Odd we don't see many stories about the global shortage in female garbage collectors. Or janitors. And isn't a little bit 90's to go with the whole "Whoah, those powerful women are just too smart to go into computers! Girl powa!". It's not going to get you laid, I promise. Computers are a good field compared to most regardless of declining salaries or anything else.
Women aren't in computers because they tend not to be interested in it. Whether this is socialization or genetics or some mixture is up for debate, and of course there are exceptions but we see the ratio of men to women in computing because men are interested in or gifted in computing at a ratio higher than women.
They would be useful. Article is simply wrong. Sure, you don't have the shockwave but that much pure energy (even just the part that's shipward) would do a whole shitload of damage. You detonate the nuke when it hits the ship, I mean physically touches the ship. The ship will be destroyed. It's not like a ground based nuke where most damage comes from detonating in the air.
Oh stop your rabble rousing. The military provided very, very clear specifications for how this should work. They knew precisely if it had encryption or not. It's not like GA or anyone else "pulled one over" on the military for "evil profits".
I don't need evidence, you made an assertion. But here's a hint - a lot of the articles you're referring to had poor wording. Intel sold the Atom chip for $X alone, and for <$X in a 3 chip set. The 3 chip set, however, was still more than X.
Huang says that Intel sells the Atom chip alone for $45 but within a three-chip set (Atom processor, northbridge, southbridge) sells for only $25.
In other words, Oh Noesies! Intel gives bundle pricing like everyone else in the world!!
For the record, I guess saying you "lied" is a bit strong, I guess misinformed would be more polite but people keep saying Intel sold the Atom alone for more than the 3-chip set over and over like it's a fact and it's annoying.
Are you fucking kidding me? Intel didn't just "not test" it with AMD's stuff, they went out of their way to make sure it wouldn't work on it. And if AMD's processors didn't run x86 code properly a whole lot more people would notice then just the ones using Intel's compilers. Do you even have any clue how a compiler works?
Wow, you don't know much about, well, anything do you? If Intel just released a compiler with optimizations that may or may not work on AMD there would be hell to pay. Intel would have to thoroughly validate their compiler against AMD products.
Who's the clueless one, again? "Durr, can't they just release a compiler with optimizations targetted for a processor without thoroughly validating that said optimizations work on said processor?". Jesus Christ dude, really? Are you that stupid? Supporting (yes, even enabling support for) AMD chips would have cost Intel time and money, and not inconsiderable amounts of either. No one in their right mind will dictate that Intel should spend money giving AMD a free fucking compiler.
You are such a liar. They did not break any law. Find me any law dictating compiler design. Please.
These regulations are up for interpretation by whoever is in power at the time. Right now we have European style socialists in power, so they're choosing to interpret the regulations in their favor.
As for your laughable argument about the compiler, do you think any company is going to release a compiler and optimizations for their competitor? You do understand, unlike most of these facile idiots, that Intel would need to test the compiler on AMD products, right? Seriously - what kind of buffoon thinks Intel can just optimize for their own processors and just say "Well, we'll hope it works on AMD chips too - here you go!". No. They would need to invest time and considerable resources.
Any "regulation" which requires that a company purchase, develop for, and spend time validating their product on a competitor's product is just laughable.
Uhh, according to these angry dweebs: Microsoft. Microsoft is the reason someone stole paint from your neighbor. They are also at least largely responsible for global warming and for ugly nerds not getting laid.
Here's a question. BusyBox is just a bunch of optimized, small UNIX utilities right? What source were you expecting to get, and why didn't they just send you the BusyBox source itself? They are not linking against BusyBox, they are not using the source for busybox - so the only thing GPL related is making the BusyBox source itself available, no?
Yeah, that's why I mentioned "standard UNIX". You can certainly beef it up but I work in a very large, very complex Linux environment (fortune 50 computing company) that has Linux at the core of a lot of its engineering operations. Guess what - we use plain old NFS, plain old UNIX permissions, etc... Just like with Windows, you can secure the shit out of it if you want but most people don't. Most UNIX installations just use 80's era UNIX security implementations.
So I'm still laughing when UNIX people in my company (and most) say "UNIX Security". Until not long ago people were still widely using xhost X11 security, FFS. Crikies.
And even with NFSv4 (configured properly, mind you, not in the backwards compatible mode most probably run it in) or POSIX acls it's still a bolt on and not as flexible or powerful as Windows ACLs, user rights, and security policy support.
The problem with Windows is not its security model, it's poor security programming by Microsoft (who has gotten much better) and third party app vendors. It's also a problem with a dumber (per capita) population of users for Windows.
