If the scientific community valued reproducibility as much as original work, we would solve 2 problems:
1) Science without confirmation can lead us astray for years. 2) There are plenty of scientists who a great at experimentation but lousy at coming up with new ideas, and these scientists (or potential scientists) may not be finding their full potential.
And while we're at it, let's value failed experiments as much as successful experiments.
Operating system-level virtualization is a server virtualization method where the kernel of an operating system allows for multiple isolated user-space instances, instead of just one. Such instances (often called containers, VEs, VPSs or jails) may look and feel like a real server, from the point of view of its owner.
On Unix-based systems, this technology can be thought of as an advanced implementation of the standard chroot mechanism. In addition to isolation mechanisms, the kernel often provides resource management features to limit the impact of one container's activities on the other containers.
So my takeaway is that each container would feel like a full virtual machine, but with only the overhead of separate user-spaces and without the overhead of loading an entire operating system into each. A neat approach, really.
I guess the problem, then, is that the regulation is restricting the "good" ones who play by the rules. I think as a society we want to encourage those types to provide jobs and push our economy forward.
Now that doesn't mean I think the answer is "no regulation". Regulation, like the rules of football and baseball, help to maximize the goal of the game (or in this case, economic growth and stability). We need to be smart about finding the rules that help the game without making it boring or detrimental. Sometimes we have to decide to revert the rule about kicking off from the 30 yard line... it seemed like a good fun rule on paper, but caused too many injuries, which is detrimental.
The kind of person who does what it takes to become a billionaire CEO is not likely the kind of person who will simply "comply". Many of them got to their positions because they bent, if not blatantly broke, the rules.
I never said "free" charging. Just the opportunity to charge, probably for a fee.
For that matter, some places might subsidize the electric eventually, but I doubt that would happen to begin with... especially considering that it would be unfair to those who don't have electric cars.
This is a chicken-and-egg problem, but once a critical mass buys electric cars, you'll start to seeing them in parking lots at your apartment, work, at restaurants, and many other places you spend time. They will do this because it offers a competitive advantage, the same way that offering free wifi does.
Gas stations will also provide this service, but I figure they will mostly go extinct once the entire country converts to electric (assuming this actually happens).
I guess it should also be pointed out that income tax subsidies on energy-efficient improvements start out looking like a win for Democrats, until they realize that poor and lower-middle-class folks can't afford to pay the up-front costs for energy efficient automobiles, air conditioning units, windows, doors, solar panels, etc.
Those subsidies primarily benefit the wealthy and put more tax burden on the poor, so then Democrats want to reduce the subsidies (which, of course, reduces the incentive to go green).
Democrats are dumb enough to give all power to the government, even when it could mean that Republicans (or someone much more terrible) may inherit that power.
Why stop there? If you posit that religion is the single cause for most of those problems world-wide, then you must also see that certain religions are highly correlated to many of those issues, while other religions have a low or inverse correlation.
And before someone tells me, "Hey, switch to Android and you can have all the widgets you want!"... well, I have... so no need for the fanboys to get in a hissy.
Well, Steve Jobs was pretty much the same way. The biggest difference is that in most cases, he was either 1) right or 2) wise enough not to jump on the bandwagon before fully designing the product.
And frankly, even if DRM was the primary intent, it's one of the less annoying DRMs since 1) online multiplayer, by definition, requires the Internet, and 2) economics:
Let's take the Xbox One. Microsoft claims to be adding 3 more Xbox One units for each one sold in the cloud, but really that's based on an average or maximum use situation. In reality they will have 300,000 cloud machines powering the number of users that might be gaming at any one time. Compare that to the cost of quadrupling the power of the Xbox One in the 80M consumer machines that will be sold over the next several years. And that doesn't even touch on the cost efficiency of heavily optimized power and cooling conditions in a server farm.
Of course, the cloud will be working on the latency-agnostic calculations, things like AI and up-front scene lighting calculations and of course simply serving multiplayer games and anything that needs to be calculated the same for all players. But that frees up your local system resources for those things that can't be offloaded to the cloud.
They stopped my wife from taking home a jar of apple jelly she got while on our honeymoon. It said "10 oz." on the jar. Weight, mind you, not volume... it very well may have been under the 3.4 fluid ounce/100ml limit. But try convincing a TSA agent of that.
I'm sorry, I don't buy it. ("It" meaning that this is the cause or that you are a Microsoft employee.)
*How* are the mouse coordinates getting messed up? Because the developers at Microsoft can't write scaling code? It's very simple math. A few unit tests and it's golden. Are you telling me, as a Microsoft employee, that your developers can't write unit tests or do basic geometry for one of the primary functions on the project responsible for the biggest profits of one of the richest companies in the world?
