It really isn't 6 bytes either. Since RuggedCom has two registered MAC OUIs (grep for "RuggedCom"), it's only 24 bits to brute-force over two possible 3-byte manufacturer prefixes.
Yeah. Fail-flavored failure-stuffed failure topped with fail gravy.
Here's a clue for government agencies: You're subject to the same laws and restrictions as citizens, and then some, not less.
Sorry, I can't hear you over Sylvester Stallone yelling (in a bad fake Australian General accent) "I AM THE LAW!"
Although, in an ironic twist that kind of ruins an already poor joke, Judges of the Judge Dredd milieu are supposed to be bound to a higher duty to the law, such that their punishment for infringements are supposed to be more harsh than the equivalent for a citizen.
Nonsense. The true assholes aren't the hardcore elitists, they're the mildly-skilled ganking trolls that deliberately matchmake in the n00b brackets to score easy victories and much humiliation lulz. There's no margin in playing the game where you run the risk of someone else actually beating you. If tards like this could play pick-up streetball games against 8-year-olds, you know they would, and then mock the poor kids into tears.
Actually, I think "ICB" meant "Internal Combustion something-that-starts-with-B". I just can't think of what would be in the context, since the specific point of comparison was internal combustion engines.
It's perfectly bilateral. There's a meeting of minds and consideration on both sides.
Just like when Vinnie and Mr. Sung agree that (A) Mr. Sung will pay Vinnie 1/3 of the gross till of Mr. Sung's convenience store, or $2000 (whichever is more) each week; and (B) Vinnie agrees that Mr. Sung's convenience store won't accidentally burn down.
The time-honored metaphor for this is "carefully arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it sinks." We can fiddle trivial stuff and satisfy ourselves we're "DOING SOMETHING FOR <great cause>" while not actually changing the costly, momentous, or personally-significant things.
See also Matthew 7:3-5 if you're not opposed to Biblical proverbs.
I bet "Anonymous Reader", our submitter, who probably shills for "blackle.com", "believes" it.
I can't decide if this story is an intentional slashvertisement or an astroturf.
"Blackle.com"? Really? It's only slightly clever to raise the possibility that they're trying to greenwash the issue of "website-specific power consumption", especially since TFS very conveniently refutes that. ("not insignficant?" Sheesh.)
You're right. "Employee" isn't the best literal world to describe this relationship, although de facto it is often appropriate. However, in this case, a "contractual consultant" role is more of a subcontractor.
And we know that a subcontractor always has the freedom to oppose his contracting customer's position on matters in which he's being paid to consult.
The fact that Mueller has arguably wrong opinions is not a problem. Anyone who matters can dismiss those out of hand.
The problem is that (A) he has some credibility among those who don't know enough to dismiss his POV out of hand, and (B) he ceased to have personal opinions and instead has his corporate masters' opinions, without disclosing his financially-motivated interests.
Bias isn't a problem; bias is inevitable, and can be adjusted for. Undisclosed financial relationships and a hidden mercenary motivation is a problem, and a serious lapse of professional ethics in someone purporting to fulfill a journalistic and editorial role in the electronic Fourth Estate.
You don't know HarrySquatter isn't actually Glen Beck. You've never seen them together at the same time, right?
I contend, and I note that Glen Beck has never denied, that HarrySquatter is actually Glen Beck's slightly more psychopathic alter ego. Perhaps one of those cases of Multiple Personality Disorder. I leave it as an exercise to the reader whether Glen Beck is the shadow personality or the primary.
I like the symmetry. Apple is more than happy to distort reality for marketing purposes.
OTOH, if simple symmetry were enough, standing with one foot in liquid nitrogen and the other foot in an oven set to "self-clean", I should be comfortable because the average of those is room temperature.
Sometimes the average between two sets of conflicting lies is just different lies.
Sure, but the post you are replying to is still correct. Notice how those trials and judgments are after the fact? During the events "following orders" was reality. You can try to hide from it, you can wish it weren't true, but that's how the world works.
Hold it. Are you saying stuff like this is "right, initially". And only become wrong after the fact?
