Try to avoid weasel words when describing your arguments.
by all accounts the digital transmissions have worse reception and worse issues with multipath
Not "by all accounts." If you read Slashdot discussions over the past year, there is a great range of accounts.
For example, how about mine: I have several friends who live around the Baltimore County area, and all of them have found that digital TV reception exceeds analog TV reception remarkably. One of them canceled their digital cable. The other went down to analog cable to save money since they now get their digital for free over the air.
Intel isn't trying to do ray tracing. Really, their point is to find a way to make GPUs unnecessary since it is a threat to the CPU market. So adding an RPU to the mix would make sense if the goals was fast ray tracing, but it would defeat what they are trying to show.
I wonder if they used any SIMD extensions when they coded this.
Then the rule should not say that YouTube is an exception. It should state that all 3rd-party sites are an exception.
I think lawmakers should take database classes so that they learn normalization. Instead of making a law/rule that says "Do it this way, except for YouTube" they should say "Do it this way, except for 3rd-party sites linked from government web sites"
Banks are regulated, and the money is definitively yours. In most countries, your account is registered with government who insures that money. It is unlikely that a bank would steal your money. (Misspend it...perhaps... but even then the government bails them out).
But Google has no such regulatory obligations. They don't need to keep the information, yet they do. They could sell it, data mine it, or lose it. Even if someone got my account numbers that way, I'm insured. And if a bank released the records for my accounts it would not be personally damaging.
In the poster's example, Google has 10 times as much information as the bank, and does not insure you against loss.
That's the most helpful answer I've heard thus far. So does the EPA fall under the executive branch? Or does the law somehow specify that the president controls the EPA?
Network neutrality is a big deal and should not be stuffed into a poorly thought-out overly-vague rider on a more important bill.
I don't like it when senators put their own personal agenda into unrelated bills. I'll stick with that principle even when the personal agenda is one I like. Bills should deal with one thing only, and I think that senators who put riders onto bills are doing something immoral -- even when the rider is one I approve of.
I disagree because: 1) Circuit City's surviving competitors do not have commissioned salespeople. 2) Circuit City's now defunct competitor CompUSA, did have commissioned salespeople. (via "SPIFs" on specific products, rather than direct percentage commissions)
Even if the change did negatively impact them, I think it was secondary to having idiot employees, bad service, smaller selection, and higher prices.
I've worked at several places that didn't roll out patches right away. It wasn't because the IT department was busily testing the patches. It was because they were afraid of the patches, but had no time to test them.
For one example, we had a farm of servers. I suggested that they let the developers patch their machines first, then the test servers, then the staging servers, then production. That way there was no risk, and no need to go about with extra testing effort. They agreed -- but nothing happened. The internet-facing production servers were sometimes a year out of date, while all the dev and test machines were running the latest stuff just fine.
That all makes sense, and I get the idea of such a court reviewing warrant requests. But why would the FISA court be making a constitutional ruling regarding a piece of legislation? It doesn't sound like judicial review is within the scope of this court.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but this article gets more absurd as I go:
The appeals court is expected to uphold a secret ruling...
Uphold a what?
...issued last year by the intelligence court that it oversees, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, court. In that initial opinion, the secret court found that Congress had acted within its authority
Wait... so a secret court, established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, ruled that secret actions of that secret court are legal? Shocking!
It found that the Protect America Act did not violate the Constitution because the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, contained an exception for the collection of foreign intelligence information, according to the person familiar with the ruling.
It does?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I've never seen suspend work on anything. Even my MacBook Pro can't do it without USB devices losing connectivity after it wakes up. Blame the hardware manufacturers.
This is out of scope for Wikipedia. It sounds like this should be an entirely separate project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias should not have video:
I don't mean that because traditional encyclopedias did not have video, but because it doesn't fit with the type of content that an encyclopedia presents. It is similar to how newspapers should not have video. Wikipedia is not a teaching tool. It is not meant to provide functional examples. It is a starting point: a dictionary-style explanatory description.
