The SmartYacht detects the R/C Coast Guard helicopter and knows how to outrun the R/C Coast Guard cutter as it races the miniature illegal drugs to the 2" high drug lord standing on the shore.
If my kid's flunking math because he won't apply himself, then I want her to feel embarrassed about her performance and not proud of the fact that the school would probably advance her to the next grade anyway.
I don't know what state you live in, but if children in our district do not meet the standards, they don't advance.
And how do you intend on administering your behaviorial modification? I'm curious because every child is different in their response to criticism about their performance.
And for the record, my son is 17, one daughter is 15 and the other daughter is 10. I speak from my own experience.
I think most folks in the/. world consider IT to be the 'tech' industry. Not surprising due to the backgrounds of the people who read/post here. As for 'tech' jobs, there are quite a few in my region of the technology world:
There complete list of laboratories is here. All of them have job postings in the S&E categories. These just happen to be the largest insitutions.
I haven't even started searching Monster.com
Re:About getting back to their [Sun's] roots...
on
Sun-isms Debunked
·
· Score: 1
Let's see.. Yahoo Finance.. yikes! Stock is at $1.64. Only 2655 employees?!? A shadow of their former selves.
Let's see.. Yahoo Finance.. yikes! Stock is at $3.52. Only 300 employees?!? A shadow of their former selves.
Yes, that company is SCO.
Why cite them?
Because if share price were the only measure of the prowess of a company, then SCO would win in this discussion, hands down. Their share price on November 19, 2002 was $1.49. Despite their rollercoaster ride to $22.29 a year ago, their stock value has doubled in two years.
Is this the type of comparison you really want to use for Sun vs. SGI?
Congrats to you and the grandparent poster for being able to kick the habit.
Thanks.
However, there is nothing worse than a sanctimonious ex-smoker.
That's true, but stating facts shouldn't be considered being sanctimonious.
You were an addict once, and I don't think it was as easy to quit as simply throwing away your smokes.
You are quite correct. I tried countless times to quit smoking without success. What I didn't know at the time was that every time I that I attempted to quit, I was that much closer to finally quitting.
Again, Congradulations on being able to do this, but show a little compasion to those of us who have been unable as yet to become ex-smokers.
Actually, I have a great deal of compassion for those who are still smokers. But one of the most motivating things that pushed me to quit smoking was my wife. She never smoked, and never she let up on me to quit.
Don't ever think "Ah, just one cigarette - it won't make me start again..."
I've been there and have been able to fight the urge. As time passes, the ease with which I am able to fight those urges grows stronger.
I smoked an average of one pack a day from age 11 until February 10, 2002.
My children visit their grandmother's house and I wash their clothes IMMEDIATELY after then come home. I can smell tobacco smoke on them in a strong breeze. I am constantly bothering my mom about quitting.
There is nothing good than can be said about smoking that can counter the bad shit that can be said about smoking.
You both know what I ment- the non-sequitor not withstanding.
Yes, I was being pedantic. But there is something more to my comment than just a poor attempt at humor.
I can't speak for other countries, but Americans in particular have a warped sense of risk. They are constantly in court fighting each other over the fact that a loved one has died and that it must be someone's fault.
The fact is, no one is born with a guarantee tattoed to their foot. We all live in a risk-filled world. Things have gotten better in the last 10,000 years for humans, but they still die. We have managed to extend the lifespan by about two times, but there are risks that are just unmanageable.
I had a dream the other night that Yellowstone's plumbing blew out (again) and sent a nuée ardente ripping across the Snake River plain engulfing the communities of Southern Idaho. I watched as whole towns were burnt to a cinder. Nothing could stop it. Although the probability of this event happening in my lifetime is slight, the possibility is quite high. The geologic record contains evidence of two other eruptions of similar makeup in the last 800,000 years.
Considering what nature can dish up, there isn't any way to stop death. It is just a matter of time and place.
"...If oil was THAT big an issue, we'd be pumping in alaska right now..."
What is the proven reserve of the North Slope?
Until you have an idea of what can actually be recovered from *any* geologic repository, then arguing that drilling anywhere is an exercise in futility. In short, if it ain't economic, it wont get drilled.
The fact is that the current proven reserve in the North Slope is about 1/2 of 1% of the total US consumption annually. That means if we were to drill and pump the ANWR and the North Slope region we have currently developed, the amount of impact on US consumption would still amount to next to nothing.
