When these people left, they reduced AMD's outstanding goodwill and reputation. This loss was irrecoverable, short of hiring these people back -- and the people in question seemed rather fed up with working for AMD, so that wasn't going to happen.
One legal tactic to apply in this case is to devalue the goodwill and reputation of the former employees, such that AMD's loss did not become a competitors gain (thus doubling the effective loss to AMD). As a secondary effect, it will make it appear that the goodwill and reputation were AMD's, rather than the employees, in the first place. This is a pretty common tactic, and it really doesn't matter to AMD if the end result is paying a settlement to the former employees, particularly if they can drag it out to the point that the damage is irreparable and/or the costs to the party or parties receiving the settlement is comparable to the amount of the settlement.
Another legal tactic that could be applied would be to pay the departing employee some severance amount, usually cash, but potentially including continued health benefits, option or RSU vesting (in which case the cash severance could include additional option or RSU grants), etc.. This is commonly called "pay-for-no-play". This is pretty common, except in jurisdictions such as California, where non-compete clauses have been legislatively held invalid as a form of restraint of trade.
To get around the non compete limitation (if it's really a critical employee) in California, most pay-for-no-play severance agreements include a penalty and/or interest clause which makes violating them economically prohibitive. This can fail if a new employer is willing to "buy out" the penalty from the employee as part of a "hiring bonus". If an employee goes that route, they need to make sure they don't get stuck with paying back the hiring bonus, as a couple of colluding companies could easily strip both the severance and the hiring bonus, while leaving the other severance terms in effect.
Typically, this second doesn't come up very often, since it requires the employee stating an intent to leave without having already accepted a competitors offer (having accepted the offer, it is unlikely they will back out of the deal), making pay-for-no-play not an option for the employer they are departing. The current climate of the departing executive giving two weeks notice, then being frog-marched out the door by security without being permitted to serve their final two weeks makes it costly to the departing employee to give notice without having something already lined up. Worse, if there is nothing apriori lined up, it's frequent that networking between executives as a result of routine inquiries during the former employees job hunting process could poison the well. Such networking doesn't happen when the employee is approached or looking while employed, for fear of the employee as a candidate deciding to stay at their current position.
Most employees below an executive level never have to worry about this kind of thing involving them.
There have been a number of cases of prominent Open Source developers, where their reputation and goodwill is not legally controllable after their departure, have left a company. These are generally either truly amicable partings, or there is "pay-for-nice" involved, where something similar to the severance payment tactic is used in exchange for the Open Source developer agreeing to not attack the former employers rep
"The move is controversial as it could make some Internet services fail, but PlusNet says it is inevitable, and only a test at this stage."
Where does plusnet say it's inevitable some services would fail during the test? They don't!
They were unclear as to whether "it is inevitable" referred to the direct or indirect subject, and so it was ambiguous as to whether they were referring to "the move is inevitable" or "[use of PlusNet] could make some Internet services fail".
However, my statement works without the ambiguity being interpreted unfavorably...
Given that the consequence of the inevitability applied to the first automatically makes it apply to the second, it looks like they are saying that they will be inevitably making the services fail, whether or not it's a consequence of the move, it is therefore a consequence of the [meta] "use of PlusNet".
Ergo, if you use PlusNet, your services could fail.
Sensible changes to how one legally acquires a gun and increased penalties for violence. Nobody's TERKIN YER GERNS. See how easy that is?
Great idea. Look up "US gun massacres". Now research what happened to the perpetrators over the last 60 years: in 94% of cases, they either killed themselves, or were killed by law enforcement.
What penalty increase over "dead" are you suggesting here? I'm pretty sure this was abolished in 1823 in England, but it used to be that suicides and criminals killed in the commission of a crime could have their bodies impaled postmortem and placed by the side of the highway; perhaps we should bring the practice back?
What actually needs to happen is increased mental health support, including bringing back involuntary commitment and involuntary treatment, both of which went out the window under Reagan as cost-cutting measures, echoing nationally what he had done as governor of California. Now, you can't force mentally ill people to maintain medication, and to be monitored on compliance with treatment, since that would be a violation of their rights.
Personally, I think that an ROR (Release on Own Recognizance) for potentially violent mental illnesses simply shouldn't happen without a mandator implant of a drug pump to keep them sane. It's you're right to refuse the implant, but it's societies right to keep you locked up so that you are guaranteed your medication, should you refuse that treatment alternative.
The big issues involve licensing for eBooks and the fact that publishers seem to engage in punitive pricing with Libraries. Example: One publisher declares that an ebook can only be checked out 27 times, then the license for that expires. Multiple publishers REFUSE to sell ebooks for Library use. Libraries are treated like pirates by many publishers.
Didn't we give them copyright in the first place....so that there would no longer be such things as book licenses?
I might be missing something, but I think that if we start licensing books again, they should lose their ability to copyright them.
IPv6 goes global with the first Microsoft OS release where IPv4 requires installing an extra package which OEMs are not permitted to install by default.
This is a great chance for them to play the white hat, but it'd be a significant departure from historical behavior for them (e.g. they fought TCP/IP tooth and nail, thinking that NetBIOS and NetBEUI had a chance in hell of winning), and it took them a very long time to support IPv6 at all in the first place.
why in the world is it inevitable? Inevitable because they want to keep holding off on newer technology? If I was with Plusnet I'd use this as a good reason to start looking elsewhere.
PlusNet meant that it was inevitable that "it could make some Internet services fail".
But you knew that already, since you were using PlusNet.
