Mod parent up. This law is basically saying "You must hit all of these subjective benchmarks." That's code for "You must pay us enough money to agree that you are hitting all of these subjective benchmarks."
Laws are rarely about what's good for the people. They're usually about what's good for the lawmakers. Occasionally the two coincide.
I totally agree that the interview needs to test skills related to the position. However, if the interviewee can't figure out how to reverse a string, that shows that they have some pretty shitty problem-solving/programming skills. That question is designed to be the one question in an interview that everyone gets right and is usually asked very early on to make the interviewee more relaxed because hey, they got one right.
Not all of the questions asked in an interview intended to test your programming ability.
Hell, you can violate copyright by doing the Electric slide wrong these days.
Actually, you're more likely to be violating copyright if you do the Electric slide correctly. If you do it wrong you might have a chance if you claim you were parodying the original.
This isn't about the transmission format of the signal, which the FCC still regulates and creates standards for, it's about how end user devices interpret that signal and that is completely outside of the defined scope of the FCC.
Re:"Disagreement on Terminology"
on
Ajax Design Patterns
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And that's really what this seems to present. The designs described on the associated website (I haven't seen the book) aren't "patterns" in the OO/GoF sense but more like templates/methods for solving specific problems. I think the author is using "patterns" as a buzzword here to draw more attention.
I can't count how many times I've heard lip-service paid to 'results-only' performance reviews. It's a bunch of crap. Managers will still reward people they like and punish people they don't, regardless of performance. Schedules and 'face-time' will always have a huge impact on performance reviews and rewards, simply because if you work 8pm - 4am and work miracles, nobody will know that you were the one doing everything. For all they know (regardless of any paperwork saying you were responsible), it was the office gnomes that with their magical faerie dust that did all of the work.
Like a lot of things, 'results-only' is great in theory, but almost impossible to implement in practice due to human nature.
Um, 30% of the market is still an astronomical amount of webhosting. And most of that 70% is geared toward extremely basic static pages because it's so cheap to host basic stuff on a free platform. On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that a larger chunk of the 30% is geared toward production ASP/ASP.Net hosting for the same reason.
Police reported that Gannon "has a history of being verbally abusive" toward police, and that after his arrest, he remarked that the officers "were a bunch of corrupt (expletives)."
That said, the results are skewed by the fact that Intel is producing chips using the 65-nanometer process, vs. AMD's 90-nanometer process. Typically, as more chips are packed onto smaller dies, performance improves dramatically. AMD is not scheduled to begin building chips on a 65-nanometer process until later this year.
In other news, my XBox360 runs way faster than your PS2 =P
Seriously, can we at least attempt to compare apples to apples on/. instead or regurgitating marketing BS.
Isn't this the same idea as terraforming. Is there a difference or did we just get a new 'engineering' word. "I'm not a terraformer, I'm a geoengineer."
By one VoIP industry estimate, customers could owe as much as $2.12 extra on a $30 monthly bill because of the changes, said Jim Kohlenberger, executive director of the VON Coalition, which represents the Internet phone industry. Traditional wireline users would pay $1.38 on a comparable bill, while wireless users pay an average of $1.21, he said.
The above is due (FTA) to the fact that the FCC assumes ~65% of VOIP calls are long distance, while less than 30% of wireline and wireless calls are long distance. That makes it sound (to me) like some underhanded lobbying was involved.
In fairness, VOIP that does not connect to the POTS system (e.g. p2p calls) should be excluded as it does not use the same infrastructure and thus should not face the same tax burden. In fact, services such as Skype are excluded from the taxes for this exact reason, so some calculation should be made to determine the percentage of VOIP calls that never touch the POTS system. Other than that, I don't see any reason that VOIP services that use the same resources as the POTS carriers should be granted special exemption from the taxes collected for consuming the same services/infrastructure.
On a side note, my first impression from the summary was that the FCC was levying new taxes specifically against VOIP providers. I got the impression that the FCC was creating new taxes (No taxation without representation!) and that really pissed me off. Upon reading the actual article, that was definitely the implication, however the facts make it obvious that these are existing taxes and VOIP services are only being reclassified so that they fall under the same category as other voice carriers Anyone who thinks they don't -- specifically for services that access the POTS system, not p2p like skype and vonage to vonage calls -- is either ignorant or in denial. Of course, the conversion rate seems extremely off and weighted toward the destruction of VOIP and there doesn't seem to be an allowance for VOIP to VOIP calls which should bypass the regulation. I'm pissed about the extremely questionable fairness of this proclamation, but please present the facts without insinuating that things are happening (FCC creating new tax laws) which are clearly not.