The only people who truely believe this was "just for oil" are the weak-minded fools who will believe anything.
Anyone who will tell you that it is cheaper to drill oil in the region around the Arctic Circle than to just pump Saudi Light off of a tanker in Galveston, Texas is an idiot.
MS could declare that the sky is blue or 1+1=2 and Slashdot will spend the rest of the week with pendantic arguments and nitpicks proving the sky is blue or 1+1=2 only with Linux.
While the level of Linux support on/. is unquestionable, the obsession angle is poorly argued.
If anyone is obsessed, it is Microsoft. Here's why:
1) Balmer spent the better part of a few productive days drafting his letter, then redrafting it, getting reviews and comments, revising it and having his secretary reformat it, before having their web staff put together the executive letter for the website. What do you think that effort cost Microsoft for those days of work?
2) In that same timeframe, Linus wrote, received, reviewed, and recompiled code for the next kernel version.
The Yankee Group report claimed that some interviewees reported that "a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to four times more expensive" than the usual Windows upgrade. Well, duh!
Maria Winslow rocks!
Any analyst who can get away with using the phrase "Well, duh!" in a position paper is a geek goddess.
Yes, I did say 'geek goddess' and not 'greek goddess'.
While [the open source development process] has some validity, it is not necessarily the best way to develop secure software. We believe in the effectiveness of a structured software engineering process that includes a deep focus on quality, technology advances, and vigorous testing to make software more secure.
But not for the last twenty one years, apparently:
About three years ago, we made software security a top priority,..
So they think that the open source approach to development has some validity, but that their approach - THAT THEY ADMIT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN USING FOR 20+ YEARS - is better.
Hmmmm....
They found that Microsoft addressed all of the 128 publicly disclosed security flaws in Windows over the 12-month period studied, and that its security updates predated major outbreaks by an average of 305 days.
There are only 360 days in the study period. That means their average is nearly the timeframe covered by the study.
I get suspicious when I see this kind of conclusion. Have they only been in business a year?
After careful analysis, farmaCity concluded that Windows would reduce network administration by 30 percent compared with Linux, and would also simplify identity and desktop management..
And this is proof of security... how?
What was the analytical methodology? Why is network administration such a large burden? I don't even see the update activities on my Linux machine, but I have been warned by our IT group not to deploy XP SP2 due to breakage problems.
"All of the major Linux vendors and distributors (including Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Novell [SUSE and Ximian] and Red Hat) have begun charging hefty premiums for must-have items such as technical service and support, product warranties and licensing indemnification."
So Microsoft provides these extras for free?
I've read the warranty from Microsoft's products. They don't warrant shit. Nor do I expect to see a pro bono Microsoft lawyer pop out of thin air if someone makes a copyright claim regarding their products.
And customer support?
Give me a break.
Yankee's study concluded that, in large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to four times more expensive - and take three times as long to deploy - as an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release.
You could have fooled our IT department. Because of the shifting sands beneath the code in various Microsoft Office versions, we (a national laboratory) have had to recode all of our Word macros and all of our Access apps everytime there is a "new" release of Office.
And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.
Not because of superior technology, but because of integration hooks and low-ball initial pricing. When you swallow the Microsoft hook, you take the line and sinker with it. Regurgitating all of that 'infrastructure' will inevitably take more money to change. That would be true shifting from a pure *NIX environment to a Windows-centric environment.
...more expensive (5% to 20%) than...
...took 5% to 25% longer...
...three to four times more expensive...
Shifting from specifics to global ranges indicates they have no idea what the cost structures are. They are cherry picking their report figures and glossing over their own problems.
So what's the libertarian position for when two radio stations want to broadcast on the same frequency?
Same as the position on water rights: "first in time, first in right".
I mean, I'm an anarchist, but I do understand that the people should have some collective control over things that are in the commons, such as spectrum allocation.
No argument here.
I'd agree that the FCC isn't a just manifestitation of the will of the affected people, but the principle N8F8 raised is correct- communities should be empowered to choose who can broadcast, because spectrum allocation creates a natural monopoly.
Why does the 'community' have that right and where is that 'right' specified? Access to water rights is a natural monopoly, but no legal authority in the US considers the right to reserve water allotment as something requiring a community decision process.
