Yeah, until all your neighbours complain and get a Disney Tax added to your internet bill... then it won't matter whether you access it or not, they'll make (your) money.
I'm not sure that "publicly traded" is definitive on either side of the issue. Probably more to do with whether the business has the smarts to figure out how to make OSS work for them rather than against them. With SAP so tied to HP, I'm not sure they care. If their customers started demanding Linux versions such that Linux was their most profitable platform, I'm sure we'd hear different.
If the cops can let you off with a warning for speeding, they sure as hell have the discretionary powers to recognise a grandmother with pictures of her granddaughter in/near the bathtub.
As for understanding the power, I'm sorry, but I can't quite accept your interpretation of mom-and-dad's world as representative. If it were, I don't think "Blue Flu" would ever have become reasonably common knowledge (and even made it into popular TV shows, such as CSI:NY, and, I'm sure, others). And I'm not sure they'd have so many other issues (why do they have high divorce rates, alcoholism rates, and domestic violence rates? Partly, I contend, because that power gets to their head).
The OP did say "arrested" and not "convicted." I don't know about you, but my life would be hell on earth for those fifteen months. And probably for a long time thereafter, too, as idiots remember the arrest, and not the dropping of the charges for being stupid.
The power to arrest comes with some very serious responsibilities. The police, evidently, aren't aware of that. What I'm wondering isn't why the officer in this case arrested the woman ("stupidity" explains that in a population size of one), but why his/her superior was okay with it. Someone wasn't doing their job, and BOTH of them should be fired with extreme prejudice for simple incompetence.
Of course, I'm also wondering why it took the prosecutors 15 months to drop a case that 30 minutes of investigation could show was inept (drive to her granddaughter's house and verify the girl there matches the picture). There should have been heads rolling in the prosecutor's office, too, though I'll admit to not knowing if this was the case (I doubt it, though - I just don't trust the gubmint to get this right).
What, I must have cheated when I watch this documentary about time travel several years ago.
That's odd, I wasn't going to start producing any documentary until next year. I guess it works. Uh, will work. Will have worked? Damnit, I have a hard enough time trying to get regular-flow grammar right, and now I'm going to have to lear it all over again.
Since when has France moved away from the "guilty until proven innocent" stance?
Apparently, from doing the unthinkable (reading TFA), since "the Declaration of 1789". I'm going to have to go to wikipedia to see when that was passed.
There are people who mistake their beliefs for who they are. This is, in my view, understandable when those beliefs surround an ethical system that they act on, but sorely mistaken when it's something to do with something they have nothing to do with, e.g., who is going to win the Stanley Cup or the World Cup, or the state of the political system in a country they don't belong to, nevermind participate in. There's no "objective" anything to these folks, don't waste your time.
Then there are just trolls. These people like telling you things on the internet that they'd never say to you in person. They probably got beat up on the playground a lot. Don't feed them.
This has been a public service announcement, paid for by... hell, I wish I was getting paid for this. *sigh*
Define the applications for which parallel processing is not needed. It might be a smaller list than you think. For example, think of a spreadsheet - parallel processing can really help here when trying to resolve all the cells with complex inter-related calculations. I mean, they already need to do tricks to keep them responsive today, trying to recalculate only the stuff that's showing rather than the entire document (all n sheets).
Word processors? Well, besides having embedded spreadsheets, they also recalculate a lot of stuff in the background, though probably a lot less than a spreadsheet.
Is it required? Not always. But for suitably complex spreadsheets, I can imagine some accountants wishing there was some parallel processing done.
Even email programs - I curse at kmail for not being parallel. Sometimes when it runs spamassassin against incoming email, it can get annoyingly slow, and I have a quad-core CPU! At least I can go do other things while waiting for kmail to catch up. If only it could launch spamassassin in alternate threads, that'd be great.
Newsreader? Loading articles in the background might take up a bit more RAM/disk, but it'd make things super fast as I go through the newsgroup.
Browser? Loading and parsing pages like/. articles without making firefox unresponsive will be nice (waiting for a version of Chrome for Linux that is at least beta before I try it).
There are desktop apps that don't need parallel processing. But many would be somewhat to hugely advantaged by going parallel, even if not always for home use.
What stuff? You mean the raw database? Theoretically, there are various layers of security here: firewalls to the outside, authentication to particular views on the inside where only data you Need To Know is available to you, and proper firewalls on each database server to limit access to the database port(s) and probably ssh.
