- Anyone can write a raid controller, we all understand the RAID levels and what they mean. What varies is how to program the chips to implement it (software interface).
- I will give you a little on the north bridge, the FSB is NOT standard and I think AMD's is different. But the rest of the north bridge contains well known PC bits: memory controllers, interrupt controllers, PCI(X|E) host bridges, power management, etc. etc. I could build one from scratch if I had a few million dollars laying around.
- The South Bridge could be implemented by anyone, it's got no secrets.
- As for Video, the AGP specification was well documented and freely available (I downloaded it when I was in college for free, I can't recally where). Going forward PCI-Express will be used, they simply use x8/x16 connectors. I think Apple uses the same.
Or did you mean software interfaces are not standardized? It's not as bad as you imply, but it is getting worse. Getting back on topic, Apple could take PC hardware as it stands and require vendors to support a common apple interface (they seem opposed to the device driver model, and I agree with them on that). But then us Linux types could just assume that interface and copy it, without paying the Apple tithe.
I find it more likely they will build a Mac using mostly commodity components (processors, etc.) to get their costs down and leverage that market, while changing the north bridge, which is what makes a PC a PC, and without which we can't really write much software. That combined with new microcode will make a totally incompatible, totally Apple system, just at a lower price. I for one hope they do, only because it may make PCs better.
No I think he meant to say their architecture. The PPC is a pretty well defined processor, I've used it on a number of designs way outside that of a traditional computer, but it's just a processor. You can string it to just about any impossible chain of stuff imaginable, trust me, I have. None of them were compatible with Apple's Macintosh however.
PCs and Apple's have an "architecture" defining how the chips are strung together, how expansion is expected to work, how the interrupt controller works (and yes, which interrupt certain hardwired devices are on), etc. Unlike Apples, for the PC it's not one but many standards defining their function, not one of which defines how the processor should work. Worse still, it's essentially defined as "Be backwards compatible with an PC AT from 20 years ago". No single company really owns it, although many would like to. Even the evil empire has relegated itself to "putting up with cooperation" in this regard.
I find it more likely that Apple will define their own computer architecture using Intel chips. Maybe they will do their own north bridge, in fact much of the traditional PC architecture is emulated in this device, and changing it with something else would make an incompatible system. Let's not forget that much of PC legacy crap is software as well as hardware. If Apple throws all that out the window, they may as well have defined a new Intel based system. You aren't going to install windows on it, nor will you get a regular x86 build of linux to come close to working.
Actually it would seem from Ep 3 that Mace Windu is acquainted with acting in anger, remember how close we were to being emperor free.
Anyway I agree with your conclusions, I just felt like Lucas really intended for this level of complexity, he could have made the statement more powerfully. Maybe I saw Ep 6 too young, but I barely grasped Luke's use of the dark side. I always imagined he got angry, acted in anger, and then turned away. He was, in my mind, dangerously close but in the end controlled himself.
Rather than the goofup that was episode 1, Lucas could have focused more on the faults of the Jedi. They do draw a strong parallel to certain churches (and eastern religions). On one hand they view themsleves as protectors of freedom, and champions of the people, yet they are isolated from them, and act independently. They are so selfless, they may not know what they're fighting for. They do not take spouses, they are selected as babies (before they are drawn in by the trappings of the society they live in). Really they're so different and incompatible with society, they're hard to believe as protectors.
Anyway Ep 3 was OK and I thought the only thing Lucas got right was the Conversion of Anakin Skywalker. Everything else was a loss, and Obiwan + Palpatine carried the show. Many things didn't work, plus how Anakin goes from being on the fence about Palpatine (and turns him over to the Jedi), to marching in to the Jedi academy and killing children is WAY too much for me to swallow. I accept that he would eventaully have turned into that, but it was too quick and too total.
I think the entirety of episodes 1-3 should have been the fall of Anakin & the rise of the empire. Less Jarjar'ism and more exposition. And for God's sake, get some real writers and a good director. Hayden LOOKED the part of Vader, but there's something to say for acting it too...
I'd put it the opposite. Private corporations do not, and should not, have the right to invade your privacy without permission. IF you commited a crime against them, THEN they may have the police do something about it. The ruling seems to indicate they couldn't prove a crime has been committed!
