Loading a five pages into the browser - 38,644KB
Loading a single page and leaving the browser for 10 minutes - 63,764KB
Loading 12 pages into the browser and wait 5 minutes - 62,312KB
I wonder what would have happened had he loaded 12 pages and let the browser sit for 10 minutes -- would the memory usage still be less than the single page/10 mins test?
Seems to me that memory usage must still spiral under 3 beta, otherwise how would the single page/10 min usage be less than the 12pp/5 min test? Sure, it's not as bad, but that number really caught my eye... more testing is in order if I can get some time away from the in-laws over the holiday.
Thank you, Maryland legislature! And to all you other MD-based purchasers of "custom computer programming," I'm as custom as you can get, I have good references, and I come with a built-in 6% discount.
No you don't. They'll still need to pay Sales & Use tax on that; the difference being that they need to remit the tax themselves, rather than you billing them for it and remitting the tax.
Just in case you were thinking of committing tax fraud...
Sales and Use tax is not assessed in the location where the good is created, it is taxed in the location that it is delivered (sales tax) or used (use tax).
This shows a very incomplete understanding of how corporate taxes work.
Corps register in Delaware because their franchise tax is low and they have no corporate income tax. Franchise tax is unrelated to sales tax.
HQ locations are irrelevant to where the corp is registered. It's quite legal to register your corp in DE, then have your HQ be in NY. There is no "name-only corporate HQ" in DE.
Sales tax is based on where the service or goods are provided or delivered. If you have a firm in NY and you have sales in MD, you owe MD sales tax on those sales. You do not owe NY sales tax on those sales (with some exceptions -- if the tax on the component parts or services you took delivery of in NY would have been greater than the resale tax in MD, then you must remit the difference to NY on the component parts.
Registering in DE means nothing in terms of sales tax.
Some companies locate themselves out-of-state to get away with not paying sales tax, since it's harder for MD (to keep using that exmaple) to track down non-payors who are out of state. This is fraud, however, and your location doesn't change that fact.
Occasionally check your online statement history for unexplained purchases. I do this at least 3-4+ times a month, usually at work as an excuse to goof off for a moment.
When slashdot gets boring?:)
Seriously, though, in addition to your frequent spot-checks, you should reconcile your bill every time you pay it.
Make sure not only that all the charges are valid, but that each charge is exactly the amount you signed for. I've caught restaurant charges "mysteriously" having a higher tip written in -- a $7 tip becomes a $17 tip sometimes... I have never had a problem getting this reversed immediately. On the plus side, this helps me keep within my budgets, since I force myself to review each of my transactions together every month; I'm much more likely to recognize exactly how my spending occurs.
i would think you cannot successfully pass on the traits to survive and thrive and evolve under gamma radiation when the molecular mechanism of inheritance itself is being decimated by said same gamma radiation. so it is truly an exotic dead end little niche, but amazing nonetheless
There are ways to compensate for this, such as really good DNA & RNA repair mechanisms. There may also be a "sweet spot" where there is enough radiation present to survive off of, but not enough to obliterate the DNA due to repair mechanisms.
After all, we evolved into these forms as a matter of effectiveness and survival. We reflect our conditions more than I think we understand. Therefore, given that physics is physics no matter where in the universe you are, I think people will look like people, horses like horses, fish like fish and so on...
I'm not so sure about that. While yes, there is plenty of convergent evolution (which is what I think you're referring to), your theory is predicated on an earth-like environment. Sure, there may be alien life froms that morphologically resemble fish -- but given the wide range of what fish look like on earth (from seahorses to whale sharks, from anglerfish to flounder, from eel to manta ray, etc), what intrigues me are not "fish" but instead the specimens of extravagant form. Who is to say that some seculed population of "birds" on another plant didn't evolve in a predator-free environment like some of the ones in New Guinea that have ridiculous and beautiful forms far different from other birds? What is to say that your "seed stock" won't produce examples just as odd but in far different forms? What about a planet that is entirely covered by water? I don't think "people will look like people" in that case.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but Open Office is a very beautiful thing for everyone I know personally who has ever tried it.
