If you can afford a $70k electric vehicle (or whatever Tesla things are going for nowadays), you qualify as being caught up in the "green fad" in my book...
So what? Is it not better that the people who can afford to subsidize the development of more efficient vehicles choose to do so instead of spending it on old tech like the infamous hummer or that $100K mercedes G-class suv that 99% of the buyers will never take off-road? And if if makes them feel better about themselves, isn't it deserved since they really are helping the rest of us out by paying for the development of tech that will eventually be useful to a much larger group of people?
It still works, in fact, it gets better each time inflation reduces the value of the dollar. Just think of it as "I'll bet [your] dollars to [my] donuts"
So if you yell loud enough in your house for my passive ears, or other passive device, to 'hear' that you are murdering someone, I'll have to ignore it,
Gee, I wonder... Do people expect to hear loud sounds through walls? Nobody has ever had noisy neighbors in an apartment building before, right?
Didja post AC because you knew you were a dumbass?
Police and private parties might use a passive device at their own discretion. But an active device, that actually illuminates the target would violate expectations of privacy and should not be deployed without court supervision.
What the fuck? Even the use of a passive device violates expectations of privacy. We don't live in glass houses, nobody expects to be visible through solid walls.
These devices should be legal. And since the idea has been posted publicly, (i.e. here in slashdot by yours truly) any patent to such devices should specific to that device, not a broad based patent like one-click. Unless patent application for such a device has already been filed.
Uh, no. Radar jamming is as old as radar. Ain't no way it should be patentable - and any patent for jamming specific kinds of radar systems is just as bogus because the overall idea isn't patentable, so narrowing it down a specific frequency or a specific pattern of transmission doesn't make the idea any more unique. A subset of the obvious isn't any less obvious.
My point/question is therefore this: where's the facts about the effective percentage of CPU performance that's lost when the CPUs are synchronising caches and locking the memory buses due to multi-tasking? Can this be made visible to the OS and user space so that you can measure it and tune the system?
Intel has a ton of instrumentation functionality in their current CPUs. I haven't used it, but I would fully expect there to be a register that counts clock cycles spent on memory stalls. A good profiler should be able to sample it and the other registers to get you some hard data on what's going on. You may find that it isn't memory stalls at all, but just scheduling efficiency - like your app works better with gang scheduling and over-subscribing the cpus just results in a lot more time spinning on locks.
Also, just as a really general rule of thumb, AMD cpus are much more efficient at virtualization. The devil's in the details, as always, but you mentioned hyper-threading so I figured I'd point that out as another avenue of investigation for future hardware purchases.
It gets disheartening to flag 30 bad ads in a row from the same user only to come back the next day and see the same user with another 100+ bad ads. You get burnt out and just give up after a while.
I'm speaking from experience searching the real estate ads in places like Los Angeles and Las Vegas where a handful of brokers keyword spam their ads with the name of every single town and neighborhood in the entire area. In my case it became a lot more worthwhile to find something unique about the keyword spammers and add that as a negative search option rather than flag every bad ad that I happened upon from using a more naive search.
If you think that's a great distinction, you're fooling yourself. The old "You can always just live in a shack in Montana" ploy is worse than the "Love it or leave it" ploy.
Perspective, chief. Before the Internet nobody but those with lots of money could ever transmit their ideas broadly. Before, say, the 1900's, nobody could, period. Now, sometimes you can, but if you rely on a free service to do it then they might set some restrictions; that doesn't sound like erosion of rights to me so much as it sounds like progress.
Two steps forward, one step back.
Precedents have a way of becoming permanent around here. Much better for us all if the precedent that ultimately becomes the standard for future communications is as open and unrestricted as possible. I'm thinking specifically of how common-carrier status has not been transferred to the internet age. I say that if enough companies had adopted a completely uncensored approach they would have had an interest in lobbying for common-carrier status. But without it, we are unlikely to ever see as much free expression because that precedent has been set to a lower bar.
The thing I like best about your story - the medical records were directly under the control of the patient. Sneakernet is great when the person wearing the sneakers is personally invested in the data being transferred.
All of the privacy problems with electronic records pretty much go away if we put the responsibility for keeping track of the records in the hands of those who have the most to lose (as in lost privacy if they are disclosed to the wrong people and lost life if they are not disclosed to the right people).
