But ity certainly does apply. Imagine for a moment that reality changes and Musk finds himself digging ditches in Somalia for a living. Suddenly he is just that bad worker who spends too much time dreaming and not enough time digging.
Humans dream.
Robots dig.
That's the way God wants things. If you are a human digging, you are a wart on the tail of progress.
Of course he was utilizing government subsidy as much as possible for Solar City and Tesla. Of course Falcon 9 and Dragon received significant government funding. But most of his competitors have the same resources available to them to even larger extent. Why weren't they able to produce a product that is as successful? It is in the ability to dream, and put together what he has to realize it.
It's fun to blame government subsidy.
Solyndra received more initial government investment than Solar City, but SolarCity was successful, while Solyndra, which at one point represented 1.3% of all outstanding DOE loaned monies, and the only thing to come out of it was a $535M loan guarantee loss to the DOE, and $875-$975M in tax write-offs to Argonaut Ventures I LLC and Madrone Partners LP.
SolarCity, on the other hand, actually builds and installs real products.
I think Musk is doing OK, and deserves at least some credit on the bottom line; he's certain produced something more than Brian Harrison and Chris Gronet were able to do.
How were these clearly bogus laws voted in, in the first place?
The law was not bogus, and the decision is unlikely to be upheld on appeal.
There is a substantial difference between someone breaking and entering your property and filming, vs. committing fraud by accepting employment, and potential other crimes in the process, when compared to a legally designated government inspector from the Department of Health or Department of Agriculture.
These were not long time employees suddenly incensed by recent activity, and they were not long time employees who suddenly got the anti-factory-farm religion because they happened to start dating a vegetarian.
The laws happened because there is an ongoing problem of these activists illegally entering the property -- technically breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and a large set of other chargeable crimes, and the police were getting sick and tired of responding to those acts, so they strengthened the penalties. When it became to costly, in terms of risk vs. reward to use those tactics any more, then the activists resorted to fraud. The specific law which was declared unconstitutional in Idaho was enact to strengthen the penalties against this fraud. In other words, it's an escalation of tactics.
This judges decision will likely be thrown out on appeal on the basis of contravening the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory of limitations on first amendment rights, since what they were filming on the farm generally has no bearing on actual food safety, according to the Ag. Inspectors, and was intended to be alarmist and result in a negative backlash, rather than an increase in food safety. These people are in fact anti-meat activists.
Like the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory, you are in fact free to say what you want; however, what you say may also have social, civil, or even criminal consequences which you don't like and don't want. But that's what happens to people who acto out sociopathic tendencies for what they see as justifiable ends: ostracism, lawsuits, or (ultimately) criminal charges.
Are you saying they didn't bother to pick up their paychecks?
A legal argument could easily be made here.
Specifically, they accepted the position of employment under false pretenses, and are minimally guilty of larceny, as a result of felonious breach of trust and/or embezzlement. In addition, it could be argued that they engaged in theft of services (if there were any training involved for the job), and in Illinois, at least, would get them one to ten years in prison, per count.
In addition, there's the possibility that civil liability would attach, in the form of restitution and damages. This would arise both as a result of the damages to the businesses reputation, loss of income, but also loss of services during the time that the employee was defrauding the business when the business had an expectation that their investment in the employee would be of long term benefit. This would accrue based on the business losing the services of the employee(s) they would have hired in place of the fraudsters, had they known they were misrepresenting themselves.
Note that in many states, it would also be possible to pursue conspiracy charges, in the absence of a specific whistleblowing statute (or press indemnification statute -- the U.S. has neither, generally, as the Whistleblower Protection Act only applies to Federal Employees), particularly if there was an employment NDA involved (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Snepp v. United States).
In other words, if they *did* pick up their paychecks, they are in a substantially worse position than had it merely been Criminal Trespass. I personally find this outcome particularly amusing.
The gestation of a fetus is a non-delegable act [...]
And this is ultimately the issue. Which is why we need to rapidly advance medical technology, to the point where the men on the religious right who want to "save" the fetus can do so, by carrying it to term themselves.
Answer me this. If Planned parenthood is much more than abortion and gets most of its revenue from other places other than abortion, then why did several Planned Parenthood clinics close when Texas' new stricter abortion laws took into effect? Couldn't those closed Planned Parenthood clinics just stop providing abortion but continue to be open and provide women health services like cancer screening?
