This is how American engineers worked for 100 years. From the first railroads and factories until the Japanese auto invasion. 'When in doubt, double the strength!' And there was always doubt because materials science in the US was poorly understood and often ignored.
Then the Japanese brought us thoughtfully engineered vehicles which were lighter, safer, more reliable and less expensive.
Nice myth. Did you know that a 2018 Toyota Camry weighs pretty much the same as a 1951 Chevy Malibu?
Here's the interesting thing about your argument. I didn't say copyright violation was good or legal, I just said it wasn't theft. The only place we disagreed was on exactly how the law was violated. If someone went to your concert, made a recording without permission, and packaged and sold it at Walmart, they would be guilty of copyright violation. If you took them to court and claim "theft" on the petition, you would lose. If you took them to court and claimed "copyright violation", you would win.
This isn't a simple terminology mix-up, this is a deliberate attempt by content owners to make copyright violation seem more black-and-white than it really is and to garner sympathy from onlookers. You either have swallowed the bait and are running with it, or you are one of those who are trying to change public opinion by misrepresenting the issue.
Words are words. Copyright violation is not theft, it's copyright violation. We can't have nice things because the best way to monetize media is the two-pronged approach of first getting laws passed that favor your industry, then using those laws to sell the same thing over and over again. It's perfectly valid to point out the lunacy of our current legal situation in regards to copyright.
He's already changed, now he's doing the leg work. The old Linus would have never made this statement. The specific change is that he's now aware that changing his behavior will benefit the community. Previously, he believed that his harshness was for the benefit of the community.
That's a reasonable tradeoff. Maybe work could be done for whitelisting specific scenarios - like a CallerID/ANI combination. That also could be kept within the carrier since the only problems the original solution would introduce is calling someone on the same carrier via one of these services.
That's making the problem too difficult. Just have carriers not accept inbound calls when the caller id indicates a number owned by the receiving carrier. This requires no cooperation and could be implemented tomorrow by any carrier.
Even easier - carriers shouldn't accept a call from outside their network if the caller id is for a number that's inside the network. That would stop 95% of the spam calls I get.
Cryptocurrency is just a technical mechanism to create a token that can only be "owned" by a single wallet. The underlying mechanism isn't revolutionary and has no inherent value. The value comes from whatever backs the currency - in the end it won't beat fiat currency, it will simple be the new fiat currency. You'll see its adoption increase when we get rid of this ridiculous idea of "mining" and a currency is introduced by a stable authority by simply filling an originating wallet while simultaneously destroying a quantity of some other fiat currency.
BTW, blockchain is just an improved version of hash chaining, which has been around for about forty years. I've been hash chaining log records since the 90's whenever someone asks to me provide a tamper-proofing mechanism that would be a tremendous amount of work to circumvent.
I'm well aware of the existence of the Z-Series and that it runs *nix. I'm also aware that IBM has a huge open source presence and a large installed base of web applications on WebSphere. However, Apple doesn't strike me as the type of company that "buys IBM". My comment wasn't about some supposed irrelevance of mainframes, it was about the fact that Apple isn't the kind of company that would gravitate to them.
School taxes are linked to property taxes because that's how we make sure that the schools with the wealthy people get most of the money. If you "fixed" that, you would have a riot on your hands - most of the upper middle class would lose of ton of home value if their schools were suddenly funded the same as all of the other schools.
Although you probably shouldn't put a whole lot of stock in that website's characterization of things. The article states that Union Carbide held the opinion that asbestos was harmless in 1974, and it turns out my father was a Union Carbide employee at that time. His job was to go to their asbestos customers, educated them on the proper handling and risks, inspect their operation, and cut off any customers that were behaving recklessly.
The new rules certainly shouldn't be approved as is. However, this isn't a fight about what uses of asbestos are within our tolerance of human health risks, it's about the fact that the proposed rules are procedurally stupid and full of loopholes. The coverage of this policy seems to be painted with the brush of rolling back regulation to an excessive extent when that isn't the issue here. If you read the actual complaints from the scientists ( https://int.nyt.com/data/docum... ), none of them cite any content in the new rules that is inherently unsafe, just that the rules are written in a way that if a use is left off the list, that use is by default allowed rather than prohibited.
