This is a DOMAIN REGISTRAR, not the host of the content. They don't give you this information, they just tell you where to get it.
And yet many sites HAVE been shutdown for doing just that - linking to content. It's wrong, and it's a slippery slope, but this is the next step - enjoy the slide.
That said, by no means should they be forced to redirect it to a site of the UK's choosing. They should just let it go to ICANN, or involve legal now and push the issue back on them immediately.
The reason parts of an insect keep moving after they die is because they have independant nervous systems controlling their movement,
Right. They are very different organisms, similar to lobsters. I mention lobsters because there's lots of material out there on how to kill/cook them humanely (fyi, putting them in a wine bath first probably hurts them more than boiling water; putting a knife through their head may hurt them more than boiling water too, as their sense organs are still sending signals to neurons that still act on that stimuli even with a split brain). Anyway, I don't think these electrodes actually hurt them - not in the way we think of pain. If it does, it's not significantly different from flashing a strobe light on them. And in the end, this discussion has little to do with them, and more to do with the impact on the kids.
What would you consider a less inhumane treatment, somebody smashing you to death in an instant or mutilating your body to make you some kind of gadget controlled android?
So I'm either dead, or I get fed artificial stimuli... for the record, I'd take the latter (there's a chance it'd even be enjoyable, as opposed to no chance of anything cause I'm dead). I'm sure we'd both prefer an option where neither happen.
...but studies suggest this is how psychopaths start out; torturing insects and small animals.
Correct me if I"m wrong, but I believe those studies are in retrospect. IE - many psychopaths, when questioned, admitted to torturing animals as a child.
As far as I know, there reverse has not been proven. IE - that if a child is introduced to animal torture, they are more likely to become psychopaths. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I doubt the correlation holds up in both directions with similar numbers. Besides, how many non-psychopaths, when questioned, admit to torturing animals as a child? Seems like there are are a fair bit of them right in this thread (if animals includes insects such as spiders, ants, and bees).
The idiot that runs the mail campaign advertising a product you can't buy via a mailer to your house is cut from the same cloth as the submitter who says there's NO FiOS in Boston, when it's really just not in his neighborhood (and many others... but it does exist there).
Doesn't seem like much of a story here. Should just be, "FiOS rollout seems slow, but they're still raking in enough cash for blanket advertising to people that can't even buy the service yet". Doesn't seem like the worst problem a company can have.
You don't see a difference between killing it and doing this?
I first took that to imply that killing it is obviously worse, then read Gort65's reply and realized the anonymous GP was probably implying that zapping the antennae of a roach is worse than smashing it to bits (which, if you have done often, you would know that parts of it keep moving for quite a while unles you keep smashing and grinding all of it).
So, my answer: yes, there is a big difference. IMO, this is more humane than smashing it. If one were to attempt to stretch this analogy to testing things on animals, especially primates, not only would I find that silly (much too far a stretch), but I would also argue that the same comparison be made: what's worse: smashing a monkey with a large object repeatedly until all bits stop moving, or putting some electrodes on his head?
Please note, I'm not making a right or wrong judgement here, but the first post made a good point.
What the hell man? I never said we can not have universal health care. The previous posts were comparing state run things to federal run things, and the post I replied to referred to "the super efficient health systems in every other developed country" as an example of a federal run thing that ran really well.
As you pointed out, "Canada's national government makes the individual provinces responsible for providing health care". As I pointed out, "My vote is state run, with some federal laws to back it up".
I can't tell what point you are trying to make. Do you think the end goal is for the US to implement universal health care on the federal level? If so, where's the example of that working elsewhere in any place of similar geographical size and population? I'm not saying it can't be done, but I believe it would be better as a state run program, and I believe both history and other examples support that notion.
IMO, the federal government should be as limited as reasonably possible, delegating as much as possible to the state level. FWIW, that is a purposefully vague statement.
"The Surprising Reason" houses don't have underground facilities? Maybe surprising to the provincial readers of The Atlantic, but obvious plain logic to everyone else
Maybe I missed something, but the article doesn't seem to clearly explain why.
The ground is mostly clay, and it's not very stable. I get that. However, it also says, "one in 10 Oklahomans have access to the basements". So it's entirely possible, and not that uncommon.
On the question of possibility of building a tornado proof house, one expert said, "You can, but your neighbors probably would not like it in their neighborhood and you would need some of Bill Gates's wealth to pay for it." Later, the article says, "And those large shelters, Tanner says, are now becoming more common in places like mobile home parks and schools -- areas that house large concentrations of people over long stretches of time." I'm sorry, but if your neighborhood is a mobile home part, I hope you have already abandoned the thought of caring what your neighbors house looks like. In addition, none of the solutions are going to work for your dwelling. It's a cheap box on wheels that was probably plopped down on a couple cinder blocks. And yes, I know those two sentences weren't next to each other in the article, but they were put into the same article.
