Exactly. All the major OS's (Mac, Windows, Linux, BSD) even have decent ways to combine them automatically into one storage device that allows you to have the best of both worlds most of the time. (Different compromises on different systems, of course - most basically have you loose the space of the SSD, keeping it as a purely caching drive.)
I think a better way to look at this is to back up a bit.
In the 80's, a cellular phone was a high-end device, and only worked with a single carrier. In the USA, you got it from the carrier and the carrier supported it - you paid what was basically a support contract for it.
I'm not sure what the process was in Europe - I suspect it was spotty.
Europe grew in the 90's into a good modern phone system - partly due to regulations. A phone had to be sold to be work on any network. Another likely driver was the fact that Europe is a more fragmented market: Different carriers have different coverage in different countries, and people (especially businessmen, the first main market) would have to move between them.
The USA didn't have that requirement, so most phones still worked only on the network of the company that was selling them. Therefore the company that was selling them liked to point out their low cost, to get people hooked on the higher monthly contract. In Europe - where a phone worked on any network - this model didn't work, customers could just switch carriers.
The USA is now starting to standardize, but it's taking time. People are just starting to realize they can take a phone to a different network - and most cell companies don't advertize that fact. The bring-your-own device plans are available, but still harder to find. (Though it sounds like they are being advertized more, a good thing.) The bring-your-own carriers have been around a while, but you have to know about them to find them - you can't just walk into a store and find their stuff. You basically have to buy their service from their website.
So the USA is phasing out an old business plan, and there's a lack of awareness of the alternatives. T-Mobile is betting they can grow by advancing the new business model, but is still hampered by it's position in the market: Cell phones require coverage, and they don't have the coverage of the bigger carriers, who are more tied to the older business model. But T-Mobile is making the public aware of the alternatives, which is driving a change in the market as a whole.
That wasn't even what they were talking about. The 'death panels' was a requirement that coverage included sitting down with your doctor, possibly a counselor, your family, etc. when you had a fatal (or likely fatal) condition to discuss end-of-life care options. So you could make an informed decision about what you wanted.
How that got warped into 'the government's going to kill you', I have no clue.
Possibly true - but not on this issue, which is a change in FCC rules, which is part of the Executive branch. Congress might dictate rules to the FCC, but it hasn't on this issue so the change in stance is something Obama can do something about on his own.
Probably: BSD license and guaranteed support for BSD unixes. The former occasionally matters to the people working on the BSDs, the latter definitely does. (And is notably lacking in many of the current desktop environments - even if they do work on BSDs, they are often missing features and poorly maintained, with no interest in providing better support.)
No, we weigh the cost of prosecuting a specific crime against the cost of not prosecuting it, and let some crimes slide.
So we spend a lot more time and effort prosecuting a murder than a jaywalker. Because it's worth more to stop the murderer.
(And when this gets out of whack, we have problems. Red light cameras, GPS devices on cars, and such are reducing the cost of prosecuting some crimes, and that is causing social problems as we start to prosecute crimes that we didn't before. A lot of the complaints about the TSA is that they don't care about the cost: They just purse to the hilt. And the NSA has the problem that they only count the direct monetary cost, not the social, diplomatic, or economic costs.)
In this case though, general unit testing should have caught the bug: There's an option at compile time which, if used, caused the affected versions of OpenSSL to crash. (Because it disables the bug, and OpenSSL was relying on it in one location...) So, good unit testing would have helped.
Basically, unit testing should be able to tell you if you've implemented the algorithm competently. It doesn't say if the algorithm is any good, just that your version of it works to the spec.
Not a problem: Walmart is big enough to build a warehouse/distribution center near the docks or railyard, so you only have to move it a short distance in conventional trucks. They also have to unload and reload anyways: Most of their trucks are likely to have a full shipment for a particular store, not a full shipment of a single item. This truck would be for their own last-mile problem, considering they have stores just about everywhere.
So, for them, it might be a money saver. It doesn't have to work for anyone else.
There's a fair number in the USA too - basically any attempt to teach Creationism in schools. Granted they don't get huge amounts of traction, but still get pushed and get a lot of attention, while environmental concerns get brushed aside as irrelevant or not practical.
