I have seen no discussions concerning the hardware and software architecture that is needed for a system supposedly capable of trapping and analyzing all the internet traffic as well as every email and tweet that crosses the wire.
Really? Google "lawful interception". Cisco et al have been including these capabilities in the their equipment since at least 2005.
Bitcoin exchanges do PRECISELY the same things that the "evil" Wall Street firms do. (Most of Wall St. is simply your mom's retirement savings being put to use building stores and such to earn her enough to retire.)
What the "evil" Wall Street firms actually do is committing millions frauds every day with high frequency quoting without intent to buy or sell. What they also do is cook their own books, making up trillions of dollars that don't actually exist and when they can't hide their crimes anymore they steal the money from the American people with the help of the US government.
Are you sure about that? How many false alerts does this system produce? How many police officer's work is wasted by following up on these false alerts? What is the reaction of the typical kidnapper to hearing these alerts? How does the kidnapper's reaction affect the survival of the abducted child? What are the opportunity costs? How does the reduced attention of drivers looking for that one car affect their ability to avoid accidents? Do you have any data on any of these questions? Are the alerts actually a net positive?
Only someone supremely ignorant or biased would believe this to be noteworthy, let alone newsworthy - which pretty much proves my point.
So you insist that "lightest slap" and "maximum sentence" are the same thing and your argument for that is that the witch hunters aka the prosecutors almost always ask for the latter? The reason they get away with this abuse of the legal system is that they paint the accused as belonging to different group. He's not one of us. He's a hacker, or a terrorist, or simply not an American citizen. And suddenly all the imbeciles who can only the model the world in "good" and "evil" start cheering for their team no matter what their team does. Burn the witch! I mean U.S.A U.S.A U.S.A. That's the story. I'm sorry that you can't see it.
the digital generation seems to consider almost any charges as harsh, and any punishment but the lightest slap on the wrist as unconscionable
Ahh! The digital generation! They are not us, they are the others, they are the enemy, the muslim communist nazi terrorists. Meanwhile, in the real world, this story is about the prosecution urging the judge to impose the maximum sentence of 136 years on Manning. Are you capable of understanding the difference between "lightest slap" and "maximum sentence" or are you completely trapped in the us vs. them model?
Well, there's an additional factor as well
No. The imbecilic witch hunt, that you try to fuel with you post, is not an additional factor. It is the sole topic of TFA.
Why do you have to pick one? Can't you "fight" both? How much was Halliburton's cut? $50 billion over 10 years or something like that? Solyndra got $550 million. That's a whooping 1%. Note that I'm not defending Obama. Of course he should be punished for his crimes. I'm just providing some perspective.
The money spent on the research and advancement of renewable energy is a tiny fraction of the money spent on nuclear energy. The outcome of research is always open, "guaranteed to fail" is - I hate to say it - just another lie. If you can overcome your hate and anger you might find that the results are actually pretty impressive.
Nuclear plants, by the way, are not economically feasible. The only way to run a nuclear plant is to get indemnification for catastrophic failure from the state. The operators can not get insurance for that. They still have to socialize their cost and privatize their profits.
Building coal plants on the other hand is just plain stupid. No argument here. That's the reason for investing in renewable. The alternatives suck.
"unqualified success" is just another stupid lie. The real world takes place between the absurd extremes; the latter seem to be everything you are able to think in. As for your closing sentence, I'm sure you, as basically everybody else, has a family member who suffers from cancer. For a fun time, ask him what he thinks of your wish.
The goals of the investments were to significantly increase the percentage of renewable energy used in Germany and to give German companies a head start in the international renewable energy market. It is arguable if these goals have been met to the levels that were intended. "Abject" failure on the other hand is just another stupid lie.
If renewable energy is such bad idea, you don't have to lie about it, like GP did, to make your point. That was all I was commenting on. Germany's outsourcing of energy production to France et al point to real problems with Germany's approach. GP's stupid lies just muddy the water.