That's the problem with that article. They shouldn't mix up stats that include these chunks of the population that are entirely unrelated to their solutions and problems. The solution for a mobile home park - don't put it in the middle of a giant flat plain in OK! The solution for real houses with average building costs - put in a basement even if you have to cut back on the scale of the house. If your plot of land sucks so bad you can't afford to do it, then don't build there or build one of those eyesore concrete domes.
The article even blames suburban sprawl at the end. That's a whole other problem, and those contributing to it, especially in OK, are idiots. It's not about what they can afford; they are making poor decisions, favoring land and/or house size over structural integrity.
I get your point here - "anything" is a bit extreme, but...
Like the highway sysetm
You mean the one that each state runs, for which they may receive funding from the feds?
the military
"...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia..." But this is too big a can of worms to get into with many legitimate views on the cost, scale, organization, etc.
and the police force?
When did this become a federal organization?
Or the super efficient health systems in every other developed country?
Like which ones? Canada maybe, with their entire population being only ~34.8 million, compared to 38 million in California alone, or 313.9 million in the US? My vote is state run, with some federal laws to back it up, and that correlates well to your example, AFAICT.
"Hey, if we screw the environment, we can store a little of the pollution we cause for a while!"
A while!?!? this is "from now until 2030"!!! (well, half of it). Or we could store a percent of all CO2 emitted by the country's power plants until 2363!!!
I have no idea why they used those figures. How about, "it could store as much CO2 as the country's power plants produce in 3 years". Sure, it's something, if it is even possible/feasible, but it's obviously not going to solve any issues, even in the near term.
The next best option is to hire someone else. And they will. Loyalty dosen't exist like it did 30 years ago
30 years ago? That was the 80's, the years of trickle-down economics, and the start of rampant fuck-the-employees-for-a-quick-buck trends and the lead-up to our current financial and employment clusterfuck. I think you meant 130 years ago.
So 1883, just 18 years after the civil war put an "end" to slavery, and 37 years before women could even vote in the US? Or are you referring to at will employment becoming the default rule under common law in the late 19th century? I don't think the law affected loyalty at all, though at will employment does allow the employer to get away with more shit.
I think the rule of thumb is, "Loyalty in the workplace doesn't exist. Period." There are exceptions to the rule, but I'm not sure there was a time where it could be counted on as a norm.
many employment contracts likely require minimum notice of termination as a condition which you must agree to
And wiping your ass with those contracts is probably the most useful they will be.
Unless you want to collect on your unpaid benefit time. Some contracts will "require" two weeks notice, and will pay out any unpaid vacation (and maybe sick as well) if you provide said two weeks notice. They don't phrase it as a tit-for-tat, but that's really what it is in most states (at-will employment, where they can legally fire you without cause at any moment, and you can walk out without notice at any moment).
AFAIK, parent post is absolutely correct in the strict legal sense - you can just walk out, and they can just fire you. Contracts do not trump those laws.
Admins never needed vendor support, managers do. That means that CentOS trains the admins on Red Hat and then managers pay for the supported thingie.
Does CentOS actually do that? I thought that the only thing they did was provide - for no cost - the CDs or downloads of RHEL rebranded, and then let the 'customer' handle it on his own. Which would imply that the Admins presumably already had whatever expertise is needed.
You're simply not ready the GP correctly (and/or he wrote it ambiguously). The comparison is right in TFS.
Red Hat's competitive position may actually be helped by CentOS in the same way that counterfeit Windows products sold on the streets in the Far East may have helped Microsoft — by cementing their position as the technology standard...
IE. admins cut their teeth on CentOS, or get introduced to it in various environments where they're not paying for Redhat support... effectively, they train themselves on it simply due to exposure. It gets it into places where it wouldn't otherwise be feasible, might eat some profit in the grey areas (dev boxes and cheap clusters), but allows for a migration path to RHEL. To be honest, I don't know why Redhat ever split fedora off on its own. They had a large install base of desktops and such, and that free distro fed right into their bread and butter RHEL. Now it's a bit backwards.
Isp's care about uploads since it costs them money to send data to another network operator
This is wrong for so many reasons.
* The ISP's that most of us deal with are the cable and dsl providers. Uploads are limited so they can offer a higher download speed, because that's what most people using that service need the most of since they're consumers. The upload/download ratio has little to do with anything else.