It would certainly help those who have preexisting daylight saving time. But I would rather have a single-time system.
Obamatime doesn't let you use choose time from across state boundaries, most people lose more time than they gain, and nobody can find out the time because of the http://timecare.gov/ fiasco. Besides, the President doesnt even participate in it; he gets to keep his own time zone.
It seems every time the word "irony" is used, somebody has to try to pick it apart. And many times they are wrong.
I used the term in reference to the original post about antitrust laws. The expectation is that antitrust laws would exist and be executed in order to prevent the consortium from gaining anti-competitive power. The irony is that the opposite has actually resulted, in that laws exist to now allow the consortium to gain anti-competitive power.
It's not about strong vs. weak federal system. It's about checks and balances. In this case, the states and the federal government were meant to balance each other and provide a system of checks against each other.
It's about making it so that one small group of people (politicians) don't have total control over the nation, its economy, its military, etc. Imagine what a madman could do with that kind of power today.
Well, that was the intent, but now I fear we have given the group in D.C. irrevocable control over those things, and we're just waiting for a madman to step into office.
- the website was being built for 3 years and new regulations required gutting the whole thing - or, it was decided to not start any development on it until all regulations were approved, knowing that there would only be a few months to get it working
I could accept the first, but the second is just irresponsible.
You have just confirmed everything I was saying. There was a political atmosphere against the ACA, and the Democrats pushed it anyway despite the fact that the result was completely predictable.
Just remember that those same people who pushed against the ACA in the first place were elected by real people who care about these issues. And they were reelected after the fact. And reelected again. Agree with them or not, they were elected (and FWIW, the same argument can be used about Obama).
Just because the public will was to put Obama in office, that doesn't mean the public will was health insurance reform that just makes everything worse for the majority of people. Obama should have made it abundantly clear during the campaign that his presidency was going to push single payer, and then he should have done so. At least then he would be doing things that have the backing of the people and not something that few really like, all in the name of compromising with a group that was sure to never compromise.
Slashdot Mirror
You really should have bet that as 0.1 BTC.
If the scientific community valued reproducibility as much as original work, we would solve 2 problems:
1) Science without confirmation can lead us astray for years.
2) There are plenty of scientists who a great at experimentation but lousy at coming up with new ideas, and these scientists (or potential scientists) may not be finding their full potential.
And while we're at it, let's value failed experiments as much as successful experiments.
From Wikipedia:
Docker is an open source project that automates the deployment of applications inside software containers.
And then:
Operating system-level virtualization is a server virtualization method where the kernel of an operating system allows for multiple isolated user-space instances, instead of just one. Such instances (often called containers, VEs, VPSs or jails) may look and feel like a real server, from the point of view of its owner.
On Unix-based systems, this technology can be thought of as an advanced implementation of the standard chroot mechanism. In addition to isolation mechanisms, the kernel often provides resource management features to limit the impact of one container's activities on the other containers.
So my takeaway is that each container would feel like a full virtual machine, but with only the overhead of separate user-spaces and without the overhead of loading an entire operating system into each. A neat approach, really.
I guess the problem, then, is that the regulation is restricting the "good" ones who play by the rules. I think as a society we want to encourage those types to provide jobs and push our economy forward.
Now that doesn't mean I think the answer is "no regulation". Regulation, like the rules of football and baseball, help to maximize the goal of the game (or in this case, economic growth and stability). We need to be smart about finding the rules that help the game without making it boring or detrimental. Sometimes we have to decide to revert the rule about kicking off from the 30 yard line... it seemed like a good fun rule on paper, but caused too many injuries, which is detrimental.
The kind of person who does what it takes to become a billionaire CEO is not likely the kind of person who will simply "comply". Many of them got to their positions because they bent, if not blatantly broke, the rules.
If the government adds a regulation, somebody will find a way around it.
I never said "free" charging. Just the opportunity to charge, probably for a fee.
For that matter, some places might subsidize the electric eventually, but I doubt that would happen to begin with... especially considering that it would be unfair to those who don't have electric cars.
This is a chicken-and-egg problem, but once a critical mass buys electric cars, you'll start to seeing them in parking lots at your apartment, work, at restaurants, and many other places you spend time. They will do this because it offers a competitive advantage, the same way that offering free wifi does.
Gas stations will also provide this service, but I figure they will mostly go extinct once the entire country converts to electric (assuming this actually happens).
I guess it should also be pointed out that income tax subsidies on energy-efficient improvements start out looking like a win for Democrats, until they realize that poor and lower-middle-class folks can't afford to pay the up-front costs for energy efficient automobiles, air conditioning units, windows, doors, solar panels, etc.
