Unfortunately, many countries don't have such easy access to water or the plumbing infrastructure to deliver it to all of these people. I believe it was common in Brazilian slums to have about 4 gallons of water per person per day for all needs (cooking, cleaning, consuming). For contrast, in the US, it's between 100-150 gallons per person per day.
We find copper for the same reasons as silver. Scientists have also found increases estrogen and estrogen-like chemicals, and there was a story recently about a marked increase in the amount of caffeine in waterways, likely from human waste.
Also, remember that HFT and regular trade software is highly volatile. It is being changed daily. A trade strategy is only valuable for a relatively short length of time before competitors figure out your trade strategy and build other trade strategies to exploit your trade strategy. This is why treating financial software like avionics won't work. Go look at anything in the aircraft industry. It's all 10 year old technology. It's 10 year old technology for a reason, because it took that long to get it vetted and tested. The financial markets won't adapt to that model, because it eviscerates their general investment strategies, and when you do that, you don't make money.
Yahoo! has the benefit of being profitable. It's much harder to come into a company that is losing money and say, "we're going to spend money on free food and developers'. Even if that is what is needed to be successful.
Additionally, the people running ads, making food, etc play on innate human traits that make us susceptible to certain stimuli. A perfect example is the lottery system and casinos. The specifically build in enough winning to give you dopamine and adrenaline bursts to overcome your better common senses. It becomes a drug. Advertising has subtle and pervasive effects of rooting themselves in our subconscious so that we evaluate things differently when we're shopping. Our bodies can actually have a sort of addiction to salty/fatty/sweet foods.
It isn't some personal failing to be influenced by these things. It's far better to recognize that we can indeed be influenced by these things than to deny them. Well put LateArthurDent.
They pulled that comment just a few months ago. Earlier this spring you would have found a claim that it doesn't get PC viruses (Don't be pedantic and claim that it doesn't get PC viruses because PC refers to windows viruses, that's a specious argument and it's a deliberate ploy to claim Macs don't get viruses). So yes, almost every currently deployed Mac was sold with the claim that Macs don't get viruses, directly from Apple.
As a whole, the country is polarized in a bad way. I think most of the country thinks "their" party is in the right and the other party is the problem. You couldn't mobilize enough people to do a major overhaul anyway.
Because everyone has skin in the game, and no matter what you do, you will step on toes.
Raise funds by increasing taxes. - Everyone already thinks they are over taxed, so it doesn't matter where you raise taxes, you're going to piss people off, and... lose votes. Cut welfare programs (food stamps, medicaid, disability). - These people still vote, and there are people who believe these programs matter. If you destroy them, you lose votes. That said, the rich have done a good job convincing the middle and lower middle class that the people on these roles are the scum of the earth. It turns out, these middle and lower middle class people may occasionally need these programs to find they no longer exist. You reduce medicare, extend the retirement age, or reduce social security payouts. - You piss off one of the biggest lobbies and voting blocks and... lose votes. Drastically cut military spending. This puts a huge number of active duty service members out of a job, pisses off rich military contractors, and stokes the fears of people who insist on a huge military and... lose votes.
Politicians know the condition things are in, but to make it right, you kill your ability to get reelected. So they continue to play the same old game hoping it doesn't come crashing down on their watch.
This isn't a tech problem. Therefore it can't be solved with tech. You don't allow information that you are obligated to protect the privacy of leave your control. Doesn't matter if it is android, a laptop or a briefcase full of files. The other option is roll the dice and hope you aren't there when the press show up to cover the breach. Choose. And if your boss insists you do it anyway make the sum-bitch put the order in writing so your butt is covered when the poop hits the fan. Because sooner or later... BOOM!
Then my point still stands. You don't have any potentially sensitive data connected to the internet, right? Because any vulnerability you can come up with against a screen-locked, encrypted, remote wipeable device, I can come up with something relatively comparable against you're internet attached network. Yep, I walk around with my phone, potentially left or stolen in public. You leave your network attached to the public 24x7x365. And if you don't do that, there is a building that's potentially breachable. We've been dealing with these issues forever. This is simply another issues on the same sliding scale of risk.
