All of those things likely make it better, not worse.
Reef tank has too much bio-load for the volume of water. Reef tanks typically (or shouldn't) use mechanical filtration. Reef tanks typically get too many nutrients added, thereby polluting the water far more than the ocean.
I'm not making a case for BP being innocent, or that what happened was acceptable. Clearly there were effects, for which they should be held accountable.
I still think though that given the volumes That still makes me feel this isn't the environmental disaster that the press seemed to want it to be.
I keep a reef tank. Out of interest I did my own extrapolating back when the world was on the brink of environmental melt down at the hands of Mordor... er, I mean BP.
You take the amount of oil spilt, and divide by the amount of water in the GOM.
Then you scale that down to your reef tank, and see if you would be comfortable adding that much oil.
Turns out I couldn't even accurately measure the amount (0.00007ml).
I'd be more than happy to test out having a 'disaster' of that magnitude in my little biotope.
I'm somewhat confused by that remark. Having been a user of the service for at least the last 7 years or so (http://web.archive.org/web/20040605003827/http://www.bettison.org/)
The service has been so consistently good that I signed up to the paid service some years back, which yes runs my business' web presence (the DNS part of it at least).
There are some stats are right there on the front page at http://freedns.afraid.org/ . With 880 subscribers paying between $5 and $50 a month they turn over somewhere between $50 and $500k a year.
Whilst that may not be an enormous amount of cash, the fact that it has grown organically from an essentially free service back in the day demonstrates that this is a serious outfit.
If they were no good, then I doubt they would have ended up being around for so long, or that they would be serving around 200 million queries a day.
I realise it was probably just a throwaway remark, but feel its only fair to give credit where credit is due.
I was also wondering as I wrote the reply whether I was just being strung along. I thought it was better to take the hit and look a fool, even it stopped just one person actually doing this!
The issue here is not that people are being charged for usage (entirely sensible model imho), but that the telcos are price gouging consumers.
Conversely, the 'unlimited internet' thing just doesn't work, because you have this thing called 'fair usage' that means you are allowed to redefine the word unlimited as unlimited for any value smaller than X.
The reality (for anyone that has any kind of dedicated/cloud server or hosting account) is that bandwidth is actually relatively cheap. This is the dirty little secret of the telcos, they know they are vastly overcharging and will do anything to protect their little racket.
Absolutely right, and I would say it goes further than that.
The iphone/pad is a hook, a carrot on a stick, to drag people away from PC's. I was PC/Linux all the way until I got an iPhone, then I thought, hell if the phones are this good, maybe their computers are too. They were, now we are a 100% mac household, however upsetting that may be to some!
Apple are a business at the end of the day, they want to make money. What better way than to tap into the 90% of home desktop users that don't yet have an OSX setup. There is an absolute fortune to be made. That's where I would be looking.
If we go with analyst estimates of 30% of revenue derived from Mac sales. That equates to roughly $20bn last year, and if we are generous and say that they have 10% of the market in desktops, then that means for every every additional 10% of market share they generate another $20bn revenue. With a target of 90% of the market place it doesn't take a genius to see the potential.
You say: "Logically, it is impossible to give more than your best."
'best' or 'best effort'?
If I have a hangover my best effort is often less than my best. Best effort is subject to the prevailing conditions, and not always equal to best.
If you did your best to understand this, then you i'm sure you would instead you are only making your best effort (subject to you preferring, instead to argue the toss).
You are assuming that best effort is good enough to do do the job, fully.
If I say I am giving my best effort to helping someone, they shouldn't then expect me to help them above all else, they can maybe expect (at best) all my free time. Some things are just more important. Sleeping, eating, paying the bills.
To assume I am going to drop those is disingenuous. If however, I make a guarantee (foolishly perhaps) to help you finish your house in a certain time period then whether or not I eat and sleep is no longer of any interest to you. I made the guarantee, therefore you expect me to stick by it, to the exclusion of all else. I still make my best effort to eat and sleep.
Sometimes you just don't have enough time to do everything you want to, at those times some stuff gets priority, the other stiff you make your best effort to get it done.
