Calculated into WHAT cost? IBM has no way of knowing how much OT the client will require. But they charge more for it when the client requires it. In other words, IBM's "COST" remained fixed while the client's "COST" increased.
Let's look at it this way (numbers made up, but reasonable):
IBM gets $30/hour from the client for the first 40 hours. The employee gets $20/hour from IBM for the first 40 hours. IBM gets $45/hour from the client for the next N hours, where N is an unknown number greater than or equal to 0. The employee gets $0/hour from IBM for hours 0 though N.
A reasonable person would assume that the employee would get $30 hour for hours 0 through N.
The only way your argument holds up is if the employee makes more than IBM gets from the client for the first 40 hours; if true, IBM would have gone broke a long time ago.
IBM bills on an hourly basis. IBM pays its employees on an hourly basis at a rate less than they bill for. IBM also bills for OT. IBM paid its employees nothing for OT.
IBM is already getting OT money from their customers.
The money is already there, they just don't want to properly compensate their employees.
The hour rating for a CFL is based on how long the bulb will last while lit. The actual life of a CFL bulb almost never reaches that number, as they don't withstand nearly as many on/off cycles as a normal lightbulb.
I haven't bought a CF that wasn't almost full brightness instantly.
The ones I use started like that. Now they take over a minute to reach full brightness (they spend the first 10 seconds barely glowing).
The dimmable ones can be.
The dimmable ones will typically dim between 20-100% brightness. And normally, the steps are ~20%, then 50%, then a range between 80% and 100%. Not exactly a smooth curve. Essentially, a CFL labeled dimmable means "the bulb won't burn out if it is on a dimmer circuit."
Besides, for all the times I hear this argument, how many dimmers do people actually have? I installed dimmers in the kids' rooms when they were babies so we could change diapers in low light, but those are the only ones in my house. Where do you people live that have dimmers on the majority of fixtures?
In my house, 20 lights are controlled by dimmers (basically, everything that can be). Not only are they controlled by dimmers, but they ramp the lights on/off at a reasonable rate so you don't go blind turning on a light in the middle of the night (this also has a side effect of making normal light bulbs last significantly longer).
I'll grant that they're different from the ugly, yellow light of incandescents.
Yeah, they're an even uglier color...
You're just making that up. I've never heard a CF, even though I've been annoyed by plenty of long tubes in the past.
I guess I'm just special then; I get that lovely experience every time I turn the lights on in the laundry room (it lasts until the bulb warms up, which as noted above, takes over a minute these days).
Why is "number of power cycles" so much worse than "length of time turned on"? Your complaint seems to be that they're different.
If you have a light that can last 5 million hours, but will burn out after being turned on and off 10 times, the effective life of that bulb isn't 5 million hours -- rather, it amounts to less than a week of normal use.
The number of on/off cycles a CFL bulb can withstand is far less than what a traditional bulb can withstand, with the net result being that in normal dialy household use they don't last anywhere near tens of thousands of hours.
The ones in my garage don't.
Great. Tell all of the people who complain about them in outdoor floodlights in the middle of winter what brand you're using.
The market will adjust.
Eventually. Doesn't do me any good now.
You can, although it's probably not a good idea. Just keep doing what you've done with the long tube fluorescents for decades.
You mean store them in a safe place for about a year, drive to a disposal center on the one weekend they're open to the general public a year, wait in a line for 2 hours, and pay a bunch of money to dispose of them? Yeah, that's just what I want to do on a more regular basis...
You can put over-rated bulbs in tiny enclosures. That dim wall sconce that can only hold a 60W bulb for heat reasons? Stick a 60W CF in it and get 4 times the light.
That "dim" wall sconce in my hallway that holds a 60W bulb is only running at 25% brightness right now. I don't need 4 times the light, and if I had plugged in a dimmable 60W CFL (which I can't, because there isn't a CFL made that will fit in the fixture), I would need to drive it at ~10% of its rated brightness -- except I can't, because dimmable CFL bulbs don't turn on until you hit the 20% mark. So even if such a bulb existed, it wouldn't meet my requirements.
