Really? So your doctor does not keep your records and share them with your insurance provider and anyone else with a plausible justification for access? You can get non-emergency anonymous treatment without having to lie about your identity?
You have to be a pretty trusting soul to put business-critical information or private health data under the control of complete strangers, and with security assurances that amount to little more than, "We keep everything strictly private that the US government doesn't want to see", and, "If we screw up, we promise not to screw up again until the next time".
Go to a doctor recently? That's precisely how it works in the USA. The doctor's office keeps the records which they can and do share with your insurance company who can and do share them with a variety of other companies like big pharma. Sure its all 'regulated' by HIPAA but that's as much official cover to share your info as it is protection for your info. Hell, even if you want to pay cash you pretty much have to use a false identity if you want to protect your privacy.
You people have some serious trust/honesty issues.
Turn about is always fair play. If someone wants to go digging for unsubstantiated dirt, then it is entirely fair to put a little unsubstantiated gold out there instead.
And did you know that there was absolutely NO Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research BEFORE Bush? You act as if he cut off funding that was already there! Bullshit.
He did cut funding that was already there just not up front, he did it around back. He made it a crime to share resources between programs.
So, unlike all other kinds of research, if you wanted to do embryonic stem cell research you had to draw a bright white dividing line around your facilities. In many cases this required entirely separate buildings just for stem cell research. In other words, Bush made it so that any idle resources purchased by other programs must remain idle rather than be used opportunistically by any embryonic stem cell researchers, and absolutely no pooling of money to buy and share 1 larger faster, more efficient piece of hardware over 2 smaller, cheaper and dedicated slower pieces of hardware. That is if they wanted to keep the federal funding for any of those other non-controversial programs.
I suggest to everyone looking for a job to do the same.
Or better yet, make a fake facebook profile that totally fluffs all the stuff an employer would be looking for -- photoshop yourself in to pictures with important people in your field, talk about your work on important projects, talk about your social connections with management at potential customers, venture capitalists, etc. The kind of stuff you might not put on a formal resume, but the kind of stuff that would make you appear as a very valuable asset.
Just make sure NOT to mention it to them at all, let them find it on their own and let them make assumptions on their own. If questioned about it, just blow it off as a personal thing that they should not take seriously.
I disagree with this, a few years ago when the Matrix Reloaded was screened it took 5/6 months to be released.
Again, their business model is not significantly based on release.
Anecdotal cases like yours, where a film sits on the shelf for months or years tend to be films that the studio thinks suck, and usually they are right. I don't think a strong argument can be made for encouraging sucky movies.
Argue climate change all you want, green makes sense, if only from an economic standpoint.
Except that, 'green' like 'security' and most other things in life, does not come for free. Some 'green' options actually cost more than what they save - and I don't just mean raw dollars, I mean also natural resources - the very thing that 'green' is meant to preserve.
Sadly, when you are pushing prerelease stuff, you cross a very firm line into illegal territory. There is no grey area. They *are* costing the studios money,
I don't agree that distribution of pre-release content costs the studios any more than distribution of post-release content. The MAFIAA do not have a business plan that is significantly based on release of content. I.e. they do not use something like the "ransom" model where they charge money for the release of content rather than the distribution of content. Thus illegal distribution of pre-release content is not significantly any more costly to the MAFIAA than illegal distribution of post-release content.
$8,359 to sell out this country. Didn't Spitzer spend more on some of his romps. Come on Senators, have some pride.
That's typical for the price of a congressmen on almost any issue. Instead of belaboring the fact that they are so cheap, we should take advantage of it. If SourceForge put together a PAC representing stereotypical slashdot interests - maybe even with a voting system for which issues to prioritize, I'd probably support it with a couple of hundred dollars of bribery fodder.
People respond to _good products_. Advertising really only helps (for me anyway) with the _initial_ trial. That is, if I had never heard of Coca-Cola before,
It works a lot more subtly than that. Advertising reminds you of how good you think the product is, why don't you go out and buy another freaking-great tasting coke? Hasn't it been too long since you've had a drink that tastes so great?
It also discourages you from trying the others, why risk it since your favorite brand is right here and you've never heard of these other brands, they probably taste like poo.
but most of it is high quality sports gear that's worth it's pricetag.