* If most uses ran servers on their home connections, then, as far as their bandwidth costs, it would actually behoove the big ISP's to encourage that usage pattern. Since there are only a few large ISP's that users use for the last mile (time warner, comcast, verizon...), much of the data would stay on their network (user -> user). As it is, people still put up pictures, video, information, etc, but they're putting it on places like facebook, youtube, flickr, etc.... so any time a user accesses that, they're paying to transit that data (well... it's a lot more complicated with the CDN's and peering agreements and such, but it'd still be cheaper if it was user - to - user).
* A blanket statement like "uploads... cost them money" completely ignores all the different points and ways that bandwidth billing occurs. For example, with many peering agreements, deciding who pays is often based on who *provided* the most data (ie. whichever party is "uploading" more data gets paid, because that represents content which people want to access - it's valuable). So in that case, more users uploading would be beneficial. That said, the really big ISP's also offer a lot of business services (colocation, leased lines, etc), and they have a lot of the content on their network already. The users actually help them balance out their usage patterns.
In any case, business service costs more due to technical reasons, not because the ones and zeros going one direction cost more than the other direction; reasons such as: There is dedicated bandwidth which is FAR more costly than being able to share it among thousands of people; The last mile has limited bandwidth and they have to pick channels (or the equivilent) to be upload/download; There are SLA's and uptime guarantees; There is far better support which costs them more money too; etc etc etc.
When you stick a card in a phone, just have it pop up a "would you like to format this card for this device?" question.
For compatibility with exFAT, let people buy an app that adds the support.
if formatted by the phone, stick 2 partitions on it, the first a normal FAT that's tiny (or even dos), and stick FS drivers on it.
Or just say, no, you can not put the card in a machine. For example, look at the replaceable hard drives in PS3's. That'd give the maker the ability to use any FS they want, and that would even make it more suitable for expanding the local storage, which would make the whole thing more user friendly / transparent to the user.
Or they could just license it and pay the couple pennies a device (there are already multiple implementations for andoid).
There are other Android devices that include support and are cheaper (ex. Galaxy Tab 2 7.0), so it's also proven possible and feasible.
Former posts are right... they just want the cloud.
They actually did a pretty thorough job of testing them and various attractants in various levels, and have real numbers in the report.
To attempt to answer you question (which can't be answered 100% accurately because there were many scenarios tested and you and the summary didn't state which was referenced)... not all the bugs got caught; the bugs that did not get caught were generally inactive and lethargic (I'm guessing they were old, or not hungry, etc), so they didn't really count them; the new traps caught about 2.5 fold more bugs given the same lure (or lack thereof); tests were run in a variety of settings, including an arena made from a wooden door and several infested apartments while people were there.
Also, for those wondering, the new trap is: * inverted plastic dog bowl (600ml volume, 18cm diameter, 6.4cm depth, from IKEA) * outer wall of bowl was covered with a layer of paper surgical tape (caring international) * tape was died black with Fiebing's Lether Dye (Tandy Leather Factory) * Incide of bowls were coated with a light layer of fluoropolymer resin (Bio-Quip products, Rancho Dominguez, CA) to prevent the bugs from crawling out
And the best lure was: * 150g yeast (Lesaffre Yeast Corp) * 750g granulated cane sugar (U.S. Sugar Co. Inc) * 3L water (40degree C)
Fill a plastic tub with the lure mixure, mix it up, put on a lid, and rest it on top of two traps. Lower amounts of lure stil work (not as well as the above amount, but much better than none - see paper for full details).
Because a simple option to disable or hide the social integration feature should be included.
In this release, they also REMOVED the checkbox options for: * Enable javascript * Load images automatically * Always show the tab bar...AND those options will be reset to the defaults! (ie. if you did set them before, too bad - your settings will NOT be retained, and you'll have go dig through about:config to set them back to how you had already chosen to customize them). IE. There's plenty of room for a new checkbox.
Of course, I'm 99% sure the about:config will include options to control the new social features, so GGP's point is probably moot, or at least not as big a deal, but it certainly should have some way to disable it. IMO, that should be in the easily accessible preferences, but that's being continuously gutted and dumbed down.
I don't get why the social thing isn't simply an add on. It could even be distributed with FF by default, but it makes little sense to include it as part of FF proper.
Off topic, but the braces format question will get better answers if it's phrased differently, such as:
a) if (...) { } else { }
b) if (...) { } else { }
c) if (...) { } else { }
Prior to "Perl Best Practices", I preferred to use an inconsistent style of:
if (...) { } else { }
The different handling of elsif and else's compared to if's always bothered me, but I found the lined up braces much more pleasing. I didn't like option "b" because the else's take up WAY too much vertical room. Option "c" is now my personal preference. YMMV, but including the else's in the question provides a more complete view.
1280x2160 might be just over the spec that a single-link DVI or HDMI equipment can do.
