Thus the reason why I said "radical fringe". The vast majority of Iranians (heck, the vast majority of EVERYONE) are great people. They want stability, safety, a chance to make their way through life with justice and pride. The radical fringe represents a very very small portion of the populace and some of those who use a misrepresentation of their religion as an excuse to commit atrocities. (something that is hardly limited to the Muslim religion)
Having a nuke will not prevent the US from attacking Iran. What WILL keep the US out though is Russia and China. So long as Russia and China play middle men, Iran is pretty safe. But if Iran were to be linked to a nuclear incident, I can't imagine their support would be as strong, and the door would open wide for a unilateral UN/US lead assault.
"How long do you think a sitting Iranian prime minister would last, preaching reconciliation with Israel?"
If they maintained stability, opened trading options to the west, improved employment and GDP/export, I would say that they would have no problem keeping the popular support. So long as they didn't screw things up with the iatola, they would be in pretty good shape. But a charasmatic leader can always find faults in the status quo, and it's through scetchy promises for a better tomorrow while pointing the finger at the incumbant, they can take what had been a prosperous and stable nation, and push it to the brink of war.
"If Iran, say, smuggled a nuke into Israel to wipe it out in a surprise attack, it knows damn well that would result in a nuclear exchange with America they are simply not capable of "winning","
There's a problem with that statement. To the radical fringe, the destruction of Israel IS "winning". And in the case of Iran you could wind up with a case of plausible deniability with state sponsored terrorism. The US would not nuke Iran for the actions of a terrorist unit. Israel likely would though.
"which would wreck any chance Iran has at being top dog in the middle east, which is what they are really shooting for."
That would be what the majority of the populace desires. Stability, economic success, improved living conditions, much like everyone in the world. But when you wind up with extremists in government, some scary goals can wind up on the country's "to-do" list. Hell, just look at what's happened since Bush took over here!
"America may not be able to invade Iran and hold it, but it is certainly capable of an utterly devastating retaliatory strike, and if a nuclear weapon went off in Israel, it would be able to do so with the moral high ground in the world political theatre."
In today's situation? Highly doubtful. The Iranian government would claim it was the actions of independent terrorist. The UN would sanction anyone who counter struck with a Nuke. Bush would probably try to mount the US military for yet another middle east campaign, although there would be wider support from other nations. But unless things are significantly better handled in Iran then there were in Iraq, you'll wind up with the same situation all over again. But that gets into a whole other conversation about military ques, controlling a population, and urban gorilla warfare.
The focus will not be on the US, but on Israel. The elected and religious leaders of Iran have sworn to destroy Israel. But Israel is the only state in the Middle East theater with a Nuclear Arsenal. So long as they have a nuke, and now one else does, Iran will not make a move, because no matter how many troops they poor over the border, Israel could nuke them in an instant. But.... If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, then you reach a state of mutually assured destruction. If Israel launches a nuke at Iran, Iran will nuke back, so neither will nuke each other. Instead of stabilizing the theater though, it opens the door for open ground troop warfare. Now, the Israelis have an amazingly well trained, organized, and efficient army, but Iran has more people, and would get religious and political extremists, terrorist backing, and financial support from other states in the theater.
If Iraq has stabilized somewhat at this point, it would become the forward launching point for a multinational ('Westernized' nations) attack force that would decimate Iran. If Iraq is not stabilized, it means higher troop concentrations in Israel, and other quasi-supportive nations (like Turkey) from which to launch the campaign from.
From TFA: "The RIAA also argues that should the attorneys' fees award stand, it would deter other copyright owners from pursuing infringement claims."
So let's get this straight, if the Judge sticks to his initial decision it will deter other copyright owners from filling more frivolous lawsuits? Heck, that sounds like a good reason to NOT change his mind!
An interesting thought. Wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_d octrine it sounds almost like it would be more usable in a situation with a divorced couple where a disgruntled parent of the child could sue the other parent. Although the word 'trespass' might be hard to interpret to mean 'unsupervised use of computer'.
It is that simple. The war in Iraq has never been about Iraq. And Bush wont present an exit strategy because there has never been one. The goal this whole time was to turn Iraq into a Western friendly/control democracy that could be used as a stable military forward post to act as a deterant, initial response, and long term support in the event that war were to break out with Iran.
I wrote this journal entry a while ago (I don't know if it was 1, 2 or 3 years ago now, stupid/. date format), you might find it interesting: http://slashdot.org/~RingDev/journal/127531
Not to mention that we already get Iraqi oil... from Kuwait. Why do you think Saddam invaded them anyways? They were pumping oil out of the same fields as Iraq.
