Sure wish I could fuck up as rich^H^H^H^Hbadly as them.
Royalties from legacy products. Innovation? Oracle & Microsoft are in the same boat, scrambling for a life preserver.
Yeah, maybe Oracle and MS are scrambling for a life preserver, but Ellison and Ballmer certainly aren't. Sure, their companies woes might mean that there will be an upper limit on how many Gulfstreams they can buy, but I'm sure that 99.9% of Americans wouldn't mind the difficulties of going into the "stupid executive's retirement home."
And you can DVR it and view it on your time even after the end of free trail.
Not if your DVR isn't endorsed by the masters of CableCard. Just another reason not to get HBO - it is one of the few channels that won't work with MythTV on FIOS unless you rent a tuner and an encoder (which is pretty expensive to just get one channel of re-encoded HD video)...
Yes, I know that it "just works" if you do it their way, assuming you don't mind having a DVR that can only hold 30 hours of HD video and which can't flag commercials...
You completely miss the point... There is a demand with no legal supply.
And you completely miss the entire planet the point is on. There is ALWAYS some demand for ANYTHING at a zero price - does that make copyright infringement OK?
Of course not.
However, there would be demand even at a moderate price - like a dollar an episode or whatever. Right now the only way to legally watch the show involves subscribing to HBO, or waiting a long time to buy it in some other way. Most people aren't going to subscribe to a cable channel for just one show.
Nobody is suggesting that HBO should be required to give it away for free. They should just make it available via a few online distributors for a reasonable price.
This is why Apple made a killing with iTunes - they realized that even though people could download music for free you could still make a ton of money selling it for $1/song, because people weren't going to buy a whole CD for $20 just to get the 1-2 songs they wanted to hear. The issue wasn't so much the price as the bundling.
I assume they've figured out the "Thing that does X" trick? ie "the thing that sharpens the things you write with" for pencil sharpener.
Sure, that works if you know "sharpen" and "pencil." The disorder applies to the names of actions just as much as the names of things.
Shortly after their stroke the person I know had a vocabulary of probably 30 words in total. Now their verbal vocabulary is fairly decent but they still get stuck on a lot of proper names, and their reading/writing is far behind. I have set them up with browser extensions to read selected text. Oh, have I mentioned just how much time I've spent helping them cope with the latest "meme" fad on social networking. Heaven forbid that people put the text in the caption field where it could actually be read by accessibility tools!
It is worth nothing that a related term is phosphorescence, which is what most people think of when they thing of phosphors. For the benefit of those reading, the two are basically the same phenomena on different timescales.
When light hits an object that is fluorescent it absorbs the light and re-emits it. The re-emitted light has a different spectrum than the absorbed light. The re-emitted light is also emitted AFTER the light is absorbed. In most cases it is emitted almost instantaneously and this is called fluorescence. However, some materials take much longer to emit the absorbed energy as light and this is called phosphorescence.
So, that T-shirt that lights up under a blacklight is exhibiting fluorescence. The watch hands that continue to glow 30 seconds after going from daylight to darkness is exhibiting phosphorescence. They're the exact same thing, but with different dynamics. They both involve electrons absorbing energy and releasing it, but with phosphorescence they get stuck in metastable states (read wikipedia for a decent explanation, but a full one requires a bit more quantum physics than I've mastered).
I was referring more to low-bitrate digital modes, not things like digital transmission of voice.
When you think about it, morse code is essentially a digital transmission mode already, but without any kind of data correction/optimization/etc.
If all you need to transmit is a few hundred bytes of data encoding an SOS and your position, I'd think that a digital mode would be able to do that in far more harsh conditions assuming that everything was optimized for this purpose.
Understood, but my point was that going far out to sea without being prepared for long-range communications is foolish. Maybe their ham radio couldn't transmit on any of the HF frequencies on that website you provided. Maybe it could but they didn't have that list of frequencies with them. Either way, they weren't prepared.
While I'm not a pilot I am a bit of an aviation enthusiast and the one thing that strikes me is that aircraft in general are prepared for emergencies. They follow procedures designed to ensure that they always have contingencies, and those procedures include limits on where they can be applied and where even more extensive preparations are needed. If I were a pilot I wouldn't fly over large uninhabited areas without multiple independent radios capable of calling for help should something go wrong.
The really ridiculous thing is that emergency locator beacons have almost become commodities these days. If I were to become a pilot I'd almost certainly invest in one. From what I've read the newer digital ones use pulsed transmissions designed to penetrate cloud cover.
