If you've got stiff data remanence requirements in your existing contract, it sounds like you'll need to ask for a contract modification. Not knowing exactly what sort of data you're working with, I'll just say it sounds like the customer really wanted to make sure their data didn't end up on eBay by accident.
The time to have provided for an non-destructive alternative would have been when the original contract was being negotiated. That said, ask your PM to ask the customer contracts officer about it. Keep in mind that no matter how good your electronic data wiping method, nothing beats sending the platters to the hammer mill. Your new contract probably budgets for new discs, so unless you and the customer are going to realize significant savings from reuse, I wouldn't go to the mattresses over it.
Right on. That was the core message from "Gattica", that the will to do it can mean more than the theoretical ability to... as I saw all too many times in high school and university.
Until we plug into that, the ACTN-3 is going to be just the beginning of a long, painful road.
For all the bad things people will point out, the sum total is that people will get much better services for the money. The Chinese motivation for doing things in an expert, professional manner will more than compensate for the loss of government control.
You're joking, right? You seem to labor under the mistaken impression that the Chinese have replicated and scaled up the Japanese example of the '70's - '90's that you've likely familiar with. In reality, they're emulating the Japanese example of the '00's - '30's, featuring a rapid build up of manufacturing and infrastructure, while externalizing much of the cost of doing it "right".
That's not necessarily the "wrong" approach. Make it work now, make it work beautifully later is a path all OECD economies have trod at one point or another. "Have trod" being the operative phrase.
So, yes, the Chinese could be *that* much worse. Across the developing world, the tendency is to contract out to Chinese firms for infrastructure they're willing to cut corners on, but go for US, European, Korean, or Brazilian firms when they need it done right the first time.
It's not tolerable to KNOW that the NSA, CIA, FBI, and our local police can listen in without warrant or our knowledge. It's idiotic to add Chinese espionage to the mix.
The senior males of the titled families write the checks that by-and-large determine what policies the likes of Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, and most of the senior elected GOP (and a few of the Democrats) put actual effort into, rather than just talk about. I suggest we cut out the middle man, and at least try to ask the opinions of one of these gentlemen.
I contend that - regardless of what their mouthpieces have to say - they don't really care about free markets or 'conservatism'. They care about guiding us to a predetermined result, where the 1% (or more to the point, the 1% of the 1%) corner the market on both liquid wealth and political influence.
It is possible that they have a different, or at least more nuanced, point of view. If so, I invite them to state it.
If someone wants to suggest George Soros or Warren Buffet, feel free. But, I'll tell you now and believe me later, Soros is an outlier within his class, and Buffet considered to have gone a bit off the reservation.
Polling suggests Americans as a whole could give a rip about Palestinian issues, and support Israel if they think about it at all. Thus, the tune is increasingly called by Christian Zionists, to the point where Jewish Zionists have become the tail wagged by the dog. So it goes in Congress.
If/when the Palestinian Authority is admitted to the WIPO and WTO, it'll get really interesting. P.L. 101-246, Title IV (1990) and P.L. 103-236, Title IV (1994) can be amended, and a wide range of large contributors to Congressional races are probably already drafting suitable language, JIC. But, when push comes to shove, who will want it more: big money, or big religion?
The data has been (and continues to be) collected, analyzed by numerous researchers, and is to the point where even you or I can discern the trends after a few minutes with a spreadsheet. I'm done splitting hairs with the flat earthers and the shills for fossil fuel purveyors regarding the "reality" of climate change. It's pointless, and whether the parent realizes it or not, we're passed that.
Where we are is a struggle over what to do next. Granted, in a bad economy, it's a hard sell the sort of policies that would reduce and then stop the increase in atmospheric carbon. And, most of the likes of the parent's post really come down to that. For instance, compare Newt Gingrich c. 2011 with c. 2007.
The thing that's needed to get useful climate policies in place is to create catch up growth in the US economy, enabling the majority of voters to see beyond the next quarter. The private sector is already back to a historically normal growth rate, but we're shooting ourselves in the foot by continuing to shrink public employment. President Hoover would be so proud.
Obviously, there would have been no browser wars if Netscape was absorbed into MS right at the start. Instead, the age of web tech stagnation would have started in 1995 with the alternative universe "IE 1", rather than 2000-1 with IE 6. Soon thereafter, one of the other open(ish) engines would likely have been employed to fulfill the needs that have been largely met by Gecko.
So, all else being equal, I don't know that we'd notice much practical difference.
You can go the camera obscura route. The trick is to get enough focal length, and a dark enough viewing "chamber" (a darkened box/tent/room). You might try reflecting the disc image into a room. 30 seconds on Google provided this description (scroll through the home schooling stuff). This would require more local coordination than transporting a telescope.