Why do you make up numbers and trends? In 2012 25% of electricity generation was using renewable energy. The goal is to reach 30% by 2020. Current trends indicate it will be at 45%+ in 2020. It is rising more rapidly than previously planned. This numbers are not difficult to find. Why do you insist in living in a fantasy world?
See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erneuerbare_Energie for Details.
I agree, it wouldn't be that difficult. But that is not what was done in the study. An undisclosed amount of four unnamed marker chemicals where added to the chemicals used for fracking by a company at one fracking site. Within the one year the study has been running, non of these markers where detected in a predetermined "monitoring zone". Maybe the study has some value, but since there is no citation in the article and the article contains no facts beside the ones I just mentioned, it is really hard to tell.
As I said, I had a really hard time understanding your last post. Maybe it's my trying to protect Linus, maybe it's your runaway sentences. Whatever, I was not trying to start an argument for argument's sake. Have a nice day, Sir!
I disagree and although I cannot be sure I do not believe it would be the full position of Linus, for example the "custom" of the group was to use BitKeeper and he decided to write git and get everybody to move to it, and I would credit him with the thought that if at that exact time the issues of BitKeeper became clear, a "new member" would have presented a program with more or less the featureset of git he would have adopted it and not suffered from NIH syndrome
I'm not sure if I understand what you are trying to say here. Linus wrote git. And we all are better of for having git. That's the aiming for the best results part. You seem to be claiming that this is irrelevant, because you can make up some hypothetical situation in which you can imagine Linus to fall for NIH syndrome. Is that really your argument?
well the "middle ground" is to architect the filesystem so that it can reasonably cleanly support a variety of file systems without too much cost to the "common base", and part of the negociation is to yell at people if they want to add stuff that would break something in the core in order to make it easier to support something that it not really indispensable.
"Fixing" something by breaking something else has already been tried multiple times in the kernel. It has always been a fiasco. If you aim for the best results you have to stop this practice.
From what I read about Linus's position, it is not that he is not about negotiating [...] and defining what yields the best result is a "negotiation"
Then you should reread what he actually wrote. His position is that breaking user land is not acceptable. His position is that this is not negotiable.
And refusing to change because "we've always been doing things that way" is a good way to become stagnant and irrelevant.
That's a straw man. No one is arguing that "we've always been doing things that way". You just made that up. Linus' argument is: "The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I can't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle", and I mean it.
And the whole idea of "our way or no way" stinks, there is something called negociation and the middleground
That's the point Linus is trying to make. Linux development is not about negotiations and middle ground; he argues that both of them are just lame pc bullshit and that he only cares about choosing the development process that yields the best results.
If you hadn't noticed, people use a certain technology because it works to solve their problem. Marketing can help spur this but hardly determines the success of any technology. It is adopted/purchased/used because it works and is needed.
Bloodletting was used from 500 BC to 1800 AC. It didn't work, it was not needed, and did not solve any problems. "Marketing" was the sole factor in the success of bloodletting. This is only one of thousands, if not millions, of examples.
The other big advantage with FOSS is that the change and commit logs are publicly accessible. If you introduce a backdoor in a FOSS product you can't hide behind a corporation. Your own name is tied to that backdoor. This is a strong disincentive; decades of social, economic, and criminal studies prove that.
Slashdot Mirror
You're wrong, see Hold Brothers and the stock of SPDR BofA ML Crossover Corp Bond ETF for examples.
You have it backwards. When you're quoting your worst quote is the one that trades.
Only if you get forced to trade on your quote like you and I have to. The rules are not the same for everyone.
I have seen no discussions concerning the hardware and software architecture that is needed for a system supposedly capable of trapping and analyzing all the internet traffic as well as every email and tweet that crosses the wire.
Really? Google "lawful interception". Cisco et al have been including these capabilities in the their equipment since at least 2005.
