... to allow for an interesting development of a series of stories that culminate in unexpected consequences. have a read, and then ask yourself what the bugs are in the restatement.
Hint: the bug is now the highest priority.
--dave
As good for MS as Oracle/Sun was for Oracle
on
Why Nokia Is Toast
·
· Score: 1
MS has "needed" a hardware arm for some time now, so they can sell a whole package and capture the profits from all the components that go into the products that consumers actually buy. Oracle's purchase of Sun made them the 2,000-pound gorilla of commercial software, expect the same results if MS gains control of a hardware manufacturer.
Mind you, I don't necessarily think this is a good thing!
They started to degrade when Mr Sony stopped being active in the management of the company, and started shipping explicitly poor-quality products when he died. His heirs should sue to get their good name back (;-))
--dave
Consortia of ISPs will see this as a competitive advantage, and "offer" it to Google et all as a package deal. If they don't buy, they'll get degraded service. Downstream providers who don't agree to buy in will also get the degraded service.
That means the honest ISPs will get the slow service, and that's all they will be able to offer you.
You'll be the person complaining of slow service and switch to the mafiosi who offer the fast service, rather than to the honest folks who have been starved.
In a series of comparative tests, readers using electronic devices read 15% slower on average than
on paper positioned the same way. Higher bit-densities improved reading performance only slightly.
The first is a game-theory classic, and I'll leave it to the academics.
The second is what I was arguing against in the initial posting. If government X actively works to do something evil, I claim it's both their responsibility and their fault. Similarly, if they actively do something good, they're responsible for it and also due praise for it.
Conversely, if government Y inherits a bad policy from x, they're not guilty, but they are responsible. If they drag their feet on reversing it, they can become guilty, but they don't start that way.
Therefor I'll claim that "the X administrations' policy is evil" is a fair comment if and only if the policy really belongs to X, or if X has evilly refused to reverse it. It's not their policy if they just inherited it from Y.
In short, evil is as evil does.
--dave
[Hmmn, I think this one may also be a solved problem in game theory: anyone know?]
It may be the governments that Barak Obama and Steven Harper lead, but is it fair to say that the "X administration" or the "Y government" is party to this scheme?
The RIAA has been trying to change Canadian law since long before Steven Harper was even in parliament, and has worked with all the intervening governments to try to push their position.
If I were to say the "Harper administration" was part of this policy effort, it would suggest that they dreamed up the policy, and were themselves evil. That's not just an insult, it's unfair.
I'd rather insult Mr Harper fairly, by calling him "Steve" and his party the "Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance" party, or CCRAP*.
--dave
* Yes, that was the party's name at one point. They changed it.
We all know what we want: We want Comcast to be unable to charge Google extra for the service of letting customers access Youtube. But it's really hard to phrase this well enough...
We need someone to police these folks. I really wish we could use the criminal code to do more than "regulate" their misbehavior.
Methinks we're in the same position as the merchants of the middle ages, who made the case to the Kings of the day that "the king's peace" was as much threatened by the scammers and fraudsters as it was by the highwaymen of the era. They got the first "Statute of Frauds" passed, making fraud an actual crime, not just something you could try to sue someone over.
If I understand it correctly, "drunk and disorderly" is an offense and a mitigating circumstance, all in one. Just plain disorderly is more eviler (;-))
In the British tradition, a police constable is a person who is paid to do the same duty he owes to the peace as a private citizen. We all have the duty to chase down robbers, and we just had a court case in Toronto (Canada) that underscored a
shopkeeper's right to chase down, arrest and hold a thief for the police.
Regrettably, in some jurisdictions, including mine, a police constable is privileged and armed, without being under the same stringent laws as a member of the military.
Returning to the point of the article, some few wold like to prevent themselves from being photographed. They haven't succeeded, and one constable was just charged for beating up a spectator at the G20 summit, courtesy of citizens who did their duty and recorded the assault and provided the films to the newspapers, youtube and the courts.
In some countries, judges look extremely unfavourably on people who sue first and ask questions later, without attempting to settle things out of court, through less drastic channels. I don't know if the US courts take a similar view.
An example from The Lawyers Weekly, Vol. 20, No. 39 (February 23, 2001) was The federal Crown has been ordered to pay $55,000 in costs to two men after a Nova Scotia judge stayed drug-trafficking charges against them based on the "serious misconduct" of prosecutors and police.
Canadian judges seemingly get grumpy when anyone tries to bamboozle them, including the Crown prosecutor (:-))
Military information already has a very short lifespan. Famously, "Flash" messages
are sent UNCLAS, because it's more important they arrive now than be kept from
the enemy.