I'm not sure that's quite the reason why it's beautiful. You see, OO uses different drivers than MSOffice.
In MSOffice, the cupholder on the computer (you know, the one that's a little flimsy but has a handy button to make it go back inside so you don't break it off accidentally) is a coffeecupholder. That open bit in the center (you might call it the eye) is quite nice, I'd say it's near the Platonic ideal of a hole.
In OO, the "eye" is even better, it's quite gorgeous -- it might even be the platonic ideal of holeness. Not because the hole is any different, but because the cupholder is different -- in OO, the driver defines that accessory as a beermugholder instead of a coffeecupholder.
So, you see, the reason so many people find OpenOffice wonderful is that beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
For that matter, why are our Senators wasting time with video games when we have a war going on, torture and violation of civil rights, the dollar's value is dropping faster than a rock, AND THIS IS THE CRAP THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT!
Do you really need to ask why? Political grandstanding leading up to the next election comes to mind.
Most voters don't want to think about war, don't want to think about rendition, civil rights, the economy, etc. It's easier to vote based on the gut feeling that "so-and-so's values coincide with mine".
There's another explanation that makes far more sense given the timeframe and the public statements made by the officials in question.
Nearly every comment I'm reading talks about how the government official was corrupt, but a simple read of the article shows that he in fact REFUSED the bribe
Reading the article will show that he ACCEPTED the bribe, then only refused it when he saw it was cold hard cash.
There is no hypocrisy there--he is in charge of monitoring bribery in the government, Samsung attempted to bribe him, he refused it and is now using their attempt in a government case against Samsung.
No. Another official blew the whistle on the widespread bribery, and Lee has come forward in order to cover his own ass. After almost three years, Lee did nothing -- didn't come forward, didn't report the attempted bribe to his superiors, didn't do anything except accept a job in the industry (outside of government) -- until the shit had already started to hit the fan.
Would it surprise anyone if the private firm Lee Yong-chul now works for has competitors of Samsung on its client list?
Furthermore, would it surprise anyone if Lee Yong-chul garnered evidence of the bribe attempt for a reason different than whistle-blowing? Extortion/blackmail, perhaps? When the scandal becaome public (through the statements of Kim Yong-chul), Lee Yong-chul's documentation of the briber attempt became relatively worthless. What better way to try to save his own arse than by going public?
Note also that Lee's role in investigating government corruption was prompted by the revelation that President Roh (his boss) was involved in a bribery/corrpution/slush fund scandal during the 2002 election campaign. Lee reeks of corruption as badly as the rest, but was smart enough to engineer a way to come out looking somewhat clean.
He came forward when it appeared that he might get caught up in the investigation. This reeks of CYA. Furthermore, his documentation of the bribe reeks of extortion/blackmail -- and any value of his information for blackmail was lost as soon as another whistleblower came forward.
The article paints a pretty clear picture that this guy is not straightlaced. There's a reason he admits to accepting the offer of a gift, and downplays it. He knew how the game was played, and played it well -- and now he's coming public in an attempt to cover himself.
Government official accepts offer of gift, but returns it when he sees it is cash, not items (Cash raises a red flag -- maybe he thought he was being targeted by an investigation). Does not file complaint, does not report to his superiors, does nothing until someone else goes public and it appears he may be caught up in the investigation.
This is not the case of a whistle-blower doing a public service; this is the case of a guilty party (who freely admits accepting the offer of gifts, by the way) covering his ass when another whistle-blower alerts the government to widespread bribery.
Ironically, the official was Lee Yong-chul, who was a presidential monitor against corruption at the time.
That's not "irony". That's evidence that Samsung was also bribing or otherwise corrupting the government that Lee was paid not to monitor.
No, that's pretty much the definition of irony, though the writer messed up when ordering their sentence. It should have read:
Ironically, the bribed official was a presidential monitor against corruption named Lee Yong-chul.
See the difference there? There's nothing ironic about some guy $NAME being bribed, but, one would expect that an offical designated as a monitor against corruption would be incorruptible. That's the ironic part -- it turns out that a presidential monitor against corruption was indeed corrupt!