Correct. DVI-I can do 2.75 megapixels at 60 Hz. That's: 16:10 = 2098 x 1311 = 2750478 4:3 = 1915 x 1436 = 2749940 5:4 = 1854 x 1483 = 2749482
1280 x 2160 = 2764800 (too much). Or another way to say it: 3840 x 2160 = 8294400; 8294400 / 3 = 2764800
Even two DVI-D links aren't really enough. Highest res 60 Hz on DVI-D is 2560 x 1600 = 4096000 3840 x 2160 = 8294400; 8294400 / 2 = 4147200... I'd be quite happy with a 3200 x 2560 monitor though:-)
His issue was that he was dropping the next key down before releasing the previous key, which tended to result in doubled characters for the first key. He was a very fast burst rate typist.
USB has technical limitations on N-key-rollover. Some are limited to only 2 simultanious key presses, some 3, some 6. PS/2 can technically handle unlimited simultanious key presses, and there are a variety of keyboards that can make use of that.
Personally, I recommend the Das Keyboard. It supports both USB and PS/2 interfaces, 6KRO in USB and NKRO in PS/2, mechanical key switches (depends on the model, but Cherry MX or Red etc), and very low latency (2-5ms). On the downside, it costs money - significantly more than an average keyboard.
There's lots of other keyboards these days sporting mechanical switches and other rarely-considered features, but if the orig poster wants a quality keyboard that'll last and has low latency, one sure bet is Das Keyboard connected via PS/2. I'm pretty sure the majority of keyboards that go for more than $20 would be fine, and any with the mechanical switches would almost certainly perform well enough, but this is the only model of fancy keyboard I've tested and can thus recommend.
Came here to say more-or-less the same thing as the combined parent and GP.
1. front line support (helpdesk, tier 1 support, whatever) must know how to take a decent problem report and walk the user through getting more information when needed. Support them with very good docs on how to submit a problem report, and thank and reward them when they do well.
2. any open tickets you get that are void of useful information, just close them. Follow up requests for more information are just going to tie up everyones time. They're more likely to open a new ticket next time than give you useful info on the one they have open. Make the closing comment one that requests detailed info, tailored for the product in question if possible... I'd be a bit more specific than parents list, but that's the basic gist of it.
3. actively work anything that is a quality request. This is the positive reinforcement level.
4. #2 bares repeating. Do not let incomplete requests just hang around on hold pending info in your queue. *maybe* transfer back to tier 1 or some other front line support queue if you've got it, but you're still probably just as well off if you close it.
I do occassionally look into unworkable tickets, but only if they hint at something that might be very bad. Then I just guess at the issue and try to reproduce myself. Sometimes that works, but that's really what tier 1 should be doing. If you're tier 1, then start doing your job (which is, admittedly, a never ending stream of tedious work, but it needs done).
FWIW, the system I use has a separate "closed" and "closed, unresolved". It's nice to be able to see a percentage of requests that are unworkable. It's also critical if you want to improve, because you have to be able to measure something if you want to know if it's getting better. The above stuff made it better (YMMV).
Nevermind the fact that we were doing just fine before all of this ridiculous behavior.
I don't buy this. I have no facts to back it up, but I'm pretty confident that there has always been some small-ish group that is given the green light to violate due process and any other laws and dig into whatever they can, so long as they keep it hush hush and only pass on or leak info when it needs to be leaked. A lot of grey area in there, but that's kind of the point with a spy-based agency.
I'm not saying that any of this is right or justified, or the opposite of that, but I'm damn sure this isn't a brand new behavior.
The CIA started out in the shadows, grew too big and had too many people know about it, and then it got an official public face and more and more accountability (that's my take on it at least). Ditto for the NSA. I know they've been around for quite a while, but they were much more of a secret TLA op decades ago. I'd be quite surprised if there wasn't some subsection of the NSA or DHS etc with a hidden budget that will eventually get some new TLA in decades to come. We need a group that doesn't have to deal with all the bureaucracy (or nothing would ever get done), but they shouldn't actually act on any of it, and they should stick to the shadows. The fact that the NSA is leaking more and more means they're too far out of that position - time to impose the rules cause they grew too big.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a DOMAIN REGISTRAR, not the host of the content. They don't give you this information, they just tell you where to get it.
And yet many sites HAVE been shutdown for doing just that - linking to content. It's wrong, and it's a slippery slope, but this is the next step - enjoy the slide.
That said, by no means should they be forced to redirect it to a site of the UK's choosing. They should just let it go to ICANN, or involve legal now and push the issue back on them immediately.