A friend of mine graduated from a local Tech college with a degree in Electrical Engineering. His degree, being from a tech college, was much more geared towards tradesman work.
He recently was hired on with a company doing bleeding edge work with lasers and microscopic imagery. Everyone one of his co-workers had Electrical Engineering degrees from local Universities (all very focused on theory). The other engineers were capable of creating amazing machines, but the problem was that each machine had to be hand built, each had custom configured PC hardware and software, each was made up of a number of boxes and excessive amounts of wire. While my friend may not have been able to create such a machine from scratch, he was able to greatly reduce the feet of wire used, reduce interference, implement a single box solution, standardize the PC hardware and software, and greatly improve the quality, timeliness, and appearance of the units.
So, I would want BOTH designing a NASA space vehicle. The Thinkers to make it great, and the Tradesmen to make it practical.
There are times when the government must create jobs. I agree with you though that this is NOT one of those times.
Also, remember that the representatives of each State are working for the best possible outcome _for their own State_. If this contract were to go through, it would represent a huge growth in the industry in California. That means more jobs, more high tech industry along with machine line assembly, more federal dollars coming into California, and more State tax revenue.
It is absolutely in the interest of Pelosi and the voting public of California to get this contract. Luckily though, there are 49 other states (err, 48 if Virginia also gets some NG love), that will see this as something that is NOT in their interests and vote against it.
In her defense, she is probably looking at this as the industry and job creation possibilities for California. Political corruption aside, I have no idea what, if any, kick backs she is getting for such a recommendation. But her Californian constituents could see this as an opportunity for job creation ($X Billion over 20 years, all spent in California). So while it most definitely is NOT in the best interest of the United States, it is of very high interest to California.
Seagate defines MTBF as "The average time before a failure will occur. This is not a warranty measurement. It is a calculation taking into consideration the MTBF of each component in a system, as well as, the statistical average operation time between the starting lifetime of a unit and the time of a failure. After a product has been in the field for a few years, the MTBF can become a field proven statistic." http://support.seagate.com/support/glossary/terms/ mean_time_between_failure.html
Maybe I'm off in left field or something, but I was under the belief that MTBF was similar to LD50. Meaning that if something has 182 years MTBF, and I have 100 of them, 50 of them will be dead at 182 years.
You're mearly trading one person's freedom for another's. I'm with Linus on this one (woh, there's something that doesn't happen often!) The whole GPLv3 VS DRM arguement is full of blowhards on either side of the road. GPL will not end DRM any more than the DRM limitations will end GPL.
Yes, but the contract he signed with the state for employment as a police officer likely has no clause or expectations for software development. He likely has no right to overtime however, he may be able to get his union to put some muscle in for the overtime argument if he loses the code though.
As I said before, a contract is of no value (other than what the signing parties give it) until a judge rules on it. Which means that no one here likely has a clue what the outcome will be. Once the lawyers present their arguments (which that state law on public domain you mentioned may apply) we will have a better idea of what's going on. This story isn't so interesting in the 'look at this developer getting screwed' way so much as it is in the 'look at the possible president this case could set' way. I hope this story is followed up on as it progresses.
The fact that he did it on their equipment, or that he didn't sign an agreement does not (SFAIK) make the code belong to either him or the State. What it does mean though is that there is a bit of gray area. A nuetral judge will have to listen to both sides of the story and make a decision based on the laws presented under each argument. Even if he did sign an agreement, it doesn't mean that the company 'owns' the code, it just reduces the gray area.
A contract is just a piece of paper until you are in court.
The complexity of power generation go well beyond the scope of the GF, which is pretty much what they said in their press release. A lot of the exhaust cleaning systems depend on fuel quality. So while GF could invest tens of millions dollars in some power plant to get it up to snuff for efficiency and emissions, one bad load of fuel and half the equipment would be thrashed anyways. Tack on to that the bureaucratic difficulty in altering a power plant, the time line for such an investment, and any other complications that would come up. Investing millions upon millions of dollars over a decade in a single power plant that may improve a small local area... it's harder to justify than spending a set amount of money on a shipment of AIDS medication to South Africa, something that has an immediately measurable impact.
I just wanted to let everyone know that my left butt cheek is fine. Any damage that it may have sustained is not related to any terrorist attack or plot. We must be ever vigilant though, less the terrorist forces do manage to injure my left butt cheek.