As a resident of HI (Maui), I'd suggest the leeward sides of the Big Island or Maui over Kauai, since the taller central peaks do a better job at rerouting the trade winds, and thus the lower clouds that are most likely to screw up your viewing. If you're married to Kauai, I'll reiterate what you may already know: your best viewing will be along the coast from Waimea town west to Barking Sands (Polihale State Park).
Can't be done by a lay(wo)man. I believe the fact that any properly configured laser/receiver system can detect laser light bounced off the various US retroreflectors (US-only, since the USSR reflectors were robot-delivered) should count as proof-positive. But, this and other means of proof are technology-heavy, and therefore too open to lay distrust.
I've read a number of the other posts. No need for me to repeat the ones I agree with. You're incorrect in thinking I've got no skin in the game. As an employee, I'm the one likely to lose a job in an already bad economy. You seem to have more leeway. I don't think the changes required to effect meaningful change in carbon emissions need result in "drastic" (go home and plant some lettuce) change throughout the economy. Definitely a drastic change in electric power generation sources and grid management, and motor vehicle propulsion, however. What makes those "drastic" is how fast and well executed the switchover occurs.
You're reading more into how I categorized you than was there. As a class, business owners, small, medium, or large, are the most conservative people in the US. Ergo, as a class, "you" tend to support the status quo, other than a tweak here or there to advance "your" perceived interests. Hence, that's how I interpreted your cynicism and your carrot rather than stick approach.
I'm not really interested in selling you on the economics of climate change in this forum. If you don't see it, or are tired of sorting out the evidence from the baloney, that's fine. Given the seriously depressed economy, I can't sell it. Dumping carbon for "free" defers the externalized costs, while any attempt to "cap" the dumping makes the cost immediate, and cuts into business margins now, whether oil extraction or web services. The people most likely to lose a job don't have a lot of good options at the moment, no matter what might happen twenty or thirty years from now.
The point I was trying to make, however imperfectly, was that given a cap, there are useable solutions for energy substitution and increased efficiency available now. Yes, the effort will cost a lot of money. But, it's not money thrown in a hole, and it'll add more economic value than a lot of what's passed for economic growth over the last couple of decades.
The environment (physical, social, economic) within which you manage your business is going to go through considerable change. Unless you're in the last 15 - twenty years of life, you are going to experience it personally. Your assumptions as to what it takes to avoid massive climate change is based on small-c conservative thinking, starting with a fossil fuel-centric focus. However, to create the status quo you're accustomed to required massive, pervasive governmental intervention to encourage the millions of economic decisions that once would have gone another way, to instead go this way. Not central planning on the scale of the USSR, obviously, but planning and action nevertheless.
And, so it will need to go this time, so that you can meet change on a scale that you can manage and anticipate, rather than one that hits you like a hurricane. A good market-oriented solution, using the same sort of successful governmental guidance we'd had in the past, will involve a cap on carbon emissions which the market can self-organize and innovate within.
You'd like climate mitigation that doesn't require much of anything from you, and that's not going to be possible, whichever way it goes.
That's swell, but there wasn't a human civilization built upon those previous conditions. We've had enough problems dealing with variations around our previous averages. When that's all out the window, so is every assumption about how or if you, personally, are able to organize your life.
Studies have been repeated, and verified, and (in this case) repeated again. Sending something back to committee for more study is a transparent tactic. I don't doubt that the likes of the Koch brothers will pony up for more... naturally, since the margins from their current business model depend on dumping crap into the public commons.
Going an added step further than the parent, I'll use the analogy of warfare. The costs to avoid open combat can be budgeted and weighed. The costs to fight a war are unknown at the beginning, the scope of future battle being impossible to accurately forecast, although the costs can be inferred to be high.
For instance, the direct cost to maintain no-fly zones over and embargo shipping around Iraq rose above $1b/year only twice over of the course of ten years. The direct cost to invade and fight a counter-insurgency in Iraq ran over $100b/year, every year.
So it will go with climate change. The costs to maintain something like our current environment are fairly well known. The total potential scope of unbridled climate change is unknown, as are the potential costs to mitigate it. However, those costs can reasonably inferred to be very high, being as the last millennium of human civilization was built within the limited climate zone variation over that time.
It's not uncommon for/. editors to add a story update when significant new information comes to light, or there was a major f-up in the original. This is one of those times, Soulskill. I know a lot of stuff rotates through your in-box, and you got suckered by @theodp. You need post the correction:
- Fisker Karma, made in Finland, no DOE loan. - Fisker Nina, to be made in Delaware, with DOE loan.