And that, friends and neighbors, is the real takeaway. The world is run by PHBs. And the winning PHBs can rewrite history as easily as they can rewrite rules. So yeah, in disgusting truth, "objectively wrong" stuff really does become wrong only after the fact.
Actually, most of the "leadership-level" technical weenies I know (i.e., CIO-level types) play excellent golf. Maybe the problem is that they keep beating the CEO. Knowing CEO ego, that would be a serious issue.
I need to clarify. Apple wasn't particularly in the wrong to select Nvidia parts, at least not in any knowable culpability sense. That was Nvidia's bad, through and through. And Nvidia paid up.
Now, in the specific case of the original submitter, Apple really does appear to be in the wrong, on multiple levels. They refused to honor a warranty they themselves extended on the basis of this product-level problem (caused by a vendor-part-level issue). And, in theory, they had the money to do it, since Nvidia had paid them already. (Yeah, it's not that simple, but still, in my mind, if A give B money and tells B "fix C's stuff using this money" and B just pockets the cash and walks away, B is in the wrong.)
As much as it pains me to defend Apple's corporate behavior in any matter, Nvidia was clearly in the wrong. Apple had no advance knowledge of Nvidia's bad engineering and dishonest documentation. The GPUs failed after time and use, so only an unrealistically long engineering evaluation period by any customer of Nvidia's parts would have uncovered the issue. Apple was boned, and Nvidia did the boning.
This little peccadillo on Nvidia's part is how they wound up on my "never buy" list.
The Inquirer chased the story quite intensively back in the 2009 timeframe. This query will give you the list of the articles there that might provide a bit of context to this story.
Maybe they calculate, based on reasonable predictions of variables such as the likelihood of lawsuits and the corresponding costs of such lawsuits, that they can profit more by offering the warranties (positive marketing) and then not honoring them (reduced after-sale cost) and paying out the (comparatively) few lawsuit judgments. And, sadly for decency and goodness, they were probably right.
It can, if they can buy the right laws. Like a excise on anything faintly related to media or communications technology, transferred directly to their coffers, to "compensate" them for their "losses".
The object is to get your money. In the old days, suckers would created product and participate in an economic transaction, exchanging some aspect of that product (sales, licensing, etc.) for your consumer dollars. Nowadays, the savvy media/communications mogul knows he can cut out the hard part (making and marketing consumable product) and pass the savings on to himself, as long as he can use the law to extort the money out of the consumer public that he would otherwise have had to earn in some fashion.
Wow. The Mystique of Larry is strong with this one.
Larry Ellison is rich, egotistical, and entirely fallible. He still puts his pants on one leg at a time, and apparently he sometimes also catches his junk in his zipper.
This is not a gambit. Ellison is not a chessmaster. He got caught off-guard and failed to advance his case. It's probably not fatal either, just slightly discrediting. and the legal team is paid lots of money to be able to counter that kind of stuff.
A co-worker asked me if I was free for lunch, and I responded that I never charged to dine with a friend. And he just LOOOOKED at me...
Silly co-worker. He seemed to have the mistaken impression that "free" meant something besides "of no cost". I'm glad I could set him right.
And I'm also glad I'm not the only one on this crusade. Thanks for your valiant effort to free I MEAN liberate the word "free" from the shackles of context-based parsing. Just a little farther and we will arrive at the golden Promised Land of Newspeak. And that is doubleplusgood.
I suggest a levy based on fencing type. A nice picket fence of moderate height (non-privacy) should be something like 1.5%, since it's easy to carry out an illicit transaction over a pleasant waist-high fence. OTOH, a 3-meter-tall chain link topped with razor wire and covered in privacy slatting should be less than 0.5%, since no one can reasonably haggle over the price of stolen goods through one of those. And also, governments love those for their various "black project" and "star chamber" types of facilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Some truths were born unspeakable. And have been for decades.
I hope you're not surprised by this.
It really isn't 6 bytes either. Since RuggedCom has two registered MAC OUIs (grep for "RuggedCom"), it's only 24 bits to brute-force over two possible 3-byte manufacturer prefixes.
Yeah. Fail-flavored failure-stuffed failure topped with fail gravy.
