Leaving aside the battery issue, Win32 is an API that was designed for x86. It's used by programs that run on x86. It's run on computers that use...ARM?
The main advantage of running Windows is that you can run the same crap as your friends. Lots of this Windows crap is native code in x86, and an ARM is not going to do an energy-efficient job of emulating one. This is probably the biggest reason why RT crashed and burned so hard: it was advertised as Windows, but it didn't run Windows software.
And then users find that they can't run the same crap as their friends with Android and iOS devices, and the whole project crashes and burns like RT.
How useful is the warning when 99% of the sites you use have cookies or Javascript? The silly things are almost ubiquitous, and most people will simply click through like always.
If it might crash aircraft and might not, the FAA will ban it. It's their job. Moreover, it looks like almost all flight inconveniences are blamed on the TSA and FAA, despite what rumor and airline companies might do.
You guys need to check the news every six months or so. Trump won the election. The campaign is over. That means that Clinton is mostly politically irrelevant now. What you guys need to do now is show how what Trump's doing is productive or meets normal standards for human decency or something, because he actually won and is the President.
While I don't want to discuss illegal actions in a public forum, I will point out that it's possible to find software that will violate the DMCA and remove the DRM in many cases.
Electronic and physical books have their own advantages, and if I want a book I'll buy whichever seems best to me. Typically, publishers and bookstores are in a symbiotic relationship, despite lots of friction, and as long as physical books are useful sources of profit undercutting them too much can be bad for business.
Also, the physical book itself is cheap to make in quantity. The materials cost of a paperback is very little higher than the materials cost of the eBook.
We already have this [equal opportunity], at least in the United States at any rate.
Nope. Not as long as we have really good and really bad schools.
Using capitalists to describe a group of people is pretty vague. Do you work in exchange for money? Congratulations, you're a capitalist.
No; people work for money in all sorts of systems, including Communism. Capitalism is about capital, which means resources capitalists can invest to make more money.
I think I'm sure because it worked for me. [moving out of poverty]
Here's, I think, where your main problem is. You appear to believe that anyone can do pretty much what you did. Congratulations on making it, but you're an outlier. Some people don't get the breaks. Some people don't have the education. Some people get seriously ill and have their plans derailed. Over half don't have unusually high levels of determination.
you sound like a fascist.... It's not up to you or anybody else to decide what kind of work is productive
Really? I start talking about general fuzzy categorization without saying anything about disparate treatment, and I sound like a fascist? Do you really believe that the value of work to people in general is strictly based on what gets paid for it, and that that's really obvious? I'm sketching out a problem, you say, based on your ideology, that it isn't a problem, and I'm the fascist? Fascinating.
Also, are you so sure that a free market exists when it's buy or die? That patents and copyrights are clearly bad? They have their problems, but they more or less solve other problems.
As far as the Excluded Middle, goes, refer to your GGP post. I say that capitalism needs to be limited to prevent harm, and you call that fascism. While fascism does have restrictions to prevent what a small group of people consider harm to society, there's usually restrictions on business in democracies.
If you'd accept that you might be wrong, and that someone who points out potential problems with the results of your ideology might have a point, the discussion might be worth continuing.
That's pretty callous, considering you've just covered a large number of humans with one category. Ever have experience with depression or other mental disorders? Do you think they deserve death sentences?
In other words, TFA is crap. If the company allows any software of any sort to get into production without tracking it, they're screwed. There's nothing different here between different sorts of software. Developers might use F/OS software, or they might use software purchased for another reason. If the CIO doesn't know, and can't easily find out, what software is on the production servers, the CIO needs to nail it down fast, or perhaps seek employment at McDonald's.
I think you're looking at the wrong thing. If one of your developers installs some F/OSS on their personal machine, who cares? If anyone can install something on production servers without some record, you're already screwed, and you should update your resume.
Yeah, but they aren't always completely clear. That time I got the warning about my registry, I didn't know whether to look in/usr/registry,/var/registry,/etc/registry, or somewhere else.
I've worked at companies where software was intended as a strategic advantage. I've worked two places that sold their software, and one where it's held close because it gives us a competitive advantage. Working where software is a core competency is different. We use F/OSS or third party proprietary for lots of things, but we have to write our own core software.
The time I was laid off, ten of us were called into a conference room and told we were being laid off, and our computer access was disabled while we were in the meeting. Even when contracting, I've never been told not to come in except in person. (At one gig, I was called into the manager's office, told I was doing a very good job, and informed that they had to cut costs, so I would be let go after two weeks. It was the first time in a few months I'd be confident that I'd still be making money next week.)