A state has the right to strike alternative legal tender, per Article 1, Section 10. They don't have the enumerated right to require it. Much like an employer asking your favorite sexual position, they can try. Thus, someone will soon see the state of LA in court, I suspect.
The W-9 form merely looks to match a name with a tax ID. DOB isn't a must-answer question. In fact, given anti-age discrimination statues in the US, it's really more of a "can't ask"... not that it stops prime contractors from asking. Since they aren't in a position to ask, independent contractors (eg. actors) aren't required to tell the truth.
DOB may be in the public record from public institutions in various US jurisdictions, but that doesn't give anyone who receives that information by some other means carte blache to broadcast it. Having a county registrar provide fact X != IMDB providing fact X.
What I'd be interested in someone else digging up is exactly what IMDB's published policy is. It seems IMDB is now making it clear that they publish indentifying information from any source. I suspect that will affect the number of actors signing up for IMDB Pro, or at least cause them to seek out other payment options. I see the possibility of a niche business opening.
The parent is referring to actresses who established themselves in their early twenties. Most established actresses fade quickly as they approach 40. Only the creme de la creme have a shot at anything other than mother-of-the-bride rolls after that. Male actors are still marketable throughout their forties.
Frankly, the actress in question knows she's probably already toast, hence the lawsuit to recover lost potential wages. But, it doesn't take much effort to at least try to limit the damage in the meantime. I'm guessing this is mainly an attempt to limit pollution of any potential jury pool.
Regarding the quip in the/. abstract: "So is her career dependent on lies?"... yes, yes it is. A woman lying about her age (unless under majority) is by far one of the least of the lies told in show business. To even ask the question settles any dispute regarding @Alain Williams' gender.
The post from @PeterBrett really hits the nail on the head. To his comment, I'll add that from the Reagan Administration onward, there has been money to do either humans in space or planetary exploration well, but not both, and it's just gotten worse with time. The Obama Administration seems to have recognized this, and was intending to focus on science while encouraging private industry to give pulling a rabbit out of their hat their best shot.
[snark]Perhaps we could fix this by relocating JPL to Alabama.[/snark]
Slashdot Mirror
>> log over a secure channel to another machine.
> syslog output write to a [...] line printer.
Dr. Stoll? Cliff? Is that you?
If you've got stiff data remanence requirements in your existing contract, it sounds like you'll need to ask for a contract modification. Not knowing exactly what sort of data you're working with, I'll just say it sounds like the customer really wanted to make sure their data didn't end up on eBay by accident.
The time to have provided for an non-destructive alternative would have been when the original contract was being negotiated. That said, ask your PM to ask the customer contracts officer about it. Keep in mind that no matter how good your electronic data wiping method, nothing beats sending the platters to the hammer mill. Your new contract probably budgets for new discs, so unless you and the customer are going to realize significant savings from reuse, I wouldn't go to the mattresses over it.
> So where's the "I really want to do it" gene?
Right on. That was the core message from "Gattica", that the will to do it can mean more than the theoretical ability to... as I saw all too many times in high school and university.
Until we plug into that, the ACTN-3 is going to be just the beginning of a long, painful road.
Damn, I don't have any moderator points this week. That's just wicked. Well done.
For all the bad things people will point out, the sum total is that people will get much better services for the money. The Chinese motivation for doing things in an expert, professional manner will more than compensate for the loss of government control.
You're joking, right? You seem to labor under the mistaken impression that the Chinese have replicated and scaled up the Japanese example of the '70's - '90's that you've likely familiar with. In reality, they're emulating the Japanese example of the '00's - '30's, featuring a rapid build up of manufacturing and infrastructure, while externalizing much of the cost of doing it "right".
That's not necessarily the "wrong" approach. Make it work now, make it work beautifully later is a path all OECD economies have trod at one point or another. "Have trod" being the operative phrase.
So, yes, the Chinese could be *that* much worse. Across the developing world, the tendency is to contract out to Chinese firms for infrastructure they're willing to cut corners on, but go for US, European, Korean, or Brazilian firms when they need it done right the first time.
It's not tolerable to KNOW that the NSA, CIA, FBI, and our local police can listen in without warrant or our knowledge.
It's idiotic to add Chinese espionage to the mix.
The senior males of the titled families write the checks that by-and-large determine what policies the likes of Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, and most of the senior elected GOP (and a few of the Democrats) put actual effort into, rather than just talk about. I suggest we cut out the middle man, and at least try to ask the opinions of one of these gentlemen.
