And, the Motorola initiative did pay them well. They were totally absent in this market. On another hand, IBM was not approaching the market the same way and didn't provided anything to developers. They even invented the micro-channel architecture and made sure the specs were closed. That was a bad decision afterward, but it was strategically justified from the position of the company at this time.
Anyway, all this to say running a business and a profitable one is not necessarily seeking for world domination.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny.
US surveillance does not equate to NSA automatically. The provision in the law for US officials to request information from US-based companies on the data they hold from their customers is something that applies only to US. A country can easily protect its citizen from such sneaking around by preventing them to store any data on US sites. This would kill business for these companies outside the USA. That is what Schmidt is worried about in fact. That is what he means when he says it will cost US jobs.
Eric Schmidt point is clear, he confuse the Internet with Google's interests. It seems to him Google is the Internet.
Exactly, it relies entierly on faith for one part and mysticism on the other part.
Another problem would be the inability of human pilots to manage all the data required to operate such a ship. The human chemical supercomputer is a learning machine, not an operative machine. It is most valued were you need some kind of judgment or learn about something. In a space fighter it is useless.
If your panel is already full it is no longer legal. Either you change it for a larger one, either you merge circuits. In a house an electrical panel is rarely more than half-full.
How is that post considered insightful while it is just flamebait?
Parent post should be mod-up to match the original post at least. This redundant complaint about the lack of software support is just misinformation.
The point is the CRTC has no competence to ask anything to Netflix. The CRTC mandate is not covering the Internet broadcasting at all. If I would be Netflix I would tell them to go to hell.
Currently, you already have the traditional broadcasters in Canada, like CBC, ICI Radio-Canada, TVA, etc, which are making content available through the internet without respecting the CRTC regulation when they broadcast the same program over cable or air. And to be very specific, all the broadcasters are in the obligation to broadcast with closed captions. There is no such obligation for internet content and I personally had already filed a complaint about this to the CRTC which told me exactly that, there is no provision in the law to enable them to regulate anything on the internet.
Conclusion: Go Netflix Go! Tell them to go to hell!
Well, Hawking was an example to illustrate the flaw in the reasoning of this guy. No need to be a superstar to have a right to live. You contribute life long to this society, you support the elders by your work and making the company you are working for profitable and improving the society. When day come it will be your turn to grow old, you are perfectly legitimate to believe the society will do the same for you, at least. Otherwise, the social contract is broken. The society is of no use for you, you are only an instrument for it and a disposable one. It changes many things about how you will live your life if you know in advance you are just used and disposed.
I don't believe Hawking is a bad example. The rational behind the reasoning of this guy is that Hawking should have die and let it go. And Hawking is proving the rational is wrong. It may be an extreme case, but it illustrates how the reasoning is wrong. Small contributions are still contributions and even if you no longer contribute, you still have people for whom you may be significant and nobody should decide at what age people should die or we should stop helping then to keep living. You have contributed life long and you are entitled to believe in your old days you have some right being taking care of. During your active life, you supported other old people and you should expect the same for you in your old days. Breaking this hidden social contract has consequences. Nobody will live his life the same way if he knows he will be treaten like a dog in his old days.
Are you coming back from dementia to tell us with precision and so many certitudes about it? I mean, you haven't been in the head of these people to judge. Don't confuse the distress of relatives with what you believe the patient is living.
Good one! Thanks for sharing.
Exactly! I wonder how he would rate the declining Stephen Hawking's contribution? There is many ways to contribute, being grandparents is one important contribution to society at my humble opinion. I can remember very well the contribution of my own grandparents. This guy is an idiot. For him, human beings are utilitarian and the next step is probably to have the society to terminate those he thinks are no longer contributing enough to it.
Because it was cheaper to put them right there instead as a stackable option. Stackable options are justified when you have to plug something into it. BT and WiFi do not need anything in extra. For the BT interface, it is really cheap in quantity and surely doesn't add more than 1$ to the board.while a stackable board will cost much more than that.
Mod parent up as informative. He is absolutely right. This is a dual core 64-bit processor, not a 32-bit processor as many are saying.
Easy? Do you know how helium is produced? The helium we currently have access to is the result of Earth crust radioactive elements disintegration.
How do you think you gonna produce efficiently and in a cost effective manner He in volume? Tell us, I am very interested to start a business to produce it and I will give you half the shares for your effort.
Since I read beyond the first couple sentences, I believe the OP is absolutely right. This has nothing to do with splitting Linux in two or many other forks as you wish.
It is the job of the distro to configure properly a kernel and everything else to fit the intent usage. You can compile your kernel and tweak it to be more appropriated for a server than a desktop and vice-versa. For those distros the customer expect everything to be done for him, this is up to the distro to provide the appropriate "customization". When I build my kernels, I pick the appropriate options for the intent use and tweak it up to the point I wish it to be. I install the packages I need for the exact usage I want and I customize them for the intent use. Yes, I am among those silly guys installing Gentoo. However, if I had to go with another distro, I would expect them to do this for me. That's why I would pay for a distro on a server, for example. But, since I am fluent enough with the kernel and everything else, I don't need this. But everyone must know you don't need to split anything to get what you want.
In short, this suggestion just let me think this guy doesn't know enough about Linux.
Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks guys for the feedback.
There is many places which are really good to use as radioactive waste dumps. The most stable rock plate in Canada, known as the canadian shield is 4,5 bn years old to 540 millions years old and is stable since then. Of course, you have to make an agreement with government of Canada to use it and pay some kind of fee to monitor and secure it, however it is a perfectly acceptable solution.
Reprocessing is an expensive task and I doubt it can be justified money-wise to do it on site for all or most sites.
Rhetorical question, since without disposal sites, there is no need to have a way to get there and the solution was then to stock the waste on site until the political issues get resolved some day in the future. That wasn't putting the cart before the horse, that was putting the horses behind the cart and pushing it. However, the cart is hard to move like all political carts. The energy was needed and urgent problems had to be solved first.
It's unfortunate you sign Anonymous Coward, because it is well said.
Exactly! Sometimes people think a company should be after every tiny bit of the market and eat it all while many businesses never intent to capture all the opportunities. Only those with the highest ROI are worth going after. It is not because you want to buy a couple of Broadcom chips you deserve outstanding support.
Support costs money.
The above example from Apple is irrelevant in today's context. At the time Steve Jobs and Wosniak developed their computer, this was an emerging market. Personal computing was at its beginning and it was like the Internet in 1995, throwing a pile of money (support) at it worth it to capture emerging opportunities. And, the Motorola initiative did pay them well. They were totally absent in this market. On another hand, IBM was not approaching the market the same way and didn't provided anything to developers. They even invented the micro-channel architecture and made sure the specs were closed. That was a bad decision afterward, but it was strategically justified from the position of the company at this time.
Anyway, all this to say running a business and a profitable one is not necessarily seeking for world domination.