If you can't find 2 or 3 minutes in a 3 day period, well, you need to prioritize your time better.
I seriously doubt it only takes 3 minutes. But my question is why you are prepared to do all of this for the benefit of those people in Redmond? You paid them for Windows, they should serve you.
Obligatory car analogy: each time you change the oil filter, you have to phone Detroit or your car will suddenly stop working in the next 3 days. It's not only silly, it's obnoxiuos.
32MJ/l * 50l/(2*3600s) = 222kW aren't SI units wonderful? Transferring an amount of energy per time unit is the definition of power - and it is relevant. A normal electrical socket provides only ~1% of that value, they need to solve that too.
No, it had a separate chasis, that is why they could build derivatives like the Mehari (OK, based on the Dyane, but that was derived from the original 2CV)
Actually the ribbon style is not built for eye candy but rather for usability.
Perhaps, but it is mainly attempting to solve a bad software design: there are too many unrelated features thrown into Word|Excel|PowerPointless menus - they might have attempted to clean up their menu structure instead. Move rarely used features to "tool dialogs" etc.
And if they really wanted to make good products instead of going for the bling-factor, they would have the courage to remove stupid, unnecessary stuff. Won't happen of course.
I think you misspelled "ass", although I would put it in plural: "Those asses are paying for the content." I left out the anger management slippage too, you're welcome.
If the guy picking up pieces is on your payroll and on salary, then yes, your company may be able to declare it comes "at no cost" but that's just playing games with numbers. Every hour he's picking up after a problem is one hour he's not doing something else.
You're talking about in-house software disasters. But how is that different from a cloud based software disasters? Only if you talk of SaaS (as opposed to PaaS, IaaS - Software, Platform, Onfrastructure) might there be a small difference...
The study is effectively making the assumption that filesharing = copyright infringement.
I have a very hard time believing that the vast majority of people that use any filesharing application do so exclusivley for legit and non-copyright infringing purposes.
[...]
I have used bittorent for downloading Mandriva about 6 years ago, am I a copyright infringer now? What if you use FTP, WebDAV, etc?
It's a devious question, they should ask "Do you illegally download copyrighted material regularly?" and "How often do you illegally download copyrighted material?".
As the question is formulated, you can argue with the same level of truth:
"Filesharing in UK cost industry only 1 248 637 GBP"
(6.7 million, round down to 6, 50% overestimated, 4m, 30% can't actually use the software 2.8m, 18% of downloads are unusable, 2.296m, 10% downloads too slow, 2.06m, 1 song 99 USD cents, 1 GBP = 0.61 USD)
For what it's worth, I get whistled at when I'm wearing lycra shorts and riding my bike. I never get whistled at when I'm wearing cargo pants. (Or, for that matter, if I'm wearing lycra and *not* riding a bike.)
Lycra shorts are a bit like Schroedinger's cat, if nobody is looking their might be no problem.
I think that comparing physical security to (online) computer security is a bad analogy to base your security decisions on. Apples and oranges, you know.
The probability that you are under attack is close to 100%.
Just means that. It is being attacked, constantly. It doesn't mean it is a lost cause or that most attacks couldn't be thwarted by simple measures. But stupidity and ignorance gets punished...
But with physical attacks, the attacker must make the effort to get physically close to you. Even in large crowds this means only a few potential attackers.
On the internet, by contrast, anybody can attack your system. That's several millions of potential attackers. The probability that you are under attack is close to 100%.
But geez... our current government is really assuring we are falling behind.
Your senate is not the government.
But personally I believe the F-22 is an unnecessary project, perhaps more motivated by prestige and corporate interests than military necessity. Costing $140 million - that's 5 times the cost of a F-15 or Su-30. Money that is not available for other military spending, money to protect people actually fighting in Afghanistan etc.
Well, the Germans had their 130 km (80 miles) Gun in 1918. Probably because airplanes and rocket propelled missiles were not very good at that point. So, he might have mentioned rocket science instead of super guns...
His point is not without merit, an aircraft carrier is a big, extremely valuable target. A potential enemy only has to find one weakness. Much like the impregnable forts of the Maginot line or Eben Emael which were rendered useless by new tactics and weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't find 2 or 3 minutes in a 3 day period, well, you need to prioritize your time better.
I seriously doubt it only takes 3 minutes. But my question is why you are prepared to do all of this for the benefit of those people in Redmond? You paid them for Windows, they should serve you.
Obligatory car analogy: each time you change the oil filter, you have to phone Detroit or your car will suddenly stop working in the next 3 days. It's not only silly, it's obnoxiuos.
32MJ/l * 50l/(2*3600s) = 222kW aren't SI units wonderful? Transferring an amount of energy per time unit is the definition of power - and it is relevant. A normal electrical socket provides only ~1% of that value, they need to solve that too.