Probably for two reasons:
(1) The bombings
(2) A strong ethical and moral stance that services which are constitutionally legal, such as those involved in not forcing a woman to be an incubator for a rapists spawn, are not severable from other legally allowed medical services
I do not expect this to happen quickly, it'll be on a hundreds-of-years timescale.
Which rather underscores the point that idiots investing dollars today in pie-in-the-sky schemes like asteroid mining are most assuredly throwing their money away.
I think the better way of saying this is that it underscores the point that obstructionist idiots have held back progress substantially because they are incredibly short sighted, and we should have been to that point decades ago.
We went from cars to landing on the moon in less than 60 years.
It's now been almost another 60 years. What significant progress has been made, while you idiots are all wasting time oppressing and shooting at each other?
Unless the zero day flaw was put there intentionally, as back doors are put there intentionally, a zero day flaw is not a back door, it's just some incompetent who should be employed asking me "Do you want fries with that?", rather than employed writing security sensitive software. In other words: your average bad programmer.
That isn't relevant. The named numbers are usefull in his cause, so they are presented as fact. That happens everywhere - remember the "indisputable" proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
To be entirely fair there, the U.S. and Britain knew he had them because we sold them to him in the first place.
Corection, kerberos & nfs difference between client and server generally should not be more than 5 seconds, so above should be +/-2.5 second.
That's a protocol design bug.
Specifically, there's actually no reason that protocol traffic wouldn't include a "this is my idea of the current time" in the requests and responses so that delta times could be locally calculated from the packet contents on the receiving end. This would work, no problem, for a protocol like NFS.
Kerberos is more of an issue, but since all parties have to trust the ticket granting system as the trusted third party -- so you might a well trust their timestamp as well, since you've already established a trust chain dependency on the third party. You mode the protocol to send the timestamp within the security association, and you are golden (regardless of whether you are running an adjusted or monotonic clock).
This is how DCE RPC handles byte order: receiver translates to local byte order -- if the byte order is different. If it's not, then there's no need for translation, and it saves CPU on both ends of the connection. Receiver translates to a delta time from which the timestamps are derived, and timesync is no longer a problem.
The business side is why the company exists. When they add feature creep etc, it's generally because they don't really know what the customer wants and are trying to see what lands.
In my experience, this tends to happen when marketing gets involved in the design process, and starts asking for previous_product++. One of the reasons Steve Jobs was so effective is that he understood the technical side of things well enough to help make design decisions.
They tend to not even really understand how to tell if a time estimate is BS or not.
The best way to get good at estimating is doing a couple of fixed price contracts that end up working out to you making less than minimum wage. Then you either get good at estimating, or you go out of business.
All managers who've worked with people who are bad at estimating automatically apply a scaling factor, which usually depends on the person making the estimate, and then you scale it for the real estimate, because people are frequently bad at estimating. In general, there are two types of people (substitute gender, if you wish to): Mr. Right, and Mr. Right Now. Both of these can be valuable to a company, but generally, if you want to scale to a large number of customers without huge built-in costs, your prototype is done by Mr. Right Now to get to funding, and then your released product is done by Mr. Right.
All things are born, grow up, grow old and die, corporate citizens are not excluded from entropy.
The oldest continuously running company is Kongo Gumi; it was founded in the year 578. Not dead yet.
FWIW, there are 5,586 companies older than 200 years. Like the Stiftskeller St. Peter restaurant in Austria, which was founded in the year 803, or Sean's Bar, an Irish Pub, founded in the year 900. Even the U.S. has gotten into the act; Shirley Plantation is a farm founded in Virginia in 1613. A surprising percentage of them are alcohol related, although there are also a lot of hotels, confectioners, and other businesses.
There is a difference, and I do sincerely hope you know it, between dirty, stained rags and informal attire. Believe it or not, it's possible to wash jeans and t-shirts so they not only look but also smell nice.
As for your picture, you might notice that this is from a very different time. That's like complaining about the fashion of the 70s and questioning the sexual preference of the guys.
I have to agree.
