>Oh yes, a war for oil. And how great has that worked out?
Well... Supply is up. Even Iraqi supply is up, double the daily production that it was under the Baath government. OPEC supply is up, and US domestic supply is up. Demand is relatively flat. US reserves are full. So I don't see any problem in terms of the functioning of the market. The prices can only be explained by trading behavior in a properly functioning commodities market.
The war has helped nothing, in my opinion, but as far as the oil market goes, it's functional, it's cometitive, and it's transparent. Are you suggesting it be interfered with by governments? Do you claim to know how that would affect trading behavior?
Just making it so ONE of those guys had to send letters from prison for a few decades or 99 years or so, might go a long way towards making it so officials seek other ways to benefit from the system, besides graft.
Why don't people who blatantly embezzle money while in government positions ever wind up in a supermax for the rest of their days? Anything else equals acceptance of corruption. It should be treated like the highest of crimes.
Crossing the street on foot against a signal is illegal. Killing a family with an axe is illegal. Decrypting CSS is illegal. Having weeds in your yard taller than half a meter is illegal.
Does one word sufficiently characterize all these crimes?
"How about this statement: "If anything happens while you're a client of LifeLock we will cover all losses and all expenses up to one million dollars." It's right in their commercial"
Yes. In Arizona, in particular, that is admissible as parol evidence, precisely because the customer is not given any meaningful opportunity to alter the contract before it is signed. However, this also means that the person making the claim can document costs associated with their expectations, after persuading a jury as to what those expectations actually were.
No... and it doesn't help the transportation industry one bit that transportation costs are approaching a threshold where locally produced goods can compete.
For generations, moving goods around has been treated as nothing but a small marginal cost. This means we have been able to take for granted the origin of goods.
Of course the fact is, margins still allow us to take it for granted, and they still would, even with a doubling of the current prices of fuel. Fuel does not yet dominate the cost of transportation, and the cost of transportation does not yet dominate the the cost of agricultural commodities.
But, don't listen to me. Listen to the voices that really want you to be angry about fuel prices. Maybe there really is some conspiracy driving up the prices (while staying hidden within the competitive, transparent marketplace where the value is established, and where the prices can only be explained by investor behavior, since the only other factors of supply, demand, and reserves do not explain it.)
Oh, that's scarier than any boogeyman can possibly be: what if the market really does bear $136/bbl crude, without any nefarious or criminal interference in the market?
Well, it's the only commodity that has a scoreboard on every corner, and the only one where people honestly expect me to get upset about it, to make it a priority.
Tell you what: When fuel reaches 1% of my annual budget, I'll give it a line item. When fuel reaches a level that it is a significant marginal cost in delivering goods to retail marketplaces, I'll buy locally produced goods. Local economy will be happy./me stands by for the screams about cartels and oil company profits.
If you have experience in commodities or degrees in economics, you might be able to persade me.
I've been called clueless for my opinions. I do happen to know a thing or two about the transportation business, particularly trucking, particularly in the ag sector.
>- Also being sued in AZ over the 1 million dollar "service guarantee" because it is being misrepresented and only >covers "defects in lifelock's service" and not actual identity theft. which they are misrepresenting.
That's interesting because Arizona has a Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations that permits parol evidence even in cases where a contract has a merger clause that would otherwise exclude parol evidence.
That means, if a salesperson said something other than what was stated in the contract, the company can be held to the salesperson's word even if the contract specifically says otherwise. This rule applied to cases involving contracts of adhesion (typical consumer "take it or leave it" contracts where no negotiation is offered or accepted.) Even with a merger clause (language that says, essentially, "only the words in writing in this contract are part of the contract", in contracts of adhesion, anything that either party agreed to while negotiating, is admissible evidence.
If a salesperson for Lifelock ever said to a customer "the company guarantees you will no be a victim of identity theft or we will pay you one million dollars", it's part of the contract, in Arizona.
I don't know how far "misrepresentation" would get, since I'd be quite surprised if the contract wasn't clearly written. But parol evidence and careless salespeople could be devastating to them.
"He's in a rural area. Permits and right of way access are either not on the books or not enforced in rural areas."
Is this supposed to be a joke? Or do you really not know just how seriously people (and municipalities) in rural areas take things like property lines and rights of way? I do. I grew up on a farm, in a place where a property owner would have a right to shoot you if you started trenching on his land...