The POLICE may perform an investigation, gathering data via well established laws and procedures. If they do not have sufficient evidence to get a warrant, then they cannot get the data, period, even for real crimes like murder. No other entity should get special priveledges. Personally I think it should be law that companies are obligated to protect customer data at all costs, up to subpoena or warrant.
The day private institutions begin acting as a police force with extra powers is the day we might as well turn in our hat. Theft is wrong, mmmkay, but here in the free world we let a few bad people get away so that no good people are hurt.
This is great, and could result in more fun games, BUT...
The current business model for consoles is to sell HW at a loss, and cash in on royalties. The royalties come from the development licenses you MUST buy in order to develop software for the console.
Eliminating that requires console vendors to make money on the hardware and ignore the more lucrative software market. The hardware on next gen boxes is expensive and not built for upgrades. Why have a console then when you could have a PC? You can already put a game on a CD with Knoppix if you want to ignore operating systems and userland software.
I think you're less secular humanist than you think if you feel alienated by this. Security and self defense are the foundations of society, really the only reason at all to support a government. If we can't rely on them to do their job, our government will be undermined.
I would not be so willing to trust my tax money to NASA alone, it's too public, too democratic. A shuttle blows up and an entire nation wants answers, "How could this happen". Probes, inquiries, name calling, finger pointing, media pundits,/.'ers who apparently spent their last life as aerospace engineers claiming the shuttle is a horrible design, more politics. A few years later we get an answer, but during that time the program is still funded and money is being flushed. As if NASA was a collection of sadistic bastards who want to send volunteers in inferior vehicles to their death for shits and grins. However, this is how all public organizations work, even if no one dies.
The military by comparison, has none of that. Every year or so the person in charge of a project has to answer before some elected official, but that's about it. We know very little else about what is going on and can't get involved in every granular action that occurs. It of course lets them waste money with terrific speed, but it also lets the good people get their job done without too much idiocy.
The military is the only government agency that the general populace will allow to be funded without explicit consent or debate. It then decides, in absence of public opinion, which technologies are most beneficial for the offense and defense of the US. The military simply does not care if technology becomes successful in private industry or not.
Everyone's track record with developing new technology is mixed at best. There is in fact, no significant advantage to any single method. Single inventors, private companies and the military (read: the functional arm of the government) are all pretty random when it comes to new stuff.
NASA has been struggling for about 20 years because it's led by a bureacracy that lost its unity after the moon landing. Corporations and investors don't see near and clear results, and governments historically do not work well together. The military is the ONLY group that really sees practical benefit from space, which makes them the most likely to seriously produce results from it.
I say let them have at it. At least we can be sure military funding will employ US engineers and not be outsourced!
I wouldn't say "collegiate", these are actual attacks done by people with actual knowledge who also do work, unlike most professors and academics. And for the record, encryption is expected to hold even if the attacker has physical access (for a certain time period).
"Off-topic" would have been a better choice. These discussions are totally unrelated to the Intel bug and the flame war involving our Messiah and That Other Guy Who Said Nasty Things. It's a fun discussion though, and the post to which I responded was somewhat unfair.
Faster processors also means that you don't need to be as precise. You can search more possibilities faster, but every byte you can chip away helps narrow down the search range.
It's true that there are various "noisy" and uncontrollable aspects of modern CPUs, but if you take enough measurements and can establish a control, you can get valid information. It will not give you "the answer", it may help you to eliminate a set of data that is "not the answer". That is extremely valuable.
Some people actually monitor chip power supply variations to try to get this information. I won't pretend to understand how they get meaningful data from this, but it involves knowing the system under attack very well, and wanting the data really, really badly. Hence very high security systems shield their processors magnetically and inject "noisy" (bogus, unrelated) operations to cover this. It sounds like a pipe dream, but I've visited places where these systems are built (think Blue), and read some of the papers describing these exploits.
His point is valid, ANY information an attacker can get significantly reduces the integrity of the encryption. I just suspect Linus' point is that most (I said most, don't flame me) linux server deployments are geared towards not letting people on the server in the first place. This vulnerability seems to be valuable mostly to people who already have access to the system.
Provided the volunteers are informed of the risks of their choice by an independent medical expert. New-age/prayer treatments, or radical new drug treatments tend to sound attractive when argued by their supporters, but aren't always good choices.