So what is the big deal? This data was sent out unencrypted from many transmitters all across the nation. It would have been (and still is) very easy to intercept. There is no data security.
The telecommunications privacy act made it illegal to pass on any information recorded that wasn't intended for you to receive (I'm over-simplifying) - this law was a compromise between the telephone companies and everyone else - instead of requiring encryption for over the air stuff, they just made it illegal to do anything with the information intercepted - saving the telcos the cost having to implement encryption. A number of congress droids who thought it was a good idea have been hoisted by their own petard when some of their in-the-clear cell phone conversations were recorded and surreptitiously released.
Bin Ladin supposedly didn't realize that we were tracking him via his satellite phone until that fact was leaked by a member of the Clinton administration. He kept using it right up until the point that the story appeared in the press.
His point was more abstract than that. He wasn't referring to the uniqueness requirement of patent-ability, but rather to the "promote progress" justification for the existence of software patents in the first place. Software patents have the potential to hobble open collaborative software development to the point of extinguishing it. Given how much more software now is open source than was in 1968 - and how the waterfall cycle (a complete joke in and of itself) is practically never part of such development work - the writer was questioning if Goetz is even knowledgeable enough of the current situation to be a knowledgeable commentator.
If ANY of the following apply, you are considdered an employee by the IRS, and can not be issued a 1099 (the short list, there's a LOT more, these are the obvious ones):
You appear to be referring to the infamous '20 questions test' from 1987 - and if that's the case, what you say is not true. It isn't a case of any single question forcing the position to employee status, it has been a case of a some arbitrary number of questions as decided by the particular IRS officials in charge on a case by case basis. And the 20 questions list has kind of fallen by the wayside over the last decade.
The trouble ensued when he was about to be laid off and his employer decided (instead of letting him go) to offer him a position as an independent contractor, paid at a rate of 40 hours a week in the office.
If that's really what happened, he's got more problems than this on-call business. As described, that is what the IRS calls 'conversion' and they will reclassify him back as an employee, fine the crap out the employer and keep the self-employment taxes he's been paying as a contractor (double-dip).
Giving it to a friend is, again, a gift in the eyes of the IRS. They WILL see it, and they WILL tax it.
You keep repeating the obvious. Your point was noted and responded to.
You can't just get rid of your money and expect them to turn a blind eye if you're breaking the law.
Not the law they care about. They have no standing.
Gambling at a casino is a patronage. You are paying for entertainment.
Receipt of stolen goods is receipt of stolen goods, doesn't matter if it was in trade or not. At least if you want your argument to be consistent that is.
I wish more people would do things that way. Keeping your trap shut for your own self-interest may be the smart thing to do. But letting everyone else know just how douchey the other guy is may end up doing everybody else a favor.
It's like those non-disclosure terms for a lot of liability settlements. Its great for the one guy who would otherwise get dicked over, but then the guilty party is free to continue with their bad practices potentially harming lots of other people who would otherwise have been forewarned.
I believe, and running up a debt you know you can't repay is fraud.
Duh.
I'm not certain if the IRS will help other companies come after those assets to collect on debt that a dead person ran up (I am not a CPA yet) but it wouldn't surprise me.
And what's the difference between giving it to friends and giving it to a casino?
I had TWO attemped burglaries in my life... The fast majority of crime in holland is committed by imigrants (don't bother telling me otherwise, all attempts were made by dark-skinned people)
Really? That's your argument?
You have a sample size of exactly two and from that you feel confident to extrapolate to all crime in the country?
After demonstrating such absurdly bad reasoning skills, why should anyone take anything else you have to say seriously?
Slashdot Mirror
If you can afford a $70k electric vehicle (or whatever Tesla things are going for nowadays), you qualify as being caught up in the "green fad" in my book...
So what? Is it not better that the people who can afford to subsidize the development of more efficient vehicles choose to do so instead of spending it on old tech like the infamous hummer or that $100K mercedes G-class suv that 99% of the buyers will never take off-road? And if if makes them feel better about themselves, isn't it deserved since they really are helping the rest of us out by paying for the development of tech that will eventually be useful to a much larger group of people?