One of the "You Have Arrived" indicators for success for a technical person in Silicon Valley is not having to wash your T-Shirts unless you want to keep them, because you are getting, on average, a new T-Shirt every day or so. It's a lot less that way these days, but you could, if you are sought after technically, go an entire month without doing laundry, and wear one to two T-shirts a day, with little effort to solicit shirts.
I had an intern in a button-down collar, at Google, engage me in the following conversation:
Intern: "Who's the old guy in the T-shirt" Me: "Vint Cerf" Intern: "Is he the token really old guy? Why do they keep him around?" Me: "He invents things. He's a Distinguished Engineer." Intern: (not hearing the Caps) "Like what?" Me: "The Internet." Intern: "Yeah, but what on the internet?" Me: "That's it. He invented the Internet." Intern: "You're shitting me!" Me: "Someone had to. Do you really need me to explain who Vint Cerf is? Because if that's true, I'm willing to do the job, but you should probably 'us' it." Intern: "What's 'us it' mean?" Me "Google it."
Frankly I expected defibrillators would be involved at that point, but he recovered.
He moved to machine learning after that, but I think the lesson improved him.
I vote for "The Ralph Wiggum Is Really A Genius He Just Has Not Been Educated Forcefully Enough Act".
Because, as we all know, everyone is educable; you're just not trying hard enough if they fail,because all failure is the fault of society, and no blame rests with the child.
My experience dressing down at a business meeting:
I was one of three technical persons presenting to the customer. I didn't go first, so there was no initialization bias. Everyone was in business casual, but me; I was wearing khaki pants, but I was also wearing my "turtle" Hawaiian shirt I had picked up in St. Croix on recent vacation. Anytime the customers had a technical question, even when someone else was presenting, they asked it, and then looked at me to answer the question.
Dressing down at a business meeting means one of two things:
(1) They are the customer in the room; if you are there for a customer meeting, and it's not technical, then the person dressed down is the actual customer. Forget the guys in the suits, they are not the customer. They will ask questions, but the answers will ultimately be judged by the decision maker. The person who looks like they just stepped off the golf course or off the windsurfer? She or he is the decision maker. This is emphasized if the meeting doesn't start until they arrive.
(2) They are the technical talent; they don't dress up, because they don't have to. If you want a technical question answered, they are the person who will give you the answer that's going to stick. If they follow up someones else's answer with a "Well...", you'd better listen.
We all have our uniforms.
P.S.: Highly technical fields require that you forget everything but the intellectual problem in front of you; you can't do that to the same depth, if your collar is constrictive, or you can't otherwise ignore your physicality. It's the clothing equivalent of working in an Open Plan Office: the distractions detract from the work product.
You're asking like you will be implementing it... don't.
Gather all their requirements, gather your requirements on top of it (I'm pretty confident that some of those requirements were your additions for "you'd be an idiot to have that, but not also have this...", possibly including the backup).
Then put out an Preliminary RFP to the major storage vendors, including asking them what they'd say you'd missed in the preliminary.
Then take the recommendations they make on top of the preliminary with a grain of salt, since most of them will be intended to insure vendor lock-in to their solution set, revise the preliminary, and put out a final RFP.
Then accept the bid that you like which management is willing to approve.
Problem solved.
P.S.: You don't have to grow everything yourself from seed you genetically modify yourself, you know...
"...only that the PS3 class action idiots failed to put one forth."
if they only had someone as brilliant as you on the team.
(sarcasm, you fuckwit. You're actually a complete fuckwit, fuckwit).
Brilliant riposte. Not.
The judge went out of his way to state what type of argument he would accept.
Three times.
He gave as broad a hint as he could possibly have given, by dismissing all but the path to the argument for which he would rule in favor.
He put a big red sign in front of it, and then he tied a bow around it for the plaintiff.
He came dangerously close to judicial misconduct in so doing.
Then he left the door open from February, 2011, when he did all the pointing in his ruling, until December 2011, at which point it was clear that the hint was not being taken, and only then did he dismiss the last count of the class.
And *STILL* the PS3 plaintiffs failed to make the case the judge all but asked them to make.
Pardon me, but JESUS F*ING CHRIST, CAN YOU NOT TAKE A JUDICIAL HINT IN *TEN* MONTHS?!?!?