Java was designed with the intention of providing a secure sandbox. The reality is instructive about the consequences of using a complex and many-featured product. Simple is no guarantee of security, but complexity is definitely an enemy of security.
Exactly! This is why DJBDNS runs its parts in separate, simple processes: to reduce complexity.
Yes, the idea of zone transfers, secondary, and forwarding servers all break with this model, but fixing that is an exercise left to the student.
PS: I always handled complexity while maintaining security through abstraction + avoiding API layering violations, you know, like starting to interpret the meaning of MIME dat before verifying the validity of the MIME container object, which is what caused so many OutLook security vulnerabilities. But I now realize after reading your post that that was just my silly API design class talking.
ahem, folks. its google fiber. how much privacy can you expect when THE company who wants to know 'all your shit' is the one laying and managing the network?
its bad enough that data passes thru google when you USE google. its horrible for a company that wants privacy and security (ie, startups) if ALL your data MUST pass thru google's wires.
is no one thinking of that? it would be like renting wires from the NSA. you think that would be a great idea, do you?
By "renting wires from the NSA", you are referring to Room 641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A which all your data goes through and actually is monitored by the NSA when you rent your wires from AT&T instead of renting them from Google, right?
Get over it! They know when you are sleeping, they know when you're awake, they know if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake! Or be bad. Practically they don't give a crap, for the most part.
There's another model which is available from multiple sources, which incorporates an LCD display. It goes for FOB $28 for quantity 10,000. However, ask for their pricing on quantity 100,000. If you really care, track down the OEM who is providing these guys with the unit instead, and keep the middleman unit profit as well.
This isn't rocket science; the actual answer to your question is that there's no real market for the damn things, and so they have not hit commodity pricing. No one wants something that will communicate ambient temperature changes in any room of their house wirelessly to a central monitoring station so that you can know the temperature of every room of your house.
Mostly the people who would be geeky enough to want this would also realize that it enables anyone outside your house with a parabolic antenna can track the movement of above-ambient (e.g. 98.6 degree) objects as they move between rooms within your house and know the best time to break down your front door and drag you off into the banjo-woods or whatever.
PS: No one really likes yet-another-wireless-device-for-no-reason-Zigbee either.
The circumstances into which you are born are no excuse if you live in the US.
Your education level can be an excuse; but you own that; that is NOT beyond your control.
I grew up in rural Utah; one of my third grade chores prior to walking a mile to the bus stop to go to elementary school was taking hay to horses and cleaning up after them. Another was dragging trash containers half the length of a football field for trash pickup, since the guy with the dump truck couldn't get closer than that when there was 6 feet of snow on the ground. Right before I moved to Silicon Valley, I had worked myself up to living in BFE (Tucson Arizona), working for one of those companies which could hold you captive because they were the only game in town: Artisoft.
If you are born in a poor area in the US, you can do better than your peers in school by applying yourself (your peers will not all be applying themselves), graduate at the top of your class (due to applying yourself), do well on your ACT/SAT scores (all schools have libraries/access to libraries via bookmobiles, even if they have poor teachers), get a full ride scholarship some place (it may not be an Ivy League University), and get hired into a job in Silicon Valley.
An obvious underlying motivation for what the OP asked for is to take advantage of all the loss-leader offers out there for cloud storage providers; generally they will give you some storage free up to a storage cap, and if you want more, you have to pay. Being able to eke storage up to the cap from a lot of providers would let you effectively negate the cap on any single provider. So a primary motivation could be "I want free cloud storage".
Availability is one reason to redundantly "split your eggs into more than one basket". Cloud outages happen from time to time. If one vendor is unavailable (temporarily or closed down indefinately), you want your files to be available from another vendor.
Unavailability means that your vendor's cloud isn't working. One of the primary arguments in favor of cloud storage is that it doesn't matter where it's locate, so if a data center gets destroyed by a disaster, natural or otherwise, your data stays available. If your cloud storage vendo can't guarantee six nines of availability, then they are not actually selling cloud storage.
Suppose you modify a data section of a file in a btrfs filesystem mounted on some kind of weird encrypted block device. There will be a whole tree of blocks that get modified, all the way up to the root node. All of these blocks have to be written before the root block is, and for a small file there will be several more blocks that need updating than there are data blocks on the file.
These two issues create a big synchronization problem and a lot of extra traffic.
A btrfs style filesystem already has this problem with local storage, it just doesn't become immensely evident unless you are using media where the burst transfer rate gets swamped by the amount of data in a set of consecutive data transfers. As soon as you overwhelm the steady state average rate, the effective burst transfer rate drops to the sustained transfer.
You can see this relatively easily on Samsung and Sony ARM devices with eMMC mass storage instead of SSD, and you can see it on SSD mass storage for small values of 'mass', where the transactions can be split over many chips to effectively get a parallel bus for transfers, or on bigger SSD devices where the controller isn't clever enough to use that trick.
At which point, I'd say that btrfs is the wrong tool for the job in this environment.
But in reality, using cloud storage, which frequently means WebDAV, isn't appropriate for this use case anyway, give the number of transactions required for a read/modify/write operation to do a partial block update of an index, even if it wasn't a btr index, and was clever enough to use an infix tree (and as far as I know, no one is using infix trees in filesystems, for fear of the Sun-now-Oracle over-broad patent on the things).
Even for straight WebDAV, without all the additional complications proposed by the OP, you are going to be better off doing local caching and replication of selected data and metadata, ala CODA, and only doing periodic syncing. Of course, then you'd be using an FS like CODA, which has more or less solved this problem already, rather your favorite FS flavor of the week, which is bound to piss some people off.