It still works, in fact, it gets better each time inflation reduces the value of the dollar.
Just think of it as "I'll bet [your] dollars to [my] donuts"
So if you yell loud enough in your house for my passive ears, or other passive device, to 'hear' that you are murdering someone, I'll have to ignore it,
Gee, I wonder... Do people expect to hear loud sounds through walls?
Nobody has ever had noisy neighbors in an apartment building before, right?
Didja post AC because you knew you were a dumbass?
Police and private parties might use a passive device at their own discretion. But an active device, that actually illuminates the target would violate expectations of privacy and should not be deployed without court supervision.
What the fuck? Even the use of a passive device violates expectations of privacy. We don't live in glass houses, nobody expects to be visible through solid walls.
These devices should be legal. And since the idea has been posted publicly, (i.e. here in slashdot by yours truly) any patent to such devices should specific to that device, not a broad based patent like one-click. Unless patent application for such a device has already been filed.
Uh, no. Radar jamming is as old as radar. Ain't no way it should be patentable - and any patent for jamming specific kinds of radar systems is just as bogus because the overall idea isn't patentable, so narrowing it down a specific frequency or a specific pattern of transmission doesn't make the idea any more unique. A subset of the obvious isn't any less obvious.
My point/question is therefore this: where's the facts about the effective percentage of CPU performance that's lost when the CPUs are synchronising caches and locking the memory buses due to multi-tasking? Can this be made visible to the OS and user space so that you can measure it and tune the system?
Intel has a ton of instrumentation functionality in their current CPUs. I haven't used it, but I would fully expect there to be a register that counts clock cycles spent on memory stalls. A good profiler should be able to sample it and the other registers to get you some hard data on what's going on. You may find that it isn't memory stalls at all, but just scheduling efficiency - like your app works better with gang scheduling and over-subscribing the cpus just results in a lot more time spinning on locks.
Also, just as a really general rule of thumb, AMD cpus are much more efficient at virtualization. The devil's in the details, as always, but you mentioned hyper-threading so I figured I'd point that out as another avenue of investigation for future hardware purchases.
Damn Scots!
They ruined Scotland!
If it's not scottish, it's crrrrrrrap!
It gets disheartening to flag 30 bad ads in a row from the same user only to come back the next day and see the same user with another 100+ bad ads. You get burnt out and just give up after a while.
I'm speaking from experience searching the real estate ads in places like Los Angeles and Las Vegas where a handful of brokers keyword spam their ads with the name of every single town and neighborhood in the entire area. In my case it became a lot more worthwhile to find something unique about the keyword spammers and add that as a negative search option rather than flag every bad ad that I happened upon from using a more naive search.
If you think that's a great distinction, you're fooling yourself. The old "You can always just live in a shack in Montana" ploy is worse than the "Love it or leave it" ploy.
100% agreement with you there.
This is not a criminal matter, not in the least. Why do people insist on blurring that line?
Why do people on slashdot make comparisons to cars?
It is called an analogy.
Question: When did the step back occur?
When we moved from simple telephones to the internet, but did not bring the concept of common carrier status with us.
Perspective, chief. Before the Internet nobody but those with lots of money could ever transmit their ideas broadly. Before, say, the 1900's, nobody could, period. Now, sometimes you can, but if you rely on a free service to do it then they might set some restrictions; that doesn't sound like erosion of rights to me so much as it sounds like progress.
Two steps forward, one step back.
Precedents have a way of becoming permanent around here. Much better for us all if the precedent that ultimately becomes the standard for future communications is as open and unrestricted as possible. I'm thinking specifically of how common-carrier status has not been transferred to the internet age. I say that if enough companies had adopted a completely uncensored approach they would have had an interest in lobbying for common-carrier status. But without it, we are unlikely to ever see as much free expression because that precedent has been set to a lower bar.
No sir, you're the complete joke.
Thanks, I'll be here all night.
The thing I like best about your story - the medical records were directly under the control of the patient.
Sneakernet is great when the person wearing the sneakers is personally invested in the data being transferred.
All of the privacy problems with electronic records pretty much go away if we put the responsibility for keeping track of the records in the hands of those who have the most to lose (as in lost privacy if they are disclosed to the wrong people and lost life if they are not disclosed to the right people).