The whole liquid explosive thing is ridiculous. I can't imagine any kind of liquid-based explosive that would be any easier to smuggle through security than any solid-based one. The kinds of chemicals that would be needed are quite nasty - they're not the sort of things that could be confused with an energy drink. If they're concerned they could just ask the traveler to take a sip or something.
Somebody close to me developed anomic aphasia recently, and I can certainly vouch for a recent finding of a UK health study - anybody who has suffered aphasia will vouch that it is one of the most debilitating disorders you can have. Aphasia is any condition that interferes with speech, and anomic aphasia basically is an inability to assign names to things (you can see an object and fully understand its deign/function/purpose, but you can't come up with the word to describe it and will not remember it even if told it).
Imagine being able to do anything normally, except communicate. This guy was fortunate that he could even write (and depriving him of a pen/paper is COMPLETELY INHUMANE - no different than putting a muzzle on somebody without such a condition). If you end up with damage in the language centers of your brain you're reduced to little more than gestures and a handful of words to communicate (the same regions govern ALL forms of language from speech to writing to sign language - no, there isn't an easy workaround), or pointing at pictures assuming a useful picture is there (and no, you can't spell words by pointing at the letters, or use any kind of symbolic representation of words, since that's the part of your brain that isn't working).
Most people who interact with somebody with aphasia assume they're mentally retarded, and treat them as such. (Not necessarily in an unkind manner, but rather by assuming that they need to be treated paternalistically and that they shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for themselves for their own sake.) While conditions that can cause aphasia can also cause other cognitive problems, they do not always do so. In general somebody with aphasia is no more or less intelligent than anyone else. However, they make poor advocates for themselves so they suffer quite a bit.
A recent episode was when the person I was talking about had to take a driving knowledge test. It was multiple choice, was computer based, and even included some pictures and recorded readings of all the questions and their answers that could be played repeatedly. However, it took about 10-15 attempts to pass the test (one per day per the state's rules, and spending about an hour to get through about a dozen questions). If you had asked them to give a free response to any of the questions they could have answered the questions verbally and satisfied you that they understood basic driving laws. However, somebody with anomic aphasia needs freedom to find words they can understand - it is very difficult for them to understand a fixed sentence just by listening to it over and over. Simply comparing the various choices to determine how they differ took many repetitions. In the end they passed both knowledge and driving examinations, but it was quite an arduous journey. It likely would not have been possible but for the fact that they had recovered quite a bit of their ability to communicate.
In general we as a society do not do a very good job accommodating those with neurlogical disorders.
Well, if the radio didn't work, they couldn't use it to send emails.
It seems likely that somebody brought an HF to send email back to base, and that they weren't aware of how to contact the coast card via HF.
Then again, digital protocols are more robust - maybe if things weren't working right (lost antenna, etc) they could get out enough signal to send the email but not enough for voice. That website you listed doesn't mention any stations monitoring for morse code - that seems like a bit of an omission as you can transmit morse with very little in the way of working hardware and it would be almost as robust as a digital link.
Indeed, you can't even spend bitcoin without the consent of the miners.
In fact, there is no obligation for the miners to allow any bitcoin to be spent at all (though if they did that they'd find it hard to spend their own bitcoin). They could simply generate new blocks and not include any transactions in them at all.
It does self-regulate to some extent. If you offered a $100k transaction fee for your transaction I'm sure somebody would be willing to spend some CPU cycles to get a block and list your transaction. Transaction fees are actually the way that non-miners influence the process. Right now it seems like most miners are wiling to accept transactions without fees, but there is no reason they have to do so.
If you're talking about a Tsunami, then sure (assuming you can get reasonably far out in time).
If you're talking about a hurricane, then no. A very large ship would do better at sea then in the dock, but if the ship is docked there is no need for the crew to stay aboard. A hurricane tends to destroy property, but it isn't THAT dangerous to people who aren't near the coastline, especially if they find any kind of shelter. Oh, a few idiots who decide to go driving around town might get hit by flying debris and killed, but they'll fare far better in general than somebody sitting in a boat.
I have to agree. I'm all for regulating passenger travel, because passengers don't have the opportunity to go do a walk-around of their aircraft before boarding, and even if they did they wouldn't know what to look for.
However, if some idiot wants to take their Cessna up in a hurricane then my main concern is for the home that he ends up crashing into. That isn't as much of a concern for a ship out at sea.