In closing, let me point out that none of the cloud storage providers to date are willingly hosting the necessary APIs to implement something like CODA; they've internally solved the distribution and replication problems with their own one-off solution which they are not sharing, since that the strategic value of what they are trying to sell in the first place.
Provided you can afford to move to where "another job" is.
This is why you work in Silicon Valley, where the "another job" is in the next building down the road from the building you are currently in.
If you get totally fed up, you and three of your friends get together and start the next Square, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever. Worst case you burn through your angel funding and go for another round prepared to give away 30% of your company, go back to work for someone else, or do another startup, but this time without the idiot (you) in charge; let someone else lead and learn from them.
It's no coincidence that Walmart Labs had no luck moving people to Arkansas,and weren't getting any takers until they opened the San Bruno office. If you locate to a company in BFE, it's going to be able to hold you captive from getting a better job elsewhere in your area if there are no other employers in your area.
If other programmers can not understand it, then it's bad.
I have discovered there is a very low bar for who is permitted to call themselves a programmer these days.
People have suggested code review as a means of dealing with the issue, and that's true - if you are equally willing to learn from the person you are reviewing, and not simple there as a means if criticizing their readability.
There are a lot of non-obvious techniques for various languages which lead to better code and fewer bugs, and since the early 1990's when accreditation standards changed from "C programming" to "Database programming using C (which you are expected to learn on your own)", these techniques are rarely taght to new programmers, since computer languages are not taught directly, only indirectly.
This is the moral equivalent of a carpentry class with a section on "Making board flat using a joiner", with you being expected to learn how to operate the joiner, appropriate safety precautions, etc., all on your own.
Frankly, this person you are complaining about may simply have a better grasp of their tools than you do.
The difference is, most other companies don't charge you several hundred dollars for an operating system upgrade just to patch important software vulnerabilities. In fact, most other operating system distributors don't even charge a penny for such a basic service.
They aren't charging you to patch the security problem, they are charging you to get you the hell off Windows XP, which they don't want to support going forward because it no longer represents a marginal ongoing income for them.
Windows XP support was was announced dropped several times, finally dropped, and I understand that people don't like this, and that Microsoft had finally made an OS that was "good enough" that people don't see an incentive to "upgrade" to an OS that can only laughably be called "improved". But they aren't selling the stuff any more, and the Windows XP fan boys need to get over the fact that it's dead.
Couching a demand for Windows XP support as if it's actually a demand for a security fix for a totally separate browser product because it's convenient for you to consider them separate after Microsoft has already been hauled into court and censured for it definitely NOT being separate isn't going to get you support for your antique Windows XP.
This is no more likely than that the tactic will get you support for Windows 95 SP 2, which was also an OS that was "good enough" for most business uses, and it was only the Windows 98 SP1 bait-and-switch that made Windows 98 suck so badly that people were willing to "upgrade" to Windows XP.
Maybe Microsoft needs to use the same tactic again, and release a sevice pack for XP that makes it suck worse than Windows 7/8 to cause people to *want* to upgrade?
I don't know... but it's time to pry the cold, dead Windows XP from your fingers.
So what you've said, is that the architecture, both software and hardware, that Apple is using, is better for this type of work.
Got it.
But there is not that much difference in newer hardware like the Exynos, and the software architecture is a matter of implementation decisions which can be reverted, if in using Linux, one is willing to work around the spirit of the GPL in exchange for performance.
The person posting about the Raspberry Pi didn't actually mention it, but they have a rather radically different user/kernel interface for the GL in order to support feeding the Broadcomm VidCore; most Open Source user space graphics stacks couldn't talk to it, since the two X-on-GL projects I'm aware of have basically ceased operation.
So the Raspberry Pi has addressed both of the issues, although they've done so on a chip with pretty poor memory copy bandwidth anyway, so don't expect to use the chip for high performance video on much beyond the set-top boxes that BroadComm initially targetted the chip at in the first place.
Personally, I held off on buying my Raspberry Pi until such time as they promised to open source the video drivers, and immediately bought after getting that promise.
Transport the Raspberry Pi model to a GL kernel space on an Exynos, though... and then you've got something meaningful relative to the Apple stack.
Either way, the graphs are telling a non-Exynos hardware story and a non-optimized software story to play up the Apple hardware and software stack. It's good (disclosure: I worked on the Apple Core OS kernel team), but it's not magic which no one else can replicate; as a friend of mine commonly says: it's a mere matter of typing.
I did capacitive coupling work with the intent of being able to reliably reproduce gestures.
Google ended up building a robot which could do this.
I wrote a small article about it prior to the Apple patent filing in a prosthetics forum.
The article contents used to implement capacitive coupling for a gentleman in Germany with two Bochs brand artificial arms who had never been able to use the capacitive touchpad on his Thinkpad because of lack of capacitive coupling with the artificial limbs.
I'd be willing to be a witness on prior art, including functioning hardware built on that prior art, for this patent predating the filing date. I can also point you to other people who worked with the robot, and also with capacitive coupling of mechanical systems, such as this stylus, for testing purposes.at Google, Synaptics, and Samsung.
Every contract with an anti-poaching clause which I have ever signed requires you to agree to not pach employees after leaving the company. It is rather common for groups of employees to get together on the idea of leaving prior to actually leaving, which means that they are still within the letter of the anti-poaching clause when they decide to leave en masse, as in the described case.
Unless HP can prove recruitment by someone after they had signed an employment agreement with GM (unlikely in an en masse walk out like this), it's unlikely that they are going to have a legal leg to stand on, any more than Apple did when they went after Google for hiring away one of their executives.
