You missed the base reason that physical constraints are likely limiting them and the amount of effort required to get to the next die shrink is high enough that there's considerable room for others to appear to catch up. That's the rosy scenario. Given Intel's history of not having the smartest people in the room leading the charge, recall the P4 super-scalar pipeline and AMD64 incidents as cases in point, it's pretty easy to believe that someone's focus on being *right* may have yet again sent Intel down a wrong path.
I remember hearing this during the DOS days around DOS 3.3/4.0 after the 286 came out when you fought with TSRs loading into *unused* memory above 640, then HIMEM, XMS, EMM, EMS, QEMM, choose your poison. This quote predates Windows by quite a bit, but good luck finding any proof of it. Not everything was dropped on the (rudimentary) internet of the time.
By 97, MS was firmly on the track of NT which certainly gave more than 640K and used it. Heck, the file system alone used more than 640K. That doesn't mean he didn't say it back in the early to mid 80s.
Apple Mail is fine, and I'm sure others are too, if you turn off "Load remote content". I did that a while ago because it's one of the ways FB and Google both track you.
but a large minority of Americans voted for Donald trump for no other reason than he promised to get rid of all the Muslims.
Interesting, my impression was that they voted for him because of their hatred for Hillary, you do recall all those chanting "lock her up"? It wasn't "kick em out", although that was a second line you could assign to the "build the wall" chant which amazingly also wasn't related to muslims but very specifically illegal aliens which for 99% of the Trumpsters meant Mexicans, even though a good portion are non-Mexican Latin American ancestry. But why bother with facts?
Please not that the Evangelicals *support* Donald Trump, even today in spite of the fact that nearly everything he has done in his personal life is directly antithetical to their professed beliefs.
Religion as a concept *is* the true root of evil. It is, at its essence, one group of people claiming they are better than everyone else because God said so.
That, however, is absolutely true. Look at any society where 1 specific form of religion has taken hold, and you'll see naked evil. I used to think Buddhists were the one religious group that were above this, preaching harmony and peace, but that was merely another case of hypocritical lip-service, again proving the point that the more idealist one claims to be, the bigger a hypocrite one is.
Counting on 2 spaces is pretty much guaranteed to be problematic. White space is for readability, not searches. While it would be easier if the world just followed 1 set of white space rules in storing text, in the end, it's pretty much a lost cause based on experience.
If SkyNet is relying on JavaScript an attack on any one of five dozen servers it is downloading vital code from will defeat it.
Nah, all that's needed is for one of those "developers" to get in snit and un-publish their version of the left-pad "library". SkyNet will promptly crash and refuse to run.
WebRTC is relatively new and I'm not surprised it's not universally supported because it's been hampered by DRM efforts. It's been too long, but IIRC the plumbing for the protocols is in place and a minor bit of code will properly render it in the client. Those protocols predate the fuck it all up efforts of the various MPAA/RIAA members and were written by quite competent technical people. The biggest issue you have is whether all the hardware between clients support all the features. Not all do, and likely with reason (insert conspiracy theory here for why connectivity providers that sell content might not want to support competitors streaming on "their" networks)
To be sure, there are other legal challenges associated with this approach that are all related to licensing and "rights", which may be why only closed solutions have used these protocols that I'm aware of (and by no means am I an expert in this field at this time) Technically, there's no issue with supporting millions of concurrent viewers. Ping me again in a couple of years as I may have a better answer if I go that route again.
I read the post and the quotes it highlights as the problems with asbestos should not have happened nor should happen again. I'm saying that's impossible to ascertain when the detrimental mechanisms are present when we may not even suspect they exist. What was implied but not explicitly stated is that you cannot test for all these potential detrimental effects, especially as some are unknown. e.g., who knew that DDT could endanger our entire avian population or that plastics could harm us biologically by interfering with our development as we grow into adults when those products first appeared? There's many other examples of unknowns that harmed us in new ways: X-rays, carbon dust, tobacco, LSD, BPA, sunlight, radium/uranium, micro-particulates and lead, just to name a few from the past.