As long as everybody on the ship could be expected to understand the risks they were taking, then it was their choice to make.
I'm a bit surprised that there aren't stations monitoring HF for emergency broadcasts. Aircraft still use HF for oceanic communications, and ships spend far more time out at sea. In heavy storms I'd expect satellite communications to be much less reliable than HF. Granted, aircraft mostly use digital transmissions these days, but they still have HF for backup, and I believe they do routinely check in on HF to make sure they have contact with each station along the way.
But, the whole voyage seemed to be a story of bad planning, so not having made plans for long-range communications before sailing far out into the ocean is just one more bad decision on the road to disaster.
Yup, one of the more senior leaders in our area has been moving around even within the same general area for years. He likely makes FAR more than the typical senior developer, but contributes almost nothing. Anybody who works for him basically ends up having to cover for him and manage around him. Somebody on the team chatted with a previous boss of his who was moving on to another company and his boss commented that he keeps moving around due to incompetence. That boss had let go a bunch of people in a previous re-org, and yet didn't touch the manager in question.
I suspect that half the reason that incompetents get kept around is that they're convenient. You have to justify filling any open position in companies these days, so the last thing you want to do is get rid of a senior leader and end up with 18 people reporting to you. If they're good at BS you can let them go out and make promises and get people to shower your group with money, and you'll always have them to blame when things go south.
Or something. Honestly, I really don't get it. Maybe the people above the BSers are just even bigger BSers. There is a different manager at work who loves to throw out buzzwords, and yet it is clear the guy really has no idea what he's talking about. He does it well enough to impress the brass, though.
Some of it might be that senior leaders are basically just biding their time to retirement in many cases. If they can hang on until they get old enough then when the next round of layoffs comes they get their packages and can retire. Most mature corporations are not filled with people looking to conqueror the world.
Please explain then how roughly 80% of the millionaires in the US are first generation wealthy.
He said that it was a myth that hard work is rewarded. You're saying that the people who are rewarded worked hard. These are not, in fact, contradictions.
Suppose you have 20 million people who work really hard. 19.999 million of them end up treading water their entire lives, with a fair bit dying without being able to pay for decent medical care. One thousand of them become millionaires. Every one of those millionaires worked hard, and yet almost everybody who worked hard didn't amount to much of anything.
Sure, Gates and Zuckerberg and such worked hard and had great ideas and were rewarded for it. However, for each story like that there are tens of thousands of others who also worked hard and had great ideas, and who amounted to nothing.
Any society is going to have its winners and losers. However, the wealth distribution in the US is such that if you put 100 random Americans in a room, the money held by all but one of them would be a round-off error in comparison to the lucky guy. There is a decent chance he worked hard to get that money, but likely not much harder than most of the rest.
The other big injustice is that most people can't actually vote their shares at all.
The average person puts their money in a mutual fund of some kind. Unless that fund is dedicated to a single stock, the fund manager will vote the shares. You can have enough money in the fund to own 1000 shares of every stock held by the fund, but you won't get to vote any of them. Oh, and the same goes for your pension, assuming you're lucky enough to still have one. Even though you earned the money by working, your employer will hold onto it, vote the shares it is invested in, and if you're really lucky they might even give you what you've earned when you retire. Then again, they might just declare bankruptcy and you can get in line.
That's a big part of why the status quo prevails - almost all the votes are cast by institutions.
Half the problems on Wall Street boil down to "other people's money."
CEOs at big companies often have very short tenures; and no even abject failures are not necessarily career enders.
Sign me up! I'll be happy to put in two years at $12M/yr. I'll even let them blacklist me and ruin my reputation when they fire me (after giving me a $10M separation package). I guess I'll have to live in a box and try to stretch out my $34M in savings.
I'm not sure that separating the display from the client has to be so difficult. You really just need a way to save/restore state. You don't even need to do it constantly - I appreciate that if you're doing 3D graphics you want to just send the drawing commands to the GPU and never put the framebuffer into system RAM. You just need a way to detach a client which causes the middle layer to start queuing events, the display to dump back its state to the middle layer, and then from that point it starts running that client in a software framebuffer until it attaches to a new display. Sure, it is more complex than screen because there is a LOT more data and associated performance issues, but as long as you have a common protocol defined it shouldn't matter what display the client gets rendered onto.
Now, if the client tailors its drawing functions to display capabilities it will need some way to learn to adjust itself when it moves. However, it already has to handle things like video modes changing and so on.