I wasn't referring to the Permian mass extinction event - I'm referring to the Permian itself. Coverage of people denying that it (and most of the rest of the Earth's history) even happened - and laws trying to force people to teach that - gets a lot more attention than trying to protect life on this planet.
It could have been the debt collectors - if they can't collect the debt, they'll file charges I think.
That would be my guess at what happened - the video store went to a debt collector, who eventually went to the police. Each step is probably standard practice, and the amount or initial reason for the debt was likely irrelevant at the end; it was probably policy to send all noncollectable debts past a certain age to the police.
Actually, the person themselves poked up in the comments and confirmed it. (And was talked to by the author of the story before they wrote it.) So we have better than usual chance that it's a true story, for a story on the Internet.
(It's even a blog I've read for years and trust, if that helps any.)
I said semi-embedded for a reason: I'm more thinking of hobiest/custom firewalls and routers. The ones from the factory tend to run a version of Linux or PFSense - But you can get similar devices from manufacturers without an OS that you can install your own OS onto.
Not that I'm sure I disagree with you. Just trying to think of a rational reason and give them the benefit of the doubt. However hard that is.
Well, I haven't followed the discussion, but I do know that one of OpenBSD's major markets is basically semi-embedded systems: Firewalls and routers. It's likely they won't have much in the way of external storage attachment, or much in the way of internal storage at all. Given that, it might make sense. I don't know.
The Apple Tax isn't as high as people think it is. Yes, you can build your own for cheaper, usually. But their prices are comparable or cheaper than other big-name brands for similar hardware. (I'll let you Google the links to prove it: There are always a slew of people checking everytime Apple releases a new machine.)
What Apple does avoid doing is selling the 'just enough' hardware: The low end, barely able to run current software. They design their machines so that the base config will work fine for the average user for several years, without upgrades. This means the super-cheap machines don't exist - you'd need to add RAM or a larger HDD in a year or two, or your graphics processor would barely be able to keep up, and Apple doesn't want people having that experience with their machines.
Now, the current discussion on whether PC's are 'good enough' is a separate point - I'd argue they are, and even several-year old Macs would be good enough. Apple did have an advantage in the statistics this article was looking at: Their latest OS release obsoleted any Mac with 32-bit anything. (Including BIOS.) Which means that part of their sales is probably people wanting to upgrade who couldn't. (Still, it supports any Mac made in the past 4 years.)
The claim is false: The NHTSA rates cars on a 5-point scale, and gave the Tesla S a 5-point rating, the highest they could get. This rating is based on several sub-ratings, where the Tesla also got 5-point ratings, in all categories.
Tesla is basically trying to claim for marketing purposes the fact that they got 5-point ratings in all of the subcategories (which isn't necessary for a 5-point overall rating, and in fact is extremely unusual, if not unique) means that they got 'better than a normal 5-point rating'. Which, ok, they did, but the rating only goes to five points. They can't create a new rating scale just for themselves.
The Supreme Court is more of a check than an active force - but it is a very powerful check. History has shown that if they act without caution, they can easily make things worse than they were before. (See, for instance, Dred Scott v. Sandford, one of the causes of the Civil War...)
They are willing to step on toes if they need to - lots of cases, recent and historic show that. But they prefer to avoid doing so unless they need to, because it can cause problems. If the other two parts of the government are working on an issue, it's generally better to let them work it out - there will be more voices heard, and it's easier to adjust and make changes.
Basically, they are respecting that the other parts exist for a purpose, and attempt to let them fulfill that purpose. The Supreme Court's job is to step in when the other two parts fail - and it's not clear that they have failed here yet.
Also: Congress is working on this issue. The Supreme Court really doesn't like to step on the toes of the other two parts of the government if it doesn't have to. Looking at the activity on this issue, it's likely they won't have to.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. All the major OS's (Mac, Windows, Linux, BSD) even have decent ways to combine them automatically into one storage device that allows you to have the best of both worlds most of the time. (Different compromises on different systems, of course - most basically have you loose the space of the SSD, keeping it as a purely caching drive.)
I think a better way to look at this is to back up a bit.