The reason parts of an insect keep moving after they die is because they have independant nervous systems controlling their movement,
Right. They are very different organisms, similar to lobsters. I mention lobsters because there's lots of material out there on how to kill/cook them humanely (fyi, putting them in a wine bath first probably hurts them more than boiling water; putting a knife through their head may hurt them more than boiling water too, as their sense organs are still sending signals to neurons that still act on that stimuli even with a split brain).
Anyway, I don't think these electrodes actually hurt them - not in the way we think of pain. If it does, it's not significantly different from flashing a strobe light on them. And in the end, this discussion has little to do with them, and more to do with the impact on the kids.
What would you consider a less inhumane treatment, somebody smashing you to death in an instant or mutilating your body to make you some kind of gadget controlled android?
So I'm either dead, or I get fed artificial stimuli... for the record, I'd take the latter (there's a chance it'd even be enjoyable, as opposed to no chance of anything cause I'm dead). I'm sure we'd both prefer an option where neither happen.
...but studies suggest this is how psychopaths start out; torturing insects and small animals.
Correct me if I"m wrong, but I believe those studies are in retrospect. IE - many psychopaths, when questioned, admitted to torturing animals as a child.
As far as I know, there reverse has not been proven. IE - that if a child is introduced to animal torture, they are more likely to become psychopaths.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I doubt the correlation holds up in both directions with similar numbers. Besides, how many non-psychopaths, when questioned, admit to torturing animals as a child? Seems like there are are a fair bit of them right in this thread (if animals includes insects such as spiders, ants, and bees).
In my homemade version of Candyland, if you land on the Gumdrop Pass you are sent to Dentist Detainment for 3 rounds. Gotta have real consequences!
The idiot that runs the mail campaign advertising a product you can't buy via a mailer to your house is cut from the same cloth as the submitter who says there's NO FiOS in Boston, when it's really just not in his neighborhood (and many others... but it does exist there).
Doesn't seem like much of a story here. Should just be, "FiOS rollout seems slow, but they're still raking in enough cash for blanket advertising to people that can't even buy the service yet". Doesn't seem like the worst problem a company can have.
You don't see a difference between killing it and doing this?
I first took that to imply that killing it is obviously worse, then read Gort65's reply and realized the anonymous GP was probably implying that zapping the antennae of a roach is worse than smashing it to bits (which, if you have done often, you would know that parts of it keep moving for quite a while unles you keep smashing and grinding all of it).
So, my answer: yes, there is a big difference. IMO, this is more humane than smashing it.
If one were to attempt to stretch this analogy to testing things on animals, especially primates, not only would I find that silly (much too far a stretch), but I would also argue that the same comparison be made: what's worse: smashing a monkey with a large object repeatedly until all bits stop moving, or putting some electrodes on his head?
Please note, I'm not making a right or wrong judgement here, but the first post made a good point.
What the hell man? I never said we can not have universal health care. The previous posts were comparing state run things to federal run things, and the post I replied to referred to "the super efficient health systems in every other developed country" as an example of a federal run thing that ran really well.
As you pointed out, "Canada's national government makes the individual provinces responsible for providing health care".
As I pointed out, "My vote is state run, with some federal laws to back it up".
I can't tell what point you are trying to make. Do you think the end goal is for the US to implement universal health care on the federal level? If so, where's the example of that working elsewhere in any place of similar geographical size and population? I'm not saying it can't be done, but I believe it would be better as a state run program, and I believe both history and other examples support that notion.
IMO, the federal government should be as limited as reasonably possible, delegating as much as possible to the state level. FWIW, that is a purposefully vague statement.
"The Surprising Reason" houses don't have underground facilities? Maybe surprising to the provincial readers of The Atlantic, but obvious plain logic to everyone else
Maybe I missed something, but the article doesn't seem to clearly explain why.
The ground is mostly clay, and it's not very stable. I get that. However, it also says, "one in 10 Oklahomans have access to the basements". So it's entirely possible, and not that uncommon.
On the question of possibility of building a tornado proof house, one expert said, "You can, but your neighbors probably would not like it in their neighborhood and you would need some of Bill Gates's wealth to pay for it."
Later, the article says, "And those large shelters, Tanner says, are now becoming more common in places like mobile home parks and schools -- areas that house large concentrations of people over long stretches of time."
I'm sorry, but if your neighborhood is a mobile home part, I hope you have already abandoned the thought of caring what your neighbors house looks like. In addition, none of the solutions are going to work for your dwelling. It's a cheap box on wheels that was probably plopped down on a couple cinder blocks.
And yes, I know those two sentences weren't next to each other in the article, but they were put into the same article.