If I had a terminal condition I'd ideally like my doctor to lay out all my options, and explain them fully. This includes the conventional (but probably not so effective or pleasant), and the unconventional (and not have to worry that I or my family will sue him later). The reality is that traditional doctors can be a bit CYA, while the research doctors may be inclined to not tell me what I need to know. The laws and our social behavior are set up in such a way as to continue this situation.
The next best option is to do my own research and run it by a couple conventional doctors and see how their answers disagree. It's not perfect but it's a step towards the ideal. This facility would seem to offer that, provided people who use it consult with an actual medical expert.
Bottom line, if I am dying from a particularly untreatable form of cancer, I may be inclined to try something new. I just need to know what the options are, and what the odds are. Only I should be allowed to gamble with my life.
Texan democrats are as wacked out as they were in the north east. Maybe not as screwed up as Californian democrats, but California is Speshul. I've lived in all those places, for the record.
I probably lean righter than the/. average but this wasn't intended as a political post. I was referring to the Dale (from King of the Hill) kind of Texan that's anti-government, pro gun etc. You know, republican before republicans got born again.
I got modded down for almost, but not quite breaking/. orthodoxy. There's some irony:/. squelching perceived (and incorrect!) right wing politics on an article abount free internet for government dissidents.
Obviously, I used 5 years metaphorically not because it necessarily relates to pension or stock option vesting periods. Most of my retirement is in 401k and other investments so I don't consider it.
In my experience, you'll usually get enough sign on cash to comfortably walk away from your current position. Pensions are less and less common, and most stock options tend to vest at 20%/yr. 5 year old options at the moment tend to be especially unvaluable at the moment (with a few exceptions).
I don't believe that, not knowing what you want to do when you grow up seems to be a common problem for all generations. Some people never figure it out.
It's true you can't count on a recent grad to stay with you like you can count on someone with 15 years. But you wouldn't consider one for the others job. Recent grads are always paid less than senior people because they're less skillful, less reliable and usually less invested. That doesn't mean they deserve to be exploited.
They should look forward to good pay, and even better pay for good work and dedication. I'm hearing of employers hiring fresh outs for less than half what they paid when I was coming out. That would result in a very poor quality of life and make the decision to go to college quite dubious.
I'm not a recent grad, I think they're undervalued. They're generally the workhorse of any professional establishment (esp. engineering, medicine and law). They're still deluded into thinking hard work alone will move them up, and they work hard. They usually have no families and their friends are all slaving away like they are. They have big college loans. They're pretty canonical "good" employees, they deserve to be paid well. Further, if you want new workhorse types, you need a steady supply from school so wages have to be there or people will major in something else. Sure, they don't know as half as much as they think they know but that's why they're slaving for the man.
Second, not many people want to do the same job for 5 years. Older people may be more inclined to find peace in a lower paying, lower responsibility job owing to having a family or just finding zen. Young people are less likely to do that. But expecting anyone to stay in the same job for 5+ years is not rational. In addition to just wanting to move up and be CEO, professionals MUST change jobs periodically or become obsolete. It may just be going from one project to a different kind of project. It may be a company change or even a career change. But it's dangerous to stay put too long. Finally, we all work for the man to make $$$. Most companies do not give raises sufficient for employees to keep up with market value. 5 years is a good time for employees to go rectify the situation. Some may just be comfortable and not do so, but in my experience about half will.
I don't expect a graduate to have much work experience. Most in field work experience opportunities are unpaid, most college kids don't have a trust fund and must make money. Most do just fine, they may leave you quicker (if opportunities are limited) but I would be concerned if they stayed doing that shit work.
Executives want more cheap labor and are doing everything they can to get it. Labor wants higher and higher salaries, particularly if they feel the barriers to entry in their career are high. People are fighting it out, spin doctors are out in force.
I don't know what the right answer is, but it seems to me H1-Bs are far, far better than wholesale outsourcing. My favorite form of this is my own companies current push to hire employees and open it's own design centers in Singapore, Shang-hai, Bangalore and Taiwan. This way they get full benefits of Asian labor, without pesky contracting problems, yet get to live in mansions in the nicer parts of the US.
But Norm's article was good, I just think no one is going to listen to him that doesn't already understand the problem.
I wouldn't use the USA as a model for how to correctly bust monopolies. Yes our cable lines are different than fiber, and mostly our wireless is different than both of those, but they're not equal and they're pretty inherently price fixed. I'm glad they broke up AT&T, it helps, but it's still not a solved problem.