If the hackers could get through all of this, they must be *very* good. More likely, however, is that they have someone on the inside which bypasses all of this. And it would bypass the encryption on the data anyway since s/he obviously already had Need To Know to get at the data anyway, and thus would have the decryption key. There isn't much a corporation can do against an insider that needs that info just to perform the job they were hired to perform.
(Next thing you know, someone's going to start going on about using Monster Brand (TM) cables to reduce impedance and thus waste heat for internal componentry, such as the connections between the CDROM and the motherboard...)
Congratulations. You nitpick on a minor point of terminology while ignoring reality. We have bell curves and standard deviations and such for a reason: they line up very closely to reality. I highly doubt you're going to see a "long tail" on driving ability.
Maintaining, unit testing, system testing costs vs delta in income for support of said codecs.
If the costs in maintaining old code, ensuring you have proper test coverage of that old code, that it doesn't break anything else in the system, and fixing any breakages caused by (internal?) API changes or other bugs that surface in the new infrastructure are higher than any difference in income (after tax, physical media costs, etc.), then why should they support those older formats?
Not saying that's the reason, of course, just playing devil's advocate here. (And since I'm advocating for MS, that's less figurative than normal...)
Not so. The original letter of the law came into being circa 1970 with the full 70's environmental movement that created the EPA and such. Once Reagan got into power, he pursued, and eventually codified, some more business-friendly directives, specifically, enshrining cost-benefit analysis. Clinton modified it, and Obama is looking to overhaul [pdf] or even rewrite it.
The problem is that we have two laws in conflict: the original laws forming the EPA (among others) from the late 60's to early 70's, and then executive orders which seek to mitigate them. Now, I'm not really a big fan of executive orders, but it does seem to me that taking into account the full costs and benefits of regulations would be a more prudent method of achieving environmental change than a system that took as much money from employers as possible, and received little to no further health or environmental benefit. Requiring a business to overspend for negligible amounts of further benefit to society seems unreasonable to me.
Anyway, since it seems that she is supporting the original (Democrat, I think) version of the law, and ignoring the (Republican) executive order that applies, I'm not sure that "conservative" is the right moniker.
Congratulations. The plural of anecdote is not data.
I have a degree in Electrical Engineering. I hated it. I'm not using it in my career (other than on my resume to say "I have a Bachelor's Degree.") I did more than barely pass (well, most of my courses - the arts electives weren't so hot). I'm not data, either.
In short, one article neither proves nor disproves. I'm neither convinced the conclusion is true nor false. And, like many episodes of the MythBusters (entertaining though the explosions are), I remain skeptical of the "busted" tag based on the evidence presented. The evidence is lacking. Mind you, the assertion in the reverse has no (scientific) evidence, either, which is why I remain skeptical in that direction as well.
I don't really care whether there is a gap or not, but I am a stickler for accuracy. Taking the course is not the same thing as passing or excelling. It's an important metric, but not the only one. Perhaps we have a "traditionally disadvantaged" group being pushed, in the name of equality, into an area they dislike because it doesn't come natural, and they're barely passing. That's not success - that's a failure because these people probably would be more successful in life playing to their strengths rather than weaknesses.
I'm not saying that's the case. But it's a plausible explanation for the results in TFS, while not dismissing the myth, I'd say they have to do more work and study to proclaim this myth busted.
If you're assuming 100% of CFLs make it to recycle, you're a deluded fanatic, and not worth discussing reality with.
If you're assuming that 70% of CFLs make it to recycle, I think you're optimistic, but we can work with that. The other 30% put mercury back into the landfill, if they don't break at home first. In the landfill case, it's really not that big of a deal - most modern landfills are built to avoid seepage into the water table, so the mercury will have to evaporate, and trace amounts in the huge volume of atmosphere will result in probably none-to-negligible health risk for the population at large. When they break in the home, or other small, enclosed space, well, then we have a bigger problem. The dissipation results in higher concentrations than if they made it to the landfill. What with our ultra-efficient homes with no drafts or anything to help keep in the heat/cold, we will continue to be exposed for a much longer time at that higher concentration. There's a problem.
Whereas, with super-incandescent bulbs, it doesn't matter if you break them, accidentally (or negligently) throw them in the garbage, or submit them for proper recycling: they have no mercury or other poisons. Solving the power-plant-mercury issue is wholly separate. Even with coal, there's a good chance that proper filtering and scrubbers could capture the mercury before spewing it into the air. If such technology doesn't exist today, the energy industry could be working on it - or be made to work on it, as regulation has required of them time and again.
