In many cases, you can actually save money even at Walmart. Most times the checkout person has the authorization to drop the price on nearly any item by 10% without supervisor approval. (To be used to placate argumentative customers.) Usually they've never been in a situation to do it, but they can...
1. No vaccine is 100% effective. You can be immunized and still get sick. Less likely, and it's likely to be milder, but it could still be fatal.
2. Not being immunized raises the chance you will get sick, and expose those around you to the disease.
For many of these major diseases, if less than a certain percentage of the population gets immunized, the disease still runs fairly rampant through the population - including the immunized population. You need basically everybody to be immunized so that when the disease strikes one person, it doesn't have any convenient vectors to other people, and stays contained.
Besides, we have a certain hesitancy to allow survival of the fittest to take it's course where humans are concerned. Partly out of fellow-feeling, and partly because we've found that 'fittest' can have multiple meanings, and that someone who can barely talk and can't get out of their wheelchair can still give humanity as a whole great value in understanding the how the universe works. (Through their own work.)
That isn't the parity Andrew is talking about. He's talking about the amount of time between the physical war and the war over what happened during the physical war. That time has almost reached parity: They are almost happening simultaneously.
Not if the per-core performance went down by 20%. Overall, it hasn't, but it also hasn't increased anywhere.
More cores are nice, but they don't mean much. The question any CPU has to answer is 'What can you do?'. Throwing more cores in doesn't mean it can do more, if the cores aren't well designed.
No. If they only had zero value, you could defend keeping them as 'maintaining current regulations'; changing the regs has a cost, both direct and indirect. (The latter in everyone trying to work out exactly what the new regs mean.)
Method patents currently have a negative value: They actively prevent innovation and reduce the growth of the economy. As such, the relatively small cost to revamp the regulations to remove them would be worth it. We will make back the cost.
So long as there is a guarantee that it will be free to use forever, I see no reason why modern browsers shouldn't implement it. What's the downside?
Extra code that has to be written, loaded, run, tested, and maintained. This leads to application size bloat, larger memory footprints, and more work for developers.
It may be worth it, if the format is a significant advance. But it's not cost-free, to either the developers or the users.
It's been theorized and even tried. (Although that's really an entirely different process. Fracking causes earthquakes by shifting the ground. What you are talking about is trying to let the ground shift in a more controlled manner.)
The problem is you are just making it easier for the stress to be released. That doesn't guarantee smaller earthquakes as a result...
I actually spent several summers working in Israel, and regularly visited the West Bank. Couldn't get access to Gaza though.
As for your questions: The West Bank and (especially) Gaza are effectively light-duty concentration camps. (Not dedicated, but high-density with low access to food, water, sanitation, or jobs.) Mass graves tend to draw attention. (And direct killing isn't the system being used here.) The ~10% of the Knesset (none of whom are Palestinian: they have to be Israeli) aren't a major political force of their own. And the random police checks, and the requirement that every Palestinian who wants to enter Israel (which means any of them who want to leave their home town for any reason...) register for travel papers, in person, every year, would be similar in effect.
Of course, a closer parallel would be with aparthied-era South Africa.
And now the power has shifted, and the other side is showing what they've learned. (Hint: Nothing about how to be good people, lots about how to sell oppression.)
Which would imply that we either need to redefine 'productive benefit to society' to match what people are cost-effective to do, or we need to remake our economy to not require people to be a productive benefit to society in order to be above the poverty line.
Tell your three vendors that the first one of them who gets working IPv6 support will get all your business for two years, minimum. They'll have the firmware by the end of the year. (And it'll help all of us.)
It's likely only retailers who are limiting numbers of purchases. If you are big enough to really need a large quantity of drives, then you can buy from a wholesaler, or direct, and they'll probably sell as many as you would want.
The point of the rationing is that the retailers want to prevent speculative hoarding, where someone hears that the price has gone up, buys all they can, and then sells just a few at a higher price. (Reducing supply further, as they aren't actually doing anything with the drives, besides keeping them from the market.) It also means the retailers can present themselves as responsive to their customers (as they have the drives on hand to sell), and they can take advantage of further developments in the market over the next few days. (As prices spike under fear.)