An entry on the Hindenburg does not need a video of the Hindenburg disaster. It needs technical specifications, historically accurate statements of what happened, and a link to a museum who DOES house the video.
An entry on Calculus needs a historic description and a mathematical overview. Not a 2-hour lecture.
Now --- that doesn't mean that a video repository is not a good project. I think that would be awesome. Youtube kinda has that, but it has garbage thrown in. But maybe Wikipedia is not the place for it.
Mono support is years behind the feature sets that MS
Yeah, but the recent MS stuff is not important. WPF and Linq are just bad, and I don't want them anyway.
What's wrong with GUI programming in C++?
Yeah, GUI programming in C is just awful. C/Gnome programmers: Welcome to 1990.
Until today, I would never have considered QT. So that left me with Java, C++/WxWidgets, C++/GTK+, C#/WinForms, C#/GTK+. I tried C#/GTK+ years ago and it seemed very incomplete. I think that Mono's Winforms implementation is very good now (third time is a charm!) and since I have existing C#/WinForms apps that is the way for me to go.
I might try C++/QT again for larger or higher-performing apps where C# is not an option.
Slashdot Mirror
Try to avoid weasel words when describing your arguments.
by all accounts the digital transmissions have worse reception and worse issues with multipath
Not "by all accounts." If you read Slashdot discussions over the past year, there is a great range of accounts.
For example, how about mine: I have several friends who live around the Baltimore County area, and all of them have found that digital TV reception exceeds analog TV reception remarkably. One of them canceled their digital cable. The other went down to analog cable to save money since they now get their digital for free over the air.
Good thing I just bought a pair of these
Intel isn't trying to do ray tracing. Really, their point is to find a way to make GPUs unnecessary since it is a threat to the CPU market. So adding an RPU to the mix would make sense if the goals was fast ray tracing, but it would defeat what they are trying to show.
I wonder if they used any SIMD extensions when they coded this.
<sigh/>
True.
I can't imagine any valid reason for spying on our citizens without a warrant,
Even if there was a good reason, they still couldn't do it without a constitutional amendment.
and what percentage of the other 2/3 simply don't know what they are missing?
Probably most of them. The article says:
19 percent of dial-up users, for example, say that "nothing" would get them to upgrade, not even lower prices
So, even if it is better in every possible way, they still don't want it. That's just ignorance talking.
On his first day, Obama closed the revolving door, closed the secret military base that was holding people without evidence, and instructed his staff to default to leaving files open instead of closed.
That was DAY 1.
umm....sure... Google lobbied Obama so that he would get his White House staff to allow cookies on Youtube videos. That's a big win for Google. lol.
Then the rule should not say that YouTube is an exception. It should state that all 3rd-party sites are an exception.
I think lawmakers should take database classes so that they learn normalization. Instead of making a law/rule that says "Do it this way, except for YouTube" they should say "Do it this way, except for 3rd-party sites linked from government web sites"
Am I the only one who got an ad for "Free Country Music" along side the PDF?
Totally different.
Banks are regulated, and the money is definitively yours. In most countries, your account is registered with government who insures that money. It is unlikely that a bank would steal your money. (Misspend it...perhaps... but even then the government bails them out).
But Google has no such regulatory obligations. They don't need to keep the information, yet they do. They could sell it, data mine it, or lose it. Even if someone got my account numbers that way, I'm insured. And if a bank released the records for my accounts it would not be personally damaging.
In the poster's example, Google has 10 times as much information as the bank, and does not insure you against loss.
That's the most helpful answer I've heard thus far. So does the EPA fall under the executive branch? Or does the law somehow specify that the president controls the EPA?
After the executive order signed in 2006,
And from the article...
President Bush issued an executive order that requires certain federal programs (including Medicare) to develop interoperable HIT systems.
What the heck is an executive order, and from what does the president derive this mystical power?