Get giant CF bulbs for your garage and work in daylight. I bought some 105W (420W equivalent) monsters that you need welding goggles to look at. They're incredibly nice for
They don't last longer, they don't turn on instantly, they can't be dimmed, the color of light they put off is obnoxious (unless you pay even more money), they can't be used in a wide variety of applications (ie: limited sizes available), they perform poorly in cold temperatures, they are not suitable in motion sensor lights, they flicker and/or buzz (unless you pay even more money), their lifetime is bound by the number of times you turn them on and off (instead of the number of hours you have them on), you can't just throw a dead one in the trash, and so on.
And they're not cheaper if you opted to pay even more money to eliminate one of their detracting flaws.
The only plus is they consume about 1/3 the power of the competing technology. Which means they're only really interesting in applications where you've got a lot of them on for long periods of time. Which isn't anywhere INSIDE my house. Outside, sure, if you disable the motion sensor on the floodlights. Which means that you're using more energy (on all the time vs on only when something moves), not less.
In it, you can see that the only bans are based on efficiency standards, not type of manufacture
When the "efficiency requirement" is greater than what is possible from a given type of manufacture, they're banning the type of manufacture. If you look a bit closer, you'll also notice that the minimum required efficient just so happens to precisely match the efficiency of CFL bulb...
1) an exploit in firefox URI protocol handler 2) an exploit related to how explorer handles rejected URIs from IE7 on XP/Win2k3
Apparently the submitter isn't able to differentiate #2 from #1.
The advisory is for item #2. Item #2 is going to get fixed. The advisory does not cover item #1. Item #1 will need to be fixed in the protocol handler itself.
Even more amusing, if the license were "compatible" with other licenses, why would they even need to make their own license? Obviously you would expect there to be something present that isn't available in existing licenses...
When the EU rules that shipping a media player with the OS is an anti-trust violation, you can throw common sense logic like that right out the window.
The first "fact" the GP references is something he pulled out of his ass, and is unable to substantiate it with a reference -- why should he respond to anything else?
"Free speech" only applies to the government; ie: the government is not able to restrict what you say, how you say it, or whom you say it to. That being said, the government is able to hold you responsible for the consequences of whatever speech you do make. The government can't make a law against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but they can hold you accountable for the injuries that result from such an action.
"Free speech" also does not mean citizens must listen to or promote whatever crap another citizen spews. It also does not mean that people have to sit there and "take it" as you insult them, which is something you should probably keep in mind before driving around Alabama in a car spraypainted with "Nascar sucks" along the side...
What's interesting is that if Microsoft is in violation of the GPL3, it means that they don't have a license to distribute GPL3 software. Which means that they can't distribute GPL3 software without violating copyright.
The kicker is that they aren't distributing GPL3 software, so even if they are "conveying" GPL3 software via a voucher, they still aren't distributing it (in terms of copyright), which means they can't be touched on the grounds of a copyright violation.
Using interrupt moderation or polling won't reduce the amount of time required to process the packets; it just allows you to defer their processing for a short period.
The *issue" isn't that multimedia is too costly on system resources. The issue is that network IO can starve the CPU of resources. Copy a file over a gigabit network on a 2ghz P4 and tell me with a straight face that the processor was able to keep up...
It's incorrect. Did no one even bother to calculate the drop-off? Was there not one single engineer amongst them who ever said "Hey, you know, Gigabit is pretty popular these days."?
Read the rest of TFA.
It should be unnecessary. Why does standard media playback and networking require so much power that there is not enough time to schedule both of them correctly?
Obviously it is possible, otherwise there would have been nothing to test against to validate their logic functioned correctly. This isn't so much a function of cpu power as it is a matter of scheduling and dealing with hardware IO constraints.
It is wrong. Why is media playback is more important than network performance? If the network is heavily loaded, well gee, maybe there's a reason for that?
If you're a server, its wrong. If you're playing sound, you're certainly not on a server are you? So if you're not on a server, you're probably listening to something while something happens in the background; in such a case stuttering playback is clearly incorrect.