1. A certain loss
It is used to find the lowest price a seller is willing to sell at and the highest price a buyer is willing to buy at.
2. Illegal
I agree.
3. Prevented by exchanges.
Look at the number of quotes compared to the number of sales. Look at the overall numbers and compare them to the numbers of some traders.
Bitcoin exchanges do PRECISELY the same things that the "evil" Wall Street firms do. (Most of Wall St. is simply your mom's retirement savings being put to use building stores and such to earn her enough to retire.)
What the "evil" Wall Street firms actually do is committing millions frauds every day with high frequency quoting without intent to buy or sell. What they also do is cook their own books, making up trillions of dollars that don't actually exist and when they can't hide their crimes anymore they steal the money from the American people with the help of the US government.
Do you want Obama to come down hard on them?
By hiring a PR firm?
Parents of abducted children?
Are you sure about that? How many false alerts does this system produce? How many police officer's work is wasted by following up on these false alerts? What is the reaction of the typical kidnapper to hearing these alerts? How does the kidnapper's reaction affect the survival of the abducted child? What are the opportunity costs? How does the reduced attention of drivers looking for that one car affect their ability to avoid accidents? Do you have any data on any of these questions? Are the alerts actually a net positive?
Only someone supremely ignorant or biased would believe this to be noteworthy, let alone newsworthy - which pretty much proves my point.
So you insist that "lightest slap" and "maximum sentence" are the same thing and your argument for that is that the witch hunters aka the prosecutors almost always ask for the latter? The reason they get away with this abuse of the legal system is that they paint the accused as belonging to different group. He's not one of us. He's a hacker, or a terrorist, or simply not an American citizen. And suddenly all the imbeciles who can only the model the world in "good" and "evil" start cheering for their team no matter what their team does. Burn the witch! I mean U.S.A U.S.A U.S.A. That's the story. I'm sorry that you can't see it.
the digital generation seems to consider almost any charges as harsh, and any punishment but the lightest slap on the wrist as unconscionable
Ahh! The digital generation! They are not us, they are the others, they are the enemy, the muslim communist nazi terrorists. Meanwhile, in the real world, this story is about the prosecution urging the judge to impose the maximum sentence of 136 years on Manning. Are you capable of understanding the difference between "lightest slap" and "maximum sentence" or are you completely trapped in the us vs. them model?
Well, there's an additional factor as well
No. The imbecilic witch hunt, that you try to fuel with you post, is not an additional factor. It is the sole topic of TFA.
Why do you have to pick one? Can't you "fight" both? How much was Halliburton's cut? $50 billion over 10 years or something like that? Solyndra got $550 million. That's a whooping 1%. Note that I'm not defending Obama. Of course he should be punished for his crimes. I'm just providing some perspective.
Adaway works fine on my rooted 4.3 galaxy nexus.
They tested positive for Oxilofrine. That's an amphetamine, not coffee.
And as for the government's targets - do you want to bet money against me?
What is my opinion on the government's targets that you want to bet against?
The money spent on the research and advancement of renewable energy is a tiny fraction of the money spent on nuclear energy. The outcome of research is always open, "guaranteed to fail" is - I hate to say it - just another lie. If you can overcome your hate and anger you might find that the results are actually pretty impressive.
Nuclear plants, by the way, are not economically feasible. The only way to run a nuclear plant is to get indemnification for catastrophic failure from the state. The operators can not get insurance for that. They still have to socialize their cost and privatize their profits.
Building coal plants on the other hand is just plain stupid. No argument here. That's the reason for investing in renewable. The alternatives suck.
"unqualified success" is just another stupid lie. The real world takes place between the absurd extremes; the latter seem to be everything you are able to think in. As for your closing sentence, I'm sure you, as basically everybody else, has a family member who suffers from cancer. For a fun time, ask him what he thinks of your wish.