When I point to three major OS supporters (well, now two), all I'm saying is that legal approval is reasonable to expect. If the C*O's tell legal that they want to be responsible stewards of the OSS code they use and that giving back patches, updates, bug reports, etc., is required, then it's up to legal to figure out how to do that. I didn't intend to imply that "fiat" meant "same-day delivery." Merely that they can direct their legal department as to what they want to value. Most of the time, the C*O's will let the legal department dictate, and they'll end up with the most conservative, CYA position available (i.e., "don't"). But, when direction from those that run the company (BoD, CEO, etc.) is given (you know, the leadership that they're supposed to give - that's what they get paid the big bucks for!), it's amazing what the lawyers can do. By fiat, I mean that they decree that this is the outcome they want. It's up to the lawyers to figure out how, and the lower-level managers to figure out when, what and other such details.
Admittedly, not many C*O's care that much about the community they're taking from. All I'm pointing out is that it doesn't have to be that way, and I provided some counter-examples. I expect IBM and Oracle have sizable legal departments, and they still contribute.
And the ones that are large enough to can't get anything through accounting without a proper invoice, a company to pay it to, tax IDs, terms, and contracts.
That's easily solved by CIO fiat. I mean, companies like Sun Oracle and IBM have given generous amounts of code to the OS movement, and continue to work on said code (albeit often with a commercial license as well). It's doable. You just need to drag in the right people, usually the C*O's, and accounting will find a new process for handling this.
The run up to the Iraq war was like this. The weapons inspectors couldn't find WMD, so that must be prove that they exist and are being hidden!
Well, except in the case of Iraq, the US DoD still had the receipts. Unless someone has been selling spare UFO parts clandestinely, we don't even have that much evidence in favour of UFOs.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, until all your neighbours complain and get a Disney Tax added to your internet bill... then it won't matter whether you access it or not, they'll make (your) money.
Redhat. Novell. IBM. Sun, Oracle. Microsoft. SCO.
I'm not sure that "publicly traded" is definitive on either side of the issue. Probably more to do with whether the business has the smarts to figure out how to make OSS work for them rather than against them. With SAP so tied to HP, I'm not sure they care. If their customers started demanding Linux versions such that Linux was their most profitable platform, I'm sure we'd hear different.
Doesn't quantum physics say that nothing is analog, and it's all discrete?
</pedant-to-the-point-that-it-misses-the-point>
If the cops can let you off with a warning for speeding, they sure as hell have the discretionary powers to recognise a grandmother with pictures of her granddaughter in/near the bathtub.
As for understanding the power, I'm sorry, but I can't quite accept your interpretation of mom-and-dad's world as representative. If it were, I don't think "Blue Flu" would ever have become reasonably common knowledge (and even made it into popular TV shows, such as CSI:NY, and, I'm sure, others). And I'm not sure they'd have so many other issues (why do they have high divorce rates, alcoholism rates, and domestic violence rates? Partly, I contend, because that power gets to their head).
The OP did say "arrested" and not "convicted." I don't know about you, but my life would be hell on earth for those fifteen months. And probably for a long time thereafter, too, as idiots remember the arrest, and not the dropping of the charges for being stupid.
The power to arrest comes with some very serious responsibilities. The police, evidently, aren't aware of that. What I'm wondering isn't why the officer in this case arrested the woman ("stupidity" explains that in a population size of one), but why his/her superior was okay with it. Someone wasn't doing their job, and BOTH of them should be fired with extreme prejudice for simple incompetence.
Of course, I'm also wondering why it took the prosecutors 15 months to drop a case that 30 minutes of investigation could show was inept (drive to her granddaughter's house and verify the girl there matches the picture). There should have been heads rolling in the prosecutor's office, too, though I'll admit to not knowing if this was the case (I doubt it, though - I just don't trust the gubmint to get this right).
is left as an exercise for the reader.
What, I must have cheated when I watch this documentary about time travel several years ago.
That's odd, I wasn't going to start producing any documentary until next year. I guess it works. Uh, will work. Will have worked? Damnit, I have a hard enough time trying to get regular-flow grammar right, and now I'm going to have to lear it all over again.
Since when has France moved away from the "guilty until proven innocent" stance?
Apparently, from doing the unthinkable (reading TFA), since "the Declaration of 1789". I'm going to have to go to wikipedia to see when that was passed.