The license Microsoft paid for was for their SFU product (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/interopmigrati on/bb380242.aspx). Technically, if I recall correctly, it was a SysV license, which SCO did have the authority to license to third parties (though SCO failed to actually give Novell their chunk of the pie -- but that isn't Microsoft's problem).
I've seen your argument dozens of times -- "government isn't allowed to use x because it reduces the effort required for y". The same arguement could be made against permitting police to use helecopters. Or unmarked cars. Or squad cars. Or horses. Or bicycles. Or the internet. Or computers. Or telephones. Or binoculars. Or tape recorders. Or radar guns. And so on...
The entire argument is a load of crap. If the cops can do something manually, they can do it with some sort of technological assistance. The legallity of the action being performed doesn't change just because a computer lets them do more of it or do it faster.
It doesn't have squat to do with null bytes (you don't need a null byte in the URI to trigger an exploit); it has to do with how Firefox specifyies its URI handler and how it parses command line input.
Really? So you're saying that IE7 should parse and sanitize input for an unknown/undefined URI? How would you propose that be done? Wouldn't that be something that, say, the URI handler ought to do? You know, the thing that actually knows what the URI is and what content it should have? Nah, easier just to say it's IE's fault...
The problem with a statement like "stip out 70% of x because they're only used by 5% of the people" is that it is a different 5% of people for each feature. If they cut out 70% of the features used by a total of 5% of their users, they just pissed off 99% of their customers in some way shape or form.
Slashdot Mirror
Calculated into WHAT cost? IBM has no way of knowing how much OT the client will require. But they charge more for it when the client requires it. In other words, IBM's "COST" remained fixed while the client's "COST" increased.
Let's look at it this way (numbers made up, but reasonable):
IBM gets $30/hour from the client for the first 40 hours. The employee gets $20/hour from IBM for the first 40 hours.
IBM gets $45/hour from the client for the next N hours, where N is an unknown number greater than or equal to 0. The employee gets $0/hour from IBM for hours 0 though N.
A reasonable person would assume that the employee would get $30 hour for hours 0 through N.
The only way your argument holds up is if the employee makes more than IBM gets from the client for the first 40 hours; if true, IBM would have gone broke a long time ago.
You're missing the point.
IBM bills on an hourly basis. IBM pays its employees on an hourly basis at a rate less than they bill for. IBM also bills for OT. IBM paid its employees nothing for OT.
IBM is already getting OT money from their customers.
The money is already there, they just don't want to properly compensate their employees.
Or maybe there are other, more reasoanble decisions, behind dropping VBA from the mac version? http://www.schwieb.com/blog/2006/08/08/saying-goodbye-to-visual-basic/
And secondly, are people on slashdot REALLY complaining about VISUAL BASIC going away?!?
how on earth can a self driving car be of benefit in comparison to say adoption within mass transportation systems
Think of situations where you would use cruise control in your car; the metro doesn't go to grandma's house 400 miles away.
Also, why should defrag take an admin password to run???
Are you REALLY asking why an Admin password is required to perform read operations which effectively bypass ACL checks?
Demonstrably false.
...
The hour rating for a CFL is based on how long the bulb will last while lit. The actual life of a CFL bulb almost never reaches that number, as they don't withstand nearly as many on/off cycles as a normal lightbulb.
I haven't bought a CF that wasn't almost full brightness instantly.
The ones I use started like that. Now they take over a minute to reach full brightness (they spend the first 10 seconds barely glowing).
The dimmable ones can be.
The dimmable ones will typically dim between 20-100% brightness. And normally, the steps are ~20%, then 50%, then a range between 80% and 100%. Not exactly a smooth curve. Essentially, a CFL labeled dimmable means "the bulb won't burn out if it is on a dimmer circuit."
Besides, for all the times I hear this argument, how many dimmers do people actually have? I installed dimmers in the kids' rooms when they were babies so we could change diapers in low light, but those are the only ones in my house. Where do you people live that have dimmers on the majority of fixtures?