The employer can not keep you from working for a competitor once the employer/employee relationship is terminated.
The best that they can do from their perspective is pay you your salary for the period of time up to the length of the non-compete period, and after they quit paying you, then you can work for whoever the hell you want.
This applies in most jurisdictions, due to an 8th district appellate court decision involving my cousin; the case law is rather easy to look up. It boils down to any contract being unenforcible unless consideration is involved.
In other jurisdictions, such as California, they are simply void.
In all jurisdictions, a CNC requires that there be a legitimate business involved; in the case under discussion, there's no legitimate interest, given that HP could not expect to keep GM's business after GM's announcement of intention to insource.
It's an advertisement for . They claim to use SEO techniques which are "white hat", but of course any SEO techniques that attempt to game google results tend to piss off Google, meaning that there's no such thing as "white hat" as far as Google is concerned.
Like most SEOs, this will get you good results for a short while until the back end comparison is made on Googles end to show graph deltas over time, and there's a huge shift in geometry on the particular search tems. At that point, the results she wanted to show up get penalized down in the returned results for searches.
I guess this might be OK, if you expect to look for a job and get one more or less immediately after you do the SEO, but less so if you end up being on the market for a while, at which point the results will be skewed *away* from those you considered desirable when you identified them to the SEO company in the first place.
This type of SEO is probably the only place SEO will work at all, but only if you are in a sellers market for your labor such that you get snapped up quickly before the bias detector figures out what you've done. Since this rarely covers the case of recent college grads with no industry experience, I'd seriously caution against using a service like this until you know what you're getting into.
The first graph is a masure of memory bus bandwidth; while this has historically sucked on ARM in general, and Apple has had the lead in this area because they started life with their own memory controller design replacing the one normally supplied by the ARM folks, this lead has been significantly narrowed in the Samsung Exynos line. There are still some optimizations to be had to match the A6X speed, but it's close enough that for an optimized pipeline, it's not going to matter as much as the graph shows. nVidia's ARM offerings still have pretty sucky memory bandwidth, as do the Qualcomm chips, like the SnapDragon series.
The second graph measures the GL pipeline, and since the Linux stack moves copies of surfaces rather than GL over the user/kernel boundary, there's significant overhead in the protection domain crossing, as well as in amount of data being moved (which devolves, again, to the memory bandwidth issue).
Unless you go direct GL across the user/kernel boundary, and run the surface processing entirely in kernel space, if you are doing software compositing, even in the case of 2D, which applies to the vast majority of surface transforms, since people simply do not watch YouTube videos on rotating cubes or on spheres, you are talking 3 protection domain crossings to get the data from user space to the GPU, process it in the GPU, bring it back to user space, and then push it again across the boundary to get it into the frame buffer.
Basically you are comparing a graphics stack that sucks with one that generally doesn't, except under specifically defined circumstances (and in those cases DirectX beats GL in terms of reduced system vulnerability to unbounded texture processing for both the Linux and MacOS X/iOS stacks).
Either way, the comparisons in those graphs are not straight apples-to-apples unless you happen to be running Android on all your devices, and so have the additional expensive-on-ARM copy and protection domain operations on all the platforms.
If you bought the surface, you already paid for the software too, so no, they shouldn't care what you installed on it; their profit is already made with the sale, and doesn't rely on you keeping their software on the unit.
The trajectory of a closed platform is toward something like an iTunes App Store, with uniform capabilities as a requirement to play in the space.
Surface also has the benefit of not allowing/encouraging jailbreaking of an incompletely developed walled garden on an Intel platform, and thus risking that platform when applying a conversion of the platform to pull Intel into the fold.
It's quite clever, since it puts out there something the hackers would actually like to attack, and lets it suffer the slings and arrows until it's been hardened up enough that they can trust the Intel platform to a port of the technology there.
The nifty thing about it, from a Microsoft perspective, is that Apple hardware is effectively locked out from not addopting the entire Microsoft stack for the chain of trust, so even if they let you run Windows.* on Apple hardware, it shows as insecure, and content providers who provide their own players, like Netflix, Hulu, ABC.com, CBS.com, BBCTV, Sky, etc. etc. have players which won't trust the platform to escrow digital content, effectively putting them back in the top dog slot they've been slipping out of for the last 11 years.
Barbies apparently do appreciate in time, but it's because they intentionally manufacture limited runs/editions. Not so Legos: if something is selling well, they make more of them. You can still buy brad new Death Star kits.
My sister used to buy Barbies for my niece, and I came to visit once, and there were these boxes of barbies over her bed. She had never been allowed to take them out and play with them. hat day, I immediately went down to the store, bought several + outfits, and ripped them all open, stuffed them in a cardboard box so nothing remained of the original wrapping, and brought them over to my niece so she could finally play with the damn things. To this day, I am her favorite uncle.
It's OK to invest in toys for known to be limited runs (i.e. generally not Legos, whose meaning for "Limited Edition" is "sold only at the Lego store and one or two other chains, not everywhere"), but don't torture your kids with the things, that's all I've got to say.
Slashdot Mirror
AMD's real problem, and their solution:
AMD's real problem is that when these people left AMD, they took their reputation and goodwill with them to another company.
This reputation and goodwill was an intangible asset on loan to, but not owned by, AMD which they borrowed upon by virtue of being these persons employer. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation
When these people left, they reduced AMD's outstanding goodwill and reputation. This loss was irrecoverable, short of hiring these people back -- and the people in question seemed rather fed up with working for AMD, so that wasn't going to happen.