This has been a public service reminder. Remember, be afraid of terrorist, you need us, we keep you safe, you have nothing to fear from an oppressive government unless you are an enemy of the government.
Lets say the GF is investing in a toxic spewing power plant in a 3rd world country. People could cry foul and demand that GF pull out their money. But if GF pulled their money out of that power plant, the medical center they invested in just 2 miles down the road wouldn't have stable electricity. With out medical care, the quality of life remains abysmal. Also with out the stable electricity that plant produces, local businesses would suffer and close. Unemployement would rise, and the local social situation would deteriorate even more. Many people would cry for a new clean burning power plant. But it could take a decade to get such a plant designed, cleared by the government, built and operational.
And the PR would be impossible to manage. If you claim to be investing responsibly, and someone wants to take a shot at you, they can say "look at these liars, they claim innocence, yet spew toxic waste from their power plants." It makes a great sound bit, and can be easily spread and widely believed (People will believe anything if they either want it to be true, or fear it to be true). Spreading the truth of the situation would require your audience to take time to rationally think about the situation in a more broad scope. That is something that the 2000 and 2004 US elections have shown us to be a highly unlikely event.
If the title was sitting on the dash, definately. I may see if there is contact information for the owner, but if it is advertised, and the title and keys were sitting right there, why not? I've seen people do some strange things to screw their spouse in divorse cases.
Slashdot Mirror
Thus the reason why I said "radical fringe". The vast majority of Iranians (heck, the vast majority of EVERYONE) are great people. They want stability, safety, a chance to make their way through life with justice and pride. The radical fringe represents a very very small portion of the populace and some of those who use a misrepresentation of their religion as an excuse to commit atrocities. (something that is hardly limited to the Muslim religion)
Having a nuke will not prevent the US from attacking Iran. What WILL keep the US out though is Russia and China. So long as Russia and China play middle men, Iran is pretty safe. But if Iran were to be linked to a nuclear incident, I can't imagine their support would be as strong, and the door would open wide for a unilateral UN/US lead assault.
-Rick
"How long do you think a sitting Iranian prime minister would last, preaching reconciliation with Israel?"
If they maintained stability, opened trading options to the west, improved employment and GDP/export, I would say that they would have no problem keeping the popular support. So long as they didn't screw things up with the iatola, they would be in pretty good shape. But a charasmatic leader can always find faults in the status quo, and it's through scetchy promises for a better tomorrow while pointing the finger at the incumbant, they can take what had been a prosperous and stable nation, and push it to the brink of war.
-Rick
"If Iran, say, smuggled a nuke into Israel to wipe it out in a surprise attack, it knows damn well that would result in a nuclear exchange with America they are simply not capable of "winning","
There's a problem with that statement. To the radical fringe, the destruction of Israel IS "winning". And in the case of Iran you could wind up with a case of plausible deniability with state sponsored terrorism. The US would not nuke Iran for the actions of a terrorist unit. Israel likely would though.
"which would wreck any chance Iran has at being top dog in the middle east, which is what they are really shooting for."
That would be what the majority of the populace desires. Stability, economic success, improved living conditions, much like everyone in the world. But when you wind up with extremists in government, some scary goals can wind up on the country's "to-do" list. Hell, just look at what's happened since Bush took over here!
"America may not be able to invade Iran and hold it, but it is certainly capable of an utterly devastating retaliatory strike, and if a nuclear weapon went off in Israel, it would be able to do so with the moral high ground in the world political theatre."
In today's situation? Highly doubtful. The Iranian government would claim it was the actions of independent terrorist. The UN would sanction anyone who counter struck with a Nuke. Bush would probably try to mount the US military for yet another middle east campaign, although there would be wider support from other nations. But unless things are significantly better handled in Iran then there were in Iraq, you'll wind up with the same situation all over again. But that gets into a whole other conversation about military ques, controlling a population, and urban gorilla warfare.
-Rick
The focus will not be on the US, but on Israel. The elected and religious leaders of Iran have sworn to destroy Israel. But Israel is the only state in the Middle East theater with a Nuclear Arsenal. So long as they have a nuke, and now one else does, Iran will not make a move, because no matter how many troops they poor over the border, Israel could nuke them in an instant. But.... If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, then you reach a state of mutually assured destruction. If Israel launches a nuke at Iran, Iran will nuke back, so neither will nuke each other. Instead of stabilizing the theater though, it opens the door for open ground troop warfare. Now, the Israelis have an amazingly well trained, organized, and efficient army, but Iran has more people, and would get religious and political extremists, terrorist backing, and financial support from other states in the theater.