Or Option 4) Make better cars. For a long time, US cars were very comfortable, but they were unreliable gas hogs. Given a choice of buying American or buying something economical and reliable, lots of people went with the economical and reliable, and the Big 3 just couldn't cope with that. US mechanical quality has come way up from those days, but the public by then was used to buying Japanese or German or Swedish cars.
It's not the union's fault if the company can't design cars people want.
What I read was a talk she gave at a University about philosophy, and I have no idea in the world why she wasn't laughed out of the room. She made sweeping claims, some false and some merely unsupported, had neither good arguments or real coherency for her theory of ethics, and in general did not know what she was talking about. Ever since then, I get twitchy when thinking about reading anything else of hers.
Suicide is usually an impulse thing, and people who survive attempts often regret them almost immediately. About the worst thing you can have around a suicidal person is a quick, easy, and reliable method of killing themselves.
We don't have anything better than capitalism to run economies. However, there are many variants of capitalism, and they all have certain evils. Similarly, I'm in favor of democracy as a system of government, but it has its evils, and there's many variants. What we've got now is generally more humane than what we had in the days of Karl Marx, and some elements of the Communist Manifesto are in general practice (and others have been shown not to work).
The basic capitalist distribution of wealth doesn't match anything most people would find desirable. It's a side effect of generating wealth. It reduces opportunities for the less wealthy, and that's not good. We're going to get wealth inequality no matter what, and it's desirable to have in the economy (it encourages people to try new things by greed), but it has some problems. My goal is equal opportunity. What we need to do is provide good health care and good education for everyone, and some sort of safety net if people get screwed up so they can try again. Opportunity still won't be equal, but there's limits as to what we can do there. As we found out in the pre-WWI era, capitalists aren't going to profit from public education, because there's not much money in it. Moreover, money brings political power, and since I'm in favor of democracy I favor a system where no single person has that much more influence than another single person. There's other bad effects.
Classes can exist in a spectrum, and it's reasonable to identify parts of the spectrum with distinguishing features and treat that part as a class. We don't need strict definitions here, since we aren't passing laws or doing rigorous science. On one part of the spectrum are people who need to work hard for a living, sometimes a meager one, and on another part are people who can make major investments and live very well off them.
You seem awfully sure that a poor person can just up and go to another place with a lower cost of living, particularly the "right this second" part. You might want to think why people don't do it.
There are productive ways to make a buck, such as coming up with a better Internet search method, and unproductive ways to make a buck, such as manufacturing and dumping all the pollution wherever, or raising the cost of a drug because one can get away with it, or looting a business of its productive assets and escaping with a golden parachute. Lots of people made big money trashing the economy about a decade ago. I'm not looking for a sharp and easily discernible line here, since there's lots of room for opinion here. Lots of this stuff is perfectly legal currently, and still harms society and the economy in general.
I see you are a master of the fallacy of the Excluded Middle.
fast food chains in the US certainly do offer healthcare.
Sure about that? They're the sort of jobs that typically don't offer decent health care.
We were discussing the relative benefits of capitalism or socialism/communism.
If you're talking about socialism as an economic system, that discussion has been very definitely settled. It doesn't work. What people are using "socialism" to mean now is restrictions on what people can do to make money and support for those in difficulties. That's more in opposition to lassez-faire capitalism than capitalism as an economic system.
You may not like the new meaning of "socialism", but people are indeed using it in that way, and equating it with communism is thoroughly unproductive.
There are non-profit corporations that do a lot of things without returning any money to investors. Profit is not always necessary.
Profit is what is returned to investors, either as dividends or in the form of increased value of the company. Non-profits don't have investors in that sense. They do pay people, sometimes handsomely, and buy things, but none of that is profit.
When I criticize trickle-down economics, I'm talking primarily about the empirical results, which were to make the rich richer and largely detach the workers from productivity increases.
Your claims about taking money from those who know how to make it and giving it to people who don't depend on the idea that money shows how much people have created wealth. Money is at best a leaky abstraction here, and there's plenty of discrepancies between money made and wealth made or people helped. Actions can be evil and yet profitable.
You're thinking of the Laffer Curve in your last paragraph, and you've gotten it wrong. Reagan's tax cuts decreased government revenue, showing that we were on the left side of the Laffer Curve, and so it is irrelevant in discussions of taxation.
The question is how the President goes around Congress. The President has a good many legal powers that Congress has voted the office over the years, which are in keeping with the government structure. The court system is there to tell the President that some executive order or another has crossed the line, and I haven't noticed the Republicans being slow to ask the courts. The Presidency really doesn't have all that many powers assigned by the Constitution, and it seems clear that Congress is to delegate power to that office. This seems reasonable to me.
Why the Republican Congress was so uncooperative doesn't affect how government works, although dedicating itself to partisan rather than national goals is reprehensible. The President will use the power of the Presidency for the President's own goals.
