Clearly he doesn't know much about the DoD or Apple either. This kind of conversation usually goes something like this:
DoD: Hello, we have a basically unlimited pile of money.
Apple: Hmm. Money, you say? We collect that stuff, can we have some?
DoD: We'd like a hundred thousand iPhones, a signing key that allows us to deploy any software onto them, and the source code for review.
Apple: Yes, yes, whatever. How much money were we talking about?
DoD: A really big pile.
Apple: Will a signature in blood be okay? We have some new interns...
It's the main reason why C++ does well in microbenchmarks and does so much worse in real-world usage. It encourages a lot of inlining, which reduces branching but increases instruction cache usage. It's difficult to benchmark well, because instruction cache pressure changes over time depending on what else is happening with the system.
Why not take a trip to antarctica? The gravity and atmosphere are more friendly to humans, but aside from that they're about as habitable. And antarctica is closer.
The reason I suspect that this will fail is that I have no idea what projects are worth funding outside my field. This is why funding bodies have panels of domain experts to review proposals. Asking me - as someone with a PhD in a science subject - to choose which of two particle physics experiments is more worthwhile is unlikely to get a sensible answer. Asking someone with a less scientific background is going to fail completely.
Yes, the Republicans and Democrats both pander to their donors, but at least the tend to have different, conflicting. donors
That's not how it works. A company will donate $200K (for example) to both candidates. If the winning candidate doesn't vote the way the company wants, then the threat is to only give $200K to the other candidate in the next election. The elected representative doesn't have to do what they want to get an advantage, they have to do what they want to get a level playing field.
Hackerdom is still predominantly male. However, the percentage of women is clearly higher than the low-single-digit range typical for technical professions, and female hackers are generally respected and dealt with as equals.
I suspect that this is largely because most of us are so oblivious to the world around us that we fail to notice the gender of our fellow hackers. Or, somewhat less facetiously, because a lot of the communication within the group tends to be via text-based communication with gender and ethnicity neutral pseudonyms, so you often get to know someone before you learn what their gender or skin colour is.
There is no reason for anyone in a developed country to not be able to gain access to a computer if they want one...
That's true now. It was far less true when the current set of entrepreneurs was growing up, in the '80s. Back then, home computers were rare. The first school I went to had four computers and a hundred pupils. I grew up in a fairly affluent middle-class area, and it wasn't until the mid '90s that owning a home computer was common. Now, I have computers far more powerful than the ones I grew up with that I can't even give away, but back then it was quite different.
No, it's statistics. In the USA, 13.1/9.2% (rural/urban) of the white population are classed as poor. 32.9/26.6% of blacks. Not all black kids are poor, but almost a third of them will be (actually, probably more because poor people on average have more children). There are 5.75 times as many whites as blacks in the USA, so all other things being equal you'd expect about one in seven tech startups to be run by black people. But blacks are seriously overrepresented in the poor demographics, so the number of black kids who had access to computers is going to be significantly lower. Add to this the cultural bias in a lot of black communities against things perceived as 'white' (including computers) and you've got a much lower representation.
Then you get the feedback effect that all minorities see. If it is rare for a person from a group to have a set of abilities, then the people from that group that do demonstrate those abilities are met with suspicion. This is usually entirely subconscious, but it adds another barrier to entry: if VCs see far fewer black people with ideas then they will build up an idea that funding black people is more risky, not through any racist beliefs, just based on their experience.
A race? No. An educational system? Absolutely! There seems to be something badly wrong with teaching in India. There is a huge difference in quality between students I've taught who went to school in India and those who went to school elsewhere. It can't be genetic, because the ones educated out of India seem to have the same spread of abilities as everyone else.
It seems that Indian education teaches you to memorise a large problem-to-solution map, and if the problem is not an entry in that map then it doesn't teach them to think. As far as I can tell, thinking seems to be actively discouraged. It's not that they're stupid, they just seem to have been conditioned not to apply thought to problem solving. It's really painful trying to teach them - they know all of the steps to solve a problem, they know how to fit them together, but something seems to prevent them from doing it. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be permanent brain damage, because after you've slowly and painfully gone through a few things, they eventually realise that they do know how to think and that they won't get into trouble if they do.