Er, hi boss. I'll get right on that bugfix now.
There are people who mistake their beliefs for who they are. This is, in my view, understandable when those beliefs surround an ethical system that they act on, but sorely mistaken when it's something to do with something they have nothing to do with, e.g., who is going to win the Stanley Cup or the World Cup, or the state of the political system in a country they don't belong to, nevermind participate in. There's no "objective" anything to these folks, don't waste your time.
Then there are just trolls. These people like telling you things on the internet that they'd never say to you in person. They probably got beat up on the playground a lot. Don't feed them.
This has been a public service announcement, paid for by ... hell, I wish I was getting paid for this. *sigh*
Define the applications for which parallel processing is not needed. It might be a smaller list than you think. For example, think of a spreadsheet - parallel processing can really help here when trying to resolve all the cells with complex inter-related calculations. I mean, they already need to do tricks to keep them responsive today, trying to recalculate only the stuff that's showing rather than the entire document (all n sheets).
Word processors? Well, besides having embedded spreadsheets, they also recalculate a lot of stuff in the background, though probably a lot less than a spreadsheet.
Is it required? Not always. But for suitably complex spreadsheets, I can imagine some accountants wishing there was some parallel processing done.
Even email programs - I curse at kmail for not being parallel. Sometimes when it runs spamassassin against incoming email, it can get annoyingly slow, and I have a quad-core CPU! At least I can go do other things while waiting for kmail to catch up. If only it could launch spamassassin in alternate threads, that'd be great.
Newsreader? Loading articles in the background might take up a bit more RAM/disk, but it'd make things super fast as I go through the newsgroup.
Browser? Loading and parsing pages like /. articles without making firefox unresponsive will be nice (waiting for a version of Chrome for Linux that is at least beta before I try it).
There are desktop apps that don't need parallel processing. But many would be somewhat to hugely advantaged by going parallel, even if not always for home use.
What stuff? You mean the raw database? Theoretically, there are various layers of security here: firewalls to the outside, authentication to particular views on the inside where only data you Need To Know is available to you, and proper firewalls on each database server to limit access to the database port(s) and probably ssh.
If the hackers could get through all of this, they must be *very* good. More likely, however, is that they have someone on the inside which bypasses all of this. And it would bypass the encryption on the data anyway since s/he obviously already had Need To Know to get at the data anyway, and thus would have the decryption key. There isn't much a corporation can do against an insider that needs that info just to perform the job they were hired to perform.
Good God, man. Stop beating about the bush and tell us how you really feel!
(I see you prefer the "pansy" approach - I'd probably favour something a bit more severe.)
(Next thing you know, someone's going to start going on about using Monster Brand (TM) cables to reduce impedance and thus waste heat for internal componentry, such as the connections between the CDROM and the motherboard...)
Congratulations. You nitpick on a minor point of terminology while ignoring reality. We have bell curves and standard deviations and such for a reason: they line up very closely to reality. I highly doubt you're going to see a "long tail" on driving ability.
Maintaining, unit testing, system testing costs vs delta in income for support of said codecs.
If the costs in maintaining old code, ensuring you have proper test coverage of that old code, that it doesn't break anything else in the system, and fixing any breakages caused by (internal?) API changes or other bugs that surface in the new infrastructure are higher than any difference in income (after tax, physical media costs, etc.), then why should they support those older formats?
Not saying that's the reason, of course, just playing devil's advocate here. (And since I'm advocating for MS, that's less figurative than normal...)
Not so. The original letter of the law came into being circa 1970 with the full 70's environmental movement that created the EPA and such. Once Reagan got into power, he pursued, and eventually codified, some more business-friendly directives, specifically, enshrining cost-benefit analysis. Clinton modified it, and Obama is looking to overhaul [pdf] or even rewrite it.
The problem is that we have two laws in conflict: the original laws forming the EPA (among others) from the late 60's to early 70's, and then executive orders which seek to mitigate them. Now, I'm not really a big fan of executive orders, but it does seem to me that taking into account the full costs and benefits of regulations would be a more prudent method of achieving environmental change than a system that took as much money from employers as possible, and received little to no further health or environmental benefit. Requiring a business to overspend for negligible amounts of further benefit to society seems unreasonable to me.
Anyway, since it seems that she is supporting the original (Democrat, I think) version of the law, and ignoring the (Republican) executive order that applies, I'm not sure that "conservative" is the right moniker.
Congratulations. The plural of anecdote is not data.