Heheh. Sure it is. Except it isn't. Consider the hundreds of millions they spend on advertising each year, those are costs built into the price of the product that by definition do not contribute to the quality of the product.
Because government owned monopolies don't tend to work very well.
Neither do government-granted monopolies. Due to the nature of the beast, both 'monopoly' and 'government' are going to be factors. So they might as well accept that fact, drop the ideology and work towards the least sucky implementation.
Yep. You're entirely within your rights to run away, if possible. If you looked, you'd find that in most situations, the law in the USA actually does require you to run away rather than fight back.
For example - when Texas first allowed concealed-carry only about a decade ago, the first 'test case' was a man who was in his car and was attacked by a person standing by the driver's side window. The grand jury ruled that because (a) punches to the face can result in death and (b) because the car was stuck in traffic and the man was belted into his seat, it was juastifiably self-defense for him to shoot his assailant.
You know... those little paper thingies with numbers and pictures of people on them, that you give at the store and they let you take things out of the store. You can also give them to women and they let you put things into the women.
I live in a country with strict gun control. Its surprising how often we manage to not get robbed by anyone with a gun.
... Do people get robbed? Yes of course they do, but strangely seldom with a gun - usually its a knife being wielded.
You seem to be arguing against yourself. Just because most robberies occur without a gun in a gun-ban country does not mean that most robberies in a regular country would involve being attacked with a gun. For example - in the USA handguns are used in just 5.4% of all assaults and 26.3% of robberies. A robbery with a gun becomes an assault if the gun is used. ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf )
Furthermore, gun ownership prevents crime. Take, for example, Kennesaw county in metro-Atlanta, Georgia. In 1982 they passed a law requiring gun ownership by each head of household. Crime dropped almost 89% in the first couple of years and has stayed roughly constant ever since with no murders for the last 25 years. Contrast that with Morton Grove, Illinois which banned guns for everyone but cops, their crime rate increased by almost 16% immediately after the ban was put into effect. ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288 )
If a criminal thinks his victims probably carry a gun, then he must have a gun himselves, Why? If I'm a criminal, I'd much rather find someone without a gun than get shot in the firefight I initiated to rob someone. Or do you think there are so many criminal out there that there aren't enough victims without guns to go around?
Re:It's all because John Wayne is no lonvger with
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
How about a boorish 18 year old loudly repeating over and over (for hours) that Virgin "like, totally SUCKS" for not making her text messaging work while somewhere over the middle of the Atlantic, and throwing a food tray into the aisle when asked if she was done with her meal? I've been stuck with her, too. Don't date 18 year old girls. And if you do, definitely don't take them on vacation to Europe.
Re:It's all because John Wayne is no lonvger with
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Every one of those screaming kids you see in the grocery store today will become the asshat in seat 30B on your flight to Chicago. Or the asshat working for the TSA.
Sun have been progressively opening more and more of their key business IP, and as far as I can see the only reason they have done so is that they really believe in the benefits of open source. I see it the other way around. They are being forced to confront the value of open source and are fighting it every step of the way. They are losing the fight, precisely because open source is so powerful. The results of each lost battle has been them open-sourcing a piece of the pie.
If the company whole-heartedly believed what Schwartz has been saying, they would GPL everything they've got - proprietary apologists be damned.
FWIW, I'm waiting on the sidelines for that event. The day it happens, assuming it does happen before they go tango-uniform, is they day I move a third of my retirement savings into JAVA shares.
It sounds like this coolthreads (is that the latest marketing name for their niagra stuff?) is like Itanium. It needs a lot more support from the software tools than is feasible. Itanium kicks x86 ass on certain, very specific (math), workloads. But as a general purpose cpu its way over-priced for the performance. Itanium had the benefit (to Intel) of scaring off most other non-x86 development (MIPS, gone. Alpha, gone. Power fading into obscurity, etc). Sun really doesn't gain any significant technical or market advantages by clinging to their current cpus.
OSX hasn't had too many problems adding it, Try getting the source for the OSX-specific changes.
The fact that GPL needs to have everything that touches it be opened makes it very difficult to use it in proprietary environments. No shit sherlock. The GPL is all about ensuring that the end user has full access to the source code for the software he uses. That concept is completely alien to 'proprietary environments.'