The comment I responded to equated this rules change to bringing back PCB's. This is not true for the reasons I stated. As a side note, he also equated it to bringing back DDT, while the extent to which we prohibit DDT seemed to be the cause of millions of deaths in impoverished nations around the turn of the century. This fact is certainly arguable, but it does make a good example that the real world is often a balance of several courses of action, all of which have negative consequences.
All true. However, asbestos can be used safely, so allowing it under a set of well designed rules does make sense. For example, the US has spent many millions of dollars to replace asbestos containing floor tile when there is so little risk in that particular product that it's likely that more people died in the resulting construction activity than would have died had in been left there. Even if the building was used as a daycare, heck even if the building was eventually demolished with explosives.
Asbestos is a unique health threat. Unlike arsenic or radium, the physical shape of an asbestos specimen affects its toxicity. Large fibers and any amount of asbestos embedded in a matrix get filtered out in the nose and throat. Really small fibers don't cause damage as they pass through the lining of the lungs and exit the body. Its the three to ten micron fibers that will kill you by turning your lungs into scar tissue.
Asbestos embedded in pretty much anything is rarely dangerous. Even the mountains that are very high in asbestos content in California and Colorado pose little health risk. Asbestos processed for use as insulation is the most dangerous, asbestos on wear surfaces like brakes are also something to worry about.
BTW, I used to work in the asbestos removal industry and I have given training on the health effect of asbestos. For a few years, I worked as a lab tech determining if material was asbestos containing. We did low tech analysis where we verified that nothing existed in a sample that was of the correct morphology to be hazardous asbestos - in which case the customer could forego the expense of determining if it really was asbestos. We did high tech analysis where we used an electron microscope to determine the exact crystal structure of an item under study to conclusively determine if it was or wasn't asbestos.
Guy who found more than 30 iOS bugs says he sees a pattern that indicates Apple is failing at the fundamentals. Guy with access to a PDF say he's wrong. Guess who has the stronger case?
I'm not sure what the [facepalm] was for, everything you said is perfectly obvious to me. That's simply the feedback cycle of wealthy people and good education. If a school improves for reasons other than money, housing values will increase, crowding poor people out. If a well-funded school squanders their money, the wealthy will leave the district, cause housing values to plummet. That's simply more examples of the strong correlation between expensive housing and good schooling. Notice that I said correlation, not causation. That fact that the correlation works both ways is precisely why I said "good luck fixing this".
If we actually wanted to fix it... we would stop the whole concept of "school district" and have entrance exams, then bus kids to the school they earned entry into. Of course, then the wealthy would spend more on test prep, getting their kids into better schools than their aptitude should warrant.
I don't think so. Flagship phones are more fashion accessory than technology. If the prices of $3000 dresses go up, it doesn't affect WalMart's clothing prices.
The iPhone X exists for one reason: so its owner can say "I can afford an iPhone X". Their increased sales are a result of more of the world using technology for wealth signaling. No surprises here, flashy things with little intrinsic value have always existed and will never go away.
If you don't believe wealth signaling is a thing then you aren't paying attention. It's not as obvious as "status symbol", but people notice brand name shoes, bags, jeans, dresses, cars, and phones. We've all come up with rationalizations so we don't feel like judgmental assholes, but we all do it to some extent. I like to think I'm more rational than the typical American, but there's no way I'm going to a job interview not wearing a good suit. There is no functional purpose for the suit, but I know I'm improving my chances of getting the job by looking like I don't need it.
The problem is rich vs poor and the rich corruptly gaming the system against the poor.
Good luck fixing this. The rich aren't stupid and they know the key to their children's future is a good education. Today we have insured this by linking school spending to property taxes, creating a very strong correlation between expensive housing and good schooling. If you "fix" this, you will end up with mediocre public education everywhere and the rich will simply pull their kids out and send them to private schools. This will create political pressure to reduce public school spending, making private school the only place to get a decent education.