A lawyer would have to either be incompetent, guilty of malpractice, or outright corrupt to not make the argument the judge wanted them to make, after the number of times the judge tried to hit them over the head with a two by four, and tell them how to make their case, and then gave them TEN MONTHS to avoid getting a new judge, rather than a judge who had, effectively, promised to take the argument, if made, and rule in favor of the plaintiff!
The people who put on the PS3 3.2.1 lawsuit failed to hold forth a legal theory under which Sony was liable. Therefore, there is no case law in which a party was enjoined from doing what nVidia is now doing.
This is not to say that there is *not* a legal theory; only that the PS3 class action idiots failed to put one forth. I can think of several theories that would apply; several of them bear on the insistence these companies have on treating intellectual property as real property:
(1) An easement is a non-possessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it. Sounds like a software license, doesn't it? In this particular case, the right to run the old software on the nVidia device -- or the right to run "Other OS" on a PS3 device -- would be either an implied easement (based on the practices and customs of use for a property), or an "easement by necessity", or easement by prior use.
(1)(a) The strongest claim for an implied easement in the case of a firmware update would be for persons who have had prior use of the easement (in the PS3 case, it means that you must have loaded an "other OS"; in the nVidia case, it means you must have periodically used or relied upon the features being removed).
(1)(b) The next strongest claim for an implied easement would be the intent of the parties; what was the intent nVidia had, when they shipped the features being removed in the update? What was the intent of the person purchasing the device, prior to the removal of the feature, and their expectation of non-removal, if any? Similarly, in the PS3 case, what was the intent of Sony in offering "Other OS"? Was it to drive sales, such that they received benefit from it? What was the intent of the person when they purchased the PS3? Was it only to run "Other OS" (in which case, not updating the firmware is not an issue), or was it use of both the "Other OS" feature *and* the features that would be removed as a result of *not* updating the firmware?
(1)(c) An Easement by necessity could be established in the PS3 case for "Other OS"; like a land-locked parcel without access to a public way, necessity may be established if there was no other way to reach the parcel *and* there was some original intent to provide access to the parcel. This argument would only be likely to be usable by someone who had in fact used "Other OS" on a periodic or regular basis. Given that I do not have the entire laundry list of features that currently exist which will and/or will not be lost when the nVidia update is declined, I can't state for a certainty one way or another whether this could apply in the nVidia case as well.
(1)(d) An Easement by prior use. You would be unlikely to be able to establish this in the PS3 or nVidia cases, given that three of the five elements to establish such an easement are not present: (i) common ownership, (ii) severance, (iii) continued use after severance. It bears mentioning, however, because the threshold for the definition of "necessity" is more lenient than in (1)(c), and a clever lawyer could/potentially/ construct an argument.
OK, what other theories are there?
(2) "Intentionally blocked view"; if your neighbor intentionally and with forethought, built a fence, or plants trees/bamboo that subsequently block your view, and thereby devalued your property or your enjoyment thereof; the legal term for this varies, but it's often called a "spite fence".
(2)(a) The "spite fence" argument, is clearly applicable in the Sony PS3 case, since you would lose access to existing features of the device should you *not* install the firmware update, and lose access to existing features if you *do* install the update could likely be easily construed by the court, especially with a little prompting as "malicious intent" -- a key factor required for judgement on your behalf. Again, I don't know if you could make an "either or" case with the nVidia update -- bu I expect you c
You can't legally drive on public roads without insurance.
Technically, you can. There are three methods:
1. A surety bond
2. Funds deposited with the state
3. Certificate of self-insurance
Check with your local DMV to see which of these options are available; all three are accepted in California. Most multiple DUI offender movie stars utilize surety bonds.
Slashdot Mirror
But ity certainly does apply. Imagine for a moment that reality changes and Musk finds himself digging ditches in Somalia for a living. Suddenly he is just that bad worker who spends too much time dreaming and not enough time digging.
Humans dream.
Robots dig.
That's the way God wants things. If you are a human digging, you are a wart on the tail of progress.
Of course he was utilizing government subsidy as much as possible for Solar City and Tesla. Of course Falcon 9 and Dragon received significant government funding. But most of his competitors have the same resources available to them to even larger extent. Why weren't they able to produce a product that is as successful? It is in the ability to dream, and put together what he has to realize it.
It's fun to blame government subsidy.