"The difference with asbestos was that the hazards were not known or ignored; large-scale use meant large-scale production, resulting in emissions that weren't properly controlled, which in turn caused exposure at unsafe levels and then widespread disease. This should never have happened and should never again happen."
This is so wrong and short-sighted it boggles the mind. A Trump tweet couldn't be more wrong. While your base assertions are correct in that we do not yet know if graphene can have unintended effects, the assumption that an asbestos/tobacco/oxycontin/BPA/micro-plastics etc situation won't happen again is completely incorrect. Never underestimate the ignorance and greed of people combined with the possibility of wealth and the unknown. The latter is the absolute fallback point - if you literally don't know, you can't protect yourself from it. Take water for instance - it's good, healthy, and necessary for survival. However, too much of it without minerals will kill you. Too many minerals, you die. We didn't learn those facts for millennia. Now take saline IV solutions, it's apparent that they're not the be all and end all of base IV treatments despite having been the standard for decades. Balanced fluids may be better. But we just don't know what if any side effects may happen down the road. The list goes on and on.
I added uBlock after noscript became too troublesome/possible? to configure and clicktoscript no longer worked on HTML5. Because when the ad companies figured out how to get around autoplay blockers I had, it took me less than 2 days to find an alternative that effectively stopped that annoying nonsense. As a bonus, pages load faster too.
Been there, done that. Supporting any number of concurrent users is not hard, you just have to use what's available in your internet protocol toolkit. The real issue comes down to whether all users are on networks that support the necessary protocols. FYI, those would be RTP/RTCP/RTSP coupled with SIP for session management. (All conveniently defined relatively accurately on wikipedia) Furthermore, those protocols formed the basis for WebRTC, and contrary to anyone's opinion, RTP/RTCP/RTSP have been around since 1996, meaning none of this is new.
I actually had to read everything here to realize (again) how backwards Windows is. OSX has come with Grab that dates all the way back to NeXT. So I guess we can welcome MS users to the 1990s.
I assumed it because it seems so unlikely and somehow wrong that 3 of 5 FCC commissioners would travel somewhere to appear together for a panel to discuss the FCC and FCC business without it being "official business". Hence my post stating it is still an open question
IMNSHO, If those 3 FCC commissioners really did travel on their own for this panel in a private capacity, then there's a whole slew of other issues that need to be investigated which are potentially worse than O'Reilly's Hatch Act violation on quite a few different levels. It goes from a minor scratch to maybe it's cancer.
Furthermore, I don't consider CPAC to be a gov funded entity. The only thing that had to be gov funded was anything related to the three that showed up, including if they were on the clock or had travel paid for. There's other issues as outlined in the letter I referenced above but we'll leave those for when/if a response is posted.
Well, further research indicates it is still an open question, at least as far as I can tell from the request for details regarding their attendance in the FCC related posting under:
https://democrats-energycommer...
That he was on the clock and at a function paid for by the government including travel (these latter items are key btw, regardless of whether you think so or not) you'll find that your own quoted clause 7324 (b) (1) applies and that he is not subject to the exemptions in 7324, only leaving the clauses in 7323 in effect.
It's really not that difficult to understand, so simplified: because B-1 applies, B doesn't apply, only leaving A (since B is a listing of exemptions to A and B-1 is a specific case that excludes the employee from the list in B)
As to where I "got that", it's an official function that they went to as a group, so it stands to reason that they're there in official capacity and all travel etc is reimbursed. It's the way the gov functions. No one goes to a gov work function without travel orders. IIRC it is policy because the potential for liability is greater if it wasn't paid for by work but they required you to go. (IIRC - only because I no longer have access to the actual policy paperwork regarding these matters)
He was on duty - it's clear he was there as a paid FCC employee, with travel also provided via FCC. I'm not sure what your challenge in understanding my rather simple statements. I never stated he was off duty. Reread the entire sentence and then process that sentence with the context surrounding it, and perhaps you'll discover why taking a single phrase out of a sentence, much less its context, is reason for considering your reading comprehension to be impaired at best. Everything else takes on a malicious overtone.