My TRS-80 Model 1 would sometimes do funny things after long sessions. Since the heat from the circuits dissipated up through the keyboard, it became uncomfortable to use, and if you kept using it, unpredictable things would happen.
I didn't understand enough in those days to realize my problems were correlated with heat, even though I knew people who were overclocking their Z-80s:-)
"Your publication date will be in your contract along with a line that says they have a set time in which to publish your book. 2 years is what I see in my contracts. If they don't, all rights revert to you."
If they *do* publish it, and then *stop*... that's "sitting on it". I know this happens to musicians in P&D deals. If book publishers don't do the same, they need a lesson in slimeball:-)
Make sure, in Voir Dire, that no Scientology members are in the jury panel, and make sure the judge is not a member. Then simply describe what the cult believes...
>Henry Ford didn't have eco-terrorists and environmentalists to deal with.
A total non-sequitur flamebait troll.
Henry Ford made a car that got 25 MPG.
Nobody with a windy pasture is going to resist you putting a windmill on their land. What they might not like, though, is being ORDERED to put YOUR windmill on their land, or even being asked to pay for it.
Why don't you start asking farmers if they'd like a windmill on their pasture, in return for free electricity and a permanent tax exemption on the land?
Or you can build a strawman based on an argument that hasn't been raised by a person you can't even name, but who you already hate, if you find that easier.
They will comply with a lawful order. They will even comply with the law when a notice of violation of that law is delivered to them.
What law does Senator Lieberman allege that Google/YouTube has violated?
Oh that's right... NONE... What's more... a letter from a US Senator is just.... a letter. It has no legal force whatsoever.
If you want to compel action, go to the table with evidence of a crime. Otherwise understand that your request can be ignored. I'm surprised they even responded, or acknowledged this stuff to the press.
Somebody at Google is having a good laugh at a Senator who seems to think his word is law.
>Uhh... and how would Mac owners upgrade to the latest OS? Download how many gigabytes of files that make up L >Leopard??
I was shocked at how long it took to upgrade to Leopard. I could have gotten a DVD torrent in, maybe half an hour.
Leopard's installer took about 5 hours to run. The main thing I got out of it, is the well-disciplined backup I made. I'm not sure I like the opaque dock. Since I use my mac pretty much entirely as a X11/unix system anyway, it was kind of pointless:-)
>So my point is: if RISC needs more instructions to do the same work, does it require a higher clock frequency to >achieve similar performance to a CISC chip ? Since clock speeds do not scale to infinity, this implies that a >RISC chip will hit the frequency wall sooner, thus limiting its maximum speed.
Learn about things like pipelining and forwarding, out-of-order execution, etc. A non-trivial amount of work is involved in decoding machine instructions, this is far simpler on a RISC machine. Register architecture has tended to be simpler, which gives compilers a simpler job. RISC machines have fewer addressing modes, which also simplifies things, especially in a pipeline.
Benefits to CISC have been mainly for (us) assembly programmers.
RISC architectures are able to do things with the instructions that are too complicated to do in a CISC architecture.
You probably don't realize how "RISC-ish" x86 has been since 4. Legacy instructions worked, they just caused pipeline stalls. Now they get split up into separate instructions that can be pipelined. Do not underestimate the magnitude of the gains that have been made by pipelining and forwarding, and this is MUCH easier to implement in a smaller, very consistent instruction set. So easy, in fact, implementing it, even going as far as to code a simulator for the MIPS architecture or writing compilers to the MIPS target, is pretty standard second-year undergrad material.
>I hate having to work with dicks like you, because you misrepresent your experience and knowledge far too often.
At 14 I wrote an inventory control system, complete with history reports targeted for a specialized accounting system, archives, it worked for multiple vendors, recorded shipping and receiving data, allowed some customization of the data entry screens for the client, and even had my own validating input field editor in Z-80 Assembly.
You'd probably love to work with a dick like me, once you got to know me. But I'm not going to understate my experience and knowledge:-)
You claim (correctly) that non-trivial problems can be decidable. But the issues of decidability show up quickly, when we talk about static checking for correctness.
Is part of your input to the checker, an assertion that the property shall be decidable for the given program?
If we have that, then we have a decider for halting, or anything that reduces to halting, and the only decision we have to make is to repeat your overriding assertion.
