Perhaps it's their way of discrediting Anonymous. "Hey guys, anonymous was us all the time". Nothing like smearing anon as a US government plot to cut down its popularity around the world.
If a government agency declares itself to be Anonymous then, by definition, it is.
Streaming hundreds of megabits of video across a public network, when a simple trip to the corner video store to rent a DVD results in a better picture and 5.1 surround sound just makes no sense.
And it never will if short-sighted people like you have anything to say about it.
To me it seems the story isn't the US investment in supercomputing is dropping, because it isn't.
You seem to be saying that the only metric that counts is number of dollars spent year to year. The ignores the entire point of the TOP500 list which is to compare countries and companies relative to each other.
You are #1, someone builds a new #1. It isn't like you can just whack out a new one.
I didn't cherry-pick the 10 year timeline, it was the first and only data point I checked. But you are welcome to show that the trend is something other than suggested by those two data points.
records laws often allow some sort of cost recovery fee, so printing them all out will allow you to stick it to those uppity 'journalists' and their 'transparency' to a much greater extent.
Nope. Originally (a couple of years ago) they were quoting $15 million for the entire undertaking. But now it's just $725 for one complete paper copy.
It's already illegal to threaten people. What does this law proscribe that was not already covered by existing laws?
it proscribes funding cuts to agencies tasked with enforcing the law and it also proscribes criticism of the pandering politicians behind the law as being "soft on crime."
(1) Adding video to Congress has not made anything more "transparent". Now the elected servants just hide in their offices to shaft the populace, and they use the floor to do pointless campaign speeches (posturing).
Not if you watch The Daily Show. Maybe most of them have run off to hide, but there is still enough footage of them saying obviously contradictory things to keep millions of people entertained 4 nights a week.
cameras only make sense for things like Law enforcement,
Or more specificly, they make sense where there is a significant power imbalance, and thus opportunity for unpunished abuse, between the people being filmed.
Pointing a camera at some office drone simply because he handles paperwork for the state government doesn't do anyone any good.
How could you possibly believe, even for a second, that claiming to be a child's parent or guardian, over the internet, would result in any criminal charges?
100% agreement there. Lying about your identity or otherwise impersonating someone else is NOT a crime unto itself. It only becomes criminal when combined with intent to defraud or otherwise commit an actual crime.
That's not say that some cop or DA with a stick up his ass won't decide to screw with you for their own reasons. But that's a risk you take all of the time anyway, if someone with power has it out for you, you are screwed no matter what.
I get a sinking feeling, but then I realize it doesn't apply to me. Turns out, I don't download stuff other people like.
If it weren't for the MAFIAA, I would never have started watching foreign films. Early on I figured the risk of getting popped in the USA for downloading a Korean or Japanese film was pretty much null. So foreign films were pretty much all I watched for over half a decade. Turned me on to some really great cinema too.
Our job is not to legislate their choices for them, it's to support and sustain better alternatives so they will come over when they see the light.
Part of the problem is that ebooks are not a simple 2-party issue. As a society we all have a stake in how the market works -- if we didn't have such a stake there would be no justification for copyright law in the first place. So, given that books are part of our the way they are handled is a question for all of us to decide, not just the individual buyer and seller.
you were paid big bucks to be the clueless intermediary
- definition changes after the fact
You made up your own 'definition' by assuming the worst and ignoring any context to the contrary. Only someone with a fragile ego whines about getting called out on such a foolish mistake.
Meanwhile, this clueless intermediary who got all the blame has a list of clients that still call on occasion to ask if I'll come out of retirement for them and I have the luxury of turning them down every time. Suck on that definition.
Lol, that's pretty funny! I guess I touched a nerve there eh, because now you're insulting my Googling "skill"!
What's ironic is that you went TL;DR in response to getting back nothing more than what you handed out. Looks like you need to keep out of the kitchen.
What? You know how to use "site:" "filetype:" and "+" and other people just can't grok it? lol
If that's all you think it takes to use google effectively, you probably aren't very good at it. The key is to know enough about the problem so as to (a) choose effective query terms and (b) know enough about the problem so as to be able to distinguish the bullshiters and timewasters on the net from those who really knew what they are talking about.
No amount of making google's interface "easy and intuitive" can make up for poor research skills. The difference between how you use google and how I use google is the difference between a teenager on facebook and a research librarian.
You were an insulated scapegoat. They could have talked to the engineers directly, but then if something went wrong it was their fault. They paid you stupid amounts of money so if something went wrong they could blame it on you to their bosses, and you could leave. Everybody wins.
While the companies most in need of my services tended to be the ones with excessive PHBism, I'm pretty sure that being the designated scapegoat was not particularly high up the list on the reasons they hired me.