You mean the UNIX-esque model that...UNIX doesn't have? UNIX doesn't work that way, I'm not sure why you'd think it does. When you use sudo, su, or graphical variations on such you get the whole enchilada. In terms of an ACL/permissions model Windows is ahead of standard UNIX by a long ways, with ACLs and user rights built in from the core up. Going to a "UNIX-esque" model would be a giant step backwards. This is a simple technical truth.
Maybe you mean that great NFS model where the server trusts the client? Sure, you can restrict access to specific machines, but once a machine is trusted you let "any old user" tell the NFS server "oh, I'm John T Hayes by the way, trust me!". 'course there's Kerberos and other schemes, but how many sites actually use that?
People in glass houses should not throw stones. UNIX is not only no more immune to bad user behavior than Windows, it's far less immune. The problem is most Windows users are idiots while most UNIX users are fairly computer savvy.
You're confusing "judge and jury" with "self-defense". If you come at me shooting while holding an innocent in front of you, I'm probably going to shoot back. Guess what - if I shoot and kill the innocent you (not me) get the associated murder charge. You murdered the innocent by putting them in a situation where they could reasonably be expected to die by your actions.
People are reading a lot into this that isn't there. These people use Visual Studio, and I don't think they'd claim that using a GUI to design a...GUI is a bad thing. They're referring largely to the new modeling tools MS is pushing with VS2010, and they're saying sometimes it's quicker to just write the code than design the model. And indeed it is.
It's a tradeoff. For example, they already have some modeling tools (web service factory) for developing a web service. You layout interfaces, data contracts, message contracts, etc... and associate them visually. I think this sucks, personally, and I still just do it the old school (and much quicker, more powerful) method by creating an interface and data contracts. But for some scenarios designing the model might pay off in terms of self-documentation and allowing some standards to be followed by multiple developers working on a web service.
I don't think so. NYTimes, BBC, CNN et. al. aren't stupid enough to pull what Murdoch is pulling here. So they'd still be there. That would only leave the crap papers out, which might indicate to people "Google doesn't index trash".
So apparently they wouldn't be "stupid enough" to prevent their entire business from going underwater by charging money for their news content. If that's stupid, sign me up.
Rich people... yeah. The main problem is compared to most of the world most Americans are "rich people". If you've got a decent job in the US you have top notch healthcare.
Cool story bro. Now why the fuck should someone who is depressed be paid not to work? There is no rational though plan that allows for paying people disability payments for working based on "depression". How many poor ass people are poor because they're depressed and _never_ worked, are we going to pay them a significant portion of a normal salary because they're depressed? My rule, being sane, is that you never pay disability for something which someone can very, very easily fake - even if they're not faking it.
Wow, reading these posts I had no idea SlashDot was a haven for big government European style socialism. It's hilarious.
Unfortunately, many of you are also retarded for having poor reading comprehension. First, she's getting disability money and not working because she has depression? WTF. That alone is retarded. Second, she was seen "having a good time". If you can have a good time somewhere else, you can have one at work. Who doesn't hate their job? Now we're going to pay people not to work because they're depressed?
They didn't cancel her "insurance", they stopped paying her free money so she could go hang out at the beach and have a good time.
I make a decent living, but I'm not wealthy. I have better health care options than all but the wealthy French, Swiss, or (lol) Cubans. Period. The bum in the street downtown may not, but that's not really my primary concern.
Who gives a shit about dollars invested per capita? I (and most reasonable people) care about "how good is the health care I have access to". And for most people in the US, the answer is "the best in the world".
Don't bother. These dim bulbs don't understand. The US has the best healthcare in the world for most people. The "problem" is availability and because it's not 'free' our rankings have been lower than other countries where those rankings are created by people who care not for "how good is the health care an average employed person can get" but "how easy is it for _anyone_ to get healthcare".
Of course it is, it's all bullshit. The whole system is fucked. But any company that doesn't try to patent as much bullshit as they can will be sued by some asshole and at best pay a boatload of legal fees. Any idiot can see that these companies must play the game or it will cost them. Bit of a prisoner's dilemma.
A 3D canvas for rendering 3D is _not_ the same as what they're planning to do with IE9. This would be using directX to render fonts and web pages themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Odd we don't see many stories about the global shortage in female garbage collectors. Or janitors. And isn't a little bit 90's to go with the whole "Whoah, those powerful women are just too smart to go into computers! Girl powa!". It's not going to get you laid, I promise. Computers are a good field compared to most regardless of declining salaries or anything else.