I agree that it might be the case, when we run a static code checker, that we are asserting to the checker, that the property being evaluated is decidable. The code checker isn't trying to be a UTM. It's performing tasks that have already been vetted as being possible -- or at least by asserting this, we accept failure as our error.
Rice's theorem tells us that a static analysis tool will be required to make approximations, and that we are forced to accept false positives and false negatives as a result.
I'm going to leave further discussion on the subject to those slashdotters who grade papers for an automata course (you see the darndest ideas on those sometimes, and occasionally wish they were right.)
It's true -- you have to get the itch before you know to scratch it... And in the case of higher maths, you don't get that itch naturally. I do have issues with math educators who feel it is necessary to instill that itch in a programmed way. I sometimes wish the system found it acceptable to introduce a student who shows aptitude in algebra, to the "itch scratching" concepts of calculus. But just understanding a tiny bit about the first lessons of calculus would give the intro-algebra student a way to cheat;-) Whenever I tutor, I have to bite my tongue whenever a question asks for a local maximum or a zero-crossing or asks to compute the area of some simple shape. "Hey, you know there's a half-page of formulas that makes all this go away?"...
Slashdot Mirror
>Oh yes, a war for oil. And how great has that worked out?
Well... Supply is up. Even Iraqi supply is up, double the daily production that it was under the Baath government. OPEC supply is up, and US domestic supply is up. Demand is relatively flat. US reserves are full. So I don't see any problem in terms of the functioning of the market. The prices can only be explained by trading behavior in a properly functioning commodities market.
The war has helped nothing, in my opinion, but as far as the oil market goes, it's functional, it's cometitive, and it's transparent.
Are you suggesting it be interfered with by governments? Do you claim to know how that would affect trading behavior?
Just making it so ONE of those guys had to send letters from prison for a few decades or 99 years or so, might go a long way towards making it so officials seek other ways to benefit from the system, besides graft.
Why don't people who blatantly embezzle money while in government positions ever wind up in a supermax for the rest of their days? Anything else equals acceptance of corruption. It should be treated like the highest of crimes.
Crossing the street on foot against a signal is illegal.
Killing a family with an axe is illegal.
Decrypting CSS is illegal.
Having weeds in your yard taller than half a meter is illegal.
Does one word sufficiently characterize all these crimes?
Please deposit your device with access to information requiring the highest clearance, in this unmonitored bucket.
Right.
>it's the first ten amendments that give you any kind of rights.
No.
Something higher than government of men gives you rights.
You actually believe that you don't have rights except for those specified in the Constitution?
"How about this statement: "If anything happens while you're a client of LifeLock we will cover all losses and all expenses up to one million dollars." It's right in their commercial"
Yes. In Arizona, in particular, that is admissible as parol evidence, precisely because the customer is not given any meaningful opportunity to alter the contract before it is signed. However, this also means that the person making the claim can document costs associated with their expectations, after persuading a jury as to what those expectations actually were.
>Pretentious asshole.
I *will* take the benefit of choices I make in life.
I *will not* read anything you have to say, after you go to the level of personal insult.
Whatever you wrote, went away, after "asshole."
I *never* sink to this level, and I *will not* engage in dialogue with anyone who does.
>If you have to fill up your tank once a week
I don't. I made choices in life in order to be less sensitive to the price of gas. You could do the same.
5% eh? So, no doubt, still not your biggest worry.
No... and it doesn't help the transportation industry one bit that transportation costs are approaching a threshold where locally produced goods can compete.
/me stands by for the screams about cartels and oil company profits.
For generations, moving goods around has been treated as nothing but a small marginal cost. This means we have been able to take for granted the origin of goods.
Of course the fact is, margins still allow us to take it for granted, and they still would, even with a doubling of the current prices of fuel. Fuel does not yet dominate the cost of transportation, and the cost of transportation does not yet dominate the the cost of agricultural commodities.
But, don't listen to me. Listen to the voices that really want you to be angry about fuel prices. Maybe there really is some conspiracy driving up the prices (while staying hidden within the competitive, transparent marketplace where the value is established, and where the prices can only be explained by investor behavior, since the only other factors of supply, demand, and reserves do not explain it.)
