"Angered at Righthaven’s behavior, a Las Vegas federal judge unsealed the company’s heretofore confidential agreement [...]"
Not that I'm complaining, but... what did Righthaven do to anger the judge? Were their lawyers being dicks? Was the contract itself what angered the judge? Truly, I'd like to know.
The whole point of trying to run a business with the sole purpose of making income by suing people is probably quite angering to judges. After all, courts are not meant to be used for business, they're meant for solving actual real problems.
1) Some wars are fought over resources - like the Kenya-Ethiopia conflicts. So are those war refugees also environmental refugees? Its not very clear who you count.
2) The UN article started with a total of 25 million environmental refugees in 1995 and predicted it could double by 2010. That's where the 50 million number comes from. I don't see anyone providing the actual number now. How far off are they?
I'm all for saving the planet, but as long as the "greener" products cost way more than the standard ones, I'll probably remain a polluter.
Stupid Fucker, You're all for saving the planet as long as it cost's you zero, or as long as you don't have to change your habits. Go fuck yourself.
Complain about attitude if you want, but its normal behavior. What needs to happen is that all of the actual costs have to go into a product, either by levying the costs from the manufacturers or adding a tax on the product. Fuel has long had road use tax, for example, to pay for the roads needed by vehicles. If there is a cost due to a product destroying the environment, then that cost should be added. That's what the "gas guzzler" tax is, it just isn't high enough to make a difference at this point.
I would be ok with a "waste disposal surcharge" on products that are over-packaged. Especially ones that use styrofoam peanuts.
You forget the engine size and weight should be smaller so even if it's the same efficiency, you will get better gas mileage due to weight reduction. That said, i'm more interested in the possibility of it being more reliable since you don't have to deal with as much parts/fluids. This is especially true for those who don't know enough about cars to actually maintain them like checking fluid levels ever so often.
Well, I'll wait to see it in an actual car before I put any hopes in it. Who knows if there are issues that have to be dealt with using this new engine.
Since it eliminates transmission, crankshaft, pistons and valves, it should be much cheaper to build and maintain. Cost and reliability (also a form of cost) are the major factors driving innovation in automotive engineering. Fuel efficiency is only on the list due to CAFE.
Just short of mind control, really. We're holding your future self for ransom and if you don't put your money in the the 401(k) he's gonna get it! It's also weirdly like the Wolfenstein HUD in that your character's face is used to communicate status.
Such a technology as this is really an abandonment of rationalism -- we concede we can't use empirical arguments and evidence about saving and retirement to convince people to save, so now we'll just scare them. Notice that people are only manipulated into saving, and not into thinking about what to put their money into, which is the actual decision people are making. How will your face look if you discover in 20 years the stocks you were buying were a house of cards, and that the only reason you were putting your money into them is because your corporate HR department was guilting you. You should decide how to save their money with a sound mind, free of the sort of manufactured anxieties bank and stock broker marketers use to induce new customers, which is all this is.
It is manipulation, but I think there is an important point to it. People don't value the future as much as the present. They don't feel a connection to their future old selves. This introduces them to the future, not to shock or scare them, but so they can identify with a possible reality.
This week I'm at my mother-in-law's place in Florida - no savings, just Social Security. It does give you a lesson in reality. You can live on that, but not well.
What if I want to work there but don't want to pay dues to an organization who uses the funds to push agendas I don't agree with?
Unions essentially make being a democrat a requirement of employment. To top it all off, someone ELSE has to deal with the ever-increasing costs of deals forced by entitled union workers... Unions are the machinery which ensures the last straw is delivered to the camel's back.
Unions do NOT rock.
Having worked in a union: a) nobody forces any political position on you b) do you think if unions didn't exist that anybody's wages would go UP? Why? Because the company owners are so generous? c) go work in a steel plant for a week and tell me how "entitled" you feel.