One legal tactic to apply in this case is to devalue the goodwill and reputation of the former employees, such that AMD's loss did not become a competitors gain (thus doubling the effective loss to AMD). As a secondary effect, it will make it appear that the goodwill and reputation were AMD's, rather than the employees, in the first place. This is a pretty common tactic, and it really doesn't matter to AMD if the end result is paying a settlement to the former employees, particularly if they can drag it out to the point that the damage is irreparable and/or the costs to the party or parties receiving the settlement is comparable to the amount of the settlement.
Another legal tactic that could be applied would be to pay the departing employee some severance amount, usually cash, but potentially including continued health benefits, option or RSU vesting (in which case the cash severance could include additional option or RSU grants), etc.. This is commonly called "pay-for-no-play". This is pretty common, except in jurisdictions such as California, where non-compete clauses have been legislatively held invalid as a form of restraint of trade.
To get around the non compete limitation (if it's really a critical employee) in California, most pay-for-no-play severance agreements include a penalty and/or interest clause which makes violating them economically prohibitive. This can fail if a new employer is willing to "buy out" the penalty from the employee as part of a "hiring bonus". If an employee goes that route, they need to make sure they don't get stuck with paying back the hiring bonus, as a couple of colluding companies could easily strip both the severance and the hiring bonus, while leaving the other severance terms in effect.
Typically, this second doesn't come up very often, since it requires the employee stating an intent to leave without having already accepted a competitors offer (having accepted the offer, it is unlikely they will back out of the deal), making pay-for-no-play not an option for the employer they are departing. The current climate of the departing executive giving two weeks notice, then being frog-marched out the door by security without being permitted to serve their final two weeks makes it costly to the departing employee to give notice without having something already lined up. Worse, if there is nothing apriori lined up, it's frequent that networking between executives as a result of routine inquiries during the former employees job hunting process could poison the well. Such networking doesn't happen when the employee is approached or looking while employed, for fear of the employee as a candidate deciding to stay at their current position.
Most employees below an executive level never have to worry about this kind of thing involving them.
There have been a number of cases of prominent Open Source developers, where their reputation and goodwill is not legally controllable after their departure, have left a company. These are generally either truly amicable partings, or there is "pay-for-nice" involved, where something similar to the severance payment tactic is used in exchange for the Open Source developer agreeing to not attack the former employers rep
"The move is controversial as it could make some Internet services fail, but PlusNet says it is inevitable, and only a test at this stage."
Where does plusnet say it's inevitable some services would fail during the test? They don't!
They were unclear as to whether "it is inevitable" referred to the direct or indirect subject, and so it was ambiguous as to whether they were referring to "the move is inevitable" or "[use of PlusNet] could make some Internet services fail".
However, my statement works without the ambiguity being interpreted unfavorably...
Given that the consequence of the inevitability applied to the first automatically makes it apply to the second, it looks like they are saying that they will be inevitably making the services fail, whether or not it's a consequence of the move, it is therefore a consequence of the [meta] "use of PlusNet".
Ergo, if you use PlusNet, your services could fail.
So: Thanks for the warning, PlusNet!
Sensible changes to how one legally acquires a gun and increased penalties for violence. Nobody's TERKIN YER GERNS. See how easy that is?
Great idea. Look up "US gun massacres". Now research what happened to the perpetrators over the last 60 years: in 94% of cases, they either killed themselves, or were killed by law enforcement.
What penalty increase over "dead" are you suggesting here? I'm pretty sure this was abolished in 1823 in England, but it used to be that suicides and criminals killed in the commission of a crime could have their bodies impaled postmortem and placed by the side of the highway; perhaps we should bring the practice back?
What actually needs to happen is increased mental health support, including bringing back involuntary commitment and involuntary treatment, both of which went out the window under Reagan as cost-cutting measures, echoing nationally what he had done as governor of California. Now, you can't force mentally ill people to maintain medication, and to be monitored on compliance with treatment, since that would be a violation of their rights.
Personally, I think that an ROR (Release on Own Recognizance) for potentially violent mental illnesses simply shouldn't happen without a mandator implant of a drug pump to keep them sane. It's you're right to refuse the implant, but it's societies right to keep you locked up so that you are guaranteed your medication, should you refuse that treatment alternative.
The big issues involve licensing for eBooks and the fact that publishers seem to engage in punitive pricing with Libraries. Example: One publisher declares that an ebook can only be checked out 27 times, then the license for that expires. Multiple publishers REFUSE to sell ebooks for Library use. Libraries are treated like pirates by many publishers.
Didn't we give them copyright in the first place.. ..so that there would no longer be such things as book licenses?
I might be missing something, but I think that if we start licensing books again, they should lose their ability to copyright them.
IPv6 goes global with the first Microsoft OS release where IPv4 requires installing an extra package which OEMs are not permitted to install by default.
This is a great chance for them to play the white hat, but it'd be a significant departure from historical behavior for them (e.g. they fought TCP/IP tooth and nail, thinking that NetBIOS and NetBEUI had a chance in hell of winning), and it took them a very long time to support IPv6 at all in the first place.
why in the world is it inevitable? Inevitable because they want to keep holding off on newer technology? If I was with Plusnet I'd use this as a good reason to start looking elsewhere.
PlusNet meant that it was inevitable that "it could make some Internet services fail".
But you knew that already, since you were using PlusNet.
Java was designed with the intention of providing a secure sandbox. The reality is instructive about the consequences of using a complex and many-featured product. Simple is no guarantee of security, but complexity is definitely an enemy of security.