Oh, that's scarier than any boogeyman can possibly be: what if the market really does bear $136/bbl crude, without any nefarious or criminal interference in the market?
Well, it's the only commodity that has a scoreboard on every corner, and the only one where people honestly expect me to get upset about it, to make it a priority.
Tell you what: When fuel reaches 1% of my annual budget, I'll give it a line item. When fuel reaches a level that it is a significant marginal cost in delivering goods to retail marketplaces, I'll buy locally produced goods. Local economy will be happy.
If you have experience in commodities or degrees in economics, you might be able to persade me.
I've been called clueless for my opinions. I do happen to know a thing or two about the transportation business, particularly trucking, particularly in the ag sector.
>- Also being sued in AZ over the 1 million dollar "service guarantee" because it is being misrepresented and only
>covers "defects in lifelock's service" and not actual identity theft. which they are misrepresenting.
That's interesting because Arizona has a Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations that permits parol evidence even in cases where a contract has a merger clause that would otherwise exclude parol evidence.
That means, if a salesperson said something other than what was stated in the contract, the company can be held to the salesperson's word even if the contract specifically says otherwise. This rule applied to cases involving contracts of adhesion (typical consumer "take it or leave it" contracts where no negotiation is offered or accepted.) Even with a merger clause (language that says, essentially, "only the words in writing in this contract are part of the contract", in contracts of adhesion, anything that either party agreed to while negotiating, is admissible evidence.
If a salesperson for Lifelock ever said to a customer "the company guarantees you will no be a victim of identity theft or we will pay you one million dollars", it's part of the contract, in Arizona.
I don't know how far "misrepresentation" would get, since I'd be quite surprised if the contract wasn't clearly written. But parol evidence and careless salespeople could be devastating to them.
"He's in a rural area. Permits and right of way access are either not on the books or not enforced in rural areas."
Is this supposed to be a joke? Or do you really not know just how seriously people (and municipalities) in rural areas take things like property lines and rights of way? I do. I grew up on a farm, in a place where a property owner would have a right to shoot you if you started trenching on his land...
My TRS-80 Model 1 would sometimes do funny things after long sessions.
:-)
Since the heat from the circuits dissipated up through the keyboard, it became uncomfortable to use, and if you kept using it, unpredictable things would happen.
I didn't understand enough in those days to realize my problems were correlated with heat, even though I knew people who were overclocking their Z-80s
>The decider has three outputs: "Yes, it's good", "No, here's a list of the problems I've found", and "Can
>you give me another minute?"
That's exactly what I mean by "an overriding assertion."
I haven't said that analysis tools can't be useful.
I have only said that we must accept approximate results.
You don't "keep things simple" by becoming a fugitive from justice.
That's guaranteed to make things very complicated, sooner or later.
I didn't get the impression that the goal was "to get the case dismissed".
I thought the goal was to fight Scientology to the point that it is not accepted in the UK.
"Your publication date will be in your contract along with a line that says they have a set time in which to publish your book. 2 years is what I see in my contracts. If they don't, all rights revert to you."
:-)
If they *do* publish it, and then *stop*... that's "sitting on it". I know this happens to musicians in P&D deals. If book publishers don't do the same, they need a lesson in slimeball
How to handle the court case?
Make sure, in Voir Dire, that no Scientology members are in the jury panel, and make sure the judge is not a member.
Then simply describe what the cult believes...
>Henry Ford didn't have eco-terrorists and environmentalists to deal with.
A total non-sequitur flamebait troll.
Henry Ford made a car that got 25 MPG.
Nobody with a windy pasture is going to resist
you putting a windmill on their land. What they
might not like, though, is being ORDERED to put
YOUR windmill on their land, or even being asked
to pay for it.
Why don't you start asking farmers if they'd like
a windmill on their pasture, in return for free
electricity and a permanent tax exemption on the
land?
Or you can build a strawman based on an argument
that hasn't been raised by a person you can't even
name, but who you already hate, if you find that easier.
How's that working out for you?
They will comply with a lawful order. They will even comply with the law when a notice of violation of that law is delivered to them.
... a letter from a US Senator is just. ... a letter.
What law does Senator Lieberman allege that Google/YouTube has violated?
Oh that's right... NONE... What's more
It has no legal force whatsoever.