Seriously? So when crack is legalized, you're going to just walk down the street and tell the crack dealers on the corner, "Sorry, fellas! Looks like me and my legitimate business will be taking over from here on out!" Then you'll smile, wave, and walk back to your office to plan your new crack business?
Nope. The existing drug shops will just start selling things in addition to alcohol. The won't go down the street to the crack dealers, they'll just sell opiates at a known and guaranteed quality to people with no fear of legal reprisal. The street corner dealers, if they want to stay in business, will have to compete with cheap, legal, convenient and guaranteed quality. If they can do that... good luck to them.
Please stop that, this is not twitter. We know you are replying to kiwimate because... your post is a reply to him. Doing this on threaded discussions is pointless and interrupts the flow.
We already have laws protecting children from parental negligence. With less money going to stop people from taking their favourite recreational substances, maybe we'd do a better job of enforcing them and providing help to the victims...
If every Jose and Pablo, Elizabeth and Dulce in town had a gun of their own to defend themselves and their families, the mob wouldn't be so overwhelmingly powerful.
Guns are not a magic equaliser. Even with both sides being armed, one is more willing to use their guns. If you shoot a gang member, they are going to be perfectly willing to hunt down and kill your entire family - are you willing to do the same? Do you expect 'every Jose and Pablo, Elizabeth and Dulce in town' to be equally willing?
When the drugs are legalised and regulated, you can redirect the funding that went into the War Against Unfashionable Drugs into a War Against Slavery...
No, they have two choices: take it down immediately or lose their DMCA safe harbour protection. Without the safe harbour protection, they are liable for any copyright infringement that occurs on their site, so become liable for statutory fines of $7.5K or more per work that is uploaded to YouTube and infringes anyone's copyright. i.e. enough to bankrupt Google. I am not certain what happens if they don't put things back after receiving a counternotice. I would hope that this incurs the same liability.
Sending a takedown notice is using the legal process to have it taken down, so your points 1 and 2 are the same. If the uploader files a counternotice and they put it back, then it has to proceed through the courts and the host is not liable for any infringement (as long as they take it down if the court tells them to).
By your reading, you only have to be acting on behalf of the owner of some random copyright to be able to send takedown notices on any unrelated topic. For example, I own the copyright on the books that I've published and, more importantly, on this Slashdot post. If I authorise someone to send takedown notices to everyone who infringes the copyright on this post, and they file takedown notices with Hulu against all WB shows, then your reading would be that that is completely legal. I strongly suspect that a court would disagree and say that you have to be sure that it is your copyright that is being infringed.
The claim is that you are authorised to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright of the work being distributed. If you are authorised to work on behalf of the owner of copyrighted work A, and you file a takedown notice against work B, then you are not authorised to act on the behalf of the copyright owner.
Nope, it's perjury. A DMCA takedown notice is (according to the DMCA itself) issued under penalty of perjury. It may also be fraud, anticompetitive behaviour, and a variety of other things, but issuing a DMCA takedown notice without being sure that it is accurate is perjury. It is not analogous to perjury, the fact that it is perjury is written into the DMCA. It's time someone started prosecuting people who send false takedown notices.
of course there is no taking it back once opened, so there goes my money right down the shitter
Is this really true? In the UK, you can return it with the original packaging as not suitable for the purpose for which sold, and they are obliged to give you a refund. If they don't, then you can take them to the small claims court as long as you do so within a few (5, I think) years of the purchase.
They don't pay more, but it does cost them more in extra management effort. They periodically restructure their network, and when they resegment they try to move subnets around to match the segments to keep their routing tables small. A static IP means that they can't do this.
Static IP maybe. IPv6? It makes a whole lot of things easier, especially things like VoIP. Home users don't care, but people writing software for home users do. More upstream? Definitely not limited to business use. Uploading photos and videos to flickr / gootube / facebook is increasingly common. So is sending large emails. Upstream is increasingly the bottleneck for home users - Virgin Media even acknowledged that a few months ago, but they haven't modified their plans yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly he doesn't know much about the DoD or Apple either. This kind of conversation usually goes something like this:
DoD: Hello, we have a basically unlimited pile of money.