Wayland has an opportunity to re-establish server-side rendering because they can define higher level widget abstractions and such. No longer is a window a collection of points and lines - it could be menus with associated callbacks, with themes defined by the window manager and so on (perhaps even by a program that runs server-side, maybe even without requiring local plugins). If you give more rendering power to the server then when you click on a menu the server can render it without any client communication at all - the client just gets an event when a GUI element is activated. If you could let the application view logic run in some kind of standardized VM on the server then it could even do stuff that normally requires client-side logic but which is now network-friendly.
The problem is that everybody has some kind of fixation on replacing Windows or OSX for desktop use, and they're tossing aside any use case which doesn't amount to loading a web browser, spreadsheet, and MUA on a laptop. I think this is a losing battle, because those who just need those simple use cases can use any of a number of more established alternatives. I think the power of Linux is in the long tail - those bazillion use cases that the proprietary OSes can't be bothered to support.
Well, if you have to pay rent you just include it in your bid.
If your competitor can do the job without needing to be on-site they might be able to outbid you. Usually the whole idea of this sort of thing is to try to get people to not be onsite.
As far as vendors being treated differently, I suspect that this is just the difference between contingent labor and what most would consider true contracting.
A contingent worker is just a body - they show up, get paid by the hour, and do whatever their assigned supervisor tells them to. They're just like an employee, but usually very limited in duration so that the company doesn't have to treat them as an employee. They're intended to help fill peaks, and they get let go when work isn't available.
The other arrangement is when a company creates a statement of work, gets bids, and then pay to get the job done. This would be analogous to hiring a plumber. You probably wouldn't charge a plumber rent, but you might not want to loan them your tools either. In this sort of arrangement the company usually wants the contractor to be as self-sufficient as possible. They don't care how they get the job done, how many people they hire, or how many hours they work. They're likely paying a flat rate to deliver a stated project in a stated duration. In this arrangement giving the contractor incentive to not park a million bodies in your office is useful. If they need to park a few they can just include your chargebacks in their price.
Depreciation is certainly deductible, provided you follow the relevant accounting rules. In fact, depreciation generally works against a company from a tax perspective.
Suppose you earn $1M after various expenses, but you bought a $1M machine. Without using depreciation you would just deduct that $1M from your income and pay no taxes. Governments force you to depreciate it, which means that you end up deducting $100k/yr for 10 years, or something to that effect. The result is that this year you pay takes on $900k income, not $0. Sure, you get to deduct the $100k every year for a decade, but if you could save the tax money up front you could stick it in the bank and you'd be further ahead after a decade (assuming you didn't have a better use for it anyway). Either way you still have $1M less to spend on stuff (well, assuming you don't take out a loan using the $1M machine as collateral).
From a balance sheet perspective depreciation lets you show that you made a profit this year, despite spending all your money on that machine. It is more useful to stock purchasers as well - spending $1M on a machine that will help the company make more money next year is not the same kind of spending as having to spend $1M paying your janitors just for this year. If you went bankrupt presumably you could get some of that $1M back as well selling the thing.
China isn't going to get into a war over NK, especially if NK is the aggressor. If China got that upset about having SK on their border the US would probably let them have half or all of NK as some kind of border zone.
China's support for NK is in name only. They aren't going to support regime change, but they aren't going to interfere if NK starts a shooting war. They already blocked oil shipments in Feb.
Seems like the best way to handle it. Fixing security flaws that touch a lot of code and doing all your development in the open aren't always compatible.
Most linux distros secure security bugs for similar reasons. They don't usually have to block as much because they don't need extensive changes and integration work to deploy security patches. Well-contained software bugs also don't need as much of this since you don't need as much coordination.
I've always admired Postgres. I just wish the SQL world wasn't so fragmented and that Linux had better DB abstraction so that I wouldn't be stuck with whatever DB created the client libs linked by the application...
The main deficiencies I see with X for remote access are:
1. Applications that insist on client side rendering (maybe some X issue is leading to that, but Chromium is a real pain over a remote connection). 2. It doesn't perform well unless you layer something like NX on top of it. The wire protocol is too chatty or low-level. 3. It needs some kind of middle layer so that you can move applications between displays, and displays between consoles. Think something like screen or tmux. Once you launch an app on a display, it is stuck there.
Wayland obviously isn't going to help with any of this as it currently stands.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure wish I could fuck up as rich^H^H^H^Hbadly as them.
Royalties from legacy products. Innovation? Oracle & Microsoft are in the same boat, scrambling for a life preserver.