As for pushing an agenda you don't agree with; I guess you think everyone at Cisco wants lower corporate taxes; everyone at Diebold supported Bush; and everyone at Microsoft wants to lower immigration barriers for high-tech workers. That's what their CEOs are lobbying for with the profits from your work.
What if they share that info with insurance companies, and you end up paying more for life or car insurance because they flag you for buying alcohol in an amount they consider excessive? Or condoms, or pregnancy tests.
If that information was passed without consent, yes, it would be sinister. But what if you willingly allowed the information to be passed to your insurer? Then the insurer could rely on positive selection (as opposed to adverse selection of people who didn't consent) as well as monitoring to give you a better rate.
Ahem *cough*. It's not necessarily the phone company that does the evil. I suspect pretty much all telecoms have external taps in place. Perhaps a sealed room at their premises, where some fibers are pulled. Nondisclosure requirements for their staff. I don't think there ever was any technical obstacle to gathering every single location update that goes into the Home Location Register and storing it for eternity. This data compresses rather well. Now imagine a giant ant hill where every worker can be tracked with great precision, at all times.
It's interesting that the FCC fined carriers who didn't get all their customers onto location-enabled phones by the end of 2005. When was the last time you heard of a government agency so concerned with the good of the people?
For emergency calls you do not need to record the cell phone location for any more time than after the next few locations come in. We have already established that cell phone companies need to know where the subscriber is in order to route calls to them. The question is, why do they need to store that information. The answer, if you had just bothered to RTFA, is that they don't need to. The German company in the article has completely stopped doing so now.
They stopped because Europe has privacy laws. There is no reason for a US telecom to stop collecting or using "their" data.
The only exceptions that I will accept as reasonable are a very narrow area regarding national security.
The only way to make that work is if there is a penalty for classifying something without justification. As it stands now, anything can be classified for any reason with no repercussions.
I suspect he means that O-O is anti-modular because it splits a program into many methods which are typically spread across many files. Although this is a valuable tool when you are doing top-down design on a large problem in the real world, it gets in the way of learning the principles of CS where you want to separately teach about program flow and data structures.
1. Scummy marketing firm gets ad contract 2. License song for "personal use" on youtube 3. Embed youtube link in customer's corporate website 5. Profit!
Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want.
This propagates a common misconception about the "free" aspect of the GPL. GPL software is not unencumbered - it has an ironclad, legal license. Nobody is forced to use the GPL on the software that they write, but those who do have decided that is the way that they are willing to license their software. You as a user have two options - don't distribute somebody else's software in violation of their license, or live by the rules if you do. In either case, you can still use the software yourself, modify it, do whatever you want; you just don't have a free and clear license to distribute. For an end user its great. For somebody trying to rip off somebody else's code, it sucks. That's the point.
Slashdot Mirror
You left out the most important point, which is that you can get this data for any phone by asking the phone service provider.
I don't know what the problem is, the DHCP protocol is supposed to prevent any conflicts, even when faced with clients that don't release their lease.
This was discussed in the article.
The protocol is supposed to function like this:
1) The client sends a DHCPDISCOVER message
2) Servers with free IPs in their pools are going to send a ICMP ECHO to any address they are going to offer, just in case it has already been taken.
Which they do. They point out that sometimes android doesn't respond to the ping
2) One ore more DHCP servers respond with DHCPOFFER messages.
3) The client picks a address form the DHCPOFFERS and sends a DHCPREQUEST for that address.
4) The DHCP server responds with DHCPACK, signifying that the IP now belongs to the client.
5) At any moment after this, the client can ask for a lease extension by sending an DHCPREQUEST.
Wrong. You can only send DHCPREQUEST up to the time your lease expires. Android is sending it AFTER the lease has expired.
In any case, there is never going to be any conflicts or "unused" IP addresses, hanging around.
Wrong. After the lease expires and the IP is given to a new client Android continues to use it.
Would you ever sue a large company if that were the law? It would be too great a risk.
"Angered at Righthaven’s behavior, a Las Vegas federal judge unsealed the company’s heretofore confidential agreement [...]"