Solyndra received more initial government investment than Solar City, but SolarCity was successful, while Solyndra, which at one point represented 1.3% of all outstanding DOE loaned monies, and the only thing to come out of it was a $535M loan guarantee loss to the DOE, and $875-$975M in tax write-offs to Argonaut Ventures I LLC and Madrone Partners LP.
SolarCity, on the other hand, actually builds and installs real products.
I think Musk is doing OK, and deserves at least some credit on the bottom line; he's certain produced something more than Brian Harrison and Chris Gronet were able to do.
How were these clearly bogus laws voted in, in the first place?
The law was not bogus, and the decision is unlikely to be upheld on appeal.
There is a substantial difference between someone breaking and entering your property and filming, vs. committing fraud by accepting employment, and potential other crimes in the process, when compared to a legally designated government inspector from the Department of Health or Department of Agriculture.
These were not long time employees suddenly incensed by recent activity, and they were not long time employees who suddenly got the anti-factory-farm religion because they happened to start dating a vegetarian.
The laws happened because there is an ongoing problem of these activists illegally entering the property -- technically breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and a large set of other chargeable crimes, and the police were getting sick and tired of responding to those acts, so they strengthened the penalties. When it became to costly, in terms of risk vs. reward to use those tactics any more, then the activists resorted to fraud. The specific law which was declared unconstitutional in Idaho was enact to strengthen the penalties against this fraud. In other words, it's an escalation of tactics.
This judges decision will likely be thrown out on appeal on the basis of contravening the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory of limitations on first amendment rights, since what they were filming on the farm generally has no bearing on actual food safety, according to the Ag. Inspectors, and was intended to be alarmist and result in a negative backlash, rather than an increase in food safety. These people are in fact anti-meat activists.
Like the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory, you are in fact free to say what you want; however, what you say may also have social, civil, or even criminal consequences which you don't like and don't want. But that's what happens to people who acto out sociopathic tendencies for what they see as justifiable ends: ostracism, lawsuits, or (ultimately) criminal charges.
for the sole purpose to make these videos.
Are you saying they didn't bother to pick up their paychecks?
A legal argument could easily be made here.
Specifically, they accepted the position of employment under false pretenses, and are minimally guilty of larceny, as a result of felonious breach of trust and/or embezzlement. In addition, it could be argued that they engaged in theft of services (if there were any training involved for the job), and in Illinois, at least, would get them one to ten years in prison, per count.
In addition, there's the possibility that civil liability would attach, in the form of restitution and damages. This would arise both as a result of the damages to the businesses reputation, loss of income, but also loss of services during the time that the employee was defrauding the business when the business had an expectation that their investment in the employee would be of long term benefit. This would accrue based on the business losing the services of the employee(s) they would have hired in place of the fraudsters, had they known they were misrepresenting themselves.
Note that in many states, it would also be possible to pursue conspiracy charges, in the absence of a specific whistleblowing statute (or press indemnification statute -- the U.S. has neither, generally, as the Whistleblower Protection Act only applies to Federal Employees), particularly if there was an employment NDA involved (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Snepp v. United States).
In other words, if they *did* pick up their paychecks, they are in a substantially worse position than had it merely been Criminal Trespass. I personally find this outcome particularly amusing.
The gestation of a fetus is a non-delegable act [...]
And this is ultimately the issue. Which is why we need to rapidly advance medical technology, to the point where the men on the religious right who want to "save" the fetus can do so, by carrying it to term themselves.
Answer me this. If Planned parenthood is much more than abortion and gets most of its revenue from other places other than abortion, then why did several Planned Parenthood clinics close when Texas' new stricter abortion laws took into effect? Couldn't those closed Planned Parenthood clinics just stop providing abortion but continue to be open and provide women health services like cancer screening?
Probably for two reasons:
(1) The bombings
(2) A strong ethical and moral stance that services which are constitutionally legal, such as those involved in not forcing a woman to be an incubator for a rapists spawn, are not severable from other legally allowed medical services
I could guess at other reasons as well.
Good luck taking over a Microsoft update server or kernel.org.
You mean like kernel.org was hacked in 2011?
I do not expect this to happen quickly, it'll be on a hundreds-of-years timescale.