Slashdot Mirror
The first Myers-Briggs letter is significant. It's basically the E in the OCEAN system. 25% significant appears to beat astrology quite handily.
Leaving aside the battery issue, Win32 is an API that was designed for x86. It's used by programs that run on x86. It's run on computers that use...ARM?
The main advantage of running Windows is that you can run the same crap as your friends. Lots of this Windows crap is native code in x86, and an ARM is not going to do an energy-efficient job of emulating one. This is probably the biggest reason why RT crashed and burned so hard: it was advertised as Windows, but it didn't run Windows software.
And then users find that they can't run the same crap as their friends with Android and iOS devices, and the whole project crashes and burns like RT.
How useful is the warning when 99% of the sites you use have cookies or Javascript? The silly things are almost ubiquitous, and most people will simply click through like always.
Causality is already broken in modern physics.
If it might crash aircraft and might not, the FAA will ban it. It's their job. Moreover, it looks like almost all flight inconveniences are blamed on the TSA and FAA, despite what rumor and airline companies might do.
You guys need to check the news every six months or so. Trump won the election. The campaign is over. That means that Clinton is mostly politically irrelevant now. What you guys need to do now is show how what Trump's doing is productive or meets normal standards for human decency or something, because he actually won and is the President.
I buy eBooks from Barnes and Noble, and have been informed that I get a small credit from them because of the suit.
While I don't want to discuss illegal actions in a public forum, I will point out that it's possible to find software that will violate the DMCA and remove the DRM in many cases.
Electronic and physical books have their own advantages, and if I want a book I'll buy whichever seems best to me. Typically, publishers and bookstores are in a symbiotic relationship, despite lots of friction, and as long as physical books are useful sources of profit undercutting them too much can be bad for business.
Also, the physical book itself is cheap to make in quantity. The materials cost of a paperback is very little higher than the materials cost of the eBook.
Nope. Not as long as we have really good and really bad schools.
No; people work for money in all sorts of systems, including Communism. Capitalism is about capital, which means resources capitalists can invest to make more money.
Here's, I think, where your main problem is. You appear to believe that anyone can do pretty much what you did. Congratulations on making it, but you're an outlier. Some people don't get the breaks. Some people don't have the education. Some people get seriously ill and have their plans derailed. Over half don't have unusually high levels of determination.
Really? I start talking about general fuzzy categorization without saying anything about disparate treatment, and I sound like a fascist? Do you really believe that the value of work to people in general is strictly based on what gets paid for it, and that that's really obvious? I'm sketching out a problem, you say, based on your ideology, that it isn't a problem, and I'm the fascist? Fascinating.
Also, are you so sure that a free market exists when it's buy or die? That patents and copyrights are clearly bad? They have their problems, but they more or less solve other problems.
As far as the Excluded Middle, goes, refer to your GGP post. I say that capitalism needs to be limited to prevent harm, and you call that fascism. While fascism does have restrictions to prevent what a small group of people consider harm to society, there's usually restrictions on business in democracies.
If you'd accept that you might be wrong, and that someone who points out potential problems with the results of your ideology might have a point, the discussion might be worth continuing.
Cite? Bear in mind that what I said doesn't require a totalitarian regime, so those would be irrelevant to the discussion.
That's pretty callous, considering you've just covered a large number of humans with one category. Ever have experience with depression or other mental disorders? Do you think they deserve death sentences?
#AllUncontrolledSoftwareMatters
In other words, TFA is crap. If the company allows any software of any sort to get into production without tracking it, they're screwed. There's nothing different here between different sorts of software. Developers might use F/OS software, or they might use software purchased for another reason. If the CIO doesn't know, and can't easily find out, what software is on the production servers, the CIO needs to nail it down fast, or perhaps seek employment at McDonald's.
I think you're looking at the wrong thing. If one of your developers installs some F/OSS on their personal machine, who cares? If anyone can install something on production servers without some record, you're already screwed, and you should update your resume.
Yeah, but they aren't always completely clear. That time I got the warning about my registry, I didn't know whether to look in /usr/registry, /var/registry, /etc/registry, or somewhere else.
I've worked at companies where software was intended as a strategic advantage. I've worked two places that sold their software, and one where it's held close because it gives us a competitive advantage. Working where software is a core competency is different. We use F/OSS or third party proprietary for lots of things, but we have to write our own core software.
The time I was laid off, ten of us were called into a conference room and told we were being laid off, and our computer access was disabled while we were in the meeting. Even when contracting, I've never been told not to come in except in person. (At one gig, I was called into the manager's office, told I was doing a very good job, and informed that they had to cut costs, so I would be let go after two weeks. It was the first time in a few months I'd be confident that I'd still be making money next week.)