Exactly! This is why DJBDNS runs its parts in separate, simple processes: to reduce complexity.
Yes, the idea of zone transfers, secondary, and forwarding servers all break with this model, but fixing that is an exercise left to the student.
PS: I always handled complexity while maintaining security through abstraction + avoiding API layering violations, you know, like starting to interpret the meaning of MIME dat before verifying the validity of the MIME container object, which is what caused so many OutLook security vulnerabilities. But I now realize after reading your post that that was just my silly API design class talking.
ahem, folks. its google fiber. how much privacy can you expect when THE company who wants to know 'all your shit' is the one laying and managing the network?
its bad enough that data passes thru google when you USE google. its horrible for a company that wants privacy and security (ie, startups) if ALL your data MUST pass thru google's wires.
is no one thinking of that? it would be like renting wires from the NSA. you think that would be a great idea, do you?
By "renting wires from the NSA", you are referring to Room 641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A which all your data goes through and actually is monitored by the NSA when you rent your wires from AT&T instead of renting them from Google, right?
Get over it! They know when you are sleeping, they know when you're awake, they know if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake! Or be bad. Practically they don't give a crap, for the most part.
Ask for a quantity 10,000 quote for this:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/624954111/ZigBee_wireless_Temperature_and_Humidity_sensor.html
There's another model which is available from multiple sources, which incorporates an LCD display. It goes for FOB $28 for quantity 10,000. However, ask for their pricing on quantity 100,000. If you really care, track down the OEM who is providing these guys with the unit instead, and keep the middleman unit profit as well.
This isn't rocket science; the actual answer to your question is that there's no real market for the damn things, and so they have not hit commodity pricing. No one wants something that will communicate ambient temperature changes in any room of their house wirelessly to a central monitoring station so that you can know the temperature of every room of your house.
Mostly the people who would be geeky enough to want this would also realize that it enables anyone outside your house with a parabolic antenna can track the movement of above-ambient (e.g. 98.6 degree) objects as they move between rooms within your house and know the best time to break down your front door and drag you off into the banjo-woods or whatever.
PS: No one really likes yet-another-wireless-device-for-no-reason-Zigbee either.
Silicon Valley.
The circumstances into which you are born are no excuse if you live in the US.
Your education level can be an excuse; but you own that; that is NOT beyond your control.
I grew up in rural Utah; one of my third grade chores prior to walking a mile to the bus stop to go to elementary school was taking hay to horses and cleaning up after them. Another was dragging trash containers half the length of a football field for trash pickup, since the guy with the dump truck couldn't get closer than that when there was 6 feet of snow on the ground. Right before I moved to Silicon Valley, I had worked myself up to living in BFE (Tucson Arizona), working for one of those companies which could hold you captive because they were the only game in town: Artisoft.
If you are born in a poor area in the US, you can do better than your peers in school by applying yourself (your peers will not all be applying themselves), graduate at the top of your class (due to applying yourself), do well on your ACT/SAT scores (all schools have libraries/access to libraries via bookmobiles, even if they have poor teachers), get a full ride scholarship some place (it may not be an Ivy League University), and get hired into a job in Silicon Valley.
I believe the asker didn't mention a price issue.
An obvious underlying motivation for what the OP asked for is to take advantage of all the loss-leader offers out there for cloud storage providers; generally they will give you some storage free up to a storage cap, and if you want more, you have to pay. Being able to eke storage up to the cap from a lot of providers would let you effectively negate the cap on any single provider. So a primary motivation could be "I want free cloud storage".
Availability is one reason to redundantly "split your eggs into more than one basket". Cloud outages happen from time to time. If one vendor is unavailable (temporarily or closed down indefinately), you want your files to be available from another vendor.
Unavailability means that your vendor's cloud isn't working. One of the primary arguments in favor of cloud storage is that it doesn't matter where it's locate, so if a data center gets destroyed by a disaster, natural or otherwise, your data stays available. If your cloud storage vendo can't guarantee six nines of availability, then they are not actually selling cloud storage.
Suppose you modify a data section of a file in a btrfs filesystem mounted on some kind of weird encrypted block device. There will be a whole tree of blocks that get modified, all the way up to the root node. All of these blocks have to be written before the root block is, and for a small file there will be several more blocks that need updating than there are data blocks on the file.
These two issues create a big synchronization problem and a lot of extra traffic.
A btrfs style filesystem already has this problem with local storage, it just doesn't become immensely evident unless you are using media where the burst transfer rate gets swamped by the amount of data in a set of consecutive data transfers. As soon as you overwhelm the steady state average rate, the effective burst transfer rate drops to the sustained transfer.
You can see this relatively easily on Samsung and Sony ARM devices with eMMC mass storage instead of SSD, and you can see it on SSD mass storage for small values of 'mass', where the transactions can be split over many chips to effectively get a parallel bus for transfers, or on bigger SSD devices where the controller isn't clever enough to use that trick.
At which point, I'd say that btrfs is the wrong tool for the job in this environment.
But in reality, using cloud storage, which frequently means WebDAV, isn't appropriate for this use case anyway, give the number of transactions required for a read/modify/write operation to do a partial block update of an index, even if it wasn't a btr index, and was clever enough to use an infix tree (and as far as I know, no one is using infix trees in filesystems, for fear of the Sun-now-Oracle over-broad patent on the things).
Even for straight WebDAV, without all the additional complications proposed by the OP, you are going to be better off doing local caching and replication of selected data and metadata, ala CODA, and only doing periodic syncing. Of course, then you'd be using an FS like CODA, which has more or less solved this problem already, rather your favorite FS flavor of the week, which is bound to piss some people off.