One reason being that most were populated with deadwood - other than timecard fraud it was practically impossible for their employees to get fired. Another reason was that in well over a decade of working those gigs, I never even came close to being scapegoated.
People who have no idea what their job is other than to show up every day and answer the occasional email, passing questions along to others with more technical abilities, or to their contacts at the various hardware and software vendors. People like these populate many consulting companies. They rely almost completely on contractors to perform the actual work, serving as remote hands in a real crisis and as part of a phone tree for less pressing issues.'"
That is not a problem, it is a crucial function. Speaking from experience as a consultant who billed at lawyer-level hourly rates (I'm retired now at a young age, fired my last client a couple of years ago), except for the "have no idea what their job is" part, that is exactly what I did. And it was an immense value add for my clients.
It is precisely my contacts at various vendors and my personal domain knowledge that enables me to translate from client-speak to engineer speak and act as a very intelligent set of "remote hands" that makes it worthwhile for my clients to pay the, frankly outrageous, fees that I charge.
Basically they can pay me beau-coup bucks to facilitate fixing problems in days or they can muddle along for weeks or months trying to handle the situation on their own.
I make no secret about my methodology either - I always hit google first. But I am really damn good with google. I am always ready to train client employees to do what I do with google, but they almost always lack the patience and the domain experience to sort the wheat from the chaff on the net.
Then if google proves fruitless I move on to documenting the problem in as precise a manner as possible and passing it along to the people I know at the vendors involved. Sometimes I go through the official support channels, sometimes I skip them and go directly to the engineers.
Either way, I got results for my clients. Results that they were very happy with and which made it worthwhile for them to keep me around twiddling my thumbs, essentially on "retainer" to be available whenever they needed me.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it's their way of discrediting Anonymous. "Hey guys, anonymous was us all the time". Nothing like smearing anon as a US government plot to cut down its popularity around the world.
If a government agency declares itself to be Anonymous then, by definition, it is.
Did we not learn a thing from the failed attempt at prohibition?
Yes, we learned how to do it without requiring a constitutional amendment.
Sorry, drug war's a pet peeve and you provided a perfect riffing-point.
Umm.. didn't they just say..
This kinda thing is an act of war?
No. This is no more of an attack than facebook, twitter or even TOR are "attacks."
Hello, McFly?!
Google makes their money by selling information about their users to advertisers.
Do you really want your kid being googlestalked?
Go look at the Disney websites, they already stalk the crap out of your kids. It is icky and it is just a walled garden.
Streaming hundreds of megabits of video across a public network, when a simple trip to the corner video store to rent a DVD results in a better picture and 5.1 surround sound just makes no sense.
And it never will if short-sighted people like you have anything to say about it.
Again, you are under the impression that this is some kind of contest
That was nvidia's premise after all. You disputed the premise, I supported it using the same data that you cited.
To me it seems the story isn't the US investment in supercomputing is dropping, because it isn't.
You seem to be saying that the only metric that counts is number of dollars spent year to year. The ignores the entire point of the TOP500 list which is to compare countries and companies relative to each other.
You are #1, someone builds a new #1. It isn't like you can just whack out a new one.
I didn't cherry-pick the 10 year timeline, it was the first and only data point I checked. But you are welcome to show that the trend is something other than suggested by those two data points.
So of the top 10 system 5, half, are in the US. #2, 5, 7, 8 and 10 are US computers
On the other hand, 10 years ago the US had 7 of the top 10, including #1, #2, #3 and #4.
Its funny to see MS getting the short end of the monopoly stick. Just deserts.
records laws often allow some sort of cost recovery fee, so printing them all out will allow you to stick it to those uppity 'journalists' and their 'transparency' to a much greater extent.
Nope. Originally (a couple of years ago) they were quoting $15 million for the entire undertaking.
But now it's just $725 for one complete paper copy.
It's already illegal to threaten people. What does this law proscribe that was not already covered by existing laws?
it proscribes funding cuts to agencies tasked with enforcing the law and it also proscribes criticism of the pandering politicians behind the law as being "soft on crime."
(1) Adding video to Congress has not made anything more "transparent". Now the elected servants just hide in their offices to shaft the populace, and they use the floor to do pointless campaign speeches (posturing).
Not if you watch The Daily Show. Maybe most of them have run off to hide, but there is still enough footage of them saying obviously contradictory things to keep millions of people entertained 4 nights a week.
cameras only make sense for things like Law enforcement,
Or more specificly, they make sense where there is a significant power imbalance, and thus opportunity for unpunished abuse, between the people being filmed.
Pointing a camera at some office drone simply because he handles paperwork for the state government doesn't do anyone any good.
How could you possibly believe, even for a second, that claiming to be a child's parent or guardian, over the internet, would result in any criminal charges?