I contend that - regardless of what their mouthpieces have to say - they don't really care about free markets or 'conservatism'. They care about guiding us to a predetermined result, where the 1% (or more to the point, the 1% of the 1%) corner the market on both liquid wealth and political influence.
It is possible that they have a different, or at least more nuanced, point of view. If so, I invite them to state it.
If someone wants to suggest George Soros or Warren Buffet, feel free. But, I'll tell you now and believe me later, Soros is an outlier within his class, and Buffet considered to have gone a bit off the reservation.
Polling suggests Americans as a whole could give a rip about Palestinian issues, and support Israel if they think about it at all. Thus, the tune is increasingly called by Christian Zionists, to the point where Jewish Zionists have become the tail wagged by the dog. So it goes in Congress.
If/when the Palestinian Authority is admitted to the WIPO and WTO, it'll get really interesting. P.L. 101-246, Title IV (1990) and P.L. 103-236, Title IV (1994) can be amended, and a wide range of large contributors to Congressional races are probably already drafting suitable language, JIC. But, when push comes to shove, who will want it more: big money, or big religion?
The data has been (and continues to be) collected, analyzed by numerous researchers, and is to the point where even you or I can discern the trends after a few minutes with a spreadsheet. I'm done splitting hairs with the flat earthers and the shills for fossil fuel purveyors regarding the "reality" of climate change. It's pointless, and whether the parent realizes it or not, we're passed that.
Where we are is a struggle over what to do next. Granted, in a bad economy, it's a hard sell the sort of policies that would reduce and then stop the increase in atmospheric carbon. And, most of the likes of the parent's post really come down to that. For instance, compare Newt Gingrich c. 2011 with c. 2007.
The thing that's needed to get useful climate policies in place is to create catch up growth in the US economy, enabling the majority of voters to see beyond the next quarter. The private sector is already back to a historically normal growth rate, but we're shooting ourselves in the foot by continuing to shrink public employment. President Hoover would be so proud.
Obviously, there would have been no browser wars if Netscape was absorbed into MS right at the start. Instead, the age of web tech stagnation would have started in 1995 with the alternative universe "IE 1", rather than 2000-1 with IE 6. Soon thereafter, one of the other open(ish) engines would likely have been employed to fulfill the needs that have been largely met by Gecko.
So, all else being equal, I don't know that we'd notice much practical difference.
You can go the camera obscura route. The trick is to get enough focal length, and a dark enough viewing "chamber" (a darkened box/tent/room). You might try reflecting the disc image into a room. 30 seconds on Google provided this description (scroll through the home schooling stuff). This would require more local coordination than transporting a telescope.
As a resident of HI (Maui), I'd suggest the leeward sides of the Big Island or Maui over Kauai, since the taller central peaks do a better job at rerouting the trade winds, and thus the lower clouds that are most likely to screw up your viewing. If you're married to Kauai, I'll reiterate what you may already know: your best viewing will be along the coast from Waimea town west to Barking Sands (Polihale State Park).
Can't be done by a lay(wo)man. I believe the fact that any properly configured laser/receiver system can detect laser light bounced off the various US retroreflectors (US-only, since the USSR reflectors were robot-delivered) should count as proof-positive. But, this and other means of proof are technology-heavy, and therefore too open to lay distrust.
I've read a number of the other posts. No need for me to repeat the ones I agree with. You're incorrect in thinking I've got no skin in the game. As an employee, I'm the one likely to lose a job in an already bad economy. You seem to have more leeway. I don't think the changes required to effect meaningful change in carbon emissions need result in "drastic" (go home and plant some lettuce) change throughout the economy. Definitely a drastic change in electric power generation sources and grid management, and motor vehicle propulsion, however. What makes those "drastic" is how fast and well executed the switchover occurs.
You're reading more into how I categorized you than was there. As a class, business owners, small, medium, or large, are the most conservative people in the US. Ergo, as a class, "you" tend to support the status quo, other than a tweak here or there to advance "your" perceived interests. Hence, that's how I interpreted your cynicism and your carrot rather than stick approach.
I'm not really interested in selling you on the economics of climate change in this forum. If you don't see it, or are tired of sorting out the evidence from the baloney, that's fine. Given the seriously depressed economy, I can't sell it. Dumping carbon for "free" defers the externalized costs, while any attempt to "cap" the dumping makes the cost immediate, and cuts into business margins now, whether oil extraction or web services. The people most likely to lose a job don't have a lot of good options at the moment, no matter what might happen twenty or thirty years from now.
The point I was trying to make, however imperfectly, was that given a cap, there are useable solutions for energy substitution and increased efficiency available now. Yes, the effort will cost a lot of money. But, it's not money thrown in a hole, and it'll add more economic value than a lot of what's passed for economic growth over the last couple of decades.