Here's a clue for government agencies: You're subject to the same laws and restrictions as citizens, and then some, not less.
Sorry, I can't hear you over Sylvester Stallone yelling (in a bad fake Australian General accent) "I AM THE LAW!"
Although, in an ironic twist that kind of ruins an already poor joke, Judges of the Judge Dredd milieu are supposed to be bound to a higher duty to the law, such that their punishment for infringements are supposed to be more harsh than the equivalent for a citizen.
Nonsense. The true assholes aren't the hardcore elitists, they're the mildly-skilled ganking trolls that deliberately matchmake in the n00b brackets to score easy victories and much humiliation lulz. There's no margin in playing the game where you run the risk of someone else actually beating you. If tards like this could play pick-up streetball games against 8-year-olds, you know they would, and then mock the poor kids into tears.
Actually, I think "ICB" meant "Internal Combustion something-that-starts-with-B". I just can't think of what would be in the context, since the specific point of comparison was internal combustion engines.
It's perfectly bilateral. There's a meeting of minds and consideration on both sides.
Just like when Vinnie and Mr. Sung agree that (A) Mr. Sung will pay Vinnie 1/3 of the gross till of Mr. Sung's convenience store, or $2000 (whichever is more) each week; and (B) Vinnie agrees that Mr. Sung's convenience store won't accidentally burn down.
The time-honored metaphor for this is "carefully arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it sinks." We can fiddle trivial stuff and satisfy ourselves we're "DOING SOMETHING FOR <great cause>" while not actually changing the costly, momentous, or personally-significant things.
See also Matthew 7:3-5 if you're not opposed to Biblical proverbs.
I bet "Anonymous Reader", our submitter, who probably shills for "blackle.com", "believes" it.
I can't decide if this story is an intentional slashvertisement or an astroturf.
"Blackle.com"? Really? It's only slightly clever to raise the possibility that they're trying to greenwash the issue of "website-specific power consumption", especially since TFS very conveniently refutes that. ("not insignficant?" Sheesh.)
You're right. "Employee" isn't the best literal world to describe this relationship, although de facto it is often appropriate. However, in this case, a "contractual consultant" role is more of a subcontractor.
And we know that a subcontractor always has the freedom to oppose his contracting customer's position on matters in which he's being paid to consult.
No, wait...what?
The fact that Mueller has arguably wrong opinions is not a problem. Anyone who matters can dismiss those out of hand.
The problem is that (A) he has some credibility among those who don't know enough to dismiss his POV out of hand, and (B) he ceased to have personal opinions and instead has his corporate masters' opinions, without disclosing his financially-motivated interests.
Bias isn't a problem; bias is inevitable, and can be adjusted for. Undisclosed financial relationships and a hidden mercenary motivation is a problem, and a serious lapse of professional ethics in someone purporting to fulfill a journalistic and editorial role in the electronic Fourth Estate.
You don't know HarrySquatter isn't actually Glen Beck. You've never seen them together at the same time, right?
I contend, and I note that Glen Beck has never denied, that HarrySquatter is actually Glen Beck's slightly more psychopathic alter ego. Perhaps one of those cases of Multiple Personality Disorder. I leave it as an exercise to the reader whether Glen Beck is the shadow personality or the primary.
I like the symmetry. Apple is more than happy to distort reality for marketing purposes.
OTOH, if simple symmetry were enough, standing with one foot in liquid nitrogen and the other foot in an oven set to "self-clean", I should be comfortable because the average of those is room temperature.
Sometimes the average between two sets of conflicting lies is just different lies.
Sure, but the post you are replying to is still correct. Notice how those trials and judgments are after the fact? During the events "following orders" was reality. You can try to hide from it, you can wish it weren't true, but that's how the world works.
Hold it. Are you saying stuff like this is "right, initially". And only become wrong after the fact?
I've seen this before.
And that, friends and neighbors, is the real takeaway. The world is run by PHBs. And the winning PHBs can rewrite history as easily as they can rewrite rules. So yeah, in disgusting truth, "objectively wrong" stuff really does become wrong only after the fact.
Plus, they don't play golf.