That's the problem with that article. They shouldn't mix up stats that include these chunks of the population that are entirely unrelated to their solutions and problems. The solution for a mobile home park - don't put it in the middle of a giant flat plain in OK! The solution for real houses with average building costs - put in a basement even if you have to cut back on the scale of the house. If your plot of land sucks so bad you can't afford to do it, then don't build there or build one of those eyesore concrete domes.
The article even blames suburban sprawl at the end. That's a whole other problem, and those contributing to it, especially in OK, are idiots. It's not about what they can afford; they are making poor decisions, favoring land and/or house size over structural integrity.
The only grammatical 'rule' is to use 'whom' when it is governed by a preposition: to whom, from whom, for whom, etc.
Where you would use THEM (or HIM, HER) you use WHOM
Give it to them (him) (her).
Give it to whom?
(bold emphasis added)
How does that differ from the GP, other than being vague and harder to understand?
They shouldn't run anything.
I get your point here - "anything" is a bit extreme, but...
Like the highway sysetm
You mean the one that each state runs, for which they may receive funding from the feds?
the military
"...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia..."
But this is too big a can of worms to get into with many legitimate views on the cost, scale, organization, etc.
and the police force?
When did this become a federal organization?
Or the super efficient health systems in every other developed country?
Like which ones? Canada maybe, with their entire population being only ~34.8 million, compared to 38 million in California alone, or 313.9 million in the US?
My vote is state run, with some federal laws to back it up, and that correlates well to your example, AFAICT.
What was your point again?
That's why I always set my prompt to: /`
PS1=`root@\h:/# rm -Rf
"Hey, if we screw the environment, we can store a little of the pollution we cause for a while!"
A while!?!? this is "from now until 2030"!!! (well, half of it).
Or we could store a percent of all CO2 emitted by the country's power plants until 2363!!!
I have no idea why they used those figures. How about, "it could store as much CO2 as the country's power plants produce in 3 years".
Sure, it's something, if it is even possible/feasible, but it's obviously not going to solve any issues, even in the near term.
The next best option is to hire someone else. And they will. Loyalty dosen't exist like it did 30 years ago
30 years ago? That was the 80's, the years of trickle-down economics, and the start of rampant fuck-the-employees-for-a-quick-buck trends and the lead-up to our current financial and employment clusterfuck. I think you meant 130 years ago.
So 1883, just 18 years after the civil war put an "end" to slavery, and 37 years before women could even vote in the US?
Or are you referring to at will employment becoming the default rule under common law in the late 19th century? I don't think the law affected loyalty at all, though at will employment does allow the employer to get away with more shit.
I think the rule of thumb is, "Loyalty in the workplace doesn't exist. Period."
There are exceptions to the rule, but I'm not sure there was a time where it could be counted on as a norm.
many employment contracts likely require minimum notice of termination as a condition which you must agree to
And wiping your ass with those contracts is probably the most useful they will be.
Unless you want to collect on your unpaid benefit time. Some contracts will "require" two weeks notice, and will pay out any unpaid vacation (and maybe sick as well) if you provide said two weeks notice. They don't phrase it as a tit-for-tat, but that's really what it is in most states (at-will employment, where they can legally fire you without cause at any moment, and you can walk out without notice at any moment).
AFAIK, parent post is absolutely correct in the strict legal sense - you can just walk out, and they can just fire you. Contracts do not trump those laws.
Admins never needed vendor support, managers do. That means that CentOS trains the admins on Red Hat and then managers pay for the supported thingie.
Does CentOS actually do that? I thought that the only thing they did was provide - for no cost - the CDs or downloads of RHEL rebranded, and then let the 'customer' handle it on his own. Which would imply that the Admins presumably already had whatever expertise is needed.
You're simply not ready the GP correctly (and/or he wrote it ambiguously). The comparison is right in TFS.
Red Hat's competitive position may actually be helped by CentOS in the same way that counterfeit Windows products sold on the streets in the Far East may have helped Microsoft — by cementing their position as the technology standard...
IE. admins cut their teeth on CentOS, or get introduced to it in various environments where they're not paying for Redhat support... effectively, they train themselves on it simply due to exposure. It gets it into places where it wouldn't otherwise be feasible, might eat some profit in the grey areas (dev boxes and cheap clusters), but allows for a migration path to RHEL. To be honest, I don't know why Redhat ever split fedora off on its own. They had a large install base of desktops and such, and that free distro fed right into their bread and butter RHEL. Now it's a bit backwards.
Isp's care about uploads since it costs them money to send data to another network operator
This is wrong for so many reasons.
* The ISP's that most of us deal with are the cable and dsl providers. Uploads are limited so they can offer a higher download speed, because that's what most people using that service need the most of since they're consumers. The upload/download ratio has little to do with anything else.