Those subsidies primarily benefit the wealthy and put more tax burden on the poor, so then Democrats want to reduce the subsidies (which, of course, reduces the incentive to go green).
That sounds less like capitalism and more like sin tax.
Democrats are dumb enough to give all power to the government, even when it could mean that Republicans (or someone much more terrible) may inherit that power.
Why stop there? If you posit that religion is the single cause for most of those problems world-wide, then you must also see that certain religions are highly correlated to many of those issues, while other religions have a low or inverse correlation.
And before someone tells me, "Hey, switch to Android and you can have all the widgets you want!"... well, I have... so no need for the fanboys to get in a hissy.
Well, Steve Jobs was pretty much the same way. The biggest difference is that in most cases, he was either 1) right or 2) wise enough not to jump on the bandwagon before fully designing the product.
But I still want some damn widgets.
Not everything that requires the Internet is DRM.
And frankly, even if DRM was the primary intent, it's one of the less annoying DRMs since 1) online multiplayer, by definition, requires the Internet, and 2) economics:
Let's take the Xbox One. Microsoft claims to be adding 3 more Xbox One units for each one sold in the cloud, but really that's based on an average or maximum use situation. In reality they will have 300,000 cloud machines powering the number of users that might be gaming at any one time. Compare that to the cost of quadrupling the power of the Xbox One in the 80M consumer machines that will be sold over the next several years. And that doesn't even touch on the cost efficiency of heavily optimized power and cooling conditions in a server farm.
Of course, the cloud will be working on the latency-agnostic calculations, things like AI and up-front scene lighting calculations and of course simply serving multiplayer games and anything that needs to be calculated the same for all players. But that frees up your local system resources for those things that can't be offloaded to the cloud.
I'll take a bit of DRM for that.
They stopped my wife from taking home a jar of apple jelly she got while on our honeymoon. It said "10 oz." on the jar. Weight, mind you, not volume... it very well may have been under the 3.4 fluid ounce/100ml limit. But try convincing a TSA agent of that.
I'm sorry, I don't buy it. ("It" meaning that this is the cause or that you are a Microsoft employee.)
*How* are the mouse coordinates getting messed up? Because the developers at Microsoft can't write scaling code? It's very simple math. A few unit tests and it's golden. Are you telling me, as a Microsoft employee, that your developers can't write unit tests or do basic geometry for one of the primary functions on the project responsible for the biggest profits of one of the richest companies in the world?
Give me a freaking break.
It depends on whether you are running tablet apps or high-performance desktop applications.
To be fair, you can only compare the former.
Good thing we have International Date Line Welfare. If you get too far behind, you'll be pushed ahead of everyone else!
It would certainly help those who have preexisting daylight saving time. But I would rather have a single-time system.
Obamatime doesn't let you use choose time from across state boundaries, most people lose more time than they gain, and nobody can find out the time because of the http://timecare.gov/ fiasco. Besides, the President doesnt even participate in it; he gets to keep his own time zone.
It seems every time the word "irony" is used, somebody has to try to pick it apart. And many times they are wrong.
I used the term in reference to the original post about antitrust laws. The expectation is that antitrust laws would exist and be executed in order to prevent the consortium from gaining anti-competitive power. The irony is that the opposite has actually resulted, in that laws exist to now allow the consortium to gain anti-competitive power.
Ironically, the result of buying patents is now they have a legal monopoly.
It's not about strong vs. weak federal system. It's about checks and balances. In this case, the states and the federal government were meant to balance each other and provide a system of checks against each other.
It's about making it so that one small group of people (politicians) don't have total control over the nation, its economy, its military, etc. Imagine what a madman could do with that kind of power today.
Well, that was the intent, but now I fear we have given the group in D.C. irrevocable control over those things, and we're just waiting for a madman to step into office.
So you're telling me that either
- the website was being built for 3 years and new regulations required gutting the whole thing
- or, it was decided to not start any development on it until all regulations were approved, knowing that there would only be a few months to get it working
I could accept the first, but the second is just irresponsible.
You have just confirmed everything I was saying. There was a political atmosphere against the ACA, and the Democrats pushed it anyway despite the fact that the result was completely predictable.
Just remember that those same people who pushed against the ACA in the first place were elected by real people who care about these issues. And they were reelected after the fact. And reelected again. Agree with them or not, they were elected (and FWIW, the same argument can be used about Obama).
Just because the public will was to put Obama in office, that doesn't mean the public will was health insurance reform that just makes everything worse for the majority of people. Obama should have made it abundantly clear during the campaign that his presidency was going to push single payer, and then he should have done so. At least then he would be doing things that have the backing of the people and not something that few really like, all in the name of compromising with a group that was sure to never compromise.