Yeah, maybe Oracle and MS are scrambling for a life preserver, but Ellison and Ballmer certainly aren't. Sure, their companies woes might mean that there will be an upper limit on how many Gulfstreams they can buy, but I'm sure that 99.9% of Americans wouldn't mind the difficulties of going into the "stupid executive's retirement home."
And you can DVR it and view it on your time even after the end of free trail.
Not if your DVR isn't endorsed by the masters of CableCard. Just another reason not to get HBO - it is one of the few channels that won't work with MythTV on FIOS unless you rent a tuner and an encoder (which is pretty expensive to just get one channel of re-encoded HD video)...
Yes, I know that it "just works" if you do it their way, assuming you don't mind having a DVR that can only hold 30 hours of HD video and which can't flag commercials...
You completely miss the point... There is a demand with no legal supply.
And you completely miss the entire planet the point is on. There is ALWAYS some demand for ANYTHING at a zero price - does that make copyright infringement OK?
Of course not.
However, there would be demand even at a moderate price - like a dollar an episode or whatever. Right now the only way to legally watch the show involves subscribing to HBO, or waiting a long time to buy it in some other way. Most people aren't going to subscribe to a cable channel for just one show.
Nobody is suggesting that HBO should be required to give it away for free. They should just make it available via a few online distributors for a reasonable price.
This is why Apple made a killing with iTunes - they realized that even though people could download music for free you could still make a ton of money selling it for $1/song, because people weren't going to buy a whole CD for $20 just to get the 1-2 songs they wanted to hear. The issue wasn't so much the price as the bundling.
I assume they've figured out the "Thing that does X" trick? ie "the thing that sharpens the things you write with" for pencil sharpener.
Sure, that works if you know "sharpen" and "pencil." The disorder applies to the names of actions just as much as the names of things.
Shortly after their stroke the person I know had a vocabulary of probably 30 words in total. Now their verbal vocabulary is fairly decent but they still get stuck on a lot of proper names, and their reading/writing is far behind. I have set them up with browser extensions to read selected text. Oh, have I mentioned just how much time I've spent helping them cope with the latest "meme" fad on social networking. Heaven forbid that people put the text in the caption field where it could actually be read by accessibility tools!
Yup - this is fluorescence.
It is worth nothing that a related term is phosphorescence, which is what most people think of when they thing of phosphors. For the benefit of those reading, the two are basically the same phenomena on different timescales.
When light hits an object that is fluorescent it absorbs the light and re-emits it. The re-emitted light has a different spectrum than the absorbed light. The re-emitted light is also emitted AFTER the light is absorbed. In most cases it is emitted almost instantaneously and this is called fluorescence. However, some materials take much longer to emit the absorbed energy as light and this is called phosphorescence.
So, that T-shirt that lights up under a blacklight is exhibiting fluorescence. The watch hands that continue to glow 30 seconds after going from daylight to darkness is exhibiting phosphorescence. They're the exact same thing, but with different dynamics. They both involve electrons absorbing energy and releasing it, but with phosphorescence they get stuck in metastable states (read wikipedia for a decent explanation, but a full one requires a bit more quantum physics than I've mastered).
I was referring more to low-bitrate digital modes, not things like digital transmission of voice.
When you think about it, morse code is essentially a digital transmission mode already, but without any kind of data correction/optimization/etc.
If all you need to transmit is a few hundred bytes of data encoding an SOS and your position, I'd think that a digital mode would be able to do that in far more harsh conditions assuming that everything was optimized for this purpose.
Understood, but my point was that going far out to sea without being prepared for long-range communications is foolish. Maybe their ham radio couldn't transmit on any of the HF frequencies on that website you provided. Maybe it could but they didn't have that list of frequencies with them. Either way, they weren't prepared.
While I'm not a pilot I am a bit of an aviation enthusiast and the one thing that strikes me is that aircraft in general are prepared for emergencies. They follow procedures designed to ensure that they always have contingencies, and those procedures include limits on where they can be applied and where even more extensive preparations are needed. If I were a pilot I wouldn't fly over large uninhabited areas without multiple independent radios capable of calling for help should something go wrong.
The really ridiculous thing is that emergency locator beacons have almost become commodities these days. If I were to become a pilot I'd almost certainly invest in one. From what I've read the newer digital ones use pulsed transmissions designed to penetrate cloud cover.