Network neutrality is a big deal and should not be stuffed into a poorly thought-out overly-vague rider on a more important bill.
I don't like it when senators put their own personal agenda into unrelated bills. I'll stick with that principle even when the personal agenda is one I like. Bills should deal with one thing only, and I think that senators who put riders onto bills are doing something immoral -- even when the rider is one I approve of.
I disagree because:
1) Circuit City's surviving competitors do not have commissioned salespeople.
2) Circuit City's now defunct competitor CompUSA, did have commissioned salespeople. (via "SPIFs" on specific products, rather than direct percentage commissions)
Even if the change did negatively impact them, I think it was secondary to having idiot employees, bad service, smaller selection, and higher prices.
I've worked at several places that didn't roll out patches right away. It wasn't because the IT department was busily testing the patches. It was because they were afraid of the patches, but had no time to test them.
For one example, we had a farm of servers. I suggested that they let the developers patch their machines first, then the test servers, then the staging servers, then production. That way there was no risk, and no need to go about with extra testing effort. They agreed -- but nothing happened. The internet-facing production servers were sometimes a year out of date, while all the dev and test machines were running the latest stuff just fine.
That all makes sense, and I get the idea of such a court reviewing warrant requests. But why would the FISA court be making a constitutional ruling regarding a piece of legislation? It doesn't sound like judicial review is within the scope of this court.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but this article gets more absurd as I go:
The appeals court is expected to uphold a secret ruling...
Uphold a what?
...issued last year by the intelligence court that it oversees, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, court. In that initial opinion, the secret court found that Congress had acted within its authority
Wait... so a secret court, established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, ruled that secret actions of that secret court are legal? Shocking!
It found that the Protect America Act did not violate the Constitution because the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, contained an exception for the collection of foreign intelligence information, according to the person familiar with the ruling.
It does?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I guess they mean the Border Search Exception...
A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling...
What is a Federal Intelligence Court, and why is it implied that the decisions of this court are not usually made public?
Yes, but the article specifically says Wikipedia.
Winforms for Mono
I've never seen suspend work on anything. Even my MacBook Pro can't do it without USB devices losing connectivity after it wakes up. Blame the hardware manufacturers.
This is out of scope for Wikipedia. It sounds like this should be an entirely separate project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias should not have video:
I don't mean that because traditional encyclopedias did not have video, but because it doesn't fit with the type of content that an encyclopedia presents. It is similar to how newspapers should not have video. Wikipedia is not a teaching tool. It is not meant to provide functional examples. It is a starting point: a dictionary-style explanatory description.
An entry on the Hindenburg does not need a video of the Hindenburg disaster. It needs technical specifications, historically accurate statements of what happened, and a link to a museum who DOES house the video.
An entry on Calculus needs a historic description and a mathematical overview. Not a 2-hour lecture.
Now --- that doesn't mean that a video repository is not a good project. I think that would be awesome. Youtube kinda has that, but it has garbage thrown in. But maybe Wikipedia is not the place for it.
Why would you program in C# on Linux?
C# and the .NET Framework are just frikkin great.
Mono support is years behind the feature sets that MS
Yeah, but the recent MS stuff is not important. WPF and Linq are just bad, and I don't want them anyway.
What's wrong with GUI programming in C++?
Yeah, GUI programming in C is just awful. C/Gnome programmers: Welcome to 1990.
Until today, I would never have considered QT. So that left me with Java, C++/WxWidgets, C++/GTK+, C#/WinForms, C#/GTK+. I tried C#/GTK+ years ago and it seemed very incomplete. I think that Mono's Winforms implementation is very good now (third time is a charm!) and since I have existing C#/WinForms apps that is the way for me to go.
I might try C++/QT again for larger or higher-performing apps where C# is not an option.
Talented computer repair techs can stay in business just fine. But yes, the adware/spyware boom caused an explosion in the repair field too.