Not that I'm complaining, but... what did Righthaven do to anger the judge? Were their lawyers being dicks? Was the contract itself what angered the judge? Truly, I'd like to know.
The whole point of trying to run a business with the sole purpose of making income by suing people is probably quite angering to judges. After all, courts are not meant to be used for business, they're meant for solving actual real problems.
At least not when the judge isn't getting a cut.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/voices/2011/02/post-24.html
Other points to note are:
1) Some wars are fought over resources - like the Kenya-Ethiopia conflicts. So are those war refugees also environmental refugees? Its not very clear who you count.
2) The UN article started with a total of 25 million environmental refugees in 1995 and predicted it could double by 2010. That's where the 50 million number comes from. I don't see anyone providing the actual number now. How far off are they?
IBM states that it does not finance, fund, sponsor or promote Groklaw; IBM does not have any agreements or arrangements with Groklaw or Pamela Jones
from an IBM court filing: document 621-6, pp11-12. You think they would jeopardize their whole case by lying in court?
I'm all for saving the planet, but as long as the "greener" products cost way more than the standard ones, I'll probably remain a polluter.
Stupid Fucker, You're all for saving the planet as long as it cost's you zero, or as long as you don't have to change your habits. Go fuck yourself.
Complain about attitude if you want, but its normal behavior. What needs to happen is that all of the actual costs have to go into a product, either by levying the costs from the manufacturers or adding a tax on the product. Fuel has long had road use tax, for example, to pay for the roads needed by vehicles. If there is a cost due to a product destroying the environment, then that cost should be added. That's what the "gas guzzler" tax is, it just isn't high enough to make a difference at this point.
I would be ok with a "waste disposal surcharge" on products that are over-packaged. Especially ones that use styrofoam peanuts.
You forget the engine size and weight should be smaller so even if it's the same efficiency, you will get better gas mileage due to weight reduction. That said, i'm more interested in the possibility of it being more reliable since you don't have to deal with as much parts/fluids. This is especially true for those who don't know enough about cars to actually maintain them like checking fluid levels ever so often.
Well, I'll wait to see it in an actual car before I put any hopes in it. Who knows if there are issues that have to be dealt with using this new engine.
Since it eliminates transmission, crankshaft, pistons and valves, it should be much cheaper to build and maintain. Cost and reliability (also a form of cost) are the major factors driving innovation in automotive engineering. Fuel efficiency is only on the list due to CAFE.
Corn-based ethanol is looking less and less attractive:
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CN/M
Too bad US politics is disproportionately influenced by the Iowa caucus. Other wise ethanol subsidies would be gone.
that's a good idea, but do you really want to be posting in the group that's breeding gremlins?
... from Slava Turyshev which describes what they did to model the craft and show that heat could be the culprit.
http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/pioneer_anomaly/update_20080519.html
Does ONSTAR tell you that they can listen to your conversations in the car without any indication? They can. I think its a lot like ONSTAR.
Just short of mind control, really. We're holding your future self for ransom and if you don't put your money in the the 401(k) he's gonna get it! It's also weirdly like the Wolfenstein HUD in that your character's face is used to communicate status.
Such a technology as this is really an abandonment of rationalism -- we concede we can't use empirical arguments and evidence about saving and retirement to convince people to save, so now we'll just scare them. Notice that people are only manipulated into saving, and not into thinking about what to put their money into, which is the actual decision people are making. How will your face look if you discover in 20 years the stocks you were buying were a house of cards, and that the only reason you were putting your money into them is because your corporate HR department was guilting you. You should decide how to save their money with a sound mind, free of the sort of manufactured anxieties bank and stock broker marketers use to induce new customers, which is all this is.
It is manipulation, but I think there is an important point to it. People don't value the future as much as the present. They don't feel a connection to their future old selves. This introduces them to the future, not to shock or scare them, but so they can identify with a possible reality.