Seems unlikely. A foreign government would never need to ask to review public source code, so there would never be an approval for which paperwork would be necessary.
https://www.cvedetails.com/ disagrees with you. The concept of packaging local dependencies has been around forever and always leads to the same problem: now there are a bunch of places to go and fix a vulnerability and some of them never get fixed. See: OpenSSL.
Of course the fix to this is to centralize dependencies, which leads to broken software. The only way to address both is active package maintenance and diligent patching. Of course, that's easier said than done, which is why people are always looking for silver bullet solutions.
Nobody solved the library problem. The requirements are self-conflicting. Everyone wants stable dependencies and security updates that apply everywhere with one update. Today we are migrating towards stability with containerization, pretty soon the pendulum will swing the other way when billion of containers have outdated libraries and have lost their maintainer.
Nope. The theaters are against MoviePass and are refusing to enter into any types of arrangements. That's why MoviePass subscribers can't get reserved seats at most theaters. At first the theaters said it was because the whole concept of MoviePass was repugnant to them and devalued the service they provide. Now that both Regal and AMC have their own competing service, it's obvious that the theaters really don't want to help the competition. Either way, MoviePass isn't getting any special treatment and seems to be paying retail price for tickets. So, there is no losses to recoup from the theater's perspective and from MoviePass's perspective, they don't get a dime of the concession stand income.
No. This experiment was specifically designed to test General Relativity. If anyone else wants their theory tested, they should propose a testable outcome unique to their theory, then design an experiment to perform the appropriate measurements, and finally convince enough people that this experiment has enough scientific potential to secure funding.
Meta-studies that use data gathered from other experiments are notorious for producing poor quality results. At best they should be used as a basis for securing funding for a proper study. This whole idea of trying to infer other things from study data is why there are now a lot of proposals to publish the intent of an experiment before performing it to reduce the occurrences of p-hacking and other statistical nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
This is how American engineers worked for 100 years. From the first railroads and factories until the Japanese auto invasion. 'When in doubt, double the strength!' And there was always doubt because materials science in the US was poorly understood and often ignored.
Then the Japanese brought us thoughtfully engineered vehicles which were lighter, safer, more reliable and less expensive.
Nice myth. Did you know that a 2018 Toyota Camry weighs pretty much the same as a 1951 Chevy Malibu?
Here's the interesting thing about your argument. I didn't say copyright violation was good or legal, I just said it wasn't theft. The only place we disagreed was on exactly how the law was violated. If someone went to your concert, made a recording without permission, and packaged and sold it at Walmart, they would be guilty of copyright violation. If you took them to court and claim "theft" on the petition, you would lose. If you took them to court and claimed "copyright violation", you would win.
This isn't a simple terminology mix-up, this is a deliberate attempt by content owners to make copyright violation seem more black-and-white than it really is and to garner sympathy from onlookers. You either have swallowed the bait and are running with it, or you are one of those who are trying to change public opinion by misrepresenting the issue.
Theft is theft
Words are words. Copyright violation is not theft, it's copyright violation. We can't have nice things because the best way to monetize media is the two-pronged approach of first getting laws passed that favor your industry, then using those laws to sell the same thing over and over again. It's perfectly valid to point out the lunacy of our current legal situation in regards to copyright.
He's already changed, now he's doing the leg work. The old Linus would have never made this statement. The specific change is that he's now aware that changing his behavior will benefit the community. Previously, he believed that his harshness was for the benefit of the community.
That's a reasonable tradeoff. Maybe work could be done for whitelisting specific scenarios - like a CallerID/ANI combination. That also could be kept within the carrier since the only problems the original solution would introduce is calling someone on the same carrier via one of these services.
That's making the problem too difficult. Just have carriers not accept inbound calls when the caller id indicates a number owned by the receiving carrier. This requires no cooperation and could be implemented tomorrow by any carrier.
Even easier - carriers shouldn't accept a call from outside their network if the caller id is for a number that's inside the network. That would stop 95% of the spam calls I get.