When I read the Constitution, I do not see the govenment receiving any rights other than those given to them by consent of the governed. That consent does not include the right to determine what is considered objectionable by any group.
You have the right to turn off your radio or change the channel when something offends you. I have the right to listen to anything that is broadcast on the airwaves. The government does NOT have the right to decide what is decent or objectionable. We have not tested that Constitutinal "right" in court. The Congress granted the Administration the responsibility to regulate the airwaves. But that regulation is subject to judical review. Until that is resolved, this issue will continue to fester.
However, because of the unjust nature of the FCC, and even the facts of the case according to FCC guidelines, I side with Stern in this case.
I would rephrase your sentence to change "unjust" to "arbitrary". An unjust decision would require taking he issue to court in the first place. If you listen to the stream again you will hear Stern questioning the lack of due process.
Put the issue before a federal court, not an administrative process.
Slashdot Mirror
High-frequency transmissions of the type you are describing (video feed) require uninterrupted line-of-sight.
If you lose sight of the aircraft, your controller can't see it either.
The SmartYacht detects the R/C Coast Guard helicopter and knows how to outrun the R/C Coast Guard cutter as it races the miniature illegal drugs to the 2" high drug lord standing on the shore.
Why do I need a GUI on a device that requires that I dedicate my full attention to something *else*.
If I am watching the screen, my aircraft is headed for the lake.
Not everything electronic in the world needs a display.
If my kid's flunking math because he won't apply himself, then I want her to feel embarrassed about her performance and not proud of the fact that the school would probably advance her to the next grade anyway.
I don't know what state you live in, but if children in our district do not meet the standards, they don't advance.
And how do you intend on administering your behaviorial modification? I'm curious because every child is different in their response to criticism about their performance.
And for the record, my son is 17, one daughter is 15 and the other daughter is 10. I speak from my own experience.
Japan is west of Seattle.
Perhaps you weren't aware of the fact that everywhere is west of somewhere.
I just did a search for "sparc linux" and was able to search by date, and then sort by date.
I haven't the slightest idea where the original poster got their information.
Dallas, TX SUCKS
That explains why there are such strong winds in New Mexico.
I think most folks in the /. world consider IT to be the 'tech' industry. Not surprising due to the backgrounds of the people who read/post here. As for 'tech' jobs, there are quite a few in my region of the technology world:
LLNL has 20 open S&E positions.
INEEL in the middle of transitioning contractors, but will undoubtedly need S&Es to complete missions for DOE and the Navy.
LBL has 95 open S&E positions.
BNL has 7 open S&E positions.
SNL has 20 open S&E positions.
LANL has 107 open S&E positions.
ORNL has 28 open S&E positions.
PNNL has 36 open S&E positions.
ANL has 32 open S&E positions.
There complete list of laboratories is here. All of them have job postings in the S&E categories. These just happen to be the largest insitutions.
I haven't even started searching Monster.com
Let's see.. Yahoo Finance.. yikes! Stock is at $1.64. Only 2655 employees?!? A shadow of their former selves.
Let's see.. Yahoo Finance.. yikes! Stock is at $3.52. Only 300 employees?!? A shadow of their former selves.
Yes, that company is SCO.
Why cite them?
Because if share price were the only measure of the prowess of a company, then SCO would win in this discussion, hands down. Their share price on November 19, 2002 was $1.49. Despite their rollercoaster ride to $22.29 a year ago, their stock value has doubled in two years.
Is this the type of comparison you really want to use for Sun vs. SGI?
Not a very good model to emulate.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Stock price != Technical merit.
And how happy they are to oblige our cheese-eating, surrender monkeys on THIS issue.
No doubt about it. This Administration will say anything, do anything, to stay in power.
Hell, they will even abandon their support for Reagan's famouns slam against Carter's Administration:
"I believe in states' rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can at the private level."
Now they are reigniting the whole debate over Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law.
I guess when you can abandon your principles to win, you become just another Democrat.
Republicans: Democrats without the guilt.
This is the American Physical Society's "What's New" newsletter from Bob Parks for October 29th, 2004
Check out Item 1.
True, but I don't care about smokers dying early:
...everyone is entitled to choose his own death,..
...what I care is that: they *stink*!
One can only hope that someone in your family rates that level of concern.
Not according to the US Attorney General.
So do people who are dead.
Some day you will join the ranks of the dead and you too will stink.