Of course, it's tongue-in-cheek irony, as we can all assume that in a notoriously corrupt government, those assigned to monitor the corruption are likely corrupt themselves. But, when interpreted literally without the underpinnings of what we all assume about corrupt governments, it is ironic.
Hey, good to see that it's still much easier to be a racist prick when you're hiding behind the equivalent of a white sheet, AC. Why not post that under your username?
The only reason why gold is expensive is because we all agree that it is. There's no real use for it, except we all agree and abide by the idea that gold costs a certain amount per ounce. As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy.
I've got to disagree here, there is no 'agreement' on the price of gold. People have the choice to disagree on the value (and price) of gold, it happens all the time, without anarchy ensuing.
The reason gold is expensive is because it looks pretty (and humans, like crows, are fond of teh shiny), is stable (and thus does not intrinsically lose value over time through degradation), and is limited in supply.
Digital files are shiny (in the sense that people want them), are stable (relatively), but they are not limited in supply.
Simmons screws up when he uses gold as the basis for his argument. He should have instead used a good (or service) for which supply is relatively limitless -- and here we have few examples to work from.
The music industry dinosaurs, Simmons included, fail to realize that a fundamental aspect of their market has changed. It's not that their business model no longer works -- it's that their economic model no longer works. The business model depends on the economic model, but the problem runs far deeper.
Another reason is the general ill will that exists towards the US government worldwide.
Sorry, I was trying to be rational -- maybe rational discussion is too much to be hoped for on Slashdot, but your China & Saudi examples are red herrings and not really relevant to whether the US can administer the internet well.
I mean, not to be callous, but just because something is unpopular doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
I believe that a big reason a lot of people don't want the US in control is because that's the status quo, and people find reasons to dislike the status quo, deservedly or not. Another reason is the general ill will that exists towards the US government worldwide. Yes, there are concerns about network neutrality, and there are concerns about the US abusing its position.
However, when the time comes that the US implements policy that damages the internet in a meaningful way, then we'll see alternatives used. It's how the internet works.
For now, the status quo is fine. Why do we waste so much energy trying to fix something that works?
Division means that no matter what the cost of voting, the right to vote still has a positive value
Correct, more below on this.
Also, impact and cost aren't of the same type.
Who says? They can be normalized for type -- the human psychology can often compare disparate types. Would you rather eat a slice of pizza or read a few slashdot articles? Different types, but we can still make a decision based on momentary preference.
And a sum of one is nonsense, but that's just being nitpicky.
That's there because the right to vote applies to multiple voting instances, even on the same election day (local, state, federal, etc).
And that's what a large part of the population feel. Not that the value of voting is very small, but that it's actually negative. That the effort is larger than the gain.
Here is where semantics get important. The value of the act of voting can be negative. But the value of the right to vote is something different. Exercise of a right can have a negative value... but the right itself cannot.
It's not elitism. It's just that mathematical expressions often make it easier to express relations between values (since value is what we were discussing) than other methods do.
Sorry if "elitism" really rankles you, next time I'll try not to use expressions that make things clearer to people who have a clue about what I'm talking about.
Honestly, if you're reading slashdot, you should be able to understand what I wrote, and to infer the implications on changing values of the variables. It's a pretty universal equation for choice values, by the way.
Direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on lunch.
Libertarianism is a gorilla beating its chest to convince the wolves and sheep to stay away from its banana.
Parliamentary democracy is two wolves, a sheep, a gorilla, seven chipmunks, five owls, and a wombat asking a wolf, an owl, and a chipmunk to decide on lunch.
Well it costs about $100 million to run for President which makes each vote (considering turnout and a roughly even split) worth about $1-$2. You can't just start giving away iPods for votes with only a $100 million budget
You don't need to buy all the votes; just enough cover the margin of victory of your opponent if you weren't buying votes.
This may be as few as, say, 100,000 votes in a handful of critical swing states. A rough guesstimate of 500,000 votes total, or $200 per vote. My math says a vote is in the same range as an iPod. YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me that memory usage must still spiral under 3 beta, otherwise how would the single page/10 min usage be less than the 12pp/5 min test? Sure, it's not as bad, but that number really caught my eye... more testing is in order if I can get some time away from the in-laws over the holiday.