By using CDDL and allowing ZFS to be in freebsd, I could now use freebsd to create a proprietary network storage device using freebsd as the OS, zfs as the file system, and not have to release any source if I don't want to. That's pretty powerful. Powerful for you. Suck-ass for your customers.
Really, what the hell are they looking for? This almost seems like the government equivalent of a governmental Mt Everest. They do it "because they can". Exactly.
FWIW, that's at least as much SGI's fault for not guiding them into buying maintenance. For big iron systems, the sales team is typically expected to handhold the customer through the process. So, unless your uni was Urbana Champaign (NCSA) or some other place that's been buying big iron for decades, SGI was at least as much at fault for letting the department dig itself into a hole like that.
And what installer was this? Is it available commercially? How much is the license for the version with this mythical four-hour installer? Chances are the majority of nodes are diskless. I bet they did like one actual disk install, then an automated set up of config files for each node and then the system boots with some sort of broadcast or multicast kernel load.
I really don't know how that site runs, but if I were doing an HPC cluster, that's how I would do it. Four hours seems kind of excessive for something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm Canadian. We do things differently here.
Really? So your doctor does not keep your records and share them with your insurance provider and anyone else with a plausible justification for access? You can get non-emergency anonymous treatment without having to lie about your identity?
You have to be a pretty trusting soul to put business-critical information or private health data under the control of complete strangers, and with security assurances that amount to little more than, "We keep everything strictly private that the US government doesn't want to see", and, "If we screw up, we promise not to screw up again until the next time".
Go to a doctor recently? That's precisely how it works in the USA. The doctor's office keeps the records which they can and do share with your insurance company who can and do share them with a variety of other companies like big pharma. Sure its all 'regulated' by HIPAA but that's as much official cover to share your info as it is protection for your info. Hell, even if you want to pay cash you pretty much have to use a false identity if you want to protect your privacy.
You people have some serious trust/honesty issues.
Turn about is always fair play. If someone wants to go digging for unsubstantiated dirt, then it is entirely fair to put a little unsubstantiated gold out there instead.
And did you know that there was absolutely NO Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research BEFORE Bush? You act as if he cut off funding that was already there! Bullshit.
He did cut funding that was already there just not up front, he did it around back. He made it a crime to share resources between programs.
So, unlike all other kinds of research, if you wanted to do embryonic stem cell research you had to draw a bright white dividing line around your facilities. In many cases this required entirely separate buildings just for stem cell research. In other words, Bush made it so that any idle resources purchased by other programs must remain idle rather than be used opportunistically by any embryonic stem cell researchers, and absolutely no pooling of money to buy and share 1 larger faster, more efficient piece of hardware over 2 smaller, cheaper and dedicated slower pieces of hardware. That is if they wanted to keep the federal funding for any of those other non-controversial programs.
I suggest to everyone looking for a job to do the same.
Or better yet, make a fake facebook profile that totally fluffs all the stuff an employer would be looking for -- photoshop yourself in to pictures with important people in your field, talk about your work on important projects, talk about your social connections with management at potential customers, venture capitalists, etc. The kind of stuff you might not put on a formal resume, but the kind of stuff that would make you appear as a very valuable asset.
Just make sure NOT to mention it to them at all, let them find it on their own and let them make assumptions on their own. If questioned about it, just blow it off as a personal thing that they should not take seriously.
I disagree with this, a few years ago when the Matrix Reloaded was screened it took 5/6 months to be released.
Again, their business model is not significantly based on release.
Anecdotal cases like yours, where a film sits on the shelf for months or years tend to be films that the studio thinks suck, and usually they are right. I don't think a strong argument can be made for encouraging sucky movies.
There are some schools in the UK, for example, who teach cretinism,
So THAT"S where all the soccer hooligans come from!
Obviously the decision point is whether or not it will make a tasty good balut.
Argue climate change all you want, green makes sense, if only from an economic standpoint.
Except that, 'green' like 'security' and most other things in life, does not come for free. Some 'green' options actually cost more than what they save - and I don't just mean raw dollars, I mean also natural resources - the very thing that 'green' is meant to preserve.