I can expect when calling SBC or Time Warner to get bad service, high costs and the same headache I experience at the DMV (or any government office).
Really our wireless providers are the closest thing to true competition, but they have very little differentiation of service. There's still no good solution in effect.
Gamers need dual core processors. Many games are still single threaded but that's probably the past. There is plenty to be gained from a single game running multiple threads. The only concern is that RIGHT NOW I don't think Windows will do The Right Things. I could be wrong.
The question is, other than gamers and graphic artists, who needs them? You have a point in that almost every other application that the average guy uses has been saturated in terms of (quite prolific) features for years. I really don't think that will change much, hence MS is having a hard time maintaining the "Buy a New Office Suite every 3 Years" business model.
More and better multimedia applications MAY be the next killer app that requires this power, but a significant amount of work needs to be done to make tools for this accessible to the masses.
I didn't name Christianity, nor would that be the only background that may object.
What is more relevant when addressing a social concern, what is true, or what is believed to be true? The problem is what people THINK, and many parents THINK all this weird god worship from D&D type games is objectionable, mine sure as hell did, and so did their cohorts.
But it isn't true. There is no worshipping false gods. There is no belief into any religion, it was a gameplay tool. It opened a door to a new avenue of problem solving and creativity. THAT is actually a useful things for kids to be involved with.
My argument is the author could have investigated this subject better and taken the time to understand his source material. He did not, and his article is unfair as a result.
I don't see any point in targetting Christian spiritual contexts as nothing you said doesn't apply Jewish, Muslim, Jedi, Wiccan, Pagan or followers of Humma Kuvala. Most of those, I think, have similar beliefs when it comes to wanton violence. Their followers would say such beliefs come from their various gods (who may or may not ordain certain acts of violence), but really that's just documentation, the belief is simpler than that. Either way I don't think you're right on any point.
You try to draw a parallel between performing bad acts in a video game (where you know no one is really hurt by your deeds), to reflections of what you may want to do in real life where people ARE really hurt by actions a tenth as heinous. You do so based on the concept that only what is in your heart matters, and doing bad things in a game reveals that what is in your heart is bad. I don't think your religion supports you on this.
Humans, like all animals, have enormous capacity for violence, it's a survival skill. (Even Jesus knew this, he lived a short life because of and in opposition to it). It's in there, no matter how deeply you lock it away. If you insist on being new-age Christian about it, see the original sin for confirmation (some Christians think it's impossible for humans NOT to be evil without God's direct influence). The difference is that people we allow to walk around the street know enough to know they cannot do evil to their fellow man.
Society is a collection of individuals who willingly suspend their bloodlust for their own benefit. Put that way it sounds morbid, but most of us realize deep down, that a world where people routinely kill one another for their own profit, will be unpleasant, scary, and doomed. There's always someone bigger, stronger or with more well armed friends. We hide it behind law, God and morality, but ultimately all that matters is NOT in your heart, it's in your actions.
Why do you stop at a red light? Because God said unto man "Thou shalt stop at red lights, or thou shalt be banished to eternal damnation"? I missed that verse. Because Mr. Police Man will give you a ticket? Eh, I've got cash. No you stop because if you don't, you'll likely kill yourself and/or someone else because we have this convention that people go on green and stop at red, and if we all abide, we can get to and fro safely. That's all there is to it. Similarly, if we all refrain from killing each other (except under certain controlled and semi-agreed upon conditions) we can live happier lives. It makes sense to me.
What's in your heart may at times be bad, though, because it is so tempting to do one small bad thing to make your own life better. It's always there, impossible to miss. I say it came from our primitive origins, you may say it came from an apple given to some woman by a serpent, either way we can agree that what's in our hearts is not always altruistic. What will distinguish you from a street thug, however, is not what is in your heart, but what actions you take as a result.
Doing evil in a video game has no consequences and is not wrong. You are not bad for having done evil in a game, because no one could possibly, even in the most contrived scenario, have been hurt in any conceivable way. This is fantasy, and unless you are disturbed, the difference between what you do in make believe versus reality should be very clear.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what you mean:
- Sata Specifications
- USB
- Anyone can write a raid controller, we all understand the RAID levels and what they mean. What varies is how to program the chips to implement it (software interface).