I have a degree in Electrical Engineering. I hated it. I'm not using it in my career (other than on my resume to say "I have a Bachelor's Degree.") I did more than barely pass (well, most of my courses - the arts electives weren't so hot). I'm not data, either.
In short, one article neither proves nor disproves. I'm neither convinced the conclusion is true nor false. And, like many episodes of the MythBusters (entertaining though the explosions are), I remain skeptical of the "busted" tag based on the evidence presented. The evidence is lacking. Mind you, the assertion in the reverse has no (scientific) evidence, either, which is why I remain skeptical in that direction as well.
I don't really care whether there is a gap or not, but I am a stickler for accuracy. Taking the course is not the same thing as passing or excelling. It's an important metric, but not the only one. Perhaps we have a "traditionally disadvantaged" group being pushed, in the name of equality, into an area they dislike because it doesn't come natural, and they're barely passing. That's not success - that's a failure because these people probably would be more successful in life playing to their strengths rather than weaknesses.
I'm not saying that's the case. But it's a plausible explanation for the results in TFS, while not dismissing the myth, I'd say they have to do more work and study to proclaim this myth busted.
I wasn't so sure before, but when the RIAA denies even making the request, well, now I'm paranoid. Methinks [they] doth protest too much.
Rumour has it that the browser that was built in to Duke Nukem Forever loads /. fine.
*sigh* Now we'll never know for sure.
If you're assuming 100% of CFLs make it to recycle, you're a deluded fanatic, and not worth discussing reality with.
If you're assuming that 70% of CFLs make it to recycle, I think you're optimistic, but we can work with that. The other 30% put mercury back into the landfill, if they don't break at home first. In the landfill case, it's really not that big of a deal - most modern landfills are built to avoid seepage into the water table, so the mercury will have to evaporate, and trace amounts in the huge volume of atmosphere will result in probably none-to-negligible health risk for the population at large. When they break in the home, or other small, enclosed space, well, then we have a bigger problem. The dissipation results in higher concentrations than if they made it to the landfill. What with our ultra-efficient homes with no drafts or anything to help keep in the heat/cold, we will continue to be exposed for a much longer time at that higher concentration. There's a problem.
Whereas, with super-incandescent bulbs, it doesn't matter if you break them, accidentally (or negligently) throw them in the garbage, or submit them for proper recycling: they have no mercury or other poisons. Solving the power-plant-mercury issue is wholly separate. Even with coal, there's a good chance that proper filtering and scrubbers could capture the mercury before spewing it into the air. If such technology doesn't exist today, the energy industry could be working on it - or be made to work on it, as regulation has required of them time and again.
There's an interesting juxtaposition: someone who admits to being "fucked up" giving parenting lessons. Thanks, I needed that laugh.
When I point to three major OS supporters (well, now two), all I'm saying is that legal approval is reasonable to expect. If the C*O's tell legal that they want to be responsible stewards of the OSS code they use and that giving back patches, updates, bug reports, etc., is required, then it's up to legal to figure out how to do that. I didn't intend to imply that "fiat" meant "same-day delivery." Merely that they can direct their legal department as to what they want to value. Most of the time, the C*O's will let the legal department dictate, and they'll end up with the most conservative, CYA position available (i.e., "don't"). But, when direction from those that run the company (BoD, CEO, etc.) is given (you know, the leadership that they're supposed to give - that's what they get paid the big bucks for!), it's amazing what the lawyers can do. By fiat, I mean that they decree that this is the outcome they want. It's up to the lawyers to figure out how, and the lower-level managers to figure out when, what and other such details.
Admittedly, not many C*O's care that much about the community they're taking from. All I'm pointing out is that it doesn't have to be that way, and I provided some counter-examples. I expect IBM and Oracle have sizable legal departments, and they still contribute.
And the ones that are large enough to can't get anything through accounting without a proper invoice, a company to pay it to, tax IDs, terms, and contracts.
That's easily solved by CIO fiat. I mean, companies like Sun Oracle and IBM have given generous amounts of code to the OS movement, and continue to work on said code (albeit often with a commercial license as well). It's doable. You just need to drag in the right people, usually the C*O's, and accounting will find a new process for handling this.
The run up to the Iraq war was like this. The weapons inspectors couldn't find WMD, so that must be prove that they exist and are being hidden!
Well, except in the case of Iraq, the US DoD still had the receipts. Unless someone has been selling spare UFO parts clandestinely, we don't even have that much evidence in favour of UFOs.