How many smokers have never tried to quit?
I bet only a small percentage!
In my case the percentage is 100%.
I quit two years ago.
But someone who'd really use that as an arguement to continue smoking.
I think only someone who is experiencing serious self-delusion would argue that it is safe to continue smoking.
Congrats to you and the grandparent poster for being able to kick the habit.
Thanks.
However, there is nothing worse than a sanctimonious ex-smoker.
That's true, but stating facts shouldn't be considered being sanctimonious.
You were an addict once, and I don't think it was as easy to quit as simply throwing away your smokes.
You are quite correct. I tried countless times to quit smoking without success. What I didn't know at the time was that every time I that I attempted to quit, I was that much closer to finally quitting.
Again, Congradulations on being able to do this, but show a little compasion to those of us who have been unable as yet to become ex-smokers.
Actually, I have a great deal of compassion for those who are still smokers. But one of the most motivating things that pushed me to quit smoking was my wife. She never smoked, and never she let up on me to quit.
Don't ever think "Ah, just one cigarette - it won't make me start again..."
I've been there and have been able to fight the urge. As time passes, the ease with which I am able to fight those urges grows stronger.
Smoking will kill you.
No doubt about it. That is why I quit in 2002 after 30+ years of thrashing my lungs.
Sorry that your mom had to go fighting an addiction. My mom is headed down that same road.
That sounds clever till it's really time to die, then you'd wish you took that advice. :)
I'm a former smoker myself.
30+ years.
Every word of the parent is true.
I smoked an average of one pack a day from age 11 until February 10, 2002.
My children visit their grandmother's house and I wash their clothes IMMEDIATELY after then come home. I can smell tobacco smoke on them in a strong breeze. I am constantly bothering my mom about quitting.
There is nothing good than can be said about smoking that can counter the bad shit that can be said about smoking.
You both know what I ment- the non-sequitor not withstanding.
Yes, I was being pedantic. But there is something more to my comment than just a poor attempt at humor.
I can't speak for other countries, but Americans in particular have a warped sense of risk. They are constantly in court fighting each other over the fact that a loved one has died and that it must be someone's fault.
The fact is, no one is born with a guarantee tattoed to their foot. We all live in a risk-filled world. Things have gotten better in the last 10,000 years for humans, but they still die. We have managed to extend the lifespan by about two times, but there are risks that are just unmanageable.
I had a dream the other night that Yellowstone's plumbing blew out (again) and sent a nuée ardente ripping across the Snake River plain engulfing the communities of Southern Idaho. I watched as whole towns were burnt to a cinder. Nothing could stop it. Although the probability of this event happening in my lifetime is slight, the possibility is quite high. The geologic record contains evidence of two other eruptions of similar makeup in the last 800,000 years.
Considering what nature can dish up, there isn't any way to stop death. It is just a matter of time and place.
You smoke, you die.
Don't smoke.....
You still die.
It is just a matter of time and place.
"...If oil was THAT big an issue, we'd be pumping in alaska right now..."
What is the proven reserve of the North Slope?
Until you have an idea of what can actually be recovered from *any* geologic repository, then arguing that drilling anywhere is an exercise in futility. In short, if it ain't economic, it wont get drilled.
The fact is that the current proven reserve in the North Slope is about 1/2 of 1% of the total US consumption annually. That means if we were to drill and pump the ANWR and the North Slope region we have currently developed, the amount of impact on US consumption would still amount to next to nothing.
The only people who truely believe this was "just for oil" are the weak-minded fools who will believe anything.
Anyone who will tell you that it is cheaper to drill oil in the region around the Arctic Circle than to just pump Saudi Light off of a tanker in Galveston, Texas is an idiot.
MS could declare that the sky is blue or 1+1=2 and Slashdot will spend the rest of the week with pendantic arguments and nitpicks proving the sky is blue or 1+1=2 only with Linux.
/. is unquestionable, the obsession angle is poorly argued.
While the level of Linux support on
If anyone is obsessed, it is Microsoft. Here's why:
1) Balmer spent the better part of a few productive days drafting his letter, then redrafting it, getting reviews and comments, revising it and having his secretary reformat it, before having their web staff put together the executive letter for the website. What do you think that effort cost Microsoft for those days of work?
2) In that same timeframe, Linus wrote, received, reviewed, and recompiled code for the next kernel version.