The environment (physical, social, economic) within which you manage your business is going to go through considerable change. Unless you're in the last 15 - twenty years of life, you are going to experience it personally. Your assumptions as to what it takes to avoid massive climate change is based on small-c conservative thinking, starting with a fossil fuel-centric focus. However, to create the status quo you're accustomed to required massive, pervasive governmental intervention to encourage the millions of economic decisions that once would have gone another way, to instead go this way. Not central planning on the scale of the USSR, obviously, but planning and action nevertheless.
And, so it will need to go this time, so that you can meet change on a scale that you can manage and anticipate, rather than one that hits you like a hurricane. A good market-oriented solution, using the same sort of successful governmental guidance we'd had in the past, will involve a cap on carbon emissions which the market can self-organize and innovate within.
You'd like climate mitigation that doesn't require much of anything from you, and that's not going to be possible, whichever way it goes.
That's swell, but there wasn't a human civilization built upon those previous conditions. We've had enough problems dealing with variations around our previous averages. When that's all out the window, so is every assumption about how or if you, personally, are able to organize your life.
Studies have been repeated, and verified, and (in this case) repeated again. Sending something back to committee for more study is a transparent tactic. I don't doubt that the likes of the Koch brothers will pony up for more... naturally, since the margins from their current business model depend on dumping crap into the public commons.
Going an added step further than the parent, I'll use the analogy of warfare. The costs to avoid open combat can be budgeted and weighed. The costs to fight a war are unknown at the beginning, the scope of future battle being impossible to accurately forecast, although the costs can be inferred to be high.
For instance, the direct cost to maintain no-fly zones over and embargo shipping around Iraq rose above $1b/year only twice over of the course of ten years. The direct cost to invade and fight a counter-insurgency in Iraq ran over $100b/year, every year.
So it will go with climate change. The costs to maintain something like our current environment are fairly well known. The total potential scope of unbridled climate change is unknown, as are the potential costs to mitigate it. However, those costs can reasonably inferred to be very high, being as the last millennium of human civilization was built within the limited climate zone variation over that time.
It's not uncommon for /. editors to add a story update when significant new information comes to light, or there was a major f-up in the original. This is one of those times, Soulskill. I know a lot of stuff rotates through your in-box, and you got suckered by @theodp. You need post the correction:
- Fisker Karma, made in Finland, no DOE loan.
- Fisker Nina, to be made in Delaware, with DOE loan.
A state has the right to strike alternative legal tender, per Article 1, Section 10. They don't have the enumerated right to require it. Much like an employer asking your favorite sexual position, they can try. Thus, someone will soon see the state of LA in court, I suspect.
The W-9 form merely looks to match a name with a tax ID. DOB isn't a must-answer question. In fact, given anti-age discrimination statues in the US, it's really more of a "can't ask"... not that it stops prime contractors from asking. Since they aren't in a position to ask, independent contractors (eg. actors) aren't required to tell the truth.
DOB may be in the public record from public institutions in various US jurisdictions, but that doesn't give anyone who receives that information by some other means carte blache to broadcast it. Having a county registrar provide fact X != IMDB providing fact X.
What I'd be interested in someone else digging up is exactly what IMDB's published policy is. It seems IMDB is now making it clear that they publish indentifying information from any source. I suspect that will affect the number of actors signing up for IMDB Pro, or at least cause them to seek out other payment options. I see the possibility of a niche business opening.
The parent is referring to actresses who established themselves in their early twenties. Most established actresses fade quickly as they approach 40. Only the creme de la creme have a shot at anything other than mother-of-the-bride rolls after that. Male actors are still marketable throughout their forties.
Frankly, the actress in question knows she's probably already toast, hence the lawsuit to recover lost potential wages. But, it doesn't take much effort to at least try to limit the damage in the meantime. I'm guessing this is mainly an attempt to limit pollution of any potential jury pool.
Regarding the quip in the /. abstract: "So is her career dependent on lies?"... yes, yes it is. A woman lying about her age (unless under majority) is by far one of the least of the lies told in show business. To even ask the question settles any dispute regarding @Alain Williams' gender.
The post from @PeterBrett really hits the nail on the head. To his comment, I'll add that from the Reagan Administration onward, there has been money to do either humans in space or planetary exploration well, but not both, and it's just gotten worse with time. The Obama Administration seems to have recognized this, and was intending to focus on science while encouraging private industry to give pulling a rabbit out of their hat their best shot.
[snark]Perhaps we could fix this by relocating JPL to Alabama.[/snark]