In those cases I agree. If the original article isn't playing by the 'rules' of the internet then they can hardly be surprised when people choose not to link them:)
As much as I think it's all a bit ridiculous, there's a part of me that wonders why someone would reproduce an *entire* article verbatim (if that is indeed what they have done).
Surely, being the internet (in the colloquial sense ie the http part), they should just link to it and if really necessary only quote relevant excerpts? That just seems like good form to me, stylistically being perhaps the most useful way of using the internet as a means by which to deliver cross linked content.
Not that failing to do so warrants immediate legal action, that just seems like a big hissy fit.
Replicating citadel miniatures is pretty simple for anyone with the inclination to do so. Even full of the incompetence of youth I managed to knock out a few extra space marines when I was a kid for the cost. Fair use? Maybe not, but I didn't have the cash to go buy them so they weren't lost sales either.
I think you are conflating the government with 'anybody else'. Like it or not it is the government's business (at least in the UK - more specifically HMRC, but I guess equally in most of the western world) to know exactly how much you earn, as this is what is used to establish what tax you must pay and/or what benefits you may be entitled to.
I quite agree it is nobody else's business. Although perhaps only until such point as you break the law. If you break the law then the loss of rights to a greater or lesser extent often forms part of the punishment. In cases such as this, the loss of the right of privacy with regards your personal income doesn't seem to me to be an overly harsh punishment, especially if it allows a for fairer system for all.
Slashdot Mirror
All of those things likely make it better, not worse.
Reef tank has too much bio-load for the volume of water. Reef tanks typically (or shouldn't) use mechanical filtration. Reef tanks typically get too many nutrients added, thereby polluting the water far more than the ocean.
I'm not making a case for BP being innocent, or that what happened was acceptable. Clearly there were effects, for which they should be held accountable.
I still think though that given the volumes That still makes me feel this isn't the environmental disaster that the press seemed to want it to be.
Quite right, and heres another thing.
I keep a reef tank. Out of interest I did my own extrapolating back when the world was on the brink of environmental melt down at the hands of Mordor... er, I mean BP.
You take the amount of oil spilt, and divide by the amount of water in the GOM.
Then you scale that down to your reef tank, and see if you would be comfortable adding that much oil.
Turns out I couldn't even accurately measure the amount (0.00007ml).
I'd be more than happy to test out having a 'disaster' of that magnitude in my little biotope.
Kind of ruins the 'news' angle though.
It's OK though, their excuse will be they have to spend 30% of their working day employed by apple ;)
I'm somewhat confused by that remark. Having been a user of the service for at least the last 7 years or so (http://web.archive.org/web/20040605003827/http://www.bettison.org/)
The service has been so consistently good that I signed up to the paid service some years back, which yes runs my business' web presence (the DNS part of it at least).
There are some stats are right there on the front page at http://freedns.afraid.org/ . With 880 subscribers paying between $5 and $50 a month they turn over somewhere between $50 and $500k a year.
Whilst that may not be an enormous amount of cash, the fact that it has grown organically from an essentially free service back in the day demonstrates that this is a serious outfit.
If they were no good, then I doubt they would have ended up being around for so long, or that they would be serving around 200 million queries a day.
I realise it was probably just a throwaway remark, but feel its only fair to give credit where credit is due.
I was also wondering as I wrote the reply whether I was just being strung along. I thought it was better to take the hit and look a fool, even it stopped just one person actually doing this!
The purpose of the salt is to stop people using pre-computed rainbow tables.
With a different salt per password (even known) they have to generate rainbow tables per salt/password.
If the salt is the password then you only need generate one rainbow table to crack the whole list.
Call me a cynic, but I'm sure we've seen this strategy of embracing and idea, and then extending it somewhere before...
I wonder what their game is ;)
The issue here is not that people are being charged for usage (entirely sensible model imho), but that the telcos are price gouging consumers.
Conversely, the 'unlimited internet' thing just doesn't work, because you have this thing called 'fair usage' that means you are allowed to redefine the word unlimited as unlimited for any value smaller than X.
The reality (for anyone that has any kind of dedicated/cloud server or hosting account) is that bandwidth is actually relatively cheap. This is the dirty little secret of the telcos, they know they are vastly overcharging and will do anything to protect their little racket.