> > O'Reilly was subject to 7324 (b) (1) which means that 7324
> O'Reilly's statements violate 7323
So you'e changed your mind. Cool. You see they can't violate both, he can't be both on-duty and off-duty at the same time.
Are you currently or formerly an employee of Fox News? Because your reading comprehension and logic contortionist abilities would fit their requirements.
O'Reilly was subject to 7324 (b) (1) which means that 7324's exemptions do not apply to him in this case. In short, he violated the Hatch Act.
That's an interesting take on it. Fyi, the Office of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General disagree with you.
OSP says it's dangerously close to violating 7323 (a)1.
Apparently the OSC and AG agree with me - 7324's exemptions to 7323 do not apply. Therefore, O'Reilly's statements violate 7323 and thus the Hatch Act.
In case you need extra help understanding what's being said, your quotes above where you state you literally quoted the law, you were quoting 7324's exemptions, which you were claiming meant that O'Reilly couldn't violate the Hatch Act. Hopefully, with repetition, it'll sink in that 7324's exemption clauses do not cover O'Reilly's actions since he was an official being paid out of Treasury funds and thus were prohibited by 7323.
You really need to work on reading comprehension. It's tiring to have to repeat myself multiple times in just a couple of posts for what really should be trivially simple concepts.
The exemption is for a subset of those appointees, not all of them. FCC commissioners are definitely not the same as Sec of State. Nor should they be. Are there *emergency* issues that the FCC needs to resolve or really anything that requires an FCC person to work outside normal hours any more than anyone else?
O'Reilly was subject to 7324 (b) (1) which means that 7324's exemptions do not apply to him in this case. In short, he violated the Hatch Act.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what kind of serious work involves email.
All of it?
You missed the base reason that physical constraints are likely limiting them and the amount of effort required to get to the next die shrink is high enough that there's considerable room for others to appear to catch up. That's the rosy scenario. Given Intel's history of not having the smartest people in the room leading the charge, recall the P4 super-scalar pipeline and AMD64 incidents as cases in point, it's pretty easy to believe that someone's focus on being *right* may have yet again sent Intel down a wrong path.
I remember hearing this during the DOS days around DOS 3.3/4.0 after the 286 came out when you fought with TSRs loading into *unused* memory above 640, then HIMEM, XMS, EMM, EMS, QEMM, choose your poison. This quote predates Windows by quite a bit, but good luck finding any proof of it. Not everything was dropped on the (rudimentary) internet of the time.
By 97, MS was firmly on the track of NT which certainly gave more than 640K and used it. Heck, the file system alone used more than 640K. That doesn't mean he didn't say it back in the early to mid 80s.
Apple Mail is fine, and I'm sure others are too, if you turn off "Load remote content". I did that a while ago because it's one of the ways FB and Google both track you.
This is 100% the fault of the email client implementations.
No, it isn't. Its yet another open source failure. Many eyes.. haha
It absolutely IS the fault of email clients. PGP/GPG doesn't go out and load remote content.
but a large minority of Americans voted for Donald trump for no other reason than he promised to get rid of all the Muslims.
Interesting, my impression was that they voted for him because of their hatred for Hillary, you do recall all those chanting "lock her up"? It wasn't "kick em out", although that was a second line you could assign to the "build the wall" chant which amazingly also wasn't related to muslims but very specifically illegal aliens which for 99% of the Trumpsters meant Mexicans, even though a good portion are non-Mexican Latin American ancestry. But why bother with facts?
Please not that the Evangelicals *support* Donald Trump, even today in spite of the fact that nearly everything he has done in his personal life is directly antithetical to their professed beliefs.
Religion as a concept *is* the true root of evil. It is, at its essence, one group of people claiming they are better than everyone else because God said so.
That, however, is absolutely true. Look at any society where 1 specific form of religion has taken hold, and you'll see naked evil. I used to think Buddhists were the one religious group that were above this, preaching harmony and peace, but that was merely another case of hypocritical lip-service, again proving the point that the more idealist one claims to be, the bigger a hypocrite one is.