In my house, 20 lights are controlled by dimmers (basically, everything that can be). Not only are they controlled by dimmers, but they ramp the lights on/off at a reasonable rate so you don't go blind turning on a light in the middle of the night (this also has a side effect of making normal light bulbs last significantly longer).
I'll grant that they're different from the ugly, yellow light of incandescents.
Yeah, they're an even uglier color
You're just making that up. I've never heard a CF, even though I've been annoyed by plenty of long tubes in the past.
I guess I'm just special then; I get that lovely experience every time I turn the lights on in the laundry room (it lasts until the bulb warms up, which as noted above, takes over a minute these days).
Why is "number of power cycles" so much worse than "length of time turned on"? Your complaint seems to be that they're different.
If you have a light that can last 5 million hours, but will burn out after being turned on and off 10 times, the effective life of that bulb isn't 5 million hours -- rather, it amounts to less than a week of normal use.
The number of on/off cycles a CFL bulb can withstand is far less than what a traditional bulb can withstand, with the net result being that in normal dialy household use they don't last anywhere near tens of thousands of hours.
The ones in my garage don't.
Great. Tell all of the people who complain about them in outdoor floodlights in the middle of winter what brand you're using.
The market will adjust.
Eventually. Doesn't do me any good now.
You can, although it's probably not a good idea. Just keep doing what you've done with the long tube fluorescents for decades.
You mean store them in a safe place for about a year, drive to a disposal center on the one weekend they're open to the general public a year, wait in a line for 2 hours, and pay a bunch of money to dispose of them? Yeah, that's just what I want to do on a more regular basis...
You can put over-rated bulbs in tiny enclosures. That dim wall sconce that can only hold a 60W bulb for heat reasons? Stick a 60W CF in it and get 4 times the light.
That "dim" wall sconce in my hallway that holds a 60W bulb is only running at 25% brightness right now. I don't need 4 times the light, and if I had plugged in a dimmable 60W CFL (which I can't, because there isn't a CFL made that will fit in the fixture), I would need to drive it at ~10% of its rated brightness -- except I can't, because dimmable CFL bulbs don't turn on until you hit the 20% mark. So even if such a bulb existed, it wouldn't meet my requirements.
Get giant CF bulbs for your garage and work in daylight. I bought some 105W (420W equivalent) monsters that you need welding goggles to look at. They're incredibly nice for
They don't last longer, they don't turn on instantly, they can't be dimmed, the color of light they put off is obnoxious (unless you pay even more money), they can't be used in a wide variety of applications (ie: limited sizes available), they perform poorly in cold temperatures, they are not suitable in motion sensor lights, they flicker and/or buzz (unless you pay even more money), their lifetime is bound by the number of times you turn them on and off (instead of the number of hours you have them on), you can't just throw a dead one in the trash, and so on.
And they're not cheaper if you opted to pay even more money to eliminate one of their detracting flaws.
The only plus is they consume about 1/3 the power of the competing technology. Which means they're only really interesting in applications where you've got a lot of them on for long periods of time. Which isn't anywhere INSIDE my house. Outside, sure, if you disable the motion sensor on the floodlights. Which means that you're using more energy (on all the time vs on only when something moves), not less.
In it, you can see that the only bans are based on efficiency standards, not type of manufacture
When the "efficiency requirement" is greater than what is possible from a given type of manufacture, they're banning the type of manufacture. If you look a bit closer, you'll also notice that the minimum required efficient just so happens to precisely match the efficiency of CFL bulb...
This is slashdot. Odds are, you'll read about this a few months from now as well... :)
There are two "bugs" being talked about.
1) an exploit in firefox URI protocol handler
2) an exploit related to how explorer handles rejected URIs from IE7 on XP/Win2k3
Apparently the submitter isn't able to differentiate #2 from #1.
The advisory is for item #2. Item #2 is going to get fixed. The advisory does not cover item #1. Item #1 will need to be fixed in the protocol handler itself.