Thankyou for pre-empting my question.
I know as much about linux device management as Ted Stevens knows about TCP/IP, and yet my first thought was 'doesn't udev already deal with this?'
Absolutely right, and I would say it goes further than that.
The iphone/pad is a hook, a carrot on a stick, to drag people away from PC's. I was PC/Linux all the way until I got an iPhone, then I thought, hell if the phones are this good, maybe their computers are too. They were, now we are a 100% mac household, however upsetting that may be to some!
Apple are a business at the end of the day, they want to make money. What better way than to tap into the 90% of home desktop users that don't yet have an OSX setup. There is an absolute fortune to be made. That's where I would be looking.
If we go with analyst estimates of 30% of revenue derived from Mac sales. That equates to roughly $20bn last year, and if we are generous and say that they have 10% of the market in desktops, then that means for every every additional 10% of market share they generate another $20bn revenue. With a target of 90% of the market place it doesn't take a genius to see the potential.
You say: "Logically, it is impossible to give more than your best."
'best' or 'best effort'?
If I have a hangover my best effort is often less than my best. Best effort is subject to the prevailing conditions, and not always equal to best.
If you did your best to understand this, then you i'm sure you would instead you are only making your best effort (subject to you preferring, instead to argue the toss).
You are assuming that best effort is good enough to do do the job, fully.
If I say I am giving my best effort to helping someone, they shouldn't then expect me to help them above all else, they can maybe expect (at best) all my free time. Some things are just more important. Sleeping, eating, paying the bills.
To assume I am going to drop those is disingenuous. If however, I make a guarantee (foolishly perhaps) to help you finish your house in a certain time period then whether or not I eat and sleep is no longer of any interest to you. I made the guarantee, therefore you expect me to stick by it, to the exclusion of all else. I still make my best effort to eat and sleep.
Sometimes you just don't have enough time to do everything you want to, at those times some stuff gets priority, the other stiff you make your best effort to get it done.
HTML 0
In those cases I agree. If the original article isn't playing by the 'rules' of the internet then they can hardly be surprised when people choose not to link them :)
As much as I think it's all a bit ridiculous, there's a part of me that wonders why someone would reproduce an *entire* article verbatim (if that is indeed what they have done).
Surely, being the internet (in the colloquial sense ie the http part), they should just link to it and if really necessary only quote relevant excerpts? That just seems like good form to me, stylistically being perhaps the most useful way of using the internet as a means by which to deliver cross linked content.
Not that failing to do so warrants immediate legal action, that just seems like a big hissy fit.
It'll always be tanks to me. Kids these days though, they'll probably just remember scorched earth ...
(yeah i know artillery was earlier but i was 0 then)
Good read that. Cheers.
Yet they claim (admittedly, just words for now) to be preparing to release tools so that people can once again run homebrew / otherOS stuff.
*No* doubt at all? Really? None?
Nice work! You just invented the third free.
Free as in speech. Free as in beer. Free as in stolen.
A fair point on the nature of privacy.
I think public still remains pretty unilateral though.
How dare they provide a free service, that doesn't do exactly what I want!
I very much agree with this statement. However in this specific case editing /etc/hosts barely qualifies as overly complicated!
216.34.181.48 news.slashdot.org
in your hosts file also works
Replicating citadel miniatures is pretty simple for anyone with the inclination to do so. Even full of the incompetence of youth I managed to knock out a few extra space marines when I was a kid for the cost. Fair use? Maybe not, but I didn't have the cash to go buy them so they weren't lost sales either.
I think you are conflating the government with 'anybody else'. Like it or not it is the government's business (at least in the UK - more specifically HMRC, but I guess equally in most of the western world) to know exactly how much you earn, as this is what is used to establish what tax you must pay and/or what benefits you may be entitled to.
I quite agree it is nobody else's business. Although perhaps only until such point as you break the law. If you break the law then the loss of rights to a greater or lesser extent often forms part of the punishment. In cases such as this, the loss of the right of privacy with regards your personal income doesn't seem to me to be an overly harsh punishment, especially if it allows a for fairer system for all.