Just in case you were thinking of committing tax fraud...
Sales and Use tax is not assessed in the location where the good is created, it is taxed in the location that it is delivered (sales tax) or used (use tax).
This shows a very incomplete understanding of how corporate taxes work.
Corps register in Delaware because their franchise tax is low and they have no corporate income tax. Franchise tax is unrelated to sales tax.
HQ locations are irrelevant to where the corp is registered. It's quite legal to register your corp in DE, then have your HQ be in NY. There is no "name-only corporate HQ" in DE.
Sales tax is based on where the service or goods are provided or delivered. If you have a firm in NY and you have sales in MD, you owe MD sales tax on those sales. You do not owe NY sales tax on those sales (with some exceptions -- if the tax on the component parts or services you took delivery of in NY would have been greater than the resale tax in MD, then you must remit the difference to NY on the component parts.
Registering in DE means nothing in terms of sales tax.
Some companies locate themselves out-of-state to get away with not paying sales tax, since it's harder for MD (to keep using that exmaple) to track down non-payors who are out of state. This is fraud, however, and your location doesn't change that fact.
Seriously, though, in addition to your frequent spot-checks, you should reconcile your bill every time you pay it.
Make sure not only that all the charges are valid, but that each charge is exactly the amount you signed for. I've caught restaurant charges "mysteriously" having a higher tip written in -- a $7 tip becomes a $17 tip sometimes... I have never had a problem getting this reversed immediately. On the plus side, this helps me keep within my budgets, since I force myself to review each of my transactions together every month; I'm much more likely to recognize exactly how my spending occurs.
In MSOffice, the cupholder on the computer (you know, the one that's a little flimsy but has a handy button to make it go back inside so you don't break it off accidentally) is a coffeecupholder. That open bit in the center (you might call it the eye) is quite nice, I'd say it's near the Platonic ideal of a hole.
In OO, the "eye" is even better, it's quite gorgeous -- it might even be the platonic ideal of holeness. Not because the hole is any different, but because the cupholder is different -- in OO, the driver defines that accessory as a beermugholder instead of a coffeecupholder.
So, you see, the reason so many people find OpenOffice wonderful is that beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Most voters don't want to think about war, don't want to think about rendition, civil rights, the economy, etc. It's easier to vote based on the gut feeling that "so-and-so's values coincide with mine".
No. Another official blew the whistle on the widespread bribery, and Lee has come forward in order to cover his own ass. After almost three years, Lee did nothing -- didn't come forward, didn't report the attempted bribe to his superiors, didn't do anything except accept a job in the industry (outside of government) -- until the shit had already started to hit the fan.
Would it surprise anyone if the private firm Lee Yong-chul now works for has competitors of Samsung on its client list?
Furthermore, would it surprise anyone if Lee Yong-chul garnered evidence of the bribe attempt for a reason different than whistle-blowing? Extortion/blackmail, perhaps? When the scandal becaome public (through the statements of Kim Yong-chul), Lee Yong-chul's documentation of the briber attempt became relatively worthless. What better way to try to save his own arse than by going public?
Note also that Lee's role in investigating government corruption was prompted by the revelation that President Roh (his boss) was involved in a bribery/corrpution/slush fund scandal during the 2002 election campaign. Lee reeks of corruption as badly as the rest, but was smart enough to engineer a way to come out looking somewhat clean.
He came forward when it appeared that he might get caught up in the investigation. This reeks of CYA. Furthermore, his documentation of the bribe reeks of extortion/blackmail -- and any value of his information for blackmail was lost as soon as another whistleblower came forward.
The article paints a pretty clear picture that this guy is not straightlaced. There's a reason he admits to accepting the offer of a gift, and downplays it. He knew how the game was played, and played it well -- and now he's coming public in an attempt to cover himself.
Oh, I fully agree with you, but my personal perspective has changed.
When I was young and idealistic, I wanted to help the sheep rise up.