Field Marshal Example already makes his information known to the enemy the moment he acts on it.
That's why it was such a terrible decision for Winston Churchill to (putatively) consider keeping secret the German
plans to bomb Coventry.
Unit war diaries are released a few years after the war is over, and even the anal
British unclassify the rest of the material after fifty years or so. I can now read all sorts of stuff about the
"funnys", which were top secret before the invasion of Europe.
The political equivalent of a flash message may stay secret a bit longer, but
they probably only need stay secret until the crisis of the day is over. So give them a week
instead of an hour.
The longest one should keep any secret is until all the participants are dead, and can't get
in trouble. Which is approximately what the Census does (or did, since my government is in the process
of eliminating same)
An older example of transitive trust causing problems to innocent bystanders was a library system and a drugstore system running on the same time-shared mainframe.
The drugstore system had security up the wazoo, the library did not.
An evil operator did the equivalent of a join on names between the two systems, and selected female persons with prescriptions for birth control pills from one and for addresses from the other, then started stalking.
Neither system alone would have yielded the information, but the combination of the two did, and the results were as startling then as the first cross-site scripting attacks were more recently.
So she's looking out for all of us, even those that don't know the degree to which they're vulnerable.
"biz boy" is an derogatory term for MBA students, who are roughly 50% female these days. I typo'd and wrote "business boy", and inadvertently insulted fellow members of my sex instead of the people I meant to insult (;-))
--dave
Slashdot Mirror
... to allow for an interesting development of a series of stories that culminate in unexpected consequences. have a read, and then ask yourself what the bugs are in the restatement.
Hint: the bug is now the highest priority.
--dave
MS has "needed" a hardware arm for some time now, so they can sell a whole package and capture the profits from all the components that go into the products that consumers actually buy. Oracle's purchase of Sun made them the 2,000-pound gorilla of commercial software, expect the same results if MS gains control of a hardware manufacturer.
Mind you, I don't necessarily think this is a good thing!
--dave
They started to degrade when Mr Sony stopped being active in the management of the company, and started shipping explicitly poor-quality products when he died. His heirs should sue to get their good name back (;-)) --dave
Consortia of ISPs will see this as a competitive advantage, and "offer" it to Google et all as a package deal. If they don't buy, they'll get degraded service. Downstream providers who don't agree to buy in will also get the degraded service.
That means the honest ISPs will get the slow service, and that's all they will be able to offer you.
You'll be the person complaining of slow service and switch to the mafiosi who offer the fast service, rather than to the honest folks who have been starved.
Bummer!
--dave
Ed Burnette dug down and found the code to be unused unit-tests and unused driver code, not shipped with android.
See Oops: No copied Java code or weapons of mass destruction found in Android
--dave
In a series of comparative tests, readers using electronic devices read 15% slower on average than on paper positioned the same way. Higher bit-densities improved reading performance only slightly.
--dave
Not at my desk: "citation needed"
Could you expand on this a bit? I'm thinking broad categories, not trying to troll (;-))
--dave
I think you've two distinct arguments there
The first is a game-theory classic, and I'll leave it to the academics.
The second is what I was arguing against in the initial posting. If government X actively works to do something evil, I claim it's both their responsibility and their fault. Similarly, if they actively do something good, they're responsible for it and also due praise for it.
Conversely, if government Y inherits a bad policy from x, they're not guilty, but they are responsible. If they drag their feet on reversing it, they can become guilty, but they don't start that way.
Therefor I'll claim that "the X administrations' policy is evil" is a fair comment if and only if the policy really belongs to X, or if X has evilly refused to reverse it. It's not their policy if they just inherited it from Y.
In short, evil is as evil does.
--dave
[Hmmn, I think this one may also be a solved problem in game theory: anyone know?]
Hmmn, I think I said that...
--dave
It may be the governments that Barak Obama and Steven Harper lead, but is it fair to say that the "X administration" or the "Y government" is party to this scheme?
The RIAA has been trying to change Canadian law since long before Steven Harper was even in parliament, and has worked with all the intervening governments to try to push their position.
If I were to say the "Harper administration" was part of this policy effort, it would suggest that they dreamed up the policy, and were themselves evil. That's not just an insult, it's unfair.
I'd rather insult Mr Harper fairly, by calling him "Steve" and his party the "Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance" party, or CCRAP*.
--dave
* Yes, that was the party's name at one point. They changed it.