Counting on 2 spaces is pretty much guaranteed to be problematic. White space is for readability, not searches. While it would be easier if the world just followed 1 set of white space rules in storing text, in the end, it's pretty much a lost cause based on experience.
If SkyNet is relying on JavaScript an attack on any one of five dozen servers it is downloading vital code from will defeat it.
Nah, all that's needed is for one of those "developers" to get in snit and un-publish their version of the left-pad "library". SkyNet will promptly crash and refuse to run.
Spectre will make this easy to scrape credentials and whatnot from memory.
I thought Daniel Craig took care of Spectre in a lackluster finale?
My personal take is there weren't enough holes in Excel, so time to add a new holey framework implemented, of course, by the best MS could outsource.
WebRTC is relatively new and I'm not surprised it's not universally supported because it's been hampered by DRM efforts. It's been too long, but IIRC the plumbing for the protocols is in place and a minor bit of code will properly render it in the client. Those protocols predate the fuck it all up efforts of the various MPAA/RIAA members and were written by quite competent technical people. The biggest issue you have is whether all the hardware between clients support all the features. Not all do, and likely with reason (insert conspiracy theory here for why connectivity providers that sell content might not want to support competitors streaming on "their" networks)
To be sure, there are other legal challenges associated with this approach that are all related to licensing and "rights", which may be why only closed solutions have used these protocols that I'm aware of (and by no means am I an expert in this field at this time) Technically, there's no issue with supporting millions of concurrent viewers. Ping me again in a couple of years as I may have a better answer if I go that route again.
I read the post and the quotes it highlights as the problems with asbestos should not have happened nor should happen again. I'm saying that's impossible to ascertain when the detrimental mechanisms are present when we may not even suspect they exist. What was implied but not explicitly stated is that you cannot test for all these potential detrimental effects, especially as some are unknown. e.g., who knew that DDT could endanger our entire avian population or that plastics could harm us biologically by interfering with our development as we grow into adults when those products first appeared? There's many other examples of unknowns that harmed us in new ways: X-rays, carbon dust, tobacco, LSD, BPA, sunlight, radium/uranium, micro-particulates and lead, just to name a few from the past.
"The difference with asbestos was that the hazards were not known or ignored; large-scale use meant large-scale production, resulting in emissions that weren't properly controlled, which in turn caused exposure at unsafe levels and then widespread disease. This should never have happened and should never again happen."
This is so wrong and short-sighted it boggles the mind. A Trump tweet couldn't be more wrong. While your base assertions are correct in that we do not yet know if graphene can have unintended effects, the assumption that an asbestos/tobacco/oxycontin/BPA/micro-plastics etc situation won't happen again is completely incorrect. Never underestimate the ignorance and greed of people combined with the possibility of wealth and the unknown. The latter is the absolute fallback point - if you literally don't know, you can't protect yourself from it. Take water for instance - it's good, healthy, and necessary for survival. However, too much of it without minerals will kill you. Too many minerals, you die. We didn't learn those facts for millennia. Now take saline IV solutions, it's apparent that they're not the be all and end all of base IV treatments despite having been the standard for decades. Balanced fluids may be better. But we just don't know what if any side effects may happen down the road. The list goes on and on.
I added uBlock after noscript became too troublesome/possible? to configure and clicktoscript no longer worked on HTML5. Because when the ad companies figured out how to get around autoplay blockers I had, it took me less than 2 days to find an alternative that effectively stopped that annoying nonsense. As a bonus, pages load faster too.
Been there, done that. Supporting any number of concurrent users is not hard, you just have to use what's available in your internet protocol toolkit. The real issue comes down to whether all users are on networks that support the necessary protocols. FYI, those would be RTP/RTCP/RTSP coupled with SIP for session management. (All conveniently defined relatively accurately on wikipedia) Furthermore, those protocols formed the basis for WebRTC, and contrary to anyone's opinion, RTP/RTCP/RTSP have been around since 1996, meaning none of this is new.