Who is more obsessed again?
The Yankee Group report claimed that some interviewees reported that "a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to four times more expensive" than the usual Windows upgrade. Well, duh!
Maria Winslow rocks!
Any analyst who can get away with using the phrase "Well, duh!" in a position paper is a geek goddess.
Yes, I did say 'geek goddess' and not 'greek goddess'.
While [the open source development process] has some validity, it is not necessarily the best way to develop secure software. We believe in the effectiveness of a structured software engineering process that includes a deep focus on quality, technology advances, and vigorous testing to make software more secure.
But not for the last twenty one years, apparently:
About three years ago, we made software security a top priority,..
So they think that the open source approach to development has some validity, but that their approach - THAT THEY ADMIT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN USING FOR 20+ YEARS - is better.
Hmmmm....
They found that Microsoft addressed all of the 128 publicly disclosed security flaws in Windows over the 12-month period studied, and that its security updates predated major outbreaks by an average of 305 days.
There are only 360 days in the study period. That means their average is nearly the timeframe covered by the study.
I get suspicious when I see this kind of conclusion. Have they only been in business a year?
After careful analysis, farmaCity concluded that Windows would reduce network administration by 30 percent compared with Linux, and would also simplify identity and desktop management..
And this is proof of security... how?
What was the analytical methodology? Why is network administration such a large burden? I don't even see the update activities on my Linux machine, but I have been warned by our IT group not to deploy XP SP2 due to breakage problems.
Hmmmm....
"All of the major Linux vendors and distributors (including Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Novell [SUSE and Ximian] and Red Hat) have begun charging hefty premiums for must-have items such as technical service and support, product warranties and licensing indemnification."
...more expensive (5% to 20%) than...
...took 5% to 25% longer...
...three to four times more expensive...
So Microsoft provides these extras for free?
I've read the warranty from Microsoft's products. They don't warrant shit. Nor do I expect to see a pro bono Microsoft lawyer pop out of thin air if someone makes a copyright claim regarding their products.
And customer support?
Give me a break.
Yankee's study concluded that, in large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to four times more expensive - and take three times as long to deploy - as an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release.
You could have fooled our IT department. Because of the shifting sands beneath the code in various Microsoft Office versions, we (a national laboratory) have had to recode all of our Word macros and all of our Access apps everytime there is a "new" release of Office.
And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.
Not because of superior technology, but because of integration hooks and low-ball initial pricing. When you swallow the Microsoft hook, you take the line and sinker with it. Regurgitating all of that 'infrastructure' will inevitably take more money to change. That would be true shifting from a pure *NIX environment to a Windows-centric environment.
Shifting from specifics to global ranges indicates they have no idea what the cost structures are. They are cherry picking their report figures and glossing over their own problems.
Hardly surprising for a marketing letter.
But keep in mind everyone: Windows is Free!.
So what's the libertarian position for when two radio stations want to broadcast on the same frequency?
Same as the position on water rights: "first in time, first in right".
I mean, I'm an anarchist, but I do understand that the people should have some collective control over things that are in the commons, such as spectrum allocation.
No argument here.
I'd agree that the FCC isn't a just manifestitation of the will of the affected people, but the principle N8F8 raised is correct- communities should be empowered to choose who can broadcast, because spectrum allocation creates a natural monopoly.
Why does the 'community' have that right and where is that 'right' specified? Access to water rights is a natural monopoly, but no legal authority in the US considers the right to reserve water allotment as something requiring a community decision process.
When I read the Constitution, I do not see the govenment receiving any rights other than those given to them by consent of the governed. That consent does not include the right to determine what is considered objectionable by any group.
You have the right to turn off your radio or change the channel when something offends you. I have the right to listen to anything that is broadcast on the airwaves. The government does NOT have the right to decide what is decent or objectionable. We have not tested that Constitutinal "right" in court. The Congress granted the Administration the responsibility to regulate the airwaves. But that regulation is subject to judical review. Until that is resolved, this issue will continue to fester.
However, because of the unjust nature of the FCC, and even the facts of the case according to FCC guidelines, I side with Stern in this case.
I would rephrase your sentence to change "unjust" to "arbitrary". An unjust decision would require taking he issue to court in the first place. If you listen to the stream again you will hear Stern questioning the lack of due process.
Put the issue before a federal court, not an administrative process.