- I will give you a little on the north bridge, the FSB is NOT standard and I think AMD's is different. But the rest of the north bridge contains well known PC bits: memory controllers, interrupt controllers, PCI(X|E) host bridges, power management, etc. etc. I could build one from scratch if I had a few million dollars laying around.
- The South Bridge could be implemented by anyone, it's got no secrets.
- As for Video, the AGP specification was well documented and freely available (I downloaded it when I was in college for free, I can't recally where). Going forward PCI-Express will be used, they simply use x8/x16 connectors. I think Apple uses the same.
Or did you mean software interfaces are not standardized? It's not as bad as you imply, but it is getting worse. Getting back on topic, Apple could take PC hardware as it stands and require vendors to support a common apple interface (they seem opposed to the device driver model, and I agree with them on that). But then us Linux types could just assume that interface and copy it, without paying the Apple tithe.
I find it more likely they will build a Mac using mostly commodity components (processors, etc.) to get their costs down and leverage that market, while changing the north bridge, which is what makes a PC a PC, and without which we can't really write much software. That combined with new microcode will make a totally incompatible, totally Apple system, just at a lower price. I for one hope they do, only because it may make PCs better.
No I think he meant to say their architecture. The PPC is a pretty well defined processor, I've used it on a number of designs way outside that of a traditional computer, but it's just a processor. You can string it to just about any impossible chain of stuff imaginable, trust me, I have. None of them were compatible with Apple's Macintosh however.
PCs and Apple's have an "architecture" defining how the chips are strung together, how expansion is expected to work, how the interrupt controller works (and yes, which interrupt certain hardwired devices are on), etc. Unlike Apples, for the PC it's not one but many standards defining their function, not one of which defines how the processor should work. Worse still, it's essentially defined as "Be backwards compatible with an PC AT from 20 years ago". No single company really owns it, although many would like to. Even the evil empire has relegated itself to "putting up with cooperation" in this regard.
I find it more likely that Apple will define their own computer architecture using Intel chips. Maybe they will do their own north bridge, in fact much of the traditional PC architecture is emulated in this device, and changing it with something else would make an incompatible system. Let's not forget that much of PC legacy crap is software as well as hardware. If Apple throws all that out the window, they may as well have defined a new Intel based system. You aren't going to install windows on it, nor will you get a regular x86 build of linux to come close to working.
Actually it would seem from Ep 3 that Mace Windu is acquainted with acting in anger, remember how close we were to being emperor free.
Anyway I agree with your conclusions, I just felt like Lucas really intended for this level of complexity, he could have made the statement more powerfully. Maybe I saw Ep 6 too young, but I barely grasped Luke's use of the dark side. I always imagined he got angry, acted in anger, and then turned away. He was, in my mind, dangerously close but in the end controlled himself.
Rather than the goofup that was episode 1, Lucas could have focused more on the faults of the Jedi. They do draw a strong parallel to certain churches (and eastern religions). On one hand they view themsleves as protectors of freedom, and champions of the people, yet they are isolated from them, and act independently. They are so selfless, they may not know what they're fighting for. They do not take spouses, they are selected as babies (before they are drawn in by the trappings of the society they live in). Really they're so different and incompatible with society, they're hard to believe as protectors.
Anyway Ep 3 was OK and I thought the only thing Lucas got right was the Conversion of Anakin Skywalker. Everything else was a loss, and Obiwan + Palpatine carried the show. Many things didn't work, plus how Anakin goes from being on the fence about Palpatine (and turns him over to the Jedi), to marching in to the Jedi academy and killing children is WAY too much for me to swallow. I accept that he would eventaully have turned into that, but it was too quick and too total.
I think the entirety of episodes 1-3 should have been the fall of Anakin & the rise of the empire. Less Jarjar'ism and more exposition. And for God's sake, get some real writers and a good director. Hayden LOOKED the part of Vader, but there's something to say for acting it too...
You forgot a jet pack.
I'd put it the opposite. Private corporations do not, and should not, have the right to invade your privacy without permission. IF you commited a crime against them, THEN they may have the police do something about it. The ruling seems to indicate they couldn't prove a crime has been committed!
The POLICE may perform an investigation, gathering data via well established laws and procedures. If they do not have sufficient evidence to get a warrant, then they cannot get the data, period, even for real crimes like murder. No other entity should get special priveledges. Personally I think it should be law that companies are obligated to protect customer data at all costs, up to subpoena or warrant.