Or not?
It is proven that milk(excessive) will kill you.
So does water and oxygen in excessive amounts.
Sure, but excessive control with Websense, "save the children", "masturbation makes you blind" is very good for you!
It's useful for training ROFL muscles.
I guess the 2CV is unibody
No, it had a separate chasis, that is why they could build derivatives like the Mehari (OK, based on the Dyane, but that was derived from the original 2CV)
Not everybody is equiped to capture those long sentences
-How long is your attention span?
-At least five... Oh look, that's a pretty keyboard!
in that case it would be "foreskin". Come to think of it, that would be a better term for the ribbon.
Actually the ribbon style is not built for eye candy but rather for usability.
Perhaps, but it is mainly attempting to solve a bad software design: there are too many unrelated features thrown into Word|Excel|PowerPointless menus - they might have attempted to clean up their menu structure instead. Move rarely used features to "tool dialogs" etc.
And if they really wanted to make good products instead of going for the bling-factor, they would have the courage to remove stupid, unnecessary stuff. Won't happen of course.
I wish you good luck, and the courage to hang on...
Those as are paying for the content, dipshit.
I think you misspelled "ass", although I would put it in plural: "Those asses are paying for the content." I left out the anger management slippage too, you're welcome.
me neither, at the very... oh look, a cool flash animation! And it's like, OMG Ponies!
If you were, you would have seen that FBIAA agent who is about to arrest you for stealing unpaid content...
if his Linux image and data were on the same USB stick, the UIDs would be consistent
That would be an new feature, then.
[...]software maintenance[...]
If the guy picking up pieces is on your payroll and on salary, then yes, your company may be able to declare it comes "at no cost" but that's just playing games with numbers. Every hour he's picking up after a problem is one hour he's not doing something else.
You're talking about in-house software disasters. But how is that different from a cloud based software disasters? Only if you talk of SaaS (as opposed to PaaS, IaaS - Software, Platform, Onfrastructure) might there be a small difference...
Look, if it's not in my package manager, why the fuck can't I just download a binary that works?
It's up to the "vendor" to provide a deb or rpm file of (statically linked) binaries for you to double click. They didn't.
The study is effectively making the assumption that filesharing = copyright infringement.
I have a very hard time believing that the vast majority of people that use any filesharing application do so exclusivley for legit and non-copyright infringing purposes. [...]
I have used bittorent for downloading Mandriva about 6 years ago, am I a copyright infringer now? What if you use FTP, WebDAV, etc?
It's a devious question, they should ask "Do you illegally download copyrighted material regularly?" and "How often do you illegally download copyrighted material?".
As the question is formulated, you can argue with the same level of truth:
"Filesharing in UK cost industry only 1 248 637 GBP"
(6.7 million, round down to 6, 50% overestimated, 4m, 30% can't actually use the software 2.8m, 18% of downloads are unusable, 2.296m, 10% downloads too slow, 2.06m, 1 song 99 USD cents, 1 GBP = 0.61 USD)
For what it's worth, I get whistled at when I'm wearing lycra shorts and riding my bike. I never get whistled at when I'm wearing cargo pants. (Or, for that matter, if I'm wearing lycra and *not* riding a bike.)
Lycra shorts are a bit like Schroedinger's cat, if nobody is looking their might be no problem.
I think that comparing physical security to (online) computer security is a bad analogy to base your security decisions on. Apples and oranges, you know.
The probability that you are under attack is close to 100%.
Just means that. It is being attacked, constantly. It doesn't mean it is a lost cause or that most attacks couldn't be thwarted by simple measures. But stupidity and ignorance gets punished...
But with physical attacks, the attacker must make the effort to get physically close to you. Even in large crowds this means only a few potential attackers.
On the internet, by contrast, anybody can attack your system. That's several millions of potential attackers. The probability that you are under attack is close to 100%.
But geez... our current government is really assuring we are falling behind.
Your senate is not the government.
But personally I believe the F-22 is an unnecessary project, perhaps more motivated by prestige and corporate interests than military necessity. Costing $140 million - that's 5 times the cost of a F-15 or Su-30. Money that is not available for other military spending, money to protect people actually fighting in Afghanistan etc.
Well, the Germans had their 130 km (80 miles) Gun in 1918. Probably because airplanes and rocket propelled missiles were not very good at that point. So, he might have mentioned rocket science instead of super guns...
His point is not without merit, an aircraft carrier is a big, extremely valuable target. A potential enemy only has to find one weakness. Much like the impregnable forts of the Maginot line or Eben Emael which were rendered useless by new tactics and weapons.
Would the US let Lockheed export the F35? I don't think the US allows exports of stealth planes.
F-35 is co-funded by 8 (NATO) partners