Actually, most of the "leadership-level" technical weenies I know (i.e., CIO-level types) play excellent golf. Maybe the problem is that they keep beating the CEO. Knowing CEO ego, that would be a serious issue.
I need to clarify. Apple wasn't particularly in the wrong to select Nvidia parts, at least not in any knowable culpability sense. That was Nvidia's bad, through and through. And Nvidia paid up.
Now, in the specific case of the original submitter, Apple really does appear to be in the wrong, on multiple levels. They refused to honor a warranty they themselves extended on the basis of this product-level problem (caused by a vendor-part-level issue). And, in theory, they had the money to do it, since Nvidia had paid them already. (Yeah, it's not that simple, but still, in my mind, if A give B money and tells B "fix C's stuff using this money" and B just pockets the cash and walks away, B is in the wrong.)
Well, when all the litigation amongst the companies shook out, it turns out that Nvidia is footing the bill for their own screw-up.
As much as it pains me to defend Apple's corporate behavior in any matter, Nvidia was clearly in the wrong. Apple had no advance knowledge of Nvidia's bad engineering and dishonest documentation. The GPUs failed after time and use, so only an unrealistically long engineering evaluation period by any customer of Nvidia's parts would have uncovered the issue. Apple was boned, and Nvidia did the boning.
This little peccadillo on Nvidia's part is how they wound up on my "never buy" list.
The Inquirer chased the story quite intensively back in the 2009 timeframe. This query will give you the list of the articles there that might provide a bit of context to this story.
Maybe they calculate, based on reasonable predictions of variables such as the likelihood of lawsuits and the corresponding costs of such lawsuits, that they can profit more by offering the warranties (positive marketing) and then not honoring them (reduced after-sale cost) and paying out the (comparatively) few lawsuit judgments. And, sadly for decency and goodness, they were probably right.
This doesn't work long term.
It can, if they can buy the right laws. Like a excise on anything faintly related to media or communications technology, transferred directly to their coffers, to "compensate" them for their "losses".
The object is to get your money. In the old days, suckers would created product and participate in an economic transaction, exchanging some aspect of that product (sales, licensing, etc.) for your consumer dollars. Nowadays, the savvy media/communications mogul knows he can cut out the hard part (making and marketing consumable product) and pass the savings on to himself, as long as he can use the law to extort the money out of the consumer public that he would otherwise have had to earn in some fashion.
Wow. The Mystique of Larry is strong with this one.
Larry Ellison is rich, egotistical, and entirely fallible. He still puts his pants on one leg at a time, and apparently he sometimes also catches his junk in his zipper.
This is not a gambit. Ellison is not a chessmaster. He got caught off-guard and failed to advance his case. It's probably not fatal either, just slightly discrediting. and the legal team is paid lots of money to be able to counter that kind of stuff.
Oh, that explains it.
A co-worker asked me if I was free for lunch, and I responded that I never charged to dine with a friend. And he just LOOOOKED at me...
Silly co-worker. He seemed to have the mistaken impression that "free" meant something besides "of no cost". I'm glad I could set him right.
And I'm also glad I'm not the only one on this crusade. Thanks for your valiant effort to free I MEAN liberate the word "free" from the shackles of context-based parsing. Just a little farther and we will arrive at the golden Promised Land of Newspeak. And that is doubleplusgood.
Whatever you're doing that makes it seem bloated or doggy, it's you not the program.
Yeah, cob666. You're probably holding iTunes wrong.
Oh. "Majorana", not "My Sharona". Never mind.
I like circular references as much as I like circular references, which is as much as I like circular references.
I suspect engraving "Elbereth" on the floor wouldn't prevent Oracle from attacking me. More's the shame.
And fences, too. People fence stolen goods.
I suggest a levy based on fencing type. A nice picket fence of moderate height (non-privacy) should be something like 1.5%, since it's easy to carry out an illicit transaction over a pleasant waist-high fence. OTOH, a 3-meter-tall chain link topped with razor wire and covered in privacy slatting should be less than 0.5%, since no one can reasonably haggle over the price of stolen goods through one of those. And also, governments love those for their various "black project" and "star chamber" types of facilities.