Cryptocurrency is just a technical mechanism to create a token that can only be "owned" by a single wallet. The underlying mechanism isn't revolutionary and has no inherent value. The value comes from whatever backs the currency - in the end it won't beat fiat currency, it will simple be the new fiat currency. You'll see its adoption increase when we get rid of this ridiculous idea of "mining" and a currency is introduced by a stable authority by simply filling an originating wallet while simultaneously destroying a quantity of some other fiat currency.
BTW, blockchain is just an improved version of hash chaining, which has been around for about forty years. I've been hash chaining log records since the 90's whenever someone asks to me provide a tamper-proofing mechanism that would be a tremendous amount of work to circumvent.
I'm well aware of the existence of the Z-Series and that it runs *nix. I'm also aware that IBM has a huge open source presence and a large installed base of web applications on WebSphere. However, Apple doesn't strike me as the type of company that "buys IBM". My comment wasn't about some supposed irrelevance of mainframes, it was about the fact that Apple isn't the kind of company that would gravitate to them.
Who here believes that Apple stores its data on a mainframe?
School taxes are linked to property taxes because that's how we make sure that the schools with the wealthy people get most of the money. If you "fixed" that, you would have a riot on your hands - most of the upper middle class would lose of ton of home value if their schools were suddenly funded the same as all of the other schools.
If you're looking for where to calibrate the meter, the answer is King City: http://www.mesothelioma-attorn...
Although you probably shouldn't put a whole lot of stock in that website's characterization of things. The article states that Union Carbide held the opinion that asbestos was harmless in 1974, and it turns out my father was a Union Carbide employee at that time. His job was to go to their asbestos customers, educated them on the proper handling and risks, inspect their operation, and cut off any customers that were behaving recklessly.
The new rules certainly shouldn't be approved as is. However, this isn't a fight about what uses of asbestos are within our tolerance of human health risks, it's about the fact that the proposed rules are procedurally stupid and full of loopholes. The coverage of this policy seems to be painted with the brush of rolling back regulation to an excessive extent when that isn't the issue here. If you read the actual complaints from the scientists ( https://int.nyt.com/data/docum... ), none of them cite any content in the new rules that is inherently unsafe, just that the rules are written in a way that if a use is left off the list, that use is by default allowed rather than prohibited.
The comment I responded to equated this rules change to bringing back PCB's. This is not true for the reasons I stated. As a side note, he also equated it to bringing back DDT, while the extent to which we prohibit DDT seemed to be the cause of millions of deaths in impoverished nations around the turn of the century. This fact is certainly arguable, but it does make a good example that the real world is often a balance of several courses of action, all of which have negative consequences.
All true. However, asbestos can be used safely, so allowing it under a set of well designed rules does make sense. For example, the US has spent many millions of dollars to replace asbestos containing floor tile when there is so little risk in that particular product that it's likely that more people died in the resulting construction activity than would have died had in been left there. Even if the building was used as a daycare, heck even if the building was eventually demolished with explosives.
Asbestos is a unique health threat. Unlike arsenic or radium, the physical shape of an asbestos specimen affects its toxicity. Large fibers and any amount of asbestos embedded in a matrix get filtered out in the nose and throat. Really small fibers don't cause damage as they pass through the lining of the lungs and exit the body. Its the three to ten micron fibers that will kill you by turning your lungs into scar tissue.
Asbestos embedded in pretty much anything is rarely dangerous. Even the mountains that are very high in asbestos content in California and Colorado pose little health risk. Asbestos processed for use as insulation is the most dangerous, asbestos on wear surfaces like brakes are also something to worry about.
BTW, I used to work in the asbestos removal industry and I have given training on the health effect of asbestos. For a few years, I worked as a lab tech determining if material was asbestos containing. We did low tech analysis where we verified that nothing existed in a sample that was of the correct morphology to be hazardous asbestos - in which case the customer could forego the expense of determining if it really was asbestos. We did high tech analysis where we used an electron microscope to determine the exact crystal structure of an item under study to conclusively determine if it was or wasn't asbestos.