100% agreement there. Lying about your identity or otherwise impersonating someone else is NOT a crime unto itself. It only becomes criminal when combined with intent to defraud or otherwise commit an actual crime.
That's not say that some cop or DA with a stick up his ass won't decide to screw with you for their own reasons. But that's a risk you take all of the time anyway, if someone with power has it out for you, you are screwed no matter what.
Most people will ask "Did u getz my e-Mailz?" the moment they see you.
No, only lolcats will ask that.
I get a sinking feeling, but then I realize it doesn't apply to me. Turns out, I don't download stuff other people like.
If it weren't for the MAFIAA, I would never have started watching foreign films. Early on I figured the risk of getting popped in the USA for downloading a Korean or Japanese film was pretty much null. So foreign films were pretty much all I watched for over half a decade. Turned me on to some really great cinema too.
You don't know how right you are.
Check out these IM's from Zuckerberg himself:
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.
Our job is not to legislate their choices for them, it's to support and sustain better alternatives so they will come over when they see the light.
Part of the problem is that ebooks are not a simple 2-party issue. As a society we all have a stake in how the market works -- if we didn't have such a stake there would be no justification for copyright law in the first place. So, given that books are part of our the way they are handled is a question for all of us to decide, not just the individual buyer and seller.
- personal attacks
you were paid big bucks to be the clueless intermediary
- definition changes after the fact
You made up your own 'definition' by assuming the worst and ignoring any context to the contrary. Only someone with a fragile ego whines about getting called out on such a foolish mistake.
Meanwhile, this clueless intermediary who got all the blame has a list of clients that still call on occasion to ask if I'll come out of retirement for them and I have the luxury of turning them down every time. Suck on that definition.
Lol, that's pretty funny! I guess I touched a nerve there eh, because now you're insulting my Googling "skill"!
What's ironic is that you went TL;DR in response to getting back nothing more than what you handed out. Looks like you need to keep out of the kitchen.
You mean all they have to do is blow up the tunnels.
There's a joke about Russia in there.
How about: In Soviet Russia, Airport Blows You Up!
What? You know how to use "site:" "filetype:" and "+" and other people just can't grok it? lol
If that's all you think it takes to use google effectively, you probably aren't very good at it. The key is to know enough about the problem so as to (a) choose effective query terms and (b) know enough about the problem so as to be able to distinguish the bullshiters and timewasters on the net from those who really knew what they are talking about.
No amount of making google's interface "easy and intuitive" can make up for poor research skills. The difference between how you use google and how I use google is the difference between a teenager on facebook and a research librarian.
The cemetery is full of irreplaceables - believe me, the world and the company will go on if you are hit by a bus
Cemetery and prison.
You were an insulated scapegoat. They could have talked to the engineers directly, but then if something went wrong it was their fault. They paid you stupid amounts of money so if something went wrong they could blame it on you to their bosses, and you could leave. Everybody wins.
While the companies most in need of my services tended to be the ones with excessive PHBism, I'm pretty sure that being the designated scapegoat was not particularly high up the list on the reasons they hired me.
One reason being that most were populated with deadwood - other than timecard fraud it was practically impossible for their employees to get fired. Another reason was that in well over a decade of working those gigs, I never even came close to being scapegoated.
People who have no idea what their job is other than to show up every day and answer the occasional email, passing questions along to others with more technical abilities, or to their contacts at the various hardware and software vendors. People like these populate many consulting companies. They rely almost completely on contractors to perform the actual work, serving as remote hands in a real crisis and as part of a phone tree for less pressing issues.'"
That is not a problem, it is a crucial function. Speaking from experience as a consultant who billed at lawyer-level hourly rates (I'm retired now at a young age, fired my last client a couple of years ago), except for the "have no idea what their job is" part, that is exactly what I did. And it was an immense value add for my clients.
It is precisely my contacts at various vendors and my personal domain knowledge that enables me to translate from client-speak to engineer speak and act as a very intelligent set of "remote hands" that makes it worthwhile for my clients to pay the, frankly outrageous, fees that I charge.
Basically they can pay me beau-coup bucks to facilitate fixing problems in days or they can muddle along for weeks or months trying to handle the situation on their own.
I make no secret about my methodology either - I always hit google first. But I am really damn good with google. I am always ready to train client employees to do what I do with google, but they almost always lack the patience and the domain experience to sort the wheat from the chaff on the net.
Then if google proves fruitless I move on to documenting the problem in as precise a manner as possible and passing it along to the people I know at the vendors involved. Sometimes I go through the official support channels, sometimes I skip them and go directly to the engineers.
Either way, I got results for my clients. Results that they were very happy with and which made it worthwhile for them to keep me around twiddling my thumbs, essentially on "retainer" to be available whenever they needed me.