Women aren't in computers because they tend not to be interested in it. Whether this is socialization or genetics or some mixture is up for debate, and of course there are exceptions but we see the ratio of men to women in computing because men are interested in or gifted in computing at a ratio higher than women.
They would be useful. Article is simply wrong. Sure, you don't have the shockwave but that much pure energy (even just the part that's shipward) would do a whole shitload of damage. You detonate the nuke when it hits the ship, I mean physically touches the ship. The ship will be destroyed. It's not like a ground based nuke where most damage comes from detonating in the air.
Oh stop your rabble rousing. The military provided very, very clear specifications for how this should work. They knew precisely if it had encryption or not. It's not like GA or anyone else "pulled one over" on the military for "evil profits".
I don't need evidence, you made an assertion. But here's a hint - a lot of the articles you're referring to had poor wording. Intel sold the Atom chip for $X alone, and for <$X in a 3 chip set. The 3 chip set, however, was still more than X.
See: Here
They had to correct the wording, it is actually:
Huang says that Intel sells the Atom chip alone for $45 but within a three-chip set (Atom processor, northbridge, southbridge) sells for only $25.
In other words, Oh Noesies! Intel gives bundle pricing like everyone else in the world!!
For the record, I guess saying you "lied" is a bit strong, I guess misinformed would be more polite but people keep saying Intel sold the Atom alone for more than the 3-chip set over and over like it's a fact and it's annoying.
Selling an Atom alone for more than the price of the same Atom bundled with a chipset
This never happened. You're lying and you got modded insightful. Nice job.
Are you fucking kidding me? Intel didn't just "not test" it with AMD's stuff, they went out of their way to make sure it wouldn't work on it. And if AMD's processors didn't run x86 code properly a whole lot more people would notice then just the ones using Intel's compilers. Do you even have any clue how a compiler works?
Wow, you don't know much about, well, anything do you? If Intel just released a compiler with optimizations that may or may not work on AMD there would be hell to pay. Intel would have to thoroughly validate their compiler against AMD products.
Who's the clueless one, again? "Durr, can't they just release a compiler with optimizations targetted for a processor without thoroughly validating that said optimizations work on said processor?". Jesus Christ dude, really? Are you that stupid? Supporting (yes, even enabling support for) AMD chips would have cost Intel time and money, and not inconsiderable amounts of either. No one in their right mind will dictate that Intel should spend money giving AMD a free fucking compiler.
You are such a liar. They did not break any law. Find me any law dictating compiler design. Please.
These regulations are up for interpretation by whoever is in power at the time. Right now we have European style socialists in power, so they're choosing to interpret the regulations in their favor.
As for your laughable argument about the compiler, do you think any company is going to release a compiler and optimizations for their competitor? You do understand, unlike most of these facile idiots, that Intel would need to test the compiler on AMD products, right? Seriously - what kind of buffoon thinks Intel can just optimize for their own processors and just say "Well, we'll hope it works on AMD chips too - here you go!". No. They would need to invest time and considerable resources.
Any "regulation" which requires that a company purchase, develop for, and spend time validating their product on a competitor's product is just laughable.
Uhh, according to these angry dweebs: Microsoft. Microsoft is the reason someone stole paint from your neighbor. They are also at least largely responsible for global warming and for ugly nerds not getting laid.
Here's a question. BusyBox is just a bunch of optimized, small UNIX utilities right? What source were you expecting to get, and why didn't they just send you the BusyBox source itself? They are not linking against BusyBox, they are not using the source for busybox - so the only thing GPL related is making the BusyBox source itself available, no?
This is trivial to accomplish with Windows or UNIX. Again - the standard UNIX security model is very simple and outdated.
Yeah, that's why I mentioned "standard UNIX". You can certainly beef it up but I work in a very large, very complex Linux environment (fortune 50 computing company) that has Linux at the core of a lot of its engineering operations. Guess what - we use plain old NFS, plain old UNIX permissions, etc... Just like with Windows, you can secure the shit out of it if you want but most people don't. Most UNIX installations just use 80's era UNIX security implementations.
So I'm still laughing when UNIX people in my company (and most) say "UNIX Security". Until not long ago people were still widely using xhost X11 security, FFS. Crikies.
And even with NFSv4 (configured properly, mind you, not in the backwards compatible mode most probably run it in) or POSIX acls it's still a bolt on and not as flexible or powerful as Windows ACLs, user rights, and security policy support.