Not quite. Wasting trillions of dollars (which is only the estimated effect of the Kyoto Protocol, which no country is meeting anyway) and billions of man hours chasing down a red herring (if that's what the CO2 theory turns out to be) is also equivalent to sacrificing life (yes, economic prosperity results in a higher quality of life and lower mortality rates). That money could be better spent preserving life.
On the other hand, it's extremely doubtful that global warming (speaking in reasonable terms, not the 'holy crap we're all going to melt overnight' kind that some people claim is coming) will wipe out life on earth.
Either way it's a gamble, but the gamble is still along the lines of risking life one way or the other (if you want to compare apples to apples.
i've always thought that maybe anti-virus and anti-spyware companies would produce virus's and spyware, i mean how do you get better job security than fixing something that you broke.. and people STILL say thanks!
Yeah, like Microsoft's announced entry into the anti-virus industry. You can actually find a way to profit from your screw ups (or active sabotage if you're even more insidious).
When any non-government agency is supposed to collect any money for the government, they usually get a cut of the money. That's how it works for sales tax, which is analogous to a fine here.
What concerns me is that, depending on how this bill is written, retailers may be given an incentive to entrap minors. What's to stop a retailer from trying to convince kids to buy these games, then charging them an additional $25 'fine' at the register when they but it (besides bad publicity, although it might garner them good publicity from some sources). Since the description of the bill FTA seems to indicate that it's not a finable offense until after the purchase, the retailer makes a profit off of the sale, and more profit off of the fine. Something just doesn't add up with this scheme.
If you have a coalition of companies of that size, they would probably be able to handle the inevitable attacks. You could distribute the authorization amongst those companies (so the final client list would be a conglomeration of all of the masters, which are created by each of the companies). Of course, that opens the door for politicization of the lists, but as long as the power is fairly distributed amongst the players, it shouldn't be a major problem. The biggest obstacle is getting everyone to sit down together and not having it turn into a Mexican standoff.
One of the nice attributes of having a central server is that BlueSecurity could validate
that the site was a legitimate target before unleashing the flurry of opt-out requests.
Which brings us right back to a centralized server in the first place. As long as everything has to pass through a single choke point (or even a small number of them), they are susceptible to the same DDOS attack. If there is no authoritative verification, you essentially just created a P2P DDOS system that the spammers/organized crime/anybody can (and will) readily abuse. Therin lies the rub.
Slashdot Mirror
I ran through some of the lessons to see what it was about and I'm a developer. I expect that is a pretty common occurrence for this type of site.
Yes, that's true. The internet >> WWW.
Damnit, I spent the last 5 minutes trying to figure out what it means to bit-shift the internet by the WWW.
Can we just internet ^ it instead?
Mod parent up. This law is basically saying "You must hit all of these subjective benchmarks." That's code for "You must pay us enough money to agree that you are hitting all of these subjective benchmarks."
Laws are rarely about what's good for the people. They're usually about what's good for the lawmakers. Occasionally the two coincide.
I totally agree that the interview needs to test skills related to the position. However, if the interviewee can't figure out how to reverse a string, that shows that they have some pretty shitty problem-solving/programming skills. That question is designed to be the one question in an interview that everyone gets right and is usually asked very early on to make the interviewee more relaxed because hey, they got one right.
Not all of the questions asked in an interview intended to test your programming ability.
Um...isn't that what the RIAA is technically supposed to be? Not that it actually represents the artists' interests.
Someone please mod parent up.
This isn't about the transmission format of the signal, which the FCC still regulates and creates standards for, it's about how end user devices interpret that signal and that is completely outside of the defined scope of the FCC.And that's really what this seems to present. The designs described on the associated website (I haven't seen the book) aren't "patterns" in the OO/GoF sense but more like templates/methods for solving specific problems. I think the author is using "patterns" as a buzzword here to draw more attention.
And then you have to completely rebuild the thing when you need to replace the batteries. No thanks.