In closing, let me point out that none of the cloud storage providers to date are willingly hosting the necessary APIs to implement something like CODA; they've internally solved the distribution and replication problems with their own one-off solution which they are not sharing, since that the strategic value of what they are trying to sell in the first place.
Uses AES. You can perturb it by writing "entropy" to the device to reseed it, but obvious it never runs out like the Linux /dev/random.
Why does this not exist?
Just Google zigbee temperature sensor.
Provided you can afford to move to where "another job" is.
This is why you work in Silicon Valley, where the "another job" is in the next building down the road from the building you are currently in.
If you get totally fed up, you and three of your friends get together and start the next Square, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever. Worst case you burn through your angel funding and go for another round prepared to give away 30% of your company, go back to work for someone else, or do another startup, but this time without the idiot (you) in charge; let someone else lead and learn from them.
It's no coincidence that Walmart Labs had no luck moving people to Arkansas,and weren't getting any takers until they opened the San Bruno office. If you locate to a company in BFE, it's going to be able to hold you captive from getting a better job elsewhere in your area if there are no other employers in your area.
If other programmers can not understand it, then it's bad.
I have discovered there is a very low bar for who is permitted to call themselves a programmer these days.
People have suggested code review as a means of dealing with the issue, and that's true - if you are equally willing to learn from the person you are reviewing, and not simple there as a means if criticizing their readability.
There are a lot of non-obvious techniques for various languages which lead to better code and fewer bugs, and since the early 1990's when accreditation standards changed from "C programming" to "Database programming using C (which you are expected to learn on your own)", these techniques are rarely taght to new programmers, since computer languages are not taught directly, only indirectly.
This is the moral equivalent of a carpentry class with a section on "Making board flat using a joiner", with you being expected to learn how to operate the joiner, appropriate safety precautions, etc., all on your own.
Frankly, this person you are complaining about may simply have a better grasp of their tools than you do.
The difference is, most other companies don't charge you several hundred dollars for an operating system upgrade just to patch important software vulnerabilities. In fact, most other operating system distributors don't even charge a penny for such a basic service.
They aren't charging you to patch the security problem, they are charging you to get you the hell off Windows XP, which they don't want to support going forward because it no longer represents a marginal ongoing income for them.
Windows XP support was was announced dropped several times, finally dropped, and I understand that people don't like this, and that Microsoft had finally made an OS that was "good enough" that people don't see an incentive to "upgrade" to an OS that can only laughably be called "improved". But they aren't selling the stuff any more, and the Windows XP fan boys need to get over the fact that it's dead.
Couching a demand for Windows XP support as if it's actually a demand for a security fix for a totally separate browser product because it's convenient for you to consider them separate after Microsoft has already been hauled into court and censured for it definitely NOT being separate isn't going to get you support for your antique Windows XP.
This is no more likely than that the tactic will get you support for Windows 95 SP 2, which was also an OS that was "good enough" for most business uses, and it was only the Windows 98 SP1 bait-and-switch that made Windows 98 suck so badly that people were willing to "upgrade" to Windows XP.
Maybe Microsoft needs to use the same tactic again, and release a sevice pack for XP that makes it suck worse than Windows 7/8 to cause people to *want* to upgrade?
I don't know... but it's time to pry the cold, dead Windows XP from your fingers.
So what you've said, is that the architecture, both software and hardware, that Apple is using, is better for this type of work.
Got it.
But there is not that much difference in newer hardware like the Exynos, and the software architecture is a matter of implementation decisions which can be reverted, if in using Linux, one is willing to work around the spirit of the GPL in exchange for performance.
The person posting about the Raspberry Pi didn't actually mention it, but they have a rather radically different user/kernel interface for the GL in order to support feeding the Broadcomm VidCore; most Open Source user space graphics stacks couldn't talk to it, since the two X-on-GL projects I'm aware of have basically ceased operation.
So the Raspberry Pi has addressed both of the issues, although they've done so on a chip with pretty poor memory copy bandwidth anyway, so don't expect to use the chip for high performance video on much beyond the set-top boxes that BroadComm initially targetted the chip at in the first place.
Personally, I held off on buying my Raspberry Pi until such time as they promised to open source the video drivers, and immediately bought after getting that promise.
Transport the Raspberry Pi model to a GL kernel space on an Exynos, though... and then you've got something meaningful relative to the Apple stack.
Either way, the graphs are telling a non-Exynos hardware story and a non-optimized software story to play up the Apple hardware and software stack. It's good (disclosure: I worked on the Apple Core OS kernel team), but it's not magic which no one else can replicate; as a friend of mine commonly says: it's a mere matter of typing.
I did capacitive coupling work with the intent of being able to reliably reproduce gestures.
Google ended up building a robot which could do this.
I wrote a small article about it prior to the Apple patent filing in a prosthetics forum.
The article contents used to implement capacitive coupling for a gentleman in Germany with two Bochs brand artificial arms who had never been able to use the capacitive touchpad on his Thinkpad because of lack of capacitive coupling with the artificial limbs.
I'd be willing to be a witness on prior art, including functioning hardware built on that prior art, for this patent predating the filing date. I can also point you to other people who worked with the robot, and also with capacitive coupling of mechanical systems, such as this stylus, for testing purposes.at Google, Synaptics, and Samsung.