So what is the big deal? This data was sent out unencrypted from many transmitters all across the nation. It would have been (and still is) very easy to intercept. There is no data security.
The telecommunications privacy act made it illegal to pass on any information recorded that wasn't intended for you to receive (I'm over-simplifying) - this law was a compromise between the telephone companies and everyone else - instead of requiring encryption for over the air stuff, they just made it illegal to do anything with the information intercepted - saving the telcos the cost having to implement encryption. A number of congress droids who thought it was a good idea have been hoisted by their own petard when some of their in-the-clear cell phone conversations were recorded and surreptitiously released.
What will his staff do, read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back?
No, they will consult with their friendly lobbyists and reprint whatever they provide.
Bin Ladin supposedly didn't realize that we were tracking him via his satellite phone until that fact was leaked by a member of the Clinton administration. He kept using it right up until the point that the story appeared in the press.
Lolz
it's also foolhardy to think that these types of disclosures don't have any real world implications.
It's even more foolhardy to be so credulous.
it's whether it's sufficiently unique or not.
His point was more abstract than that. He wasn't referring to the uniqueness requirement of patent-ability, but rather to the "promote progress" justification for the existence of software patents in the first place. Software patents have the potential to hobble open collaborative software development to the point of extinguishing it. Given how much more software now is open source than was in 1968 - and how the waterfall cycle (a complete joke in and of itself) is practically never part of such development work - the writer was questioning if Goetz is even knowledgeable enough of the current situation to be a knowledgeable commentator.
Citation needed
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=irs+employee+contractor+reclassification
If ANY of the following apply, you are considdered an employee by the IRS, and can not be issued a 1099 (the short list, there's a LOT more, these are the obvious ones):
You appear to be referring to the infamous '20 questions test' from 1987 - and if that's the case, what you say is not true.
It isn't a case of any single question forcing the position to employee status, it has been a case of a some arbitrary number of questions as decided by the particular IRS officials in charge on a case by case basis. And the 20 questions list has kind of fallen by the wayside over the last decade.
The trouble ensued when he was about to be laid off and his employer decided (instead of letting him go) to offer him a position as an independent contractor, paid at a rate of 40 hours a week in the office.
If that's really what happened, he's got more problems than this on-call business. As described, that is what the IRS calls 'conversion' and they will reclassify him back as an employee, fine the crap out the employer and keep the self-employment taxes he's been paying as a contractor (double-dip).
Giving it to a friend is, again, a gift in the eyes of the IRS. They WILL see it, and they WILL tax it.
You keep repeating the obvious. Your point was noted and responded to.
You can't just get rid of your money and expect them to turn a blind eye if you're breaking the law.
Not the law they care about. They have no standing.
Gambling at a casino is a patronage. You are paying for entertainment.
Receipt of stolen goods is receipt of stolen goods, doesn't matter if it was in trade or not.
At least if you want your argument to be consistent that is.
I wish more people would do things that way.
Keeping your trap shut for your own self-interest may be the smart thing to do.
But letting everyone else know just how douchey the other guy is may end up doing everybody else a favor.
It's like those non-disclosure terms for a lot of liability settlements. Its great for the one guy who would otherwise get dicked over, but then the guilty party is free to continue with their bad practices potentially harming lots of other people who would otherwise have been forewarned.
Gifting limits.
Big deal, just pay the tax.
I believe, and running up a debt you know you can't repay is fraud.
Duh.
I'm not certain if the IRS will help other companies come after those assets to collect on debt that a dead person ran up (I am not a CPA yet) but it wouldn't surprise me.
And what's the difference between giving it to friends and giving it to a casino?
I had TWO attemped burglaries in my life...
The fast majority of crime in holland is committed by imigrants (don't bother telling me otherwise, all attempts were made by dark-skinned people)
Really? That's your argument?
You have a sample size of exactly two and from that you feel confident to extrapolate to all crime in the country?
After demonstrating such absurdly bad reasoning skills, why should anyone take anything else you have to say seriously?
Bigotry is innumeracy.
On the other hand, escalating it so the pirates have the potential of a real consequence (death versus...
What? You think only the good guys are capable of escalating?