They are acting to increase their profit, and their reputation at the same time. Perfectly logical capitalistic behavior.
Think of it this way: The retailers are speculating that the princes will rise still further. So they are preserving their stocks to sell at the (true) higher price, once it becomes apparent.
The Drake equation has several unknown variables, and even if getting into space is easy, that doesn't mean you'd want to visit Earth. In fact, if you can build habitats to live in deep space (necessary to travel interstellar distances), visiting Earthlike planets is a low-value proposition: It'll take a lot of energy to get here, a lot more to land, a heck of a lot more to take off again, and more yet to leave. Versus staying in the Oort cloud, for instance, where you are likely to be able to find any material you'd be able to find on Earth, and get to it a lot easier. (If possibly in less concentrated chunks.) You'll also avoid any possibly-hostile natives. Only downside is the loss of solar energy, but if you are colonizing deep space anyway you aren't relying on that.
But back to the Drake equation: f(l) and f(i) are still complete unknowns. (Not to mention f(c) and L, the latter of which we don't even have one measurement of, although ours are already tapering off, so a 50 to 100 years might not be a bad estimate.) There's some indications that f(l) is probably moderately high, but I wouldn't be surprised if f(i) is under one thousandth of a percent. Intelligence is a great survival strategy - once you hit a certain level. Below that level, there's a wide gap where it doesn't appear to help all that much. Exactly why and how humans crossed that gap is an open question. It's quite possible that the universe is teaming with life - and not very much of it is intelligent as we define the term. Or that most of it is too advanced to leak emissions wastefully.
(And you can probably modify your possibility #1 to be 'Only current intelligent species within a few hundred light years.' Beyond that we'd be unlikely to be able to detect an intelligent species unless it was explicitly trying to contact us.)
The main problem with filters is that they act when the mail is received, not after it's read. So you have to go into umpteen different folders to read your mail.
No, that's the advantage of filters. So that when I'm reading a thread about FreeBSD, I don't have to worry about the thread about mail server outages. Or the one about how my cousin is doing in his triathlon. I can go read them when I have time, and the fact that I have or have not read them doesn't impact on my other folders: I can see if any new mail came in for any of them, individually.
Wouldn't be worth it to Google. They need those wifi nodes operational so they can collect users to show advertising to. If someone wanted to use that data to shut down the nodes, I can't image Google selling for any reasonable price.
It'd be like approaching GM to get information so you can sue people for driving cars. It's not in their interest to sell, no matter the money.
The idea of any security system is to reduce the number of fatal secrets. The minimum number is one. (Otherwise you have an open-access system.)
Your password, or key, should be that one. It shouldn't matter if the attacker gets everything else, they still can't get your data.
'Security Through Obscurity' is saying 'we've removed this fatal secret by hiding it from the attackers'. Um, no. All you've done is made it slightly harder for them to find. It's still a fatal secret. If you want to remove it from the system, you'll have to make it not matter if they've got it.
Then, of course, you hide it. Because you assume that you missed something.;) But the intent is that it doesn't matter if the attacker finds everything but the key.
He kept both fairly secret himself though: The former he only showed to a select few, and the latter was only witnessed by a couple of people. Some of his other miracles had wider direct impact, but none of them were much of anything that couldn't be discounted as wildly exaggerated retellings. To a non-believer, there was no reason to place him above any other of the many prophets claiming miracles at the time.
I doubt any actual investors involved in this lawsuit at this point. It sounds like it's being filed 'on behalf of' a class, and the only person actually involved at the moment is the lawyer.
Unfortunately, it'd take a major overhaul of our justice system to do this in America: We use a common law system, with history back to English common law from before the revolution. This means that a case that happened before America was discovered can be cited as precedent, as long as it hasn't been overruled since.
Countries that use a civil law system would be much more able to pull it off. (But then everything has to be decided by legislature, or on a case-by-case basis. You can't say 'well, last time the court said this.')
Slashdot Mirror
In many cases, you can actually save money even at Walmart. Most times the checkout person has the authorization to drop the price on nearly any item by 10% without supervisor approval. (To be used to placate argumentative customers.) Usually they've never been in a situation to do it, but they can...
1. No vaccine is 100% effective. You can be immunized and still get sick. Less likely, and it's likely to be milder, but it could still be fatal.