If you want to compel action, go to the table with evidence of a crime. Otherwise understand that your request can be ignored. I'm surprised they even responded, or acknowledged this stuff to the press.
Somebody at Google is having a good laugh at a Senator who seems to think his word is law.
>Uhh... and how would Mac owners upgrade to the latest OS? Download how many gigabytes of files that make up L
:-)
>Leopard??
I was shocked at how long it took to upgrade to Leopard. I could have gotten a DVD torrent in, maybe half an hour.
Leopard's installer took about 5 hours to run. The main thing I got out of it, is the well-disciplined backup I made. I'm not sure I like the opaque dock. Since I use my mac pretty much entirely as a X11/unix system anyway, it was kind of pointless
>This is the strongest contract in the entire software industry
Um...
I hope you are being sarcastic.
Neither of the things you mention even meet the definition of "contract"
anywhere in the US.
Yes, there is subject matter.
Yes, there are parties.
No, there is no mutual acceptance.
No, there is no valuable consideration.
Not a contract, would not be called a contract by any competent attorney,
and would not be admitted as a binding contract in any court.
>So my point is: if RISC needs more instructions to do the same work, does it require a higher clock frequency to
>achieve similar performance to a CISC chip ? Since clock speeds do not scale to infinity, this implies that a
>RISC chip will hit the frequency wall sooner, thus limiting its maximum speed.
Learn about things like pipelining and forwarding, out-of-order execution, etc.
A non-trivial amount of work is involved in decoding machine instructions, this
is far simpler on a RISC machine. Register architecture has tended to be simpler,
which gives compilers a simpler job. RISC machines have fewer addressing modes,
which also simplifies things, especially in a pipeline.
Benefits to CISC have been mainly for (us) assembly programmers.
RISC architectures are able to do things with the instructions that are too complicated to
do in a CISC architecture.
You probably don't realize how "RISC-ish" x86 has been since 4. Legacy instructions worked,
they just caused pipeline stalls. Now they get split up into separate instructions that can be pipelined.
Do not underestimate the magnitude of the gains that have been made by pipelining and forwarding, and this is MUCH easier to implement in a smaller, very consistent instruction set. So easy, in fact, implementing it, even going as far as to code a simulator for the MIPS architecture or writing compilers to the MIPS target, is pretty standard second-year undergrad material.
A very good book on the subject, very accessible:
http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Organization-Design-Hardware-Interface/dp/0123706068/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211247399&sr=1-6
>I hate having to work with dicks like you, because you misrepresent your experience and knowledge far too often.
:-)
At 14 I wrote an inventory control system, complete with history reports targeted for a specialized accounting system, archives, it worked for multiple vendors, recorded shipping and receiving data, allowed some customization of the data entry screens for the client, and even had my own validating input field editor in Z-80 Assembly.
You'd probably love to work with a dick like me, once you got to know me. But I'm not going to understate my experience and knowledge
You claim (correctly) that non-trivial problems can be decidable. But the issues of decidability
show up quickly, when we talk about static checking for correctness.
Is part of your input to the checker, an assertion that the property shall be decidable for the given program?
If we have that, then we have a decider for halting, or anything that reduces to halting, and the only decision we have to make is to repeat your overriding assertion.
I agree that it might be the case, when we run a static code checker, that we are asserting to the checker, that the property being evaluated is decidable. The code checker isn't trying to be a UTM. It's performing tasks that have already been vetted as being possible -- or at least by asserting this, we accept failure as our error.
Rice's theorem tells us that a static analysis tool will be required to make approximations, and that we are forced to accept false positives and false negatives as a result.
I'm going to leave further discussion on the subject to those slashdotters who grade papers for an automata course (you see the darndest ideas on those sometimes, and occasionally wish they were right.)
It's true -- you have to get the itch before you know to scratch it... And in the case of higher maths, you don't get that itch naturally. I do have issues with math educators who feel it is necessary to instill that itch in a programmed way. I sometimes wish the system found it acceptable to introduce a student who shows aptitude in algebra, to the "itch scratching" concepts of calculus. But just understanding a tiny bit about the first lessons of calculus would give the intro-algebra student a way to cheat ;-) Whenever I tutor, I have to bite my tongue whenever a question asks for a local maximum or a zero-crossing or asks to compute the area of some simple shape. "Hey, you know there's a half-page of formulas that makes all this go away?"...