Every contract with an anti-poaching clause which I have ever signed requires you to agree to not pach employees after leaving the company. It is rather common for groups of employees to get together on the idea of leaving prior to actually leaving, which means that they are still within the letter of the anti-poaching clause when they decide to leave en masse, as in the described case.
Unless HP can prove recruitment by someone after they had signed an employment agreement with GM (unlikely in an en masse walk out like this), it's unlikely that they are going to have a legal leg to stand on, any more than Apple did when they went after Google for hiring away one of their executives.
This is just a harrassment lawsuit.
The employer can not keep you from working for a competitor once the employer/employee relationship is terminated.
The best that they can do from their perspective is pay you your salary for the period of time up to the length of the non-compete period, and after they quit paying you, then you can work for whoever the hell you want.
This applies in most jurisdictions, due to an 8th district appellate court decision involving my cousin; the case law is rather easy to look up. It boils down to any contract being unenforcible unless consideration is involved.
In other jurisdictions, such as California, they are simply void.
In all jurisdictions, a CNC requires that there be a legitimate business involved; in the case under discussion, there's no legitimate interest, given that HP could not expect to keep GM's business after GM's announcement of intention to insource.
It's an advertisement for . They claim to use SEO techniques which are "white hat", but of course any SEO techniques that attempt to game google results tend to piss off Google, meaning that there's no such thing as "white hat" as far as Google is concerned.
Like most SEOs, this will get you good results for a short while until the back end comparison is made on Googles end to show graph deltas over time, and there's a huge shift in geometry on the particular search tems. At that point, the results she wanted to show up get penalized down in the returned results for searches.
I guess this might be OK, if you expect to look for a job and get one more or less immediately after you do the SEO, but less so if you end up being on the market for a while, at which point the results will be skewed *away* from those you considered desirable when you identified them to the SEO company in the first place.
This type of SEO is probably the only place SEO will work at all, but only if you are in a sellers market for your labor such that you get snapped up quickly before the bias detector figures out what you've done. Since this rarely covers the case of recent college grads with no industry experience, I'd seriously caution against using a service like this until you know what you're getting into.
The A6X puts everything else in the mobile industry to shame.
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6472/51764.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6472/51759.png
The first graph is a masure of memory bus bandwidth; while this has historically sucked on ARM in general, and Apple has had the lead in this area because they started life with their own memory controller design replacing the one normally supplied by the ARM folks, this lead has been significantly narrowed in the Samsung Exynos line. There are still some optimizations to be had to match the A6X speed, but it's close enough that for an optimized pipeline, it's not going to matter as much as the graph shows. nVidia's ARM offerings still have pretty sucky memory bandwidth, as do the Qualcomm chips, like the SnapDragon series.
The second graph measures the GL pipeline, and since the Linux stack moves copies of surfaces rather than GL over the user/kernel boundary, there's significant overhead in the protection domain crossing, as well as in amount of data being moved (which devolves, again, to the memory bandwidth issue).
Unless you go direct GL across the user/kernel boundary, and run the surface processing entirely in kernel space, if you are doing software compositing, even in the case of 2D, which applies to the vast majority of surface transforms, since people simply do not watch YouTube videos on rotating cubes or on spheres, you are talking 3 protection domain crossings to get the data from user space to the GPU, process it in the GPU, bring it back to user space, and then push it again across the boundary to get it into the frame buffer.
Basically you are comparing a graphics stack that sucks with one that generally doesn't, except under specifically defined circumstances (and in those cases DirectX beats GL in terms of reduced system vulnerability to unbounded texture processing for both the Linux and MacOS X/iOS stacks).
Either way, the comparisons in those graphs are not straight apples-to-apples unless you happen to be running Android on all your devices, and so have the additional expensive-on-ARM copy and protection domain operations on all the platforms.
If you bought the surface, you already paid for the software too, so no, they shouldn't care what you installed on it;
their profit is already made with the sale, and doesn't rely on you keeping their software on the unit.
The trajectory of a closed platform is toward something like an iTunes App Store, with uniform capabilities as a requirement to play in the space.
Surface also has the benefit of not allowing/encouraging jailbreaking of an incompletely developed walled garden on an Intel platform, and thus risking that platform when applying a conversion of the platform to pull Intel into the fold.
It's quite clever, since it puts out there something the hackers would actually like to attack, and lets it suffer the slings and arrows until it's been hardened up enough that they can trust the Intel platform to a port of the technology there.
The nifty thing about it, from a Microsoft perspective, is that Apple hardware is effectively locked out from not addopting the entire Microsoft stack for the chain of trust, so even if they let you run Windows .* on Apple hardware, it shows as insecure, and content providers who provide their own players, like Netflix, Hulu, ABC.com, CBS.com, BBCTV, Sky, etc. etc. have players which won't trust the platform to escrow digital content, effectively putting them back in the top dog slot they've been slipping out of for the last 11 years.
Barbies apparently do appreciate in time, but it's because they intentionally manufacture limited runs/editions. Not so Legos: if something is selling well, they make more of them. You can still buy brad new Death Star kits.
My sister used to buy Barbies for my niece, and I came to visit once, and there were these boxes of barbies over her bed. She had never been allowed to take them out and play with them. hat day, I immediately went down to the store, bought several + outfits, and ripped them all open, stuffed them in a cardboard box so nothing remained of the original wrapping, and brought them over to my niece so she could finally play with the damn things. To this day, I am her favorite uncle.
It's OK to invest in toys for known to be limited runs (i.e. generally not Legos, whose meaning for "Limited Edition" is "sold only at the Lego store and one or two other chains, not everywhere"), but don't torture your kids with the things, that's all I've got to say.