Or Option 4) Make better cars. For a long time, US cars were very comfortable, but they were unreliable gas hogs. Given a choice of buying American or buying something economical and reliable, lots of people went with the economical and reliable, and the Big 3 just couldn't cope with that. US mechanical quality has come way up from those days, but the public by then was used to buying Japanese or German or Swedish cars.
It's not the union's fault if the company can't design cars people want.
What I read was a talk she gave at a University about philosophy, and I have no idea in the world why she wasn't laughed out of the room. She made sweeping claims, some false and some merely unsupported, had neither good arguments or real coherency for her theory of ethics, and in general did not know what she was talking about. Ever since then, I get twitchy when thinking about reading anything else of hers.
Suicide is usually an impulse thing, and people who survive attempts often regret them almost immediately. About the worst thing you can have around a suicidal person is a quick, easy, and reliable method of killing themselves.
We don't have anything better than capitalism to run economies. However, there are many variants of capitalism, and they all have certain evils. Similarly, I'm in favor of democracy as a system of government, but it has its evils, and there's many variants. What we've got now is generally more humane than what we had in the days of Karl Marx, and some elements of the Communist Manifesto are in general practice (and others have been shown not to work).
The basic capitalist distribution of wealth doesn't match anything most people would find desirable. It's a side effect of generating wealth. It reduces opportunities for the less wealthy, and that's not good. We're going to get wealth inequality no matter what, and it's desirable to have in the economy (it encourages people to try new things by greed), but it has some problems. My goal is equal opportunity. What we need to do is provide good health care and good education for everyone, and some sort of safety net if people get screwed up so they can try again. Opportunity still won't be equal, but there's limits as to what we can do there. As we found out in the pre-WWI era, capitalists aren't going to profit from public education, because there's not much money in it. Moreover, money brings political power, and since I'm in favor of democracy I favor a system where no single person has that much more influence than another single person. There's other bad effects.
Classes can exist in a spectrum, and it's reasonable to identify parts of the spectrum with distinguishing features and treat that part as a class. We don't need strict definitions here, since we aren't passing laws or doing rigorous science. On one part of the spectrum are people who need to work hard for a living, sometimes a meager one, and on another part are people who can make major investments and live very well off them.
You seem awfully sure that a poor person can just up and go to another place with a lower cost of living, particularly the "right this second" part. You might want to think why people don't do it.
There are productive ways to make a buck, such as coming up with a better Internet search method, and unproductive ways to make a buck, such as manufacturing and dumping all the pollution wherever, or raising the cost of a drug because one can get away with it, or looting a business of its productive assets and escaping with a golden parachute. Lots of people made big money trashing the economy about a decade ago. I'm not looking for a sharp and easily discernible line here, since there's lots of room for opinion here. Lots of this stuff is perfectly legal currently, and still harms society and the economy in general.
I see you are a master of the fallacy of the Excluded Middle.
Sure about that? They're the sort of jobs that typically don't offer decent health care.
If you're talking about socialism as an economic system, that discussion has been very definitely settled. It doesn't work. What people are using "socialism" to mean now is restrictions on what people can do to make money and support for those in difficulties. That's more in opposition to lassez-faire capitalism than capitalism as an economic system.
You may not like the new meaning of "socialism", but people are indeed using it in that way, and equating it with communism is thoroughly unproductive.
There are non-profit corporations that do a lot of things without returning any money to investors. Profit is not always necessary.
Profit is what is returned to investors, either as dividends or in the form of increased value of the company. Non-profits don't have investors in that sense. They do pay people, sometimes handsomely, and buy things, but none of that is profit.
When I criticize trickle-down economics, I'm talking primarily about the empirical results, which were to make the rich richer and largely detach the workers from productivity increases.
Your claims about taking money from those who know how to make it and giving it to people who don't depend on the idea that money shows how much people have created wealth. Money is at best a leaky abstraction here, and there's plenty of discrepancies between money made and wealth made or people helped. Actions can be evil and yet profitable.
You're thinking of the Laffer Curve in your last paragraph, and you've gotten it wrong. Reagan's tax cuts decreased government revenue, showing that we were on the left side of the Laffer Curve, and so it is irrelevant in discussions of taxation.
The question is how the President goes around Congress. The President has a good many legal powers that Congress has voted the office over the years, which are in keeping with the government structure. The court system is there to tell the President that some executive order or another has crossed the line, and I haven't noticed the Republicans being slow to ask the courts. The Presidency really doesn't have all that many powers assigned by the Constitution, and it seems clear that Congress is to delegate power to that office. This seems reasonable to me.
Why the Republican Congress was so uncooperative doesn't affect how government works, although dedicating itself to partisan rather than national goals is reprehensible. The President will use the power of the Presidency for the President's own goals.