* If most uses ran servers on their home connections, then, as far as their bandwidth costs, it would actually behoove the big ISP's to encourage that usage pattern. Since there are only a few large ISP's that users use for the last mile (time warner, comcast, verizon...), much of the data would stay on their network (user -> user). As it is, people still put up pictures, video, information, etc, but they're putting it on places like facebook, youtube, flickr, etc.... so any time a user accesses that, they're paying to transit that data (well... it's a lot more complicated with the CDN's and peering agreements and such, but it'd still be cheaper if it was user - to - user).
* A blanket statement like "uploads ... cost them money" completely ignores all the different points and ways that bandwidth billing occurs. For example, with many peering agreements, deciding who pays is often based on who *provided* the most data (ie. whichever party is "uploading" more data gets paid, because that represents content which people want to access - it's valuable). So in that case, more users uploading would be beneficial. That said, the really big ISP's also offer a lot of business services (colocation, leased lines, etc), and they have a lot of the content on their network already. The users actually help them balance out their usage patterns.
In any case, business service costs more due to technical reasons, not because the ones and zeros going one direction cost more than the other direction; reasons such as: There is dedicated bandwidth which is FAR more costly than being able to share it among thousands of people; The last mile has limited bandwidth and they have to pick channels (or the equivilent) to be upload/download; There are SLA's and uptime guarantees; There is far better support which costs them more money too; etc etc etc.
That's a long, complex line of useless excuses.
There are so many simple solutions.
When you stick a card in a phone, just have it pop up a "would you like to format this card for this device?" question.
For compatibility with exFAT, let people buy an app that adds the support.
if formatted by the phone, stick 2 partitions on it, the first a normal FAT that's tiny (or even dos), and stick FS drivers on it.
Or just say, no, you can not put the card in a machine. For example, look at the replaceable hard drives in PS3's. That'd give the maker the ability to use any FS they want, and that would even make it more suitable for expanding the local storage, which would make the whole thing more user friendly / transparent to the user.
Or they could just license it and pay the couple pennies a device (there are already multiple implementations for andoid).
There are other Android devices that include support and are cheaper (ex. Galaxy Tab 2 7.0), so it's also proven possible and feasible.
Former posts are right... they just want the cloud.
If you want the real numbers, read the (free) pdf:
http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/esa/jee/2013/00000106/00000004/art00036
They actually did a pretty thorough job of testing them and various attractants in various levels, and have real numbers in the report.
To attempt to answer you question (which can't be answered 100% accurately because there were many scenarios tested and you and the summary didn't state which was referenced)... not all the bugs got caught; the bugs that did not get caught were generally inactive and lethargic (I'm guessing they were old, or not hungry, etc), so they didn't really count them; the new traps caught about 2.5 fold more bugs given the same lure (or lack thereof); tests were run in a variety of settings, including an arena made from a wooden door and several infested apartments while people were there.
Also, for those wondering, the new trap is:
* inverted plastic dog bowl (600ml volume, 18cm diameter, 6.4cm depth, from IKEA)
* outer wall of bowl was covered with a layer of paper surgical tape (caring international)
* tape was died black with Fiebing's Lether Dye (Tandy Leather Factory)
* Incide of bowls were coated with a light layer of fluoropolymer resin (Bio-Quip products, Rancho Dominguez, CA) to prevent the bugs from crawling out
And the best lure was:
* 150g yeast (Lesaffre Yeast Corp)
* 750g granulated cane sugar (U.S. Sugar Co. Inc)
* 3L water (40degree C)
Fill a plastic tub with the lure mixure, mix it up, put on a lid, and rest it on top of two traps.
Lower amounts of lure stil work (not as well as the above amount, but much better than none - see paper for full details).
Why not praise them for their amazing work on...
Because a simple option to disable or hide the social integration feature should be included.
In this release, they also REMOVED the checkbox options for: ...AND those options will be reset to the defaults! (ie. if you did set them before, too bad - your settings will NOT be retained, and you'll have go dig through about:config to set them back to how you had already chosen to customize them).
* Enable javascript
* Load images automatically
* Always show the tab bar
IE. There's plenty of room for a new checkbox.
Of course, I'm 99% sure the about:config will include options to control the new social features, so GGP's point is probably moot, or at least not as big a deal, but it certainly should have some way to disable it. IMO, that should be in the easily accessible preferences, but that's being continuously gutted and dumbed down.
I don't get why the social thing isn't simply an add on. It could even be distributed with FF by default, but it makes little sense to include it as part of FF proper.
Off topic, but the braces format question will get better answers if it's phrased differently, such as:
a)
if (...) {
} else {
}
b)
if (...)
{
}
else
{
}
c)
if (...) {
}
else {
}
Prior to "Perl Best Practices", I preferred to use an inconsistent style of:
if (...)