As an IT pro, I setup the phone to auto-screen lock, encrypt it, and set it up to be remotely wiped. That vector is, for most purposes, now moot. There are definitely ways around it, but there are ways around most things, remember the old XKCD comic with the encryption key and a wrench. I'm willing to bet your data center isn't fully secured against a SWAT team coming in using C4 to blast open the doors either. But we make reasonable efforts to cover most vectors.
It also depends on the type and volume of the data. If you're carrying the nuclear launch codes, your security is going to look different than if you're carrying the most recent quarterly earnings statement. It's up to IT to present the risk, the options for mitigating it, and letting the business lines decide what actions to take, and what risks are acceptable. But simply saying, "I can think up an attack vector, therefore, no mobile devices" doesn't work.
This is why IT people have such a bad reputation. Yes, portable devices are a security risk. Our job, as IT professionals, is to come up with solutions. On the same bent, I suppose you'd also cut the link to the Internet. Wait, you obviously haven't, because you're posting on Slashdot. But you came up with clever ways to protect your system from the Internet? Then why don't you start working on coming up with ways to secure mobile devices.
The obstructionism is well intentioned, but we have an obligation to try to support the needs of the business. Staff are more mobile, and the business is benefiting by having people more connected and better able to make decisions, even when they aren't sitting in front of a PC. So, let's make it secure.
They do this, generally, by either under-staffing, or hiring substandard staff. Neither of which is ultimately good for the client's long-term success.
The other benefit is that you get not only people running your IT infrastructure, but you can likely leverage those people on your product lines. Want to integrate cars with phones? Maybe you should go pull some talent from the group that is doing other app development, etc. It gives you in-house talent to move into new and interesting areas.
I worked for a while in state government. The IT department had established metrics for all products and services. If the Treasury department wanted a new PC (and the associated management, imaging, desktop support, etc) there was a fixed cost for that, and the Treasury department paid IT for the services it performed. This has a lot of administrative overhead, but it means that "IT" isn't a cost, they actually generate revenue. It forces the consumers of IT to justify their expenses. IT is in a terrible position having to describe why we spent XX amount of money on this particular system, or why we own this many PCs. They ought to be involved in finding out, but the users of the technology need to be involved and need to justify their own use of technology, and aid in making decisions about necessity.
Last I heard the WSJ still has great ad rates, because the type of reader who reads the WSJ is worth a lot more money to advertisers than bulk readers. They also are perfectly fine paying for a certain type of coverage. If they stoop to diluting their brand, they end up as just another online paper.
Don't forget that the rich receive a disproportionately high amount of their annual monies from investments, i.e. capital gains. Capital gains are taxed at a much, much lower rate than general income (15%).
Ummm... the Chinese agreed to take part in the WTO. If they don't want to abide by the rules, they need to leave the free-trade agreement. That also means that the US can then take a prejudiced stand against Chinese goods and services. That would be bad for China. China wants to be able to export it's goods to rich countries without restriction, but is trying to take strategic advantages that are specifically restricted in it's trade agreements. See: Currency Manipulation, and aforementioned export issues.
It's a lot more than 1% in most situations. Poll drivers on their driving habits, and almost every one will tell you they are a good driver, and everyone else is bad. Ask them if they think they are capable of text and driving and they will say they can, but others are dangerous when they text and drive...
The poor tend to get more direct cash as a function of income support. The rich tend to get more, "I can make bundles of money by leveraging a stable society, an excellent highway system to move goods, and low corruption so I can not worry so much about paying bribes or getting robbed" support.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, many countries don't have such easy access to water or the plumbing infrastructure to deliver it to all of these people. I believe it was common in Brazilian slums to have about 4 gallons of water per person per day for all needs (cooking, cleaning, consuming). For contrast, in the US, it's between 100-150 gallons per person per day.
We find copper for the same reasons as silver. Scientists have also found increases estrogen and estrogen-like chemicals, and there was a story recently about a marked increase in the amount of caffeine in waterways, likely from human waste.