In the 80's, a cellular phone was a high-end device, and only worked with a single carrier. In the USA, you got it from the carrier and the carrier supported it - you paid what was basically a support contract for it.
I'm not sure what the process was in Europe - I suspect it was spotty.
Europe grew in the 90's into a good modern phone system - partly due to regulations. A phone had to be sold to be work on any network. Another likely driver was the fact that Europe is a more fragmented market: Different carriers have different coverage in different countries, and people (especially businessmen, the first main market) would have to move between them.
The USA didn't have that requirement, so most phones still worked only on the network of the company that was selling them. Therefore the company that was selling them liked to point out their low cost, to get people hooked on the higher monthly contract. In Europe - where a phone worked on any network - this model didn't work, customers could just switch carriers.
The USA is now starting to standardize, but it's taking time. People are just starting to realize they can take a phone to a different network - and most cell companies don't advertize that fact. The bring-your-own device plans are available, but still harder to find. (Though it sounds like they are being advertized more, a good thing.) The bring-your-own carriers have been around a while, but you have to know about them to find them - you can't just walk into a store and find their stuff. You basically have to buy their service from their website.
So the USA is phasing out an old business plan, and there's a lack of awareness of the alternatives. T-Mobile is betting they can grow by advancing the new business model, but is still hampered by it's position in the market: Cell phones require coverage, and they don't have the coverage of the bigger carriers, who are more tied to the older business model. But T-Mobile is making the public aware of the alternatives, which is driving a change in the market as a whole.
That wasn't even what they were talking about. The 'death panels' was a requirement that coverage included sitting down with your doctor, possibly a counselor, your family, etc. when you had a fatal (or likely fatal) condition to discuss end-of-life care options. So you could make an informed decision about what you wanted.
How that got warped into 'the government's going to kill you', I have no clue.
We're an oligarchy. Us poles voting doesn't matter anyway - if it's going to be symbolic, he might as well be symbolic for what he believes.
Possibly true - but not on this issue, which is a change in FCC rules, which is part of the Executive branch. Congress might dictate rules to the FCC, but it hasn't on this issue so the change in stance is something Obama can do something about on his own.
Probably: BSD license and guaranteed support for BSD unixes. The former occasionally matters to the people working on the BSDs, the latter definitely does. (And is notably lacking in many of the current desktop environments - even if they do work on BSDs, they are often missing features and poorly maintained, with no interest in providing better support.)
No, we weigh the cost of prosecuting a specific crime against the cost of not prosecuting it, and let some crimes slide.
So we spend a lot more time and effort prosecuting a murder than a jaywalker. Because it's worth more to stop the murderer.
(And when this gets out of whack, we have problems. Red light cameras, GPS devices on cars, and such are reducing the cost of prosecuting some crimes, and that is causing social problems as we start to prosecute crimes that we didn't before. A lot of the complaints about the TSA is that they don't care about the cost: They just purse to the hilt. And the NSA has the problem that they only count the direct monetary cost, not the social, diplomatic, or economic costs.)
Point taken. Still, not having unit tests doesn't help...
In this case though, general unit testing should have caught the bug: There's an option at compile time which, if used, caused the affected versions of OpenSSL to crash. (Because it disables the bug, and OpenSSL was relying on it in one location...) So, good unit testing would have helped.
Basically, unit testing should be able to tell you if you've implemented the algorithm competently. It doesn't say if the algorithm is any good, just that your version of it works to the spec.
Not a problem: Walmart is big enough to build a warehouse/distribution center near the docks or railyard, so you only have to move it a short distance in conventional trucks. They also have to unload and reload anyways: Most of their trucks are likely to have a full shipment for a particular store, not a full shipment of a single item. This truck would be for their own last-mile problem, considering they have stores just about everywhere.
So, for them, it might be a money saver. It doesn't have to work for anyone else.
There's a fair number in the USA too - basically any attempt to teach Creationism in schools. Granted they don't get huge amounts of traction, but still get pushed and get a lot of attention, while environmental concerns get brushed aside as irrelevant or not practical.
I wasn't referring to the Permian mass extinction event - I'm referring to the Permian itself. Coverage of people denying that it (and most of the rest of the Earth's history) even happened - and laws trying to force people to teach that - gets a lot more attention than trying to protect life on this planet.