When I became older and more ambitious, I wanted to be the shepherd.
When I got even older and jaded, I realized that if I worked for the farm, I'd only ever get to be the sheepdog.
Now that I'm a relatively old cynic, I'm content to be a coyote -- too sharp to be herded, but not above using the farmer to get what I need.
Please, read into it a little deeper.
Government official accepts offer of gift, but returns it when he sees it is cash, not items (Cash raises a red flag -- maybe he thought he was being targeted by an investigation). Does not file complaint, does not report to his superiors, does nothing until someone else goes public and it appears he may be caught up in the investigation.
This is not the case of a whistle-blower doing a public service; this is the case of a guilty party (who freely admits accepting the offer of gifts, by the way) covering his ass when another whistle-blower alerts the government to widespread bribery.
Let me see if I get this straight:
In capitalist America, the piggy sheep welcome their medicating velvet-gloved overlords (profit)?
See the difference there? There's nothing ironic about some guy $NAME being bribed, but, one would expect that an offical designated as a monitor against corruption would be incorruptible. That's the ironic part -- it turns out that a presidential monitor against corruption was indeed corrupt!
Of course, it's tongue-in-cheek irony, as we can all assume that in a notoriously corrupt government, those assigned to monitor the corruption are likely corrupt themselves. But, when interpreted literally without the underpinnings of what we all assume about corrupt governments, it is ironic.
The reason gold is expensive is because it looks pretty (and humans, like crows, are fond of teh shiny), is stable (and thus does not intrinsically lose value over time through degradation), and is limited in supply.
Digital files are shiny (in the sense that people want them), are stable (relatively), but they are not limited in supply.
Simmons screws up when he uses gold as the basis for his argument. He should have instead used a good (or service) for which supply is relatively limitless -- and here we have few examples to work from.
The music industry dinosaurs, Simmons included, fail to realize that a fundamental aspect of their market has changed. It's not that their business model no longer works -- it's that their economic model no longer works. The business model depends on the economic model, but the problem runs far deeper.
Meh. Wake me up when the pterashopvactyl is discovered.
I mean, not to be callous, but just because something is unpopular doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
I believe that a big reason a lot of people don't want the US in control is because that's the status quo, and people find reasons to dislike the status quo, deservedly or not. Another reason is the general ill will that exists towards the US government worldwide. Yes, there are concerns about network neutrality, and there are concerns about the US abusing its position.
However, when the time comes that the US implements policy that damages the internet in a meaningful way, then we'll see alternatives used. It's how the internet works.
For now, the status quo is fine. Why do we waste so much energy trying to fix something that works?
Because that's the only bad thing that ever happened when I "crossed streams" with my brothers growing up.
Who says? They can be normalized for type -- the human psychology can often compare disparate types. Would you rather eat a slice of pizza or read a few slashdot articles? Different types, but we can still make a decision based on momentary preference.
That's there because the right to vote applies to multiple voting instances, even on the same election day (local, state, federal, etc).
Here is where semantics get important. The value of the act of voting can be negative. But the value of the right to vote is something different. Exercise of a right can have a negative value... but the right itself cannot.
It's not elitism. It's just that mathematical expressions often make it easier to express relations between values (since value is what we were discussing) than other methods do.
Sorry if "elitism" really rankles you, next time I'll try not to use expressions that make things clearer to people who have a clue about what I'm talking about.
Honestly, if you're reading slashdot, you should be able to understand what I wrote, and to infer the implications on changing values of the variables. It's a pretty universal equation for choice values, by the way.
Direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on lunch.
Libertarianism is a gorilla beating its chest to convince the wolves and sheep to stay away from its banana.
Parliamentary democracy is two wolves, a sheep, a gorilla, seven chipmunks, five owls, and a wombat asking a wolf, an owl, and a chipmunk to decide on lunch.
Where's bad analogy guy when you need him?
This may be as few as, say, 100,000 votes in a handful of critical swing states. A rough guesstimate of 500,000 votes total, or $200 per vote. My math says a vote is in the same range as an iPod. YMMV.