The day private institutions begin acting as a police force with extra powers is the day we might as well turn in our hat. Theft is wrong, mmmkay, but here in the free world we let a few bad people get away so that no good people are hurt.
This is great, and could result in more fun games, BUT...
The current business model for consoles is to sell HW at a loss, and cash in on royalties. The royalties come from the development licenses you MUST buy in order to develop software for the console.
Eliminating that requires console vendors to make money on the hardware and ignore the more lucrative software market. The hardware on next gen boxes is expensive and not built for upgrades. Why have a console then when you could have a PC? You can already put a game on a CD with Knoppix if you want to ignore operating systems and userland software.
I think you're less secular humanist than you think if you feel alienated by this. Security and self defense are the foundations of society, really the only reason at all to support a government. If we can't rely on them to do their job, our government will be undermined.
/.'ers who apparently spent their last life as aerospace engineers claiming the shuttle is a horrible design, more politics. A few years later we get an answer, but during that time the program is still funded and money is being flushed. As if NASA was a collection of sadistic bastards who want to send volunteers in inferior vehicles to their death for shits and grins. However, this is how all public organizations work, even if no one dies.
I would not be so willing to trust my tax money to NASA alone, it's too public, too democratic. A shuttle blows up and an entire nation wants answers, "How could this happen". Probes, inquiries, name calling, finger pointing, media pundits,
The military by comparison, has none of that. Every year or so the person in charge of a project has to answer before some elected official, but that's about it. We know very little else about what is going on and can't get involved in every granular action that occurs. It of course lets them waste money with terrific speed, but it also lets the good people get their job done without too much idiocy.
anything you make in a deep fryer tastes so good it MUST be evil
The military is the only government agency that the general populace will allow to be funded without explicit consent or debate. It then decides, in absence of public opinion, which technologies are most beneficial for the offense and defense of the US. The military simply does not care if technology becomes successful in private industry or not.
Everyone's track record with developing new technology is mixed at best. There is in fact, no significant advantage to any single method. Single inventors, private companies and the military (read: the functional arm of the government) are all pretty random when it comes to new stuff.
NASA has been struggling for about 20 years because it's led by a bureacracy that lost its unity after the moon landing. Corporations and investors don't see near and clear results, and governments historically do not work well together. The military is the ONLY group that really sees practical benefit from space, which makes them the most likely to seriously produce results from it.
I say let them have at it. At least we can be sure military funding will employ US engineers and not be outsourced!
I wouldn't say "collegiate", these are actual attacks done by people with actual knowledge who also do work, unlike most professors and academics. And for the record, encryption is expected to hold even if the attacker has physical access (for a certain time period).
"Off-topic" would have been a better choice. These discussions are totally unrelated to the Intel bug and the flame war involving our Messiah and That Other Guy Who Said Nasty Things. It's a fun discussion though, and the post to which I responded was somewhat unfair.
Faster processors also means that you don't need to be as precise. You can search more possibilities faster, but every byte you can chip away helps narrow down the search range.
It's true that there are various "noisy" and uncontrollable aspects of modern CPUs, but if you take enough measurements and can establish a control, you can get valid information. It will not give you "the answer", it may help you to eliminate a set of data that is "not the answer". That is extremely valuable.
Some people actually monitor chip power supply variations to try to get this information. I won't pretend to understand how they get meaningful data from this, but it involves knowing the system under attack very well, and wanting the data really, really badly. Hence very high security systems shield their processors magnetically and inject "noisy" (bogus, unrelated) operations to cover this. It sounds like a pipe dream, but I've visited places where these systems are built (think Blue), and read some of the papers describing these exploits.
His point is valid, ANY information an attacker can get significantly reduces the integrity of the encryption. I just suspect Linus' point is that most (I said most, don't flame me) linux server deployments are geared towards not letting people on the server in the first place. This vulnerability seems to be valuable mostly to people who already have access to the system.
Scary, in other words MS buying Red Hat could temporarily (maybe 6 months) halt or disrupt linux development.
I bet if the price were right they'd do it.
I'm not sure I'd want to taste the color green.
Now purple, there's some good eats.
Provided the volunteers are informed of the risks of their choice by an independent medical expert. New-age/prayer treatments, or radical new drug treatments tend to sound attractive when argued by their supporters, but aren't always good choices.