Sadly, when you are pushing prerelease stuff, you cross a very firm line into illegal territory. There is no grey area. They *are* costing the studios money,
I don't agree that distribution of pre-release content costs the studios any more than distribution of post-release content. The MAFIAA do not have a business plan that is significantly based on release of content. I.e. they do not use something like the "ransom" model where they charge money for the release of content rather than the distribution of content. Thus illegal distribution of pre-release content is not significantly any more costly to the MAFIAA than illegal distribution of post-release content.
$8,359 to sell out this country. Didn't Spitzer spend more on some of his romps. Come on Senators, have some pride.
That's typical for the price of a congressmen on almost any issue. Instead of belaboring the fact that they are so cheap, we should take advantage of it. If SourceForge put together a PAC representing stereotypical slashdot interests - maybe even with a voting system for which issues to prioritize, I'd probably support it with a couple of hundred dollars of bribery fodder.
People respond to _good products_. Advertising really only helps (for me anyway) with the _initial_ trial. That is, if I had never heard of Coca-Cola before,
It works a lot more subtly than that. Advertising reminds you of how good you think the product is, why don't you go out and buy another freaking-great tasting coke? Hasn't it been too long since you've had a drink that tastes so great?
It also discourages you from trying the others, why risk it since your favorite brand is right here and you've never heard of these other brands, they probably taste like poo.
but most of it is high quality sports gear that's worth it's pricetag.
Heheh. Sure it is. Except it isn't. Consider the hundreds of millions they spend on advertising each year, those are costs built into the price of the product that by definition do not contribute to the quality of the product.
Because government owned monopolies don't tend to work very well.
Neither do government-granted monopolies.
Due to the nature of the beast, both 'monopoly' and 'government' are going to be factors. So they might as well accept that fact, drop the ideology and work towards the least sucky implementation.
For example - when Texas first allowed concealed-carry only about a decade ago, the first 'test case' was a man who was in his car and was attacked by a person standing by the driver's side window. The grand jury ruled that because (a) punches to the face can result in death and (b) because the car was stuck in traffic and the man was belted into his seat, it was juastifiably self-defense for him to shoot his assailant.
...
You seem to be arguing against yourself.Do people get robbed? Yes of course they do, but strangely seldom with a gun - usually its a knife being wielded.
Just because most robberies occur without a gun in a gun-ban country does not mean that most robberies in a regular country would involve being attacked with a gun. For example - in the USA handguns are used in just 5.4% of all assaults and 26.3% of robberies. A robbery with a gun becomes an assault if the gun is used. ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf )
Furthermore, gun ownership prevents crime. Take, for example, Kennesaw county in metro-Atlanta, Georgia. In 1982 they passed a law requiring gun ownership by each head of household. Crime dropped almost 89% in the first couple of years and has stayed roughly constant ever since with no murders for the last 25 years. Contrast that with Morton Grove, Illinois which banned guns for everyone but cops, their crime rate increased by almost 16% immediately after the ban was put into effect. ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288 )
If I'm a criminal, I'd much rather find someone without a gun than get shot in the firefight I initiated to rob someone.
Or do you think there are so many criminal out there that there aren't enough victims without guns to go around?
If the company whole-heartedly believed what Schwartz has been saying, they would GPL everything they've got - proprietary apologists be damned.
FWIW, I'm waiting on the sidelines for that event. The day it happens, assuming it does happen before they go tango-uniform, is they day I move a third of my retirement savings into JAVA shares.
It sounds like this coolthreads (is that the latest marketing name for their niagra stuff?) is like Itanium. It needs a lot more support from the software tools than is feasible. Itanium kicks x86 ass on certain, very specific (math), workloads. But as a general purpose cpu its way over-priced for the performance. Itanium had the benefit (to Intel) of scaring off most other non-x86 development (MIPS, gone. Alpha, gone. Power fading into obscurity, etc). Sun really doesn't gain any significant technical or market advantages by clinging to their current cpus.
Suck-ass for your customers.
You WILL respect mah authoritae!
FWIW, that's at least as much SGI's fault for not guiding them into buying maintenance.
For big iron systems, the sales team is typically expected to handhold the customer through the process.
So, unless your uni was Urbana Champaign (NCSA) or some other place that's been buying big iron for decades, SGI was at least as much at fault for letting the department dig itself into a hole like that.
I really don't know how that site runs, but if I were doing an HPC cluster, that's how I would do it. Four hours seems kind of excessive for something like that.