Even more amusing, if the license were "compatible" with other licenses, why would they even need to make their own license? Obviously you would expect there to be something present that isn't available in existing licenses...
When the EU rules that shipping a media player with the OS is an anti-trust violation, you can throw common sense logic like that right out the window.
Some history of the problem, if you've forgotten: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060602-6973.html
You see "factually wrong", I see "troll."
The first "fact" the GP references is something he pulled out of his ass, and is unable to substantiate it with a reference -- why should he respond to anything else?
"Free speech" only applies to the government; ie: the government is not able to restrict what you say, how you say it, or whom you say it to. That being said, the government is able to hold you responsible for the consequences of whatever speech you do make. The government can't make a law against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but they can hold you accountable for the injuries that result from such an action.
"Free speech" also does not mean citizens must listen to or promote whatever crap another citizen spews. It also does not mean that people have to sit there and "take it" as you insult them, which is something you should probably keep in mind before driving around Alabama in a car spraypainted with "Nascar sucks" along the side...
What's interesting is that if Microsoft is in violation of the GPL3, it means that they don't have a license to distribute GPL3 software. Which means that they can't distribute GPL3 software without violating copyright.
The kicker is that they aren't distributing GPL3 software, so even if they are "conveying" GPL3 software via a voucher, they still aren't distributing it (in terms of copyright), which means they can't be touched on the grounds of a copyright violation.
Using interrupt moderation or polling won't reduce the amount of time required to process the packets; it just allows you to defer their processing for a short period.
The *issue" isn't that multimedia is too costly on system resources. The issue is that network IO can starve the CPU of resources. Copy a file over a gigabit network on a 2ghz P4 and tell me with a straight face that the processor was able to keep up...
It's a poor solution to begin with.
It's incorrect. Did no one even bother to calculate the drop-off? Was there not one single engineer amongst them who ever said "Hey, you know, Gigabit is pretty popular these days."?
Read the rest of TFA.
It should be unnecessary. Why does standard media playback and networking require so much power that there is not enough time to schedule both of them correctly?
Obviously it is possible, otherwise there would have been nothing to test against to validate their logic functioned correctly. This isn't so much a function of cpu power as it is a matter of scheduling and dealing with hardware IO constraints.
It is wrong. Why is media playback is more important than network performance? If the network is heavily loaded, well gee, maybe there's a reason for that?
If you're a server, its wrong. If you're playing sound, you're certainly not on a server are you? So if you're not on a server, you're probably listening to something while something happens in the background; in such a case stuttering playback is clearly incorrect.
The license Microsoft paid for was for their SFU product (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/interopmigrati on/bb380242.aspx). Technically, if I recall correctly, it was a SysV license, which SCO did have the authority to license to third parties (though SCO failed to actually give Novell their chunk of the pie -- but that isn't Microsoft's problem).
How does it change the situation?
I've seen your argument dozens of times -- "government isn't allowed to use x because it reduces the effort required for y". The same arguement could be made against permitting police to use helecopters. Or unmarked cars. Or squad cars. Or horses. Or bicycles. Or the internet. Or computers. Or telephones. Or binoculars. Or tape recorders. Or radar guns. And so on...
The entire argument is a load of crap. If the cops can do something manually, they can do it with some sort of technological assistance. The legallity of the action being performed doesn't change just because a computer lets them do more of it or do it faster.
It doesn't have squat to do with null bytes (you don't need a null byte in the URI to trigger an exploit); it has to do with how Firefox specifyies its URI handler and how it parses command line input.
Really? So you're saying that IE7 should parse and sanitize input for an unknown/undefined URI? How would you propose that be done? Wouldn't that be something that, say, the URI handler ought to do? You know, the thing that actually knows what the URI is and what content it should have? Nah, easier just to say it's IE's fault...
The problem with a statement like "stip out 70% of x because they're only used by 5% of the people" is that it is a different 5% of people for each feature. If they cut out 70% of the features used by a total of 5% of their users, they just pissed off 99% of their customers in some way shape or form.
For the same reason they didn't use a real electronic drum kit. A real drum pedal would cost too much.