Apple: Hmm. Money, you say? We collect that stuff, can we have some?
DoD: We'd like a hundred thousand iPhones, a signing key that allows us to deploy any software onto them, and the source code for review.
Apple: Yes, yes, whatever. How much money were we talking about?
DoD: A really big pile.
Apple: Will a signature in blood be okay? We have some new interns...
It's the main reason why C++ does well in microbenchmarks and does so much worse in real-world usage. It encourages a lot of inlining, which reduces branching but increases instruction cache usage. It's difficult to benchmark well, because instruction cache pressure changes over time depending on what else is happening with the system.
Why not take a trip to antarctica? The gravity and atmosphere are more friendly to humans, but aside from that they're about as habitable. And antarctica is closer.
The reason I suspect that this will fail is that I have no idea what projects are worth funding outside my field. This is why funding bodies have panels of domain experts to review proposals. Asking me - as someone with a PhD in a science subject - to choose which of two particle physics experiments is more worthwhile is unlikely to get a sensible answer. Asking someone with a less scientific background is going to fail completely.
Yes, the Republicans and Democrats both pander to their donors, but at least the tend to have different, conflicting. donors
That's not how it works. A company will donate $200K (for example) to both candidates. If the winning candidate doesn't vote the way the company wants, then the threat is to only give $200K to the other candidate in the next election. The elected representative doesn't have to do what they want to get an advantage, they have to do what they want to get a level playing field.
Hackerdom is still predominantly male. However, the percentage of women is clearly higher than the low-single-digit range typical for technical professions, and female hackers are generally respected and dealt with as equals.
I suspect that this is largely because most of us are so oblivious to the world around us that we fail to notice the gender of our fellow hackers. Or, somewhat less facetiously, because a lot of the communication within the group tends to be via text-based communication with gender and ethnicity neutral pseudonyms, so you often get to know someone before you learn what their gender or skin colour is.
There is no reason for anyone in a developed country to not be able to gain access to a computer if they want one...
That's true now. It was far less true when the current set of entrepreneurs was growing up, in the '80s. Back then, home computers were rare. The first school I went to had four computers and a hundred pupils. I grew up in a fairly affluent middle-class area, and it wasn't until the mid '90s that owning a home computer was common. Now, I have computers far more powerful than the ones I grew up with that I can't even give away, but back then it was quite different.
No, it's statistics. In the USA, 13.1/9.2% (rural/urban) of the white population are classed as poor. 32.9/26.6% of blacks. Not all black kids are poor, but almost a third of them will be (actually, probably more because poor people on average have more children). There are 5.75 times as many whites as blacks in the USA, so all other things being equal you'd expect about one in seven tech startups to be run by black people. But blacks are seriously overrepresented in the poor demographics, so the number of black kids who had access to computers is going to be significantly lower. Add to this the cultural bias in a lot of black communities against things perceived as 'white' (including computers) and you've got a much lower representation.
Then you get the feedback effect that all minorities see. If it is rare for a person from a group to have a set of abilities, then the people from that group that do demonstrate those abilities are met with suspicion. This is usually entirely subconscious, but it adds another barrier to entry: if VCs see far fewer black people with ideas then they will build up an idea that funding black people is more risky, not through any racist beliefs, just based on their experience.
That's okay - I don't live in the states, and I'm talking about undergraduate students.
A race? No. An educational system? Absolutely! There seems to be something badly wrong with teaching in India. There is a huge difference in quality between students I've taught who went to school in India and those who went to school elsewhere. It can't be genetic, because the ones educated out of India seem to have the same spread of abilities as everyone else.
It seems that Indian education teaches you to memorise a large problem-to-solution map, and if the problem is not an entry in that map then it doesn't teach them to think. As far as I can tell, thinking seems to be actively discouraged. It's not that they're stupid, they just seem to have been conditioned not to apply thought to problem solving. It's really painful trying to teach them - they know all of the steps to solve a problem, they know how to fit them together, but something seems to prevent them from doing it. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be permanent brain damage, because after you've slowly and painfully gone through a few things, they eventually realise that they do know how to think and that they won't get into trouble if they do.
Perhaps you should try looking in this dictionary.
I suspect, after weighing the evidence, that they have in fact become girly-men.