Which rather underscores the point that idiots investing dollars today in pie-in-the-sky schemes like asteroid mining are most assuredly throwing their money away.
I think the better way of saying this is that it underscores the point that obstructionist idiots have held back progress substantially because they are incredibly short sighted, and we should have been to that point decades ago.
We went from cars to landing on the moon in less than 60 years.
It's now been almost another 60 years. What significant progress has been made, while you idiots are all wasting time oppressing and shooting at each other?
Exactly.
Zero-days are not "back doors".
Unless the zero day flaw was put there intentionally, as back doors are put there intentionally, a zero day flaw is not a back door, it's just some incompetent who should be employed asking me "Do you want fries with that?", rather than employed writing security sensitive software. In other words: your average bad programmer.
That isn't relevant. The named numbers are usefull in his cause, so they are presented as fact. That happens everywhere - remember the "indisputable" proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
To be entirely fair there, the U.S. and Britain knew he had them because we sold them to him in the first place.
http://rense.com/general29/wes...
Corection, kerberos & nfs difference between client and server generally should not be more than 5 seconds, so above should be +/-2.5 second.
That's a protocol design bug.
Specifically, there's actually no reason that protocol traffic wouldn't include a "this is my idea of the current time" in the requests and responses so that delta times could be locally calculated from the packet contents on the receiving end. This would work, no problem, for a protocol like NFS.
Kerberos is more of an issue, but since all parties have to trust the ticket granting system as the trusted third party -- so you might a well trust their timestamp as well, since you've already established a trust chain dependency on the third party. You mode the protocol to send the timestamp within the security association, and you are golden (regardless of whether you are running an adjusted or monotonic clock).
This is how DCE RPC handles byte order: receiver translates to local byte order -- if the byte order is different. If it's not, then there's no need for translation, and it saves CPU on both ends of the connection. Receiver translates to a delta time from which the timestamps are derived, and timesync is no longer a problem.
The business side is why the company exists. When they add feature creep etc, it's generally because they don't really know what the customer wants and are trying to see what lands.
In my experience, this tends to happen when marketing gets involved in the design process, and starts asking for previous_product++. One of the reasons Steve Jobs was so effective is that he understood the technical side of things well enough to help make design decisions.
They tend to not even really understand how to tell if a time estimate is BS or not.
The best way to get good at estimating is doing a couple of fixed price contracts that end up working out to you making less than minimum wage. Then you either get good at estimating, or you go out of business.
All managers who've worked with people who are bad at estimating automatically apply a scaling factor, which usually depends on the person making the estimate, and then you scale it for the real estimate, because people are frequently bad at estimating. In general, there are two types of people (substitute gender, if you wish to): Mr. Right, and Mr. Right Now. Both of these can be valuable to a company, but generally, if you want to scale to a large number of customers without huge built-in costs, your prototype is done by Mr. Right Now to get to funding, and then your released product is done by Mr. Right.
All things are born, grow up, grow old and die, corporate citizens are not excluded from entropy.
The oldest continuously running company is Kongo Gumi; it was founded in the year 578. Not dead yet.
FWIW, there are 5,586 companies older than 200 years. Like the Stiftskeller St. Peter restaurant in Austria, which was founded in the year 803, or Sean's Bar, an Irish Pub, founded in the year 900. Even the U.S. has gotten into the act; Shirley Plantation is a farm founded in Virginia in 1613. A surprising percentage of them are alcohol related, although there are also a lot of hotels, confectioners, and other businesses.
As long as I can continue to wear my cod piece, I'm fine with it.
(1) Do it under layers and layers and layers and layers. And have a cod.
Seriously, I can not take you anywhere.
There is a difference, and I do sincerely hope you know it, between dirty, stained rags and informal attire. Believe it or not, it's possible to wash jeans and t-shirts so they not only look but also smell nice.
As for your picture, you might notice that this is from a very different time. That's like complaining about the fashion of the 70s and questioning the sexual preference of the guys.
I have to agree.
One of the "You Have Arrived" indicators for success for a technical person in Silicon Valley is not having to wash your T-Shirts unless you want to keep them, because you are getting, on average, a new T-Shirt every day or so. It's a lot less that way these days, but you could, if you are sought after technically, go an entire month without doing laundry, and wear one to two T-shirts a day, with little effort to solicit shirts.