If I had a terminal condition I'd ideally like my doctor to lay out all my options, and explain them fully. This includes the conventional (but probably not so effective or pleasant), and the unconventional (and not have to worry that I or my family will sue him later). The reality is that traditional doctors can be a bit CYA, while the research doctors may be inclined to not tell me what I need to know. The laws and our social behavior are set up in such a way as to continue this situation.
The next best option is to do my own research and run it by a couple conventional doctors and see how their answers disagree. It's not perfect but it's a step towards the ideal. This facility would seem to offer that, provided people who use it consult with an actual medical expert.
Bottom line, if I am dying from a particularly untreatable form of cancer, I may be inclined to try something new. I just need to know what the options are, and what the odds are. Only I should be allowed to gamble with my life.
Texan democrats are as wacked out as they were in the north east. Maybe not as screwed up as Californian democrats, but California is Speshul. I've lived in all those places, for the record.
/. average but this wasn't intended as a political post. I was referring to the Dale (from King of the Hill) kind of Texan that's anti-government, pro gun etc. You know, republican before republicans got born again.
/. orthodoxy. There's some irony: /. squelching perceived (and incorrect!) right wing politics on an article abount free internet for government dissidents.
I probably lean righter than the
I got modded down for almost, but not quite breaking
I was going to say "Texans".
Obviously, I used 5 years metaphorically not because it necessarily relates to pension or stock option vesting periods. Most of my retirement is in 401k and other investments so I don't consider it.
In my experience, you'll usually get enough sign on cash to comfortably walk away from your current position. Pensions are less and less common, and most stock options tend to vest at 20%/yr. 5 year old options at the moment tend to be especially unvaluable at the moment (with a few exceptions).
I don't believe that, not knowing what you want to do when you grow up seems to be a common problem for all generations. Some people never figure it out.
It's true you can't count on a recent grad to stay with you like you can count on someone with 15 years. But you wouldn't consider one for the others job. Recent grads are always paid less than senior people because they're less skillful, less reliable and usually less invested. That doesn't mean they deserve to be exploited.
They should look forward to good pay, and even better pay for good work and dedication. I'm hearing of employers hiring fresh outs for less than half what they paid when I was coming out. That would result in a very poor quality of life and make the decision to go to college quite dubious.
I'm not a recent grad, I think they're undervalued. They're generally the workhorse of any professional establishment (esp. engineering, medicine and law). They're still deluded into thinking hard work alone will move them up, and they work hard. They usually have no families and their friends are all slaving away like they are. They have big college loans. They're pretty canonical "good" employees, they deserve to be paid well. Further, if you want new workhorse types, you need a steady supply from school so wages have to be there or people will major in something else. Sure, they don't know as half as much as they think they know but that's why they're slaving for the man.
Second, not many people want to do the same job for 5 years. Older people may be more inclined to find peace in a lower paying, lower responsibility job owing to having a family or just finding zen. Young people are less likely to do that. But expecting anyone to stay in the same job for 5+ years is not rational. In addition to just wanting to move up and be CEO, professionals MUST change jobs periodically or become obsolete. It may just be going from one project to a different kind of project. It may be a company change or even a career change. But it's dangerous to stay put too long. Finally, we all work for the man to make $$$. Most companies do not give raises sufficient for employees to keep up with market value. 5 years is a good time for employees to go rectify the situation. Some may just be comfortable and not do so, but in my experience about half will.
I don't expect a graduate to have much work experience. Most in field work experience opportunities are unpaid, most college kids don't have a trust fund and must make money. Most do just fine, they may leave you quicker (if opportunities are limited) but I would be concerned if they stayed doing that shit work.
As you point out, it's fortunate that our entertainment mostly sucks.
Executives want more cheap labor and are doing everything they can to get it. Labor wants higher and higher salaries, particularly if they feel the barriers to entry in their career are high. People are fighting it out, spin doctors are out in force.
I don't know what the right answer is, but it seems to me H1-Bs are far, far better than wholesale outsourcing. My favorite form of this is my own companies current push to hire employees and open it's own design centers in Singapore, Shang-hai, Bangalore and Taiwan. This way they get full benefits of Asian labor, without pesky contracting problems, yet get to live in mansions in the nicer parts of the US.
But Norm's article was good, I just think no one is going to listen to him that doesn't already understand the problem.