If Iraq has stabilized somewhat at this point, it would become the forward launching point for a multinational ('Westernized' nations) attack force that would decimate Iran. If Iraq is not stabilized, it means higher troop concentrations in Israel, and other quasi-supportive nations (like Turkey) from which to launch the campaign from.
-Rick
From TFA: "The RIAA also argues that should the attorneys' fees award stand, it would deter other copyright owners from pursuing infringement claims."
So let's get this straight, if the Judge sticks to his initial decision it will deter other copyright owners from filling more frivolous lawsuits? Heck, that sounds like a good reason to NOT change his mind!
-Rick
So you can get the trial by jury, but if you do, the case will not hold precedence?
-Rick
An interesting thought. Wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_d octrine it sounds almost like it would be more usable in a situation with a divorced couple where a disgruntled parent of the child could sue the other parent. Although the word 'trespass' might be hard to interpret to mean 'unsupervised use of computer'.
It's atleast something though.
-Rick
Can you demand a trial by jury in Civil court? And do Civil trials set precedence?
-Rick
An interesting thought. Could the perpetrators sue the parent's for entrapment?
"You raised your kid to be a sex offender magnet!"
-Rick
It is that simple. The war in Iraq has never been about Iraq. And Bush wont present an exit strategy because there has never been one. The goal this whole time was to turn Iraq into a Western friendly/control democracy that could be used as a stable military forward post to act as a deterant, initial response, and long term support in the event that war were to break out with Iran.
/. date format), you might find it interesting: http://slashdot.org/~RingDev/journal/127531
I wrote this journal entry a while ago (I don't know if it was 1, 2 or 3 years ago now, stupid
-Rick
Not to mention that we already get Iraqi oil... from Kuwait. Why do you think Saddam invaded them anyways? They were pumping oil out of the same fields as Iraq.
-Rick
They probably wouldn't be too upset. Integrated solar shingles have come a long way: http://www.solar-components.com/pvshingl.htm
-Rick
A friend of mine graduated from a local Tech college with a degree in Electrical Engineering. His degree, being from a tech college, was much more geared towards tradesman work.
He recently was hired on with a company doing bleeding edge work with lasers and microscopic imagery. Everyone one of his co-workers had Electrical Engineering degrees from local Universities (all very focused on theory). The other engineers were capable of creating amazing machines, but the problem was that each machine had to be hand built, each had custom configured PC hardware and software, each was made up of a number of boxes and excessive amounts of wire. While my friend may not have been able to create such a machine from scratch, he was able to greatly reduce the feet of wire used, reduce interference, implement a single box solution, standardize the PC hardware and software, and greatly improve the quality, timeliness, and appearance of the units.
So, I would want BOTH designing a NASA space vehicle. The Thinkers to make it great, and the Tradesmen to make it practical.
-Rick
There are times when the government must create jobs. I agree with you though that this is NOT one of those times.
Also, remember that the representatives of each State are working for the best possible outcome _for their own State_. If this contract were to go through, it would represent a huge growth in the industry in California. That means more jobs, more high tech industry along with machine line assembly, more federal dollars coming into California, and more State tax revenue.
It is absolutely in the interest of Pelosi and the voting public of California to get this contract. Luckily though, there are 49 other states (err, 48 if Virginia also gets some NG love), that will see this as something that is NOT in their interests and vote against it.
-Rick
In her defense, she is probably looking at this as the industry and job creation possibilities for California. Political corruption aside, I have no idea what, if any, kick backs she is getting for such a recommendation. But her Californian constituents could see this as an opportunity for job creation ($X Billion over 20 years, all spent in California). So while it most definitely is NOT in the best interest of the United States, it is of very high interest to California.
-Rick
Cisco defines MTBF as "Mean time between failure. Time at which 50% of the units of interest will have failed; used as a measure of the time a user might reasonably expect a device or system to work before a fault occurs." http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/me ls/dwdm/dwdm_gl.htm#xtocid1301111
i lure
/ mean_time_between_failure.html
f
wiki defines MTBF as the reciprocal of the Failure rate (1 failure/16 million hours -> 16 million hours until a unit fails) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_time_between_fa
Seagate defines MTBF as "The average time before a failure will occur. This is not a warranty measurement. It is a calculation taking into consideration the MTBF of each component in a system, as well as, the statistical average operation time between the starting lifetime of a unit and the time of a failure. After a product has been in the field for a few years, the MTBF can become a field proven statistic." http://support.seagate.com/support/glossary/terms
Western Digital's definition is also very similar http://westerndigital.com/en/library/gloss0803.pd
In none of the definitions I can find online have I seen the warranty time span come into play.