The problem with Windows is not its security model, it's poor security programming by Microsoft (who has gotten much better) and third party app vendors. It's also a problem with a dumber (per capita) population of users for Windows.
You mean the UNIX-esque model that...UNIX doesn't have? UNIX doesn't work that way, I'm not sure why you'd think it does. When you use sudo, su, or graphical variations on such you get the whole enchilada. In terms of an ACL/permissions model Windows is ahead of standard UNIX by a long ways, with ACLs and user rights built in from the core up. Going to a "UNIX-esque" model would be a giant step backwards. This is a simple technical truth.
Maybe you mean that great NFS model where the server trusts the client? Sure, you can restrict access to specific machines, but once a machine is trusted you let "any old user" tell the NFS server "oh, I'm John T Hayes by the way, trust me!". 'course there's Kerberos and other schemes, but how many sites actually use that?
People in glass houses should not throw stones. UNIX is not only no more immune to bad user behavior than Windows, it's far less immune. The problem is most Windows users are idiots while most UNIX users are fairly computer savvy.
You're confusing "judge and jury" with "self-defense". If you come at me shooting while holding an innocent in front of you, I'm probably going to shoot back. Guess what - if I shoot and kill the innocent you (not me) get the associated murder charge. You murdered the innocent by putting them in a situation where they could reasonably be expected to die by your actions.
People are reading a lot into this that isn't there. These people use Visual Studio, and I don't think they'd claim that using a GUI to design a...GUI is a bad thing. They're referring largely to the new modeling tools MS is pushing with VS2010, and they're saying sometimes it's quicker to just write the code than design the model. And indeed it is.
It's a tradeoff. For example, they already have some modeling tools (web service factory) for developing a web service. You layout interfaces, data contracts, message contracts, etc... and associate them visually. I think this sucks, personally, and I still just do it the old school (and much quicker, more powerful) method by creating an interface and data contracts. But for some scenarios designing the model might pay off in terms of self-documentation and allowing some standards to be followed by multiple developers working on a web service.
I don't think so. NYTimes, BBC, CNN et. al. aren't stupid enough to pull what Murdoch is pulling here. So they'd still be there. That would only leave the crap papers out, which might indicate to people "Google doesn't index trash".
So apparently they wouldn't be "stupid enough" to prevent their entire business from going underwater by charging money for their news content. If that's stupid, sign me up.
Rich people... yeah. The main problem is compared to most of the world most Americans are "rich people". If you've got a decent job in the US you have top notch healthcare.
Cool story bro. Now why the fuck should someone who is depressed be paid not to work? There is no rational though plan that allows for paying people disability payments for working based on "depression". How many poor ass people are poor because they're depressed and _never_ worked, are we going to pay them a significant portion of a normal salary because they're depressed? My rule, being sane, is that you never pay disability for something which someone can very, very easily fake - even if they're not faking it.
Wow, reading these posts I had no idea SlashDot was a haven for big government European style socialism. It's hilarious.
Unfortunately, many of you are also retarded for having poor reading comprehension. First, she's getting disability money and not working because she has depression? WTF. That alone is retarded. Second, she was seen "having a good time". If you can have a good time somewhere else, you can have one at work. Who doesn't hate their job? Now we're going to pay people not to work because they're depressed?
They didn't cancel her "insurance", they stopped paying her free money so she could go hang out at the beach and have a good time.
I make a decent living, but I'm not wealthy. I have better health care options than all but the wealthy French, Swiss, or (lol) Cubans. Period. The bum in the street downtown may not, but that's not really my primary concern.
Who gives a shit about dollars invested per capita? I (and most reasonable people) care about "how good is the health care I have access to". And for most people in the US, the answer is "the best in the world".
Don't bother. These dim bulbs don't understand. The US has the best healthcare in the world for most people. The "problem" is availability and because it's not 'free' our rankings have been lower than other countries where those rankings are created by people who care not for "how good is the health care an average employed person can get" but "how easy is it for _anyone_ to get healthcare".
I have an idea. How about she work? That'll get her out. Paying people not to work because they have depression? Wtf?
That's not from smoking, it's from dust and dander in the air. His father probably has pets.
Of course it is, it's all bullshit. The whole system is fucked. But any company that doesn't try to patent as much bullshit as they can will be sued by some asshole and at best pay a boatload of legal fees. Any idiot can see that these companies must play the game or it will cost them. Bit of a prisoner's dilemma.
A 3D canvas for rendering 3D is _not_ the same as what they're planning to do with IE9. This would be using directX to render fonts and web pages themselves.