I had an intern in a button-down collar, at Google, engage me in the following conversation:
Intern: "Who's the old guy in the T-shirt"
Me: "Vint Cerf"
Intern: "Is he the token really old guy? Why do they keep him around?"
Me: "He invents things. He's a Distinguished Engineer."
Intern: (not hearing the Caps) "Like what?"
Me: "The Internet."
Intern: "Yeah, but what on the internet?"
Me: "That's it. He invented the Internet."
Intern: "You're shitting me!"
Me: "Someone had to. Do you really need me to explain who Vint Cerf is? Because if that's true, I'm willing to do the job, but you should probably 'us' it."
Intern: "What's 'us it' mean?"
Me "Google it."
Frankly I expected defibrillators would be involved at that point, but he recovered.
He moved to machine learning after that, but I think the lesson improved him.
It will also reveal some bugs that were nicely hidden before, when the particular fixed allocation didn't cause any immediately visible issues.
Fuzzing is useless, if you can't reproduce the bug.
It's the same as saying "There's a bug in there *somewhere*, but I will be damned if I can tell you where!".
Eng: "You mean 'It's broke'?"
Test: "Yeah."
Eng: "Thank you very F'ing much!"
Test: "What are you typing?"
Eng: "I'm closing your bug as 'Can not reproduce'; there: done!"
I say we rename it.
I vote for "The Ralph Wiggum Is Really A Genius He Just Has Not Been Educated Forcefully Enough Act".
Because, as we all know, everyone is educable; you're just not trying hard enough if they fail,because all failure is the fault of society, and no blame rests with the child.
My big question now...
Can I still run the debugger on running binaries, or does the debugger now need work done on it?
Same question, but for core dumps.
My experience dressing down at a business meeting:
I was one of three technical persons presenting to the customer. I didn't go first, so there was no initialization bias. Everyone was in business casual, but me; I was wearing khaki pants, but I was also wearing my "turtle" Hawaiian shirt I had picked up in St. Croix on recent vacation. Anytime the customers had a technical question, even when someone else was presenting, they asked it, and then looked at me to answer the question.
Dressing down at a business meeting means one of two things:
(1) They are the customer in the room; if you are there for a customer meeting, and it's not technical, then the person dressed down is the actual customer. Forget the guys in the suits, they are not the customer. They will ask questions, but the answers will ultimately be judged by the decision maker. The person who looks like they just stepped off the golf course or off the windsurfer? She or he is the decision maker. This is emphasized if the meeting doesn't start until they arrive.
(2) They are the technical talent; they don't dress up, because they don't have to. If you want a technical question answered, they are the person who will give you the answer that's going to stick. If they follow up someones else's answer with a "Well...", you'd better listen.
We all have our uniforms.
P.S.: Highly technical fields require that you forget everything but the intellectual problem in front of you; you can't do that to the same depth, if your collar is constrictive, or you can't otherwise ignore your physicality. It's the clothing equivalent of working in an Open Plan Office: the distractions detract from the work product.
You're asking like you will be implementing it... don't.
Gather all their requirements, gather your requirements on top of it (I'm pretty confident that some of those requirements were your additions for "you'd be an idiot to have that, but not also have this...", possibly including the backup).
Then put out an Preliminary RFP to the major storage vendors, including asking them what they'd say you'd missed in the preliminary.
Then take the recommendations they make on top of the preliminary with a grain of salt, since most of them will be intended to insure vendor lock-in to their solution set, revise the preliminary, and put out a final RFP.
Then accept the bid that you like which management is willing to approve.
Problem solved.
P.S.: You don't have to grow everything yourself from seed you genetically modify yourself, you know...
"...only that the PS3 class action idiots failed to put one forth."
if they only had someone as brilliant as you on the team.
(sarcasm, you fuckwit. You're actually a complete fuckwit, fuckwit).
Brilliant riposte. Not.
The judge went out of his way to state what type of argument he would accept.
Three times.
He gave as broad a hint as he could possibly have given, by dismissing all but the path to the argument for which he would rule in favor.
He put a big red sign in front of it, and then he tied a bow around it for the plaintiff.
He came dangerously close to judicial misconduct in so doing.