The whole liquid explosive thing is ridiculous. I can't imagine any kind of liquid-based explosive that would be any easier to smuggle through security than any solid-based one. The kinds of chemicals that would be needed are quite nasty - they're not the sort of things that could be confused with an energy drink. If they're concerned they could just ask the traveler to take a sip or something.
Somebody close to me developed anomic aphasia recently, and I can certainly vouch for a recent finding of a UK health study - anybody who has suffered aphasia will vouch that it is one of the most debilitating disorders you can have. Aphasia is any condition that interferes with speech, and anomic aphasia basically is an inability to assign names to things (you can see an object and fully understand its deign/function/purpose, but you can't come up with the word to describe it and will not remember it even if told it).
Imagine being able to do anything normally, except communicate. This guy was fortunate that he could even write (and depriving him of a pen/paper is COMPLETELY INHUMANE - no different than putting a muzzle on somebody without such a condition). If you end up with damage in the language centers of your brain you're reduced to little more than gestures and a handful of words to communicate (the same regions govern ALL forms of language from speech to writing to sign language - no, there isn't an easy workaround), or pointing at pictures assuming a useful picture is there (and no, you can't spell words by pointing at the letters, or use any kind of symbolic representation of words, since that's the part of your brain that isn't working).
Most people who interact with somebody with aphasia assume they're mentally retarded, and treat them as such. (Not necessarily in an unkind manner, but rather by assuming that they need to be treated paternalistically and that they shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for themselves for their own sake.) While conditions that can cause aphasia can also cause other cognitive problems, they do not always do so. In general somebody with aphasia is no more or less intelligent than anyone else. However, they make poor advocates for themselves so they suffer quite a bit.
A recent episode was when the person I was talking about had to take a driving knowledge test. It was multiple choice, was computer based, and even included some pictures and recorded readings of all the questions and their answers that could be played repeatedly. However, it took about 10-15 attempts to pass the test (one per day per the state's rules, and spending about an hour to get through about a dozen questions). If you had asked them to give a free response to any of the questions they could have answered the questions verbally and satisfied you that they understood basic driving laws. However, somebody with anomic aphasia needs freedom to find words they can understand - it is very difficult for them to understand a fixed sentence just by listening to it over and over. Simply comparing the various choices to determine how they differ took many repetitions. In the end they passed both knowledge and driving examinations, but it was quite an arduous journey. It likely would not have been possible but for the fact that they had recovered quite a bit of their ability to communicate.
In general we as a society do not do a very good job accommodating those with neurlogical disorders.
Well, if the radio didn't work, they couldn't use it to send emails.
It seems likely that somebody brought an HF to send email back to base, and that they weren't aware of how to contact the coast card via HF.
Then again, digital protocols are more robust - maybe if things weren't working right (lost antenna, etc) they could get out enough signal to send the email but not enough for voice. That website you listed doesn't mention any stations monitoring for morse code - that seems like a bit of an omission as you can transmit morse with very little in the way of working hardware and it would be almost as robust as a digital link.
Indeed, you can't even spend bitcoin without the consent of the miners.
In fact, there is no obligation for the miners to allow any bitcoin to be spent at all (though if they did that they'd find it hard to spend their own bitcoin). They could simply generate new blocks and not include any transactions in them at all.
It does self-regulate to some extent. If you offered a $100k transaction fee for your transaction I'm sure somebody would be willing to spend some CPU cycles to get a block and list your transaction. Transaction fees are actually the way that non-miners influence the process. Right now it seems like most miners are wiling to accept transactions without fees, but there is no reason they have to do so.
If you're talking about a Tsunami, then sure (assuming you can get reasonably far out in time).
If you're talking about a hurricane, then no. A very large ship would do better at sea then in the dock, but if the ship is docked there is no need for the crew to stay aboard. A hurricane tends to destroy property, but it isn't THAT dangerous to people who aren't near the coastline, especially if they find any kind of shelter. Oh, a few idiots who decide to go driving around town might get hit by flying debris and killed, but they'll fare far better in general than somebody sitting in a boat.
I have to agree. I'm all for regulating passenger travel, because passengers don't have the opportunity to go do a walk-around of their aircraft before boarding, and even if they did they wouldn't know what to look for.
However, if some idiot wants to take their Cessna up in a hurricane then my main concern is for the home that he ends up crashing into. That isn't as much of a concern for a ship out at sea.
As long as everybody on the ship could be expected to understand the risks they were taking, then it was their choice to make.