2. Not being immunized raises the chance you will get sick, and expose those around you to the disease.
For many of these major diseases, if less than a certain percentage of the population gets immunized, the disease still runs fairly rampant through the population - including the immunized population. You need basically everybody to be immunized so that when the disease strikes one person, it doesn't have any convenient vectors to other people, and stays contained.
Besides, we have a certain hesitancy to allow survival of the fittest to take it's course where humans are concerned. Partly out of fellow-feeling, and partly because we've found that 'fittest' can have multiple meanings, and that someone who can barely talk and can't get out of their wheelchair can still give humanity as a whole great value in understanding the how the universe works. (Through their own work.)
That isn't the parity Andrew is talking about. He's talking about the amount of time between the physical war and the war over what happened during the physical war. That time has almost reached parity: They are almost happening simultaneously.
Which is new.
Not if the per-core performance went down by 20%. Overall, it hasn't, but it also hasn't increased anywhere.
More cores are nice, but they don't mean much. The question any CPU has to answer is 'What can you do?'. Throwing more cores in doesn't mean it can do more, if the cores aren't well designed.
No. If they only had zero value, you could defend keeping them as 'maintaining current regulations'; changing the regs has a cost, both direct and indirect. (The latter in everyone trying to work out exactly what the new regs mean.)
Method patents currently have a negative value: They actively prevent innovation and reduce the growth of the economy. As such, the relatively small cost to revamp the regulations to remove them would be worth it. We will make back the cost.
So long as there is a guarantee that it will be free to use forever, I see no reason why modern browsers shouldn't implement it. What's the downside?
Extra code that has to be written, loaded, run, tested, and maintained. This leads to application size bloat, larger memory footprints, and more work for developers.
It may be worth it, if the format is a significant advance. But it's not cost-free, to either the developers or the users.
It's been theorized and even tried. (Although that's really an entirely different process. Fracking causes earthquakes by shifting the ground. What you are talking about is trying to let the ground shift in a more controlled manner.)
The problem is you are just making it easier for the stress to be released. That doesn't guarantee smaller earthquakes as a result...
I actually spent several summers working in Israel, and regularly visited the West Bank. Couldn't get access to Gaza though.
As for your questions: The West Bank and (especially) Gaza are effectively light-duty concentration camps. (Not dedicated, but high-density with low access to food, water, sanitation, or jobs.) Mass graves tend to draw attention. (And direct killing isn't the system being used here.) The ~10% of the Knesset (none of whom are Palestinian: they have to be Israeli) aren't a major political force of their own. And the random police checks, and the requirement that every Palestinian who wants to enter Israel (which means any of them who want to leave their home town for any reason...) register for travel papers, in person, every year, would be similar in effect.
Of course, a closer parallel would be with aparthied-era South Africa.
And now the power has shifted, and the other side is showing what they've learned. (Hint: Nothing about how to be good people, lots about how to sell oppression.)
I fail to see progress.
That's a comment.
Which would imply that we either need to redefine 'productive benefit to society' to match what people are cost-effective to do, or we need to remake our economy to not require people to be a productive benefit to society in order to be above the poverty line.
This has the makings of being very messy...
Tell your three vendors that the first one of them who gets working IPv6 support will get all your business for two years, minimum. They'll have the firmware by the end of the year. (And it'll help all of us.)
It's likely only retailers who are limiting numbers of purchases. If you are big enough to really need a large quantity of drives, then you can buy from a wholesaler, or direct, and they'll probably sell as many as you would want.
The point of the rationing is that the retailers want to prevent speculative hoarding, where someone hears that the price has gone up, buys all they can, and then sells just a few at a higher price. (Reducing supply further, as they aren't actually doing anything with the drives, besides keeping them from the market.) It also means the retailers can present themselves as responsive to their customers (as they have the drives on hand to sell), and they can take advantage of further developments in the market over the next few days. (As prices spike under fear.)
They are acting to increase their profit, and their reputation at the same time. Perfectly logical capitalistic behavior.
Think of it this way: The retailers are speculating that the princes will rise still further. So they are preserving their stocks to sell at the (true) higher price, once it becomes apparent.