I wouldn't use the USA as a model for how to correctly bust monopolies. Yes our cable lines are different than fiber, and mostly our wireless is different than both of those, but they're not equal and they're pretty inherently price fixed. I'm glad they broke up AT&T, it helps, but it's still not a solved problem.
I can expect when calling SBC or Time Warner to get bad service, high costs and the same headache I experience at the DMV (or any government office).
Really our wireless providers are the closest thing to true competition, but they have very little differentiation of service. There's still no good solution in effect.
Gamers need dual core processors. Many games are still single threaded but that's probably the past. There is plenty to be gained from a single game running multiple threads. The only concern is that RIGHT NOW I don't think Windows will do The Right Things. I could be wrong.
The question is, other than gamers and graphic artists, who needs them? You have a point in that almost every other application that the average guy uses has been saturated in terms of (quite prolific) features for years. I really don't think that will change much, hence MS is having a hard time maintaining the "Buy a New Office Suite every 3 Years" business model.
More and better multimedia applications MAY be the next killer app that requires this power, but a significant amount of work needs to be done to make tools for this accessible to the masses.
I didn't name Christianity, nor would that be the only background that may object.
What is more relevant when addressing a social concern, what is true, or what is believed to be true? The problem is what people THINK, and many parents THINK all this weird god worship from D&D type games is objectionable, mine sure as hell did, and so did their cohorts.
But it isn't true. There is no worshipping false gods. There is no belief into any religion, it was a gameplay tool. It opened a door to a new avenue of problem solving and creativity. THAT is actually a useful things for kids to be involved with.
My argument is the author could have investigated this subject better and taken the time to understand his source material. He did not, and his article is unfair as a result.
I don't see any point in targetting Christian spiritual contexts as nothing you said doesn't apply Jewish, Muslim, Jedi, Wiccan, Pagan or followers of Humma Kuvala. Most of those, I think, have similar beliefs when it comes to wanton violence. Their followers would say such beliefs come from their various gods (who may or may not ordain certain acts of violence), but really that's just documentation, the belief is simpler than that. Either way I don't think you're right on any point.
You try to draw a parallel between performing bad acts in a video game (where you know no one is really hurt by your deeds), to reflections of what you may want to do in real life where people ARE really hurt by actions a tenth as heinous. You do so based on the concept that only what is in your heart matters, and doing bad things in a game reveals that what is in your heart is bad. I don't think your religion supports you on this.
Humans, like all animals, have enormous capacity for violence, it's a survival skill. (Even Jesus knew this, he lived a short life because of and in opposition to it). It's in there, no matter how deeply you lock it away. If you insist on being new-age Christian about it, see the original sin for confirmation (some Christians think it's impossible for humans NOT to be evil without God's direct influence). The difference is that people we allow to walk around the street know enough to know they cannot do evil to their fellow man.
Society is a collection of individuals who willingly suspend their bloodlust for their own benefit. Put that way it sounds morbid, but most of us realize deep down, that a world where people routinely kill one another for their own profit, will be unpleasant, scary, and doomed. There's always someone bigger, stronger or with more well armed friends. We hide it behind law, God and morality, but ultimately all that matters is NOT in your heart, it's in your actions.
Why do you stop at a red light? Because God said unto man "Thou shalt stop at red lights, or thou shalt be banished to eternal damnation"? I missed that verse. Because Mr. Police Man will give you a ticket? Eh, I've got cash. No you stop because if you don't, you'll likely kill yourself and/or someone else because we have this convention that people go on green and stop at red, and if we all abide, we can get to and fro safely. That's all there is to it. Similarly, if we all refrain from killing each other (except under certain controlled and semi-agreed upon conditions) we can live happier lives. It makes sense to me.
What's in your heart may at times be bad, though, because it is so tempting to do one small bad thing to make your own life better. It's always there, impossible to miss. I say it came from our primitive origins, you may say it came from an apple given to some woman by a serpent, either way we can agree that what's in our hearts is not always altruistic. What will distinguish you from a street thug, however, is not what is in your heart, but what actions you take as a result.
Doing evil in a video game has no consequences and is not wrong. You are not bad for having done evil in a game, because no one could possibly, even in the most contrived scenario, have been hurt in any conceivable way. This is fantasy, and unless you are disturbed, the difference between what you do in make believe versus reality should be very clear.