Twitter embraces open source because it's FREE as in beer. It's much easier to bootstrap a company with free stuff. Everything else is a side benefit.
Also, remember that HFT and regular trade software is highly volatile. It is being changed daily. A trade strategy is only valuable for a relatively short length of time before competitors figure out your trade strategy and build other trade strategies to exploit your trade strategy. This is why treating financial software like avionics won't work. Go look at anything in the aircraft industry. It's all 10 year old technology. It's 10 year old technology for a reason, because it took that long to get it vetted and tested. The financial markets won't adapt to that model, because it eviscerates their general investment strategies, and when you do that, you don't make money.
Hence the purpose of tests, where you learn about things like crazy ground effects during rocket blasts, etc.
Yahoo! has the benefit of being profitable. It's much harder to come into a company that is losing money and say, "we're going to spend money on free food and developers'. Even if that is what is needed to be successful.
And to put a cherry on this analogy, it all goes bad very quickly and you haven't consumed most of it.
Additionally, the people running ads, making food, etc play on innate human traits that make us susceptible to certain stimuli. A perfect example is the lottery system and casinos. The specifically build in enough winning to give you dopamine and adrenaline bursts to overcome your better common senses. It becomes a drug. Advertising has subtle and pervasive effects of rooting themselves in our subconscious so that we evaluate things differently when we're shopping. Our bodies can actually have a sort of addiction to salty/fatty/sweet foods.
It isn't some personal failing to be influenced by these things. It's far better to recognize that we can indeed be influenced by these things than to deny them. Well put LateArthurDent.
They pulled that comment just a few months ago. Earlier this spring you would have found a claim that it doesn't get PC viruses (Don't be pedantic and claim that it doesn't get PC viruses because PC refers to windows viruses, that's a specious argument and it's a deliberate ploy to claim Macs don't get viruses). So yes, almost every currently deployed Mac was sold with the claim that Macs don't get viruses, directly from Apple.
http://www.redmondpie.com/apple-removes-its-virus-immunity-claim-for-mac-from-official-website-not-so-safe-from-viruses-after-all-huh/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/06/26/yes-apples-machines-really-can-get-viruses/
As a whole, the country is polarized in a bad way. I think most of the country thinks "their" party is in the right and the other party is the problem. You couldn't mobilize enough people to do a major overhaul anyway.
Because everyone has skin in the game, and no matter what you do, you will step on toes.
... lose votes. ... lose votes. ... lose votes.
Raise funds by increasing taxes. - Everyone already thinks they are over taxed, so it doesn't matter where you raise taxes, you're going to piss people off, and
Cut welfare programs (food stamps, medicaid, disability). - These people still vote, and there are people who believe these programs matter. If you destroy them, you lose votes. That said, the rich have done a good job convincing the middle and lower middle class that the people on these roles are the scum of the earth. It turns out, these middle and lower middle class people may occasionally need these programs to find they no longer exist.
You reduce medicare, extend the retirement age, or reduce social security payouts. - You piss off one of the biggest lobbies and voting blocks and
Drastically cut military spending. This puts a huge number of active duty service members out of a job, pisses off rich military contractors, and stokes the fears of people who insist on a huge military and
Politicians know the condition things are in, but to make it right, you kill your ability to get reelected. So they continue to play the same old game hoping it doesn't come crashing down on their watch.
There is a photo in the article. It's more like tinting your windows.
This isn't a tech problem. Therefore it can't be solved with tech. You don't allow information that you are obligated to protect the privacy of leave your control. Doesn't matter if it is android, a laptop or a briefcase full of files. The other option is roll the dice and hope you aren't there when the press show up to cover the breach. Choose. And if your boss insists you do it anyway make the sum-bitch put the order in writing so your butt is covered when the poop hits the fan. Because sooner or later... BOOM!