This week I'm at my mother-in-law's place in Florida - no savings, just Social Security. It does give you a lesson in reality. You can live on that, but not well.
What if I want to work there but don't want to pay dues to an organization who uses the funds to push agendas I don't agree with?
Unions essentially make being a democrat a requirement of employment. To top it all off, someone ELSE has to deal with the ever-increasing costs of deals forced by entitled union workers... Unions are the machinery which ensures the last straw is delivered to the camel's back.
Unions do NOT rock.
Having worked in a union:
a) nobody forces any political position on you
b) do you think if unions didn't exist that anybody's wages would go UP? Why? Because the company owners are so generous?
c) go work in a steel plant for a week and tell me how "entitled" you feel.
As for pushing an agenda you don't agree with; I guess you think everyone at Cisco wants lower corporate taxes; everyone at Diebold supported Bush; and everyone at Microsoft wants to lower immigration barriers for high-tech workers. That's what their CEOs are lobbying for with the profits from your work.
Seems to even have a working Select method.
As long as you can still get to the low-level stuff if you need to, I don't see anything wrong with having higher layers of abstraction.
Lisp is based on Lambda Calculus from the 1930's.
What if they share that info with insurance companies, and you end up paying more for life or car insurance because they flag you for buying alcohol in an amount they consider excessive? Or condoms, or pregnancy tests.
If that information was passed without consent, yes, it would be sinister. But what if you willingly allowed the information to be passed to your insurer? Then the insurer could rely on positive selection (as opposed to adverse selection of people who didn't consent) as well as monitoring to give you a better rate.
You did give consent. Try reading the fine print.
Ahem *cough*. It's not necessarily the phone company that does the evil. I suspect pretty much all telecoms have external taps in place. Perhaps a sealed room at their premises, where some fibers are pulled. Nondisclosure requirements for their staff. I don't think there ever was any technical obstacle to gathering every single location update that goes into the Home Location Register and storing it for eternity. This data compresses rather well. Now imagine a giant ant hill where every worker can be tracked with great precision, at all times.
It's interesting that the FCC fined carriers who didn't get all their customers onto location-enabled phones by the end of 2005. When was the last time you heard of a government agency so concerned with the good of the people?
How can it be quiet if you don't answer your phone when it's ringing?
For emergency calls you do not need to record the cell phone location for any more time than after the next few locations come in. We have already established that cell phone companies need to know where the subscriber is in order to route calls to them. The question is, why do they need to store that information. The answer, if you had just bothered to RTFA, is that they don't need to. The German company in the article has completely stopped doing so now.
They stopped because Europe has privacy laws. There is no reason for a US telecom to stop collecting or using "their" data.
The only exceptions that I will accept as reasonable are a very narrow area regarding national security.
The only way to make that work is if there is a penalty for classifying something without justification. As it stands now, anything can be classified for any reason with no repercussions.
I suspect he means that O-O is anti-modular because it splits a program into many methods which are typically spread across many files. Although this is a valuable tool when you are doing top-down design on a large problem in the real world, it gets in the way of learning the principles of CS where you want to separately teach about program flow and data structures.
Yes it produces more powerful methodologies, because of the synergistic effects that objects have with modern cloud environments.
You forgot "enterprise". You need to include the word somewhere in the sentence or management won't take you seriously.
Would not work:
1. Scummy marketing firm gets ad contract
2. License song for "personal use" on youtube
3. Embed youtube link in customer's corporate website
5. Profit!
Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want.
This propagates a common misconception about the "free" aspect of the GPL. GPL software is not unencumbered - it has an ironclad, legal license. Nobody is forced to use the GPL on the software that they write, but those who do have decided that is the way that they are willing to license their software. You as a user have two options - don't distribute somebody else's software in violation of their license, or live by the rules if you do. In either case, you can still use the software yourself, modify it, do whatever you want; you just don't have a free and clear license to distribute. For an end user its great. For somebody trying to rip off somebody else's code, it sucks. That's the point.