I actually had to read everything here to realize (again) how backwards Windows is. OSX has come with Grab that dates all the way back to NeXT. So I guess we can welcome MS users to the 1990s.
I assumed it because it seems so unlikely and somehow wrong that 3 of 5 FCC commissioners would travel somewhere to appear together for a panel to discuss the FCC and FCC business without it being "official business". Hence my post stating it is still an open question
IMNSHO, If those 3 FCC commissioners really did travel on their own for this panel in a private capacity, then there's a whole slew of other issues that need to be investigated which are potentially worse than O'Reilly's Hatch Act violation on quite a few different levels. It goes from a minor scratch to maybe it's cancer.
Furthermore, I don't consider CPAC to be a gov funded entity. The only thing that had to be gov funded was anything related to the three that showed up, including if they were on the clock or had travel paid for. There's other issues as outlined in the letter I referenced above but we'll leave those for when/if a response is posted.
Well, further research indicates it is still an open question, at least as far as I can tell from the request for details regarding their attendance in the FCC related posting under: https://democrats-energycommer...
That he was on the clock and at a function paid for by the government including travel (these latter items are key btw, regardless of whether you think so or not) you'll find that your own quoted clause 7324 (b) (1) applies and that he is not subject to the exemptions in 7324, only leaving the clauses in 7323 in effect.
It's really not that difficult to understand, so simplified: because B-1 applies, B doesn't apply, only leaving A (since B is a listing of exemptions to A and B-1 is a specific case that excludes the employee from the list in B)
As to where I "got that", it's an official function that they went to as a group, so it stands to reason that they're there in official capacity and all travel etc is reimbursed. It's the way the gov functions. No one goes to a gov work function without travel orders. IIRC it is policy because the potential for liability is greater if it wasn't paid for by work but they required you to go. (IIRC - only because I no longer have access to the actual policy paperwork regarding these matters)
He was on duty - it's clear he was there as a paid FCC employee, with travel also provided via FCC. I'm not sure what your challenge in understanding my rather simple statements. I never stated he was off duty. Reread the entire sentence and then process that sentence with the context surrounding it, and perhaps you'll discover why taking a single phrase out of a sentence, much less its context, is reason for considering your reading comprehension to be impaired at best. Everything else takes on a malicious overtone.
> > O'Reilly was subject to 7324 (b) (1) which means that 7324 > O'Reilly's statements violate 7323
So you'e changed your mind. Cool. You see they can't violate both, he can't be both on-duty and off-duty at the same time.
Are you currently or formerly an employee of Fox News? Because your reading comprehension and logic contortionist abilities would fit their requirements.
O'Reilly was subject to 7324 (b) (1) which means that 7324's exemptions do not apply to him in this case. In short, he violated the Hatch Act.
That's an interesting take on it. Fyi, the Office of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General disagree with you.
OSP says it's dangerously close to violating 7323 (a)1.
Apparently the OSC and AG agree with me - 7324's exemptions to 7323 do not apply. Therefore, O'Reilly's statements violate 7323 and thus the Hatch Act.
In case you need extra help understanding what's being said, your quotes above where you state you literally quoted the law, you were quoting 7324's exemptions, which you were claiming meant that O'Reilly couldn't violate the Hatch Act. Hopefully, with repetition, it'll sink in that 7324's exemption clauses do not cover O'Reilly's actions since he was an official being paid out of Treasury funds and thus were prohibited by 7323.
You really need to work on reading comprehension. It's tiring to have to repeat myself multiple times in just a couple of posts for what really should be trivially simple concepts.
The exemption is for a subset of those appointees, not all of them. FCC commissioners are definitely not the same as Sec of State. Nor should they be. Are there *emergency* issues that the FCC needs to resolve or really anything that requires an FCC person to work outside normal hours any more than anyone else?
O'Reilly was subject to 7324 (b) (1) which means that 7324's exemptions do not apply to him in this case. In short, he violated the Hatch Act.