If this drive has a 1.6 million hour MTBF you should indeed get 1.6 million hours of use from it.
From a batch perspective, if you had 182 of these drives, after 1 year, 1 of them would have a 50% chance of failing.
-Rick
The 'Guardian' product is developed by Northrop Grumman, which, you guessed it! Has offices in California:
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Corporate Headquarters
1840 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067-2199
(310) 553-6262
Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems
One Northrop Grumman Avenue
El Segundo, California 90245
(310) 332-1000
Northrop Grumman Space Technology
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California 90278
(310) 812-4321
-Rick
Maybe I'm off in left field or something, but I was under the belief that MTBF was similar to LD50. Meaning that if something has 182 years MTBF, and I have 100 of them, 50 of them will be dead at 182 years.
-Rick
You're mearly trading one person's freedom for another's. I'm with Linus on this one (woh, there's something that doesn't happen often!) The whole GPLv3 VS DRM arguement is full of blowhards on either side of the road. GPL will not end DRM any more than the DRM limitations will end GPL.
-Rick
Yes, but the contract he signed with the state for employment as a police officer likely has no clause or expectations for software development. He likely has no right to overtime however, he may be able to get his union to put some muscle in for the overtime argument if he loses the code though.
As I said before, a contract is of no value (other than what the signing parties give it) until a judge rules on it. Which means that no one here likely has a clue what the outcome will be. Once the lawyers present their arguments (which that state law on public domain you mentioned may apply) we will have a better idea of what's going on. This story isn't so interesting in the 'look at this developer getting screwed' way so much as it is in the 'look at the possible president this case could set' way. I hope this story is followed up on as it progresses.
-Rick
The fact that he did it on their equipment, or that he didn't sign an agreement does not (SFAIK) make the code belong to either him or the State. What it does mean though is that there is a bit of gray area. A nuetral judge will have to listen to both sides of the story and make a decision based on the laws presented under each argument. Even if he did sign an agreement, it doesn't mean that the company 'owns' the code, it just reduces the gray area.
A contract is just a piece of paper until you are in court.
-Rick
The complexity of power generation go well beyond the scope of the GF, which is pretty much what they said in their press release. A lot of the exhaust cleaning systems depend on fuel quality. So while GF could invest tens of millions dollars in some power plant to get it up to snuff for efficiency and emissions, one bad load of fuel and half the equipment would be thrashed anyways. Tack on to that the bureaucratic difficulty in altering a power plant, the time line for such an investment, and any other complications that would come up. Investing millions upon millions of dollars over a decade in a single power plant that may improve a small local area... it's harder to justify than spending a set amount of money on a shipment of AIDS medication to South Africa, something that has an immediately measurable impact.
-Rick
I just wanted to let everyone know that my left butt cheek is fine. Any damage that it may have sustained is not related to any terrorist attack or plot. We must be ever vigilant though, less the terrorist forces do manage to injure my left butt cheek.
This has been a public service reminder. Remember, be afraid of terrorist, you need us, we keep you safe, you have nothing to fear from an oppressive government unless you are an enemy of the government.
-Rick
In some cases it is just not possible.
Lets say the GF is investing in a toxic spewing power plant in a 3rd world country. People could cry foul and demand that GF pull out their money. But if GF pulled their money out of that power plant, the medical center they invested in just 2 miles down the road wouldn't have stable electricity. With out medical care, the quality of life remains abysmal. Also with out the stable electricity that plant produces, local businesses would suffer and close. Unemployement would rise, and the local social situation would deteriorate even more. Many people would cry for a new clean burning power plant. But it could take a decade to get such a plant designed, cleared by the government, built and operational.
And the PR would be impossible to manage. If you claim to be investing responsibly, and someone wants to take a shot at you, they can say "look at these liars, they claim innocence, yet spew toxic waste from their power plants." It makes a great sound bit, and can be easily spread and widely believed (People will believe anything if they either want it to be true, or fear it to be true). Spreading the truth of the situation would require your audience to take time to rationally think about the situation in a more broad scope. That is something that the 2000 and 2004 US elections have shown us to be a highly unlikely event.
-Rick
If the title was sitting on the dash, definately. I may see if there is contact information for the owner, but if it is advertised, and the title and keys were sitting right there, why not? I've seen people do some strange things to screw their spouse in divorse cases.
-Rick