{
} else {
}
The different handling of elsif and else's compared to if's always bothered me, but I found the lined up braces much more pleasing. I didn't like option "b" because the else's take up WAY too much vertical room. Option "c" is now my personal preference.
YMMV, but including the else's in the question provides a more complete view.
Agreed. And it's not even much of a blurb.
1280x2160 might be just over the spec that a single-link DVI or HDMI equipment can do.
Correct.
DVI-I can do 2.75 megapixels at 60 Hz. That's:
16:10 = 2098 x 1311 = 2750478
4:3 = 1915 x 1436 = 2749940
5:4 = 1854 x 1483 = 2749482
1280 x 2160 = 2764800 (too much).
Or another way to say it: 3840 x 2160 = 8294400; 8294400 / 3 = 2764800
Even two DVI-D links aren't really enough. ... I'd be quite happy with a 3200 x 2560 monitor though :-)
Highest res 60 Hz on DVI-D is 2560 x 1600 = 4096000
3840 x 2160 = 8294400; 8294400 / 2 = 4147200
His issue was that he was dropping the next key down before releasing the previous key, which tended to result in doubled characters for the first key. He was a very fast burst rate typist.
This is a good read related to that: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mechanical-switch-keyboard,2955-5.html
USB has technical limitations on N-key-rollover. Some are limited to only 2 simultanious key presses, some 3, some 6.
PS/2 can technically handle unlimited simultanious key presses, and there are a variety of keyboards that can make use of that.
Personally, I recommend the Das Keyboard. It supports both USB and PS/2 interfaces, 6KRO in USB and NKRO in PS/2, mechanical key switches (depends on the model, but Cherry MX or Red etc), and very low latency (2-5ms). On the downside, it costs money - significantly more than an average keyboard.
There's lots of other keyboards these days sporting mechanical switches and other rarely-considered features, but if the orig poster wants a quality keyboard that'll last and has low latency, one sure bet is Das Keyboard connected via PS/2. I'm pretty sure the majority of keyboards that go for more than $20 would be fine, and any with the mechanical switches would almost certainly perform well enough, but this is the only model of fancy keyboard I've tested and can thus recommend.
Came here to say more-or-less the same thing as the combined parent and GP.
1. front line support (helpdesk, tier 1 support, whatever) must know how to take a decent problem report and walk the user through getting more information when needed. Support them with very good docs on how to submit a problem report, and thank and reward them when they do well.
2. any open tickets you get that are void of useful information, just close them. Follow up requests for more information are just going to tie up everyones time. They're more likely to open a new ticket next time than give you useful info on the one they have open. Make the closing comment one that requests detailed info, tailored for the product in question if possible... I'd be a bit more specific than parents list, but that's the basic gist of it.
3. actively work anything that is a quality request. This is the positive reinforcement level.
4. #2 bares repeating. Do not let incomplete requests just hang around on hold pending info in your queue. *maybe* transfer back to tier 1 or some other front line support queue if you've got it, but you're still probably just as well off if you close it.
I do occassionally look into unworkable tickets, but only if they hint at something that might be very bad. Then I just guess at the issue and try to reproduce myself. Sometimes that works, but that's really what tier 1 should be doing. If you're tier 1, then start doing your job (which is, admittedly, a never ending stream of tedious work, but it needs done).
FWIW, the system I use has a separate "closed" and "closed, unresolved". It's nice to be able to see a percentage of requests that are unworkable. It's also critical if you want to improve, because you have to be able to measure something if you want to know if it's getting better. The above stuff made it better (YMMV).
Nevermind the fact that we were doing just fine before all of this ridiculous behavior.
I don't buy this. I have no facts to back it up, but I'm pretty confident that there has always been some small-ish group that is given the green light to violate due process and any other laws and dig into whatever they can, so long as they keep it hush hush and only pass on or leak info when it needs to be leaked. A lot of grey area in there, but that's kind of the point with a spy-based agency.
I'm not saying that any of this is right or justified, or the opposite of that, but I'm damn sure this isn't a brand new behavior.
The CIA started out in the shadows, grew too big and had too many people know about it, and then it got an official public face and more and more accountability (that's my take on it at least). Ditto for the NSA. I know they've been around for quite a while, but they were much more of a secret TLA op decades ago. I'd be quite surprised if there wasn't some subsection of the NSA or DHS etc with a hidden budget that will eventually get some new TLA in decades to come. We need a group that doesn't have to deal with all the bureaucracy (or nothing would ever get done), but they shouldn't actually act on any of it, and they should stick to the shadows. The fact that the NSA is leaking more and more means they're too far out of that position - time to impose the rules cause they grew too big.