I'm a bit surprised that there aren't stations monitoring HF for emergency broadcasts. Aircraft still use HF for oceanic communications, and ships spend far more time out at sea. In heavy storms I'd expect satellite communications to be much less reliable than HF. Granted, aircraft mostly use digital transmissions these days, but they still have HF for backup, and I believe they do routinely check in on HF to make sure they have contact with each station along the way.
But, the whole voyage seemed to be a story of bad planning, so not having made plans for long-range communications before sailing far out into the ocean is just one more bad decision on the road to disaster.
Yup, one of the more senior leaders in our area has been moving around even within the same general area for years. He likely makes FAR more than the typical senior developer, but contributes almost nothing. Anybody who works for him basically ends up having to cover for him and manage around him. Somebody on the team chatted with a previous boss of his who was moving on to another company and his boss commented that he keeps moving around due to incompetence. That boss had let go a bunch of people in a previous re-org, and yet didn't touch the manager in question.
I suspect that half the reason that incompetents get kept around is that they're convenient. You have to justify filling any open position in companies these days, so the last thing you want to do is get rid of a senior leader and end up with 18 people reporting to you. If they're good at BS you can let them go out and make promises and get people to shower your group with money, and you'll always have them to blame when things go south.
Or something. Honestly, I really don't get it. Maybe the people above the BSers are just even bigger BSers. There is a different manager at work who loves to throw out buzzwords, and yet it is clear the guy really has no idea what he's talking about. He does it well enough to impress the brass, though.
Some of it might be that senior leaders are basically just biding their time to retirement in many cases. If they can hang on until they get old enough then when the next round of layoffs comes they get their packages and can retire. Most mature corporations are not filled with people looking to conqueror the world.
Please explain then how roughly 80% of the millionaires in the US are first generation wealthy.
He said that it was a myth that hard work is rewarded. You're saying that the people who are rewarded worked hard. These are not, in fact, contradictions.
Suppose you have 20 million people who work really hard. 19.999 million of them end up treading water their entire lives, with a fair bit dying without being able to pay for decent medical care. One thousand of them become millionaires. Every one of those millionaires worked hard, and yet almost everybody who worked hard didn't amount to much of anything.
Sure, Gates and Zuckerberg and such worked hard and had great ideas and were rewarded for it. However, for each story like that there are tens of thousands of others who also worked hard and had great ideas, and who amounted to nothing.
Any society is going to have its winners and losers. However, the wealth distribution in the US is such that if you put 100 random Americans in a room, the money held by all but one of them would be a round-off error in comparison to the lucky guy. There is a decent chance he worked hard to get that money, but likely not much harder than most of the rest.
The other big injustice is that most people can't actually vote their shares at all.
The average person puts their money in a mutual fund of some kind. Unless that fund is dedicated to a single stock, the fund manager will vote the shares. You can have enough money in the fund to own 1000 shares of every stock held by the fund, but you won't get to vote any of them. Oh, and the same goes for your pension, assuming you're lucky enough to still have one. Even though you earned the money by working, your employer will hold onto it, vote the shares it is invested in, and if you're really lucky they might even give you what you've earned when you retire. Then again, they might just declare bankruptcy and you can get in line.
That's a big part of why the status quo prevails - almost all the votes are cast by institutions.
Half the problems on Wall Street boil down to "other people's money."
The reason is blame taking is the CEO's real job.
CEOs at big companies often have very short tenures; and no even abject failures are not necessarily career enders.
Sign me up! I'll be happy to put in two years at $12M/yr. I'll even let them blacklist me and ruin my reputation when they fire me (after giving me a $10M separation package). I guess I'll have to live in a box and try to stretch out my $34M in savings.
Agreed on just about everything.
I'm not sure that separating the display from the client has to be so difficult. You really just need a way to save/restore state. You don't even need to do it constantly - I appreciate that if you're doing 3D graphics you want to just send the drawing commands to the GPU and never put the framebuffer into system RAM. You just need a way to detach a client which causes the middle layer to start queuing events, the display to dump back its state to the middle layer, and then from that point it starts running that client in a software framebuffer until it attaches to a new display. Sure, it is more complex than screen because there is a LOT more data and associated performance issues, but as long as you have a common protocol defined it shouldn't matter what display the client gets rendered onto.
Now, if the client tailors its drawing functions to display capabilities it will need some way to learn to adjust itself when it moves. However, it already has to handle things like video modes changing and so on.