Especially since the cost to cut emissions will only increase as time goes on. (As the cuts required to become meaningful become larger and larger.)
Take the small blow now, and spread it out, instead of trying to do a massive fix-job later.
The Drake equation has several unknown variables, and even if getting into space is easy, that doesn't mean you'd want to visit Earth. In fact, if you can build habitats to live in deep space (necessary to travel interstellar distances), visiting Earthlike planets is a low-value proposition: It'll take a lot of energy to get here, a lot more to land, a heck of a lot more to take off again, and more yet to leave. Versus staying in the Oort cloud, for instance, where you are likely to be able to find any material you'd be able to find on Earth, and get to it a lot easier. (If possibly in less concentrated chunks.) You'll also avoid any possibly-hostile natives. Only downside is the loss of solar energy, but if you are colonizing deep space anyway you aren't relying on that.
But back to the Drake equation: f(l) and f(i) are still complete unknowns. (Not to mention f(c) and L, the latter of which we don't even have one measurement of, although ours are already tapering off, so a 50 to 100 years might not be a bad estimate.) There's some indications that f(l) is probably moderately high, but I wouldn't be surprised if f(i) is under one thousandth of a percent. Intelligence is a great survival strategy - once you hit a certain level. Below that level, there's a wide gap where it doesn't appear to help all that much. Exactly why and how humans crossed that gap is an open question. It's quite possible that the universe is teaming with life - and not very much of it is intelligent as we define the term. Or that most of it is too advanced to leak emissions wastefully.
(And you can probably modify your possibility #1 to be 'Only current intelligent species within a few hundred light years.' Beyond that we'd be unlikely to be able to detect an intelligent species unless it was explicitly trying to contact us.)
But they can all increase prices in response to increased demand with no problem. As long as they don't all appear to do so in a coordinated way.
Great. Now, how many million are you willing to spend on lawyers to say that in court?
The main problem with filters is that they act when the mail is received, not after it's read. So you have to go into umpteen different folders to read your mail.
No, that's the advantage of filters. So that when I'm reading a thread about FreeBSD, I don't have to worry about the thread about mail server outages. Or the one about how my cousin is doing in his triathlon. I can go read them when I have time, and the fact that I have or have not read them doesn't impact on my other folders: I can see if any new mail came in for any of them, individually.
Wouldn't be worth it to Google. They need those wifi nodes operational so they can collect users to show advertising to. If someone wanted to use that data to shut down the nodes, I can't image Google selling for any reasonable price.
It'd be like approaching GM to get information so you can sue people for driving cars. It's not in their interest to sell, no matter the money.
The idea of any security system is to reduce the number of fatal secrets. The minimum number is one. (Otherwise you have an open-access system.)
Your password, or key, should be that one. It shouldn't matter if the attacker gets everything else, they still can't get your data.
'Security Through Obscurity' is saying 'we've removed this fatal secret by hiding it from the attackers'. Um, no. All you've done is made it slightly harder for them to find. It's still a fatal secret. If you want to remove it from the system, you'll have to make it not matter if they've got it.
Then, of course, you hide it. Because you assume that you missed something. ;) But the intent is that it doesn't matter if the attacker finds everything but the key.
He kept both fairly secret himself though: The former he only showed to a select few, and the latter was only witnessed by a couple of people. Some of his other miracles had wider direct impact, but none of them were much of anything that couldn't be discounted as wildly exaggerated retellings. To a non-believer, there was no reason to place him above any other of the many prophets claiming miracles at the time.
Impressively, the Slashdot summary manages to be more informative than the article itself, while only quoting the article!
I doubt any actual investors involved in this lawsuit at this point. It sounds like it's being filed 'on behalf of' a class, and the only person actually involved at the moment is the lawyer.
The point is to keep them busy, so they don't feel like they need to write new stupid laws. It's not a complete solution.
Unfortunately, it'd take a major overhaul of our justice system to do this in America: We use a common law system, with history back to English common law from before the revolution. This means that a case that happened before America was discovered can be cited as precedent, as long as it hasn't been overruled since.
Countries that use a civil law system would be much more able to pull it off. (But then everything has to be decided by legislature, or on a case-by-case basis. You can't say 'well, last time the court said this.')