Then my point still stands. You don't have any potentially sensitive data connected to the internet, right? Because any vulnerability you can come up with against a screen-locked, encrypted, remote wipeable device, I can come up with something relatively comparable against you're internet attached network. Yep, I walk around with my phone, potentially left or stolen in public. You leave your network attached to the public 24x7x365. And if you don't do that, there is a building that's potentially breachable. We've been dealing with these issues forever. This is simply another issues on the same sliding scale of risk.
As an IT pro, I setup the phone to auto-screen lock, encrypt it, and set it up to be remotely wiped. That vector is, for most purposes, now moot. There are definitely ways around it, but there are ways around most things, remember the old XKCD comic with the encryption key and a wrench. I'm willing to bet your data center isn't fully secured against a SWAT team coming in using C4 to blast open the doors either. But we make reasonable efforts to cover most vectors.
It also depends on the type and volume of the data. If you're carrying the nuclear launch codes, your security is going to look different than if you're carrying the most recent quarterly earnings statement. It's up to IT to present the risk, the options for mitigating it, and letting the business lines decide what actions to take, and what risks are acceptable. But simply saying, "I can think up an attack vector, therefore, no mobile devices" doesn't work.
This is why IT people have such a bad reputation. Yes, portable devices are a security risk. Our job, as IT professionals, is to come up with solutions. On the same bent, I suppose you'd also cut the link to the Internet. Wait, you obviously haven't, because you're posting on Slashdot. But you came up with clever ways to protect your system from the Internet? Then why don't you start working on coming up with ways to secure mobile devices.
The obstructionism is well intentioned, but we have an obligation to try to support the needs of the business. Staff are more mobile, and the business is benefiting by having people more connected and better able to make decisions, even when they aren't sitting in front of a PC. So, let's make it secure.
They do this, generally, by either under-staffing, or hiring substandard staff. Neither of which is ultimately good for the client's long-term success.
The other benefit is that you get not only people running your IT infrastructure, but you can likely leverage those people on your product lines. Want to integrate cars with phones? Maybe you should go pull some talent from the group that is doing other app development, etc. It gives you in-house talent to move into new and interesting areas.
I worked for a while in state government. The IT department had established metrics for all products and services. If the Treasury department wanted a new PC (and the associated management, imaging, desktop support, etc) there was a fixed cost for that, and the Treasury department paid IT for the services it performed. This has a lot of administrative overhead, but it means that "IT" isn't a cost, they actually generate revenue. It forces the consumers of IT to justify their expenses. IT is in a terrible position having to describe why we spent XX amount of money on this particular system, or why we own this many PCs. They ought to be involved in finding out, but the users of the technology need to be involved and need to justify their own use of technology, and aid in making decisions about necessity.
Last I heard the WSJ still has great ad rates, because the type of reader who reads the WSJ is worth a lot more money to advertisers than bulk readers. They also are perfectly fine paying for a certain type of coverage. If they stoop to diluting their brand, they end up as just another online paper.
Don't forget that the rich receive a disproportionately high amount of their annual monies from investments, i.e. capital gains. Capital gains are taxed at a much, much lower rate than general income (15%).
Charles Strauss did it to. He used giant iron cores if I remember correctly.
Ummm... the Chinese agreed to take part in the WTO. If they don't want to abide by the rules, they need to leave the free-trade agreement. That also means that the US can then take a prejudiced stand against Chinese goods and services. That would be bad for China. China wants to be able to export it's goods to rich countries without restriction, but is trying to take strategic advantages that are specifically restricted in it's trade agreements. See: Currency Manipulation, and aforementioned export issues.
It's a lot more than 1% in most situations. Poll drivers on their driving habits, and almost every one will tell you they are a good driver, and everyone else is bad. Ask them if they think they are capable of text and driving and they will say they can, but others are dangerous when they text and drive ...
The poor tend to get more direct cash as a function of income support. The rich tend to get more, "I can make bundles of money by leveraging a stable society, an excellent highway system to move goods, and low corruption so I can not worry so much about paying bribes or getting robbed" support.
Unfortunately, RT isn't binary compatible with existing Windows software. So, you're at the mercy of Adobe deciding RT needs a version of Photoshop.