Wayland has an opportunity to re-establish server-side rendering because they can define higher level widget abstractions and such. No longer is a window a collection of points and lines - it could be menus with associated callbacks, with themes defined by the window manager and so on (perhaps even by a program that runs server-side, maybe even without requiring local plugins). If you give more rendering power to the server then when you click on a menu the server can render it without any client communication at all - the client just gets an event when a GUI element is activated. If you could let the application view logic run in some kind of standardized VM on the server then it could even do stuff that normally requires client-side logic but which is now network-friendly.
The problem is that everybody has some kind of fixation on replacing Windows or OSX for desktop use, and they're tossing aside any use case which doesn't amount to loading a web browser, spreadsheet, and MUA on a laptop. I think this is a losing battle, because those who just need those simple use cases can use any of a number of more established alternatives. I think the power of Linux is in the long tail - those bazillion use cases that the proprietary OSes can't be bothered to support.
Well, if you have to pay rent you just include it in your bid.
If your competitor can do the job without needing to be on-site they might be able to outbid you. Usually the whole idea of this sort of thing is to try to get people to not be onsite.
As far as vendors being treated differently, I suspect that this is just the difference between contingent labor and what most would consider true contracting.
A contingent worker is just a body - they show up, get paid by the hour, and do whatever their assigned supervisor tells them to. They're just like an employee, but usually very limited in duration so that the company doesn't have to treat them as an employee. They're intended to help fill peaks, and they get let go when work isn't available.
The other arrangement is when a company creates a statement of work, gets bids, and then pay to get the job done. This would be analogous to hiring a plumber. You probably wouldn't charge a plumber rent, but you might not want to loan them your tools either. In this sort of arrangement the company usually wants the contractor to be as self-sufficient as possible. They don't care how they get the job done, how many people they hire, or how many hours they work. They're likely paying a flat rate to deliver a stated project in a stated duration. In this arrangement giving the contractor incentive to not park a million bodies in your office is useful. If they need to park a few they can just include your chargebacks in their price.
Depreciation is certainly deductible, provided you follow the relevant accounting rules. In fact, depreciation generally works against a company from a tax perspective.
Suppose you earn $1M after various expenses, but you bought a $1M machine. Without using depreciation you would just deduct that $1M from your income and pay no taxes. Governments force you to depreciate it, which means that you end up deducting $100k/yr for 10 years, or something to that effect. The result is that this year you pay takes on $900k income, not $0. Sure, you get to deduct the $100k every year for a decade, but if you could save the tax money up front you could stick it in the bank and you'd be further ahead after a decade (assuming you didn't have a better use for it anyway). Either way you still have $1M less to spend on stuff (well, assuming you don't take out a loan using the $1M machine as collateral).
From a balance sheet perspective depreciation lets you show that you made a profit this year, despite spending all your money on that machine. It is more useful to stock purchasers as well - spending $1M on a machine that will help the company make more money next year is not the same kind of spending as having to spend $1M paying your janitors just for this year. If you went bankrupt presumably you could get some of that $1M back as well selling the thing.
China isn't going to get into a war over NK, especially if NK is the aggressor. If China got that upset about having SK on their border the US would probably let them have half or all of NK as some kind of border zone.
China's support for NK is in name only. They aren't going to support regime change, but they aren't going to interfere if NK starts a shooting war. They already blocked oil shipments in Feb.
In fact, China didn't let them import any oil in Feb. At this rate they might not have oil for a while.
That will start to hurt pretty soon. Nobody really wants a nuclear war in Asia.
Seems like the best way to handle it. Fixing security flaws that touch a lot of code and doing all your development in the open aren't always compatible.
Most linux distros secure security bugs for similar reasons. They don't usually have to block as much because they don't need extensive changes and integration work to deploy security patches. Well-contained software bugs also don't need as much of this since you don't need as much coordination.
I've always admired Postgres. I just wish the SQL world wasn't so fragmented and that Linux had better DB abstraction so that I wouldn't be stuck with whatever DB created the client libs linked by the application...
The main deficiencies I see with X for remote access are:
1. Applications that insist on client side rendering (maybe some X issue is leading to that, but Chromium is a real pain over a remote connection).
2. It doesn't perform well unless you layer something like NX on top of it. The wire protocol is too chatty or low-level.
3. It needs some kind of middle layer so that you can move applications between displays, and displays between consoles. Think something like screen or tmux. Once you launch an app on a display, it is stuck there.
Wayland obviously isn't going to help with any of this as it currently stands.