I can't count how many times I've heard lip-service paid to 'results-only' performance reviews. It's a bunch of crap. Managers will still reward people they like and punish people they don't, regardless of performance. Schedules and 'face-time' will always have a huge impact on performance reviews and rewards, simply because if you work 8pm - 4am and work miracles, nobody will know that you were the one doing everything. For all they know (regardless of any paperwork saying you were responsible), it was the office gnomes that with their magical faerie dust that did all of the work.
Like a lot of things, 'results-only' is great in theory, but almost impossible to implement in practice due to human nature.
Um, 30% of the market is still an astronomical amount of webhosting. And most of that 70% is geared toward extremely basic static pages because it's so cheap to host basic stuff on a free platform. On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that a larger chunk of the 30% is geared toward production ASP/ASP.Net hosting for the same reason.
In other news, my XBox360 runs way faster than your PS2 =P
Seriously, can we at least attempt to compare apples to apples on /. instead or regurgitating marketing BS.
Isn't this the same idea as terraforming. Is there a difference or did we just get a new 'engineering' word. "I'm not a terraformer, I'm a geoengineer."
The above is due (FTA) to the fact that the FCC assumes ~65% of VOIP calls are long distance, while less than 30% of wireline and wireless calls are long distance. That makes it sound (to me) like some underhanded lobbying was involved.
In fairness, VOIP that does not connect to the POTS system (e.g. p2p calls) should be excluded as it does not use the same infrastructure and thus should not face the same tax burden. In fact, services such as Skype are excluded from the taxes for this exact reason, so some calculation should be made to determine the percentage of VOIP calls that never touch the POTS system. Other than that, I don't see any reason that VOIP services that use the same resources as the POTS carriers should be granted special exemption from the taxes collected for consuming the same services/infrastructure.
On a side note, my first impression from the summary was that the FCC was levying new taxes specifically against VOIP providers. I got the impression that the FCC was creating new taxes (No taxation without representation!) and that really pissed me off. Upon reading the actual article, that was definitely the implication, however the facts make it obvious that these are existing taxes and VOIP services are only being reclassified so that they fall under the same category as other voice carriers Anyone who thinks they don't -- specifically for services that access the POTS system, not p2p like skype and vonage to vonage calls -- is either ignorant or in denial. Of course, the conversion rate seems extremely off and weighted toward the destruction of VOIP and there doesn't seem to be an allowance for VOIP to VOIP calls which should bypass the regulation. I'm pissed about the extremely questionable fairness of this proclamation, but please present the facts without insinuating that things are happening (FCC creating new tax laws) which are clearly not.
My AT&T E5965C does exactly that. It's about $120 if you can catch it on sale.
Here it is at Amazon
Hmm, that was salt water. You should be dead in 3....2....1....
Not quite. Wasting trillions of dollars (which is only the estimated effect of the Kyoto Protocol, which no country is meeting anyway) and billions of man hours chasing down a red herring (if that's what the CO2 theory turns out to be) is also equivalent to sacrificing life (yes, economic prosperity results in a higher quality of life and lower mortality rates). That money could be better spent preserving life.
On the other hand, it's extremely doubtful that global warming (speaking in reasonable terms, not the 'holy crap we're all going to melt overnight' kind that some people claim is coming) will wipe out life on earth.
Either way it's a gamble, but the gamble is still along the lines of risking life one way or the other (if you want to compare apples to apples.
Help computer.
When any non-government agency is supposed to collect any money for the government, they usually get a cut of the money. That's how it works for sales tax, which is analogous to a fine here.
What concerns me is that, depending on how this bill is written, retailers may be given an incentive to entrap minors. What's to stop a retailer from trying to convince kids to buy these games, then charging them an additional $25 'fine' at the register when they but it (besides bad publicity, although it might garner them good publicity from some sources). Since the description of the bill FTA seems to indicate that it's not a finable offense until after the purchase, the retailer makes a profit off of the sale, and more profit off of the fine. Something just doesn't add up with this scheme.
Have you ever watched a dog? They eat their own shit/vomit all of the time, just like MS.
If you have a coalition of companies of that size, they would probably be able to handle the inevitable attacks. You could distribute the authorization amongst those companies (so the final client list would be a conglomeration of all of the masters, which are created by each of the companies). Of course, that opens the door for politicization of the lists, but as long as the power is fairly distributed amongst the players, it shouldn't be a major problem. The biggest obstacle is getting everyone to sit down together and not having it turn into a Mexican standoff.