Guy who found more than 30 iOS bugs says he sees a pattern that indicates Apple is failing at the fundamentals. Guy with access to a PDF say he's wrong. Guess who has the stronger case?
I'm not sure what the [facepalm] was for, everything you said is perfectly obvious to me. That's simply the feedback cycle of wealthy people and good education. If a school improves for reasons other than money, housing values will increase, crowding poor people out. If a well-funded school squanders their money, the wealthy will leave the district, cause housing values to plummet. That's simply more examples of the strong correlation between expensive housing and good schooling. Notice that I said correlation, not causation. That fact that the correlation works both ways is precisely why I said "good luck fixing this".
If we actually wanted to fix it... we would stop the whole concept of "school district" and have entrance exams, then bus kids to the school they earned entry into. Of course, then the wealthy would spend more on test prep, getting their kids into better schools than their aptitude should warrant.
I don't think so. Flagship phones are more fashion accessory than technology. If the prices of $3000 dresses go up, it doesn't affect WalMart's clothing prices.
The iPhone X exists for one reason: so its owner can say "I can afford an iPhone X". Their increased sales are a result of more of the world using technology for wealth signaling. No surprises here, flashy things with little intrinsic value have always existed and will never go away.
If you don't believe wealth signaling is a thing then you aren't paying attention. It's not as obvious as "status symbol", but people notice brand name shoes, bags, jeans, dresses, cars, and phones. We've all come up with rationalizations so we don't feel like judgmental assholes, but we all do it to some extent. I like to think I'm more rational than the typical American, but there's no way I'm going to a job interview not wearing a good suit. There is no functional purpose for the suit, but I know I'm improving my chances of getting the job by looking like I don't need it.
The problem is rich vs poor and the rich corruptly gaming the system against the poor.
Good luck fixing this. The rich aren't stupid and they know the key to their children's future is a good education. Today we have insured this by linking school spending to property taxes, creating a very strong correlation between expensive housing and good schooling. If you "fix" this, you will end up with mediocre public education everywhere and the rich will simply pull their kids out and send them to private schools. This will create political pressure to reduce public school spending, making private school the only place to get a decent education.
Seems unlikely. A foreign government would never need to ask to review public source code, so there would never be an approval for which paperwork would be necessary.
it wont matter how outdated it is
https://www.cvedetails.com/ disagrees with you. The concept of packaging local dependencies has been around forever and always leads to the same problem: now there are a bunch of places to go and fix a vulnerability and some of them never get fixed. See: OpenSSL.
Of course the fix to this is to centralize dependencies, which leads to broken software. The only way to address both is active package maintenance and diligent patching. Of course, that's easier said than done, which is why people are always looking for silver bullet solutions.
Nobody solved the library problem. The requirements are self-conflicting. Everyone wants stable dependencies and security updates that apply everywhere with one update. Today we are migrating towards stability with containerization, pretty soon the pendulum will swing the other way when billion of containers have outdated libraries and have lost their maintainer.
Nope. The theaters are against MoviePass and are refusing to enter into any types of arrangements. That's why MoviePass subscribers can't get reserved seats at most theaters. At first the theaters said it was because the whole concept of MoviePass was repugnant to them and devalued the service they provide. Now that both Regal and AMC have their own competing service, it's obvious that the theaters really don't want to help the competition. Either way, MoviePass isn't getting any special treatment and seems to be paying retail price for tickets. So, there is no losses to recoup from the theater's perspective and from MoviePass's perspective, they don't get a dime of the concession stand income.
No. This experiment was specifically designed to test General Relativity. If anyone else wants their theory tested, they should propose a testable outcome unique to their theory, then design an experiment to perform the appropriate measurements, and finally convince enough people that this experiment has enough scientific potential to secure funding.
Meta-studies that use data gathered from other experiments are notorious for producing poor quality results. At best they should be used as a basis for securing funding for a proper study. This whole idea of trying to infer other things from study data is why there are now a lot of proposals to publish the intent of an experiment before performing it to reduce the occurrences of p-hacking and other statistical nonsense.