The goals of the investments were to significantly increase the percentage of renewable energy used in Germany and to give German companies a head start in the international renewable energy market. It is arguable if these goals have been met to the levels that were intended. "Abject" failure on the other hand is just another stupid lie.
Classic hydro is not what people usually think when they talk about 'renewable'.
All people that use that newfangled thing called internet seem to disagree with you.
If renewable energy is such bad idea, you don't have to lie about it, like GP did, to make your point. That was all I was commenting on. Germany's outsourcing of energy production to France et al point to real problems with Germany's approach. GP's stupid lies just muddy the water.
Hydro is renewable. What are you talking about?
Why do you make up numbers and trends? In 2012 25% of electricity generation was using renewable energy. The goal is to reach 30% by 2020. Current trends indicate it will be at 45%+ in 2020. It is rising more rapidly than previously planned. This numbers are not difficult to find. Why do you insist in living in a fantasy world? See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erneuerbare_Energie for Details.
I agree, it wouldn't be that difficult. But that is not what was done in the study. An undisclosed amount of four unnamed marker chemicals where added to the chemicals used for fracking by a company at one fracking site. Within the one year the study has been running, non of these markers where detected in a predetermined "monitoring zone". Maybe the study has some value, but since there is no citation in the article and the article contains no facts beside the ones I just mentioned, it is really hard to tell.
As I said, I had a really hard time understanding your last post. Maybe it's my trying to protect Linus, maybe it's your runaway sentences. Whatever, I was not trying to start an argument for argument's sake. Have a nice day, Sir!
I disagree and although I cannot be sure I do not believe it would be the full position of Linus, for example the "custom" of the group was to use BitKeeper and he decided to write git and get everybody to move to it, and I would credit him with the thought that if at that exact time the issues of BitKeeper became clear, a "new member" would have presented a program with more or less the featureset of git he would have adopted it and not suffered from NIH syndrome
I'm not sure if I understand what you are trying to say here. Linus wrote git. And we all are better of for having git. That's the aiming for the best results part. You seem to be claiming that this is irrelevant, because you can make up some hypothetical situation in which you can imagine Linus to fall for NIH syndrome. Is that really your argument?
well the "middle ground" is to architect the filesystem so that it can reasonably cleanly support a variety of file systems without too much cost to the "common base", and part of the negociation is to yell at people if they want to add stuff that would break something in the core in order to make it easier to support something that it not really indispensable.
"Fixing" something by breaking something else has already been tried multiple times in the kernel. It has always been a fiasco. If you aim for the best results you have to stop this practice.
From what I read about Linus's position, it is not that he is not about negotiating [...] and defining what yields the best result is a "negotiation"
Then you should reread what he actually wrote. His position is that breaking user land is not acceptable. His position is that this is not negotiable.
"sexist aggression", but "sexist strong language"
Where are his sexist comments? Citation needed.
And refusing to change because "we've always been doing things that way" is a good way to become stagnant and irrelevant.
That's a straw man. No one is arguing that "we've always been doing things that way". You just made that up. Linus' argument is: "The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I can't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle", and I mean it.
And the whole idea of "our way or no way" stinks, there is something called negociation and the middleground
That's the point Linus is trying to make. Linux development is not about negotiations and middle ground; he argues that both of them are just lame pc bullshit and that he only cares about choosing the development process that yields the best results.
If you hadn't noticed, people use a certain technology because it works to solve their problem. Marketing can help spur this but hardly determines the success of any technology. It is adopted/purchased/used because it works and is needed.
Bloodletting was used from 500 BC to 1800 AC. It didn't work, it was not needed, and did not solve any problems. "Marketing" was the sole factor in the success of bloodletting. This is only one of thousands, if not millions, of examples.
The other big advantage with FOSS is that the change and commit logs are publicly accessible. If you introduce a backdoor in a FOSS product you can't hide behind a corporation. Your own name is tied to that backdoor. This is a strong disincentive; decades of social, economic, and criminal studies prove that.