Then he left the door open from February, 2011, when he did all the pointing in his ruling, until December 2011, at which point it was clear that the hint was not being taken, and only then did he dismiss the last count of the class.
And *STILL* the PS3 plaintiffs failed to make the case the judge all but asked them to make.
Pardon me, but JESUS F*ING CHRIST, CAN YOU NOT TAKE A JUDICIAL HINT IN *TEN* MONTHS?!?!?
A lawyer would have to either be incompetent, guilty of malpractice, or outright corrupt to not make the argument the judge wanted them to make, after the number of times the judge tried to hit them over the head with a two by four, and tell them how to make their case, and then gave them TEN MONTHS to avoid getting a new judge, rather than a judge who had, effectively, promised to take the argument, if made, and rule in favor of the plaintiff!
Who is the "f*ckwit" here, again?
Here's how it's still legal...
The people who put on the PS3 3.2.1 lawsuit failed to hold forth a legal theory under which Sony was liable. Therefore, there is no case law in which a party was enjoined from doing what nVidia is now doing.
This is not to say that there is *not* a legal theory; only that the PS3 class action idiots failed to put one forth. I can think of several theories that would apply; several of them bear on the insistence these companies have on treating intellectual property as real property:
(1) An easement is a non-possessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it. Sounds like a software license, doesn't it? In this particular case, the right to run the old software on the nVidia device -- or the right to run "Other OS" on a PS3 device -- would be either an implied easement (based on the practices and customs of use for a property), or an "easement by necessity", or easement by prior use.
(1)(a) The strongest claim for an implied easement in the case of a firmware update would be for persons who have had prior use of the easement (in the PS3 case, it means that you must have loaded an "other OS"; in the nVidia case, it means you must have periodically used or relied upon the features being removed).
(1)(b) The next strongest claim for an implied easement would be the intent of the parties; what was the intent nVidia had, when they shipped the features being removed in the update? What was the intent of the person purchasing the device, prior to the removal of the feature, and their expectation of non-removal, if any? Similarly, in the PS3 case, what was the intent of Sony in offering "Other OS"? Was it to drive sales, such that they received benefit from it? What was the intent of the person when they purchased the PS3? Was it only to run "Other OS" (in which case, not updating the firmware is not an issue), or was it use of both the "Other OS" feature *and* the features that would be removed as a result of *not* updating the firmware?
(1)(c) An Easement by necessity could be established in the PS3 case for "Other OS"; like a land-locked parcel without access to a public way, necessity may be established if there was no other way to reach the parcel *and* there was some original intent to provide access to the parcel. This argument would only be likely to be usable by someone who had in fact used "Other OS" on a periodic or regular basis. Given that I do not have the entire laundry list of features that currently exist which will and/or will not be lost when the nVidia update is declined, I can't state for a certainty one way or another whether this could apply in the nVidia case as well.
(1)(d) An Easement by prior use. You would be unlikely to be able to establish this in the PS3 or nVidia cases, given that three of the five elements to establish such an easement are not present: (i) common ownership, (ii) severance, (iii) continued use after severance. It bears mentioning, however, because the threshold for the definition of "necessity" is more lenient than in (1)(c), and a clever lawyer could /potentially/ construct an argument.
OK, what other theories are there?
(2) "Intentionally blocked view"; if your neighbor intentionally and with forethought, built a fence, or plants trees/bamboo that subsequently block your view, and thereby devalued your property or your enjoyment thereof; the legal term for this varies, but it's often called a "spite fence".
(2)(a) The "spite fence" argument, is clearly applicable in the Sony PS3 case, since you would lose access to existing features of the device should you *not* install the firmware update, and lose access to existing features if you *do* install the update could likely be easily construed by the court, especially with a little prompting as "malicious intent" -- a key factor required for judgement on your behalf. Again, I don't know if you could make an "either or" case with the nVidia update -- bu I expect you c
You can't legally drive on public roads without insurance.
Technically, you can. There are three methods:
1. A surety bond
2. Funds deposited with the state
3. Certificate of self-insurance
Check with your local DMV to see which of these options are available; all three are accepted in California. Most multiple DUI offender movie stars utilize surety bonds.
I pay the extra money to have my own seats...
And when such private automobiles are no longer sold for any amount you can afford?
That's easy:
Then I shall print one.