Dunno, I'm in Canada.
A "wild colonial boy" (with apologies to the Aussies)
--dave
seebs wrote:
We all know what we want: We want Comcast to be unable to charge Google extra for the service of letting customers access Youtube. But it's really hard to phrase this well enough ...
We need someone to police these folks. I really wish we could use the criminal code to do more than "regulate" their misbehavior.
Methinks we're in the same position as the merchants of the middle ages, who made the case to the Kings of the day that "the king's peace" was as much threatened by the scammers and fraudsters as it was by the highwaymen of the era. They got the first "Statute of Frauds" passed, making fraud an actual crime, not just something you could try to sue someone over.
--dave
"Here!" is a dead link (;-))
--dave
If I understand it correctly, "drunk and disorderly" is an offense and a mitigating circumstance, all in one. Just plain disorderly is more eviler (;-))
--dave
In the British tradition, a police constable is a person who is paid to do the same duty he owes to the peace as a private citizen. We all have the duty to chase down robbers, and we just had a court case in Toronto (Canada) that underscored a shopkeeper's right to chase down, arrest and hold a thief for the police.
Regrettably, in some jurisdictions, including mine, a police constable is privileged and armed, without being under the same stringent laws as a member of the military.
Returning to the point of the article, some few wold like to prevent themselves from being photographed. They haven't succeeded, and one constable was just charged for beating up a spectator at the G20 summit, courtesy of citizens who did their duty and recorded the assault and provided the films to the newspapers, youtube and the courts.
--dave
Just iterate through all values once, while broadcasting on the appropriate 3G channel, and DDOS every product with the feature (;-))
--dave
MySQL is a way to take market share away from MS Sql, and Access. It will be valuable to Oracle until MS dies.
--dave
Blue Stone writes
In some countries, judges look extremely unfavourably on people who sue first and ask questions later, without attempting to settle things out of court, through less drastic channels. I don't know if the US courts take a similar view.
An example from The Lawyers Weekly, Vol. 20, No. 39 (February 23, 2001) was The federal Crown has been ordered to pay $55,000 in costs to two men after a Nova Scotia judge stayed drug-trafficking charges against them based on the "serious misconduct" of prosecutors and police.
Canadian judges seemingly get grumpy when anyone tries to bamboozle them, including the Crown prosecutor (:-))
--dave
Actually for anyone who's friends gave up personal data on facebook, and thereby exposed them to snooping. See "transitive trust" (;-))
--dave
Military information already has a very short lifespan. Famously, "Flash" messages are sent UNCLAS, because it's more important they arrive now than be kept from the enemy.
Field Marshal Example already makes his information known to the enemy the moment he acts on it. That's why it was such a terrible decision for Winston Churchill to (putatively) consider keeping secret the German plans to bomb Coventry.
Unit war diaries are released a few years after the war is over, and even the anal British unclassify the rest of the material after fifty years or so. I can now read all sorts of stuff about the "funnys", which were top secret before the invasion of Europe.
The political equivalent of a flash message may stay secret a bit longer, but they probably only need stay secret until the crisis of the day is over. So give them a week instead of an hour.
The longest one should keep any secret is until all the participants are dead, and can't get in trouble. Which is approximately what the Census does (or did, since my government is in the process of eliminating same)
--dave (from Canada, eh?) c-b
Darn right all of us!
An older example of transitive trust causing problems to innocent bystanders was a library system and a drugstore system running on the same time-shared mainframe.
The drugstore system had security up the wazoo, the library did not.
An evil operator did the equivalent of a join on names between the two systems, and selected female persons with prescriptions for birth control pills from one and for addresses from the other, then started stalking.
Neither system alone would have yielded the information, but the combination of the two did, and the results were as startling then as the first cross-site scripting attacks were more recently.
So she's looking out for all of us, even those that don't know the degree to which they're vulnerable.
--dave (I'm genuinely impressed by her) c-b
No, by her logic we all should have the same information, and have the same ability to manipulate and resist manipulation.
I'd class it along with normal business assumption of "a level playing field", rather than an idealist assumption.
To be fair, it can be arbitrarily hard to level a playing field, especially when one side owns a bulldozer, but one does try.
--dave
Fair criticism, and it's unusual for the business section, which normally fawns over characters like Lord Black... --dave
"biz boy" is an derogatory term for MBA students, who are roughly 50% female these days. I typo'd and wrote "business boy", and inadvertently insulted fellow members of my sex instead of the people I meant to insult (;-)) --dave
First post? --dave