Let's try. I herby authorise anyone to issue DMCA takedown notices on my behalf for any infringement of the the copyright on my Slashdot posts.
Seriously? So when crack is legalized, you're going to just walk down the street and tell the crack dealers on the corner, "Sorry, fellas! Looks like me and my legitimate business will be taking over from here on out!" Then you'll smile, wave, and walk back to your office to plan your new crack business?
Nope. The existing drug shops will just start selling things in addition to alcohol. The won't go down the street to the crack dealers, they'll just sell opiates at a known and guaranteed quality to people with no fear of legal reprisal. The street corner dealers, if they want to stay in business, will have to compete with cheap, legal, convenient and guaranteed quality. If they can do that... good luck to them.
@kiwimate
Please stop that, this is not twitter. We know you are replying to kiwimate because... your post is a reply to him. Doing this on threaded discussions is pointless and interrupts the flow.
We already have laws protecting children from parental negligence. With less money going to stop people from taking their favourite recreational substances, maybe we'd do a better job of enforcing them and providing help to the victims...
If every Jose and Pablo, Elizabeth and Dulce in town had a gun of their own to defend themselves and their families, the mob wouldn't be so overwhelmingly powerful.
Guns are not a magic equaliser. Even with both sides being armed, one is more willing to use their guns. If you shoot a gang member, they are going to be perfectly willing to hunt down and kill your entire family - are you willing to do the same? Do you expect 'every Jose and Pablo, Elizabeth and Dulce in town' to be equally willing?
When the drugs are legalised and regulated, you can redirect the funding that went into the War Against Unfashionable Drugs into a War Against Slavery...
No, they have two choices: take it down immediately or lose their DMCA safe harbour protection. Without the safe harbour protection, they are liable for any copyright infringement that occurs on their site, so become liable for statutory fines of $7.5K or more per work that is uploaded to YouTube and infringes anyone's copyright. i.e. enough to bankrupt Google. I am not certain what happens if they don't put things back after receiving a counternotice. I would hope that this incurs the same liability.
Sending a takedown notice is using the legal process to have it taken down, so your points 1 and 2 are the same. If the uploader files a counternotice and they put it back, then it has to proceed through the courts and the host is not liable for any infringement (as long as they take it down if the court tells them to).
By your reading, you only have to be acting on behalf of the owner of some random copyright to be able to send takedown notices on any unrelated topic. For example, I own the copyright on the books that I've published and, more importantly, on this Slashdot post. If I authorise someone to send takedown notices to everyone who infringes the copyright on this post, and they file takedown notices with Hulu against all WB shows, then your reading would be that that is completely legal. I strongly suspect that a court would disagree and say that you have to be sure that it is your copyright that is being infringed.
The claim is that you are authorised to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright of the work being distributed. If you are authorised to work on behalf of the owner of copyrighted work A, and you file a takedown notice against work B, then you are not authorised to act on the behalf of the copyright owner.
Nope, it's perjury. A DMCA takedown notice is (according to the DMCA itself) issued under penalty of perjury. It may also be fraud, anticompetitive behaviour, and a variety of other things, but issuing a DMCA takedown notice without being sure that it is accurate is perjury. It is not analogous to perjury, the fact that it is perjury is written into the DMCA. It's time someone started prosecuting people who send false takedown notices.
of course there is no taking it back once opened, so there goes my money right down the shitter
Is this really true? In the UK, you can return it with the original packaging as not suitable for the purpose for which sold, and they are obliged to give you a refund. If they don't, then you can take them to the small claims court as long as you do so within a few (5, I think) years of the purchase.
They don't pay more, but it does cost them more in extra management effort. They periodically restructure their network, and when they resegment they try to move subnets around to match the segments to keep their routing tables small. A static IP means that they can't do this.
Static IP maybe. IPv6? It makes a whole lot of things easier, especially things like VoIP. Home users don't care, but people writing software for home users do. More upstream? Definitely not limited to business use. Uploading photos and videos to flickr / gootube / facebook is increasingly common. So is sending large emails. Upstream is increasingly the bottleneck for home users - Virgin Media even acknowledged that a few months ago, but they haven't modified their plans yet.