We should - it's our home, after all, and we'd be protecting ourselves.
But we seem more interested in claiming the Permian never happened, and trying to wipe out most life on the planet.
It could have been the debt collectors - if they can't collect the debt, they'll file charges I think.
That would be my guess at what happened - the video store went to a debt collector, who eventually went to the police. Each step is probably standard practice, and the amount or initial reason for the debt was likely irrelevant at the end; it was probably policy to send all noncollectable debts past a certain age to the police.
Actually, the person themselves poked up in the comments and confirmed it. (And was talked to by the author of the story before they wrote it.) So we have better than usual chance that it's a true story, for a story on the Internet.
(It's even a blog I've read for years and trust, if that helps any.)
I said semi-embedded for a reason: I'm more thinking of hobiest/custom firewalls and routers. The ones from the factory tend to run a version of Linux or PFSense - But you can get similar devices from manufacturers without an OS that you can install your own OS onto.
Not that I'm sure I disagree with you. Just trying to think of a rational reason and give them the benefit of the doubt. However hard that is.
Well, I haven't followed the discussion, but I do know that one of OpenBSD's major markets is basically semi-embedded systems: Firewalls and routers. It's likely they won't have much in the way of external storage attachment, or much in the way of internal storage at all. Given that, it might make sense. I don't know.
I think it's a much better argument that fundamentalists are against vaccinations... (Muslim or Christian.)
The Apple Tax isn't as high as people think it is. Yes, you can build your own for cheaper, usually. But their prices are comparable or cheaper than other big-name brands for similar hardware. (I'll let you Google the links to prove it: There are always a slew of people checking everytime Apple releases a new machine.)
What Apple does avoid doing is selling the 'just enough' hardware: The low end, barely able to run current software. They design their machines so that the base config will work fine for the average user for several years, without upgrades. This means the super-cheap machines don't exist - you'd need to add RAM or a larger HDD in a year or two, or your graphics processor would barely be able to keep up, and Apple doesn't want people having that experience with their machines.
Now, the current discussion on whether PC's are 'good enough' is a separate point - I'd argue they are, and even several-year old Macs would be good enough. Apple did have an advantage in the statistics this article was looking at: Their latest OS release obsoleted any Mac with 32-bit anything. (Including BIOS.) Which means that part of their sales is probably people wanting to upgrade who couldn't. (Still, it supports any Mac made in the past 4 years.)
Not always. ;)
This type of thing being possible is one reason I've never trusted a car with OnStar. (To name the most visible.)
The claim is false: The NHTSA rates cars on a 5-point scale, and gave the Tesla S a 5-point rating, the highest they could get. This rating is based on several sub-ratings, where the Tesla also got 5-point ratings, in all categories.
Tesla is basically trying to claim for marketing purposes the fact that they got 5-point ratings in all of the subcategories (which isn't necessary for a 5-point overall rating, and in fact is extremely unusual, if not unique) means that they got 'better than a normal 5-point rating'. Which, ok, they did, but the rating only goes to five points. They can't create a new rating scale just for themselves.
Also: Congress is working on this issue.
That's good to hear. I was afraid the issue may otherwise be left to a group of incompetent, self-serving asshats.
Those two statements, of course, are not mutually exclusive. ;)
The Supreme Court is more of a check than an active force - but it is a very powerful check. History has shown that if they act without caution, they can easily make things worse than they were before. (See, for instance, Dred Scott v. Sandford, one of the causes of the Civil War...)
They are willing to step on toes if they need to - lots of cases, recent and historic show that. But they prefer to avoid doing so unless they need to, because it can cause problems. If the other two parts of the government are working on an issue, it's generally better to let them work it out - there will be more voices heard, and it's easier to adjust and make changes.
Basically, they are respecting that the other parts exist for a purpose, and attempt to let them fulfill that purpose. The Supreme Court's job is to step in when the other two parts fail - and it's not clear that they have failed here yet.
Also: Congress is working on this issue. The Supreme Court really doesn't like to step on the toes of the other two parts of the government if it doesn't have to. Looking at the activity on this issue, it's likely they won't have to.