This is actually a pretty insightful comment - trade shows at tourist locations like Vegas are often "benefits" handed out to worthy employees as a sort of present, even though the value of it is pretty questionable. It's basically a legitimate way to give an employee a semi-work-related reward without every other lobster in the office pissing about them getting a free vacation.
"Begs the question" has fallen in common language (that is, language spoken by mortal human beings), to the delight of ivory tower relics that relish the idea of pointing of the foibles of others, to mean "invites the question". This is fairly commonplace, although I'm sure you're kept up at nights writing letters to the editor to set things straight. One day, several decades down the road, you'll still be carrying on your campaign to fight for "Ye Old English". Cheers!
To humor your petty pedantry, though, my use could be construed as entirely apt per logic rules, given that the Apple claim PRESUMES that 2X less = 1/2, allowing them to derive the conclusion that the sound is "2x quieter", when in actuality that presumption is incorrect.
Do you mean when you compare it against what Irving stations in America and your other exports...
I was being facetious. That's capitalism and commerce, and it's just a fact of life that there are pluses and minuses (sort of like how Hollywood bitches about "runaway" productions by the [foreign owned] production companies. They don't seem to complain when those "foreign" locations add billions to the take every year). Pointing out that Vancouver is fighting Walmart is absolutely inane unless you're going to point out every California town fighting Walmart -- that isn't national protectionism....when you add the Canadian taxes, surcharges, and fees, yes.
Firstly, the US has import levies just like Canada does, and the GST tax is equally applied whether you buy the product here or there -- it's a total non-issue. Secondly, I'm not talking about cross-border shopping (where such fees apply), but actually going and staying in the US on business - everything from a tube of toothpaste to a dinner out costs an absurd amount from what I'm used to here, and that's before even taking into account the exchange rate. This has absolutely nothing to do with border fees or GST.
"The canadian looney is artificially kept "low" by toying with the interest rates index to favor US exports, wich is the buyer of 90% of our exports."
Seems like a win/win, but on the flip side this means that our corporations have reduced financial power worldwide, and it means that Canadians live "poorer" lives because we have to pay more for global goods and services, and it also makes some of our industries less competitive because they need to buy supplies (like computer equipment) from US suppliers.
As a result, even WalMarts in America near the Canadian border draw few Canadian customers....so instead the American corporation Walmart opens stores across Canada (you do know we have Walmarts here, right? The idea of Canadians driving to the US to go to Walmart seems pretty bizarre), which we fully allow and patronize, and yield millions across Canada which they drive back home. Hardly seems equitable, does it?
As a sidenote: Back in the 90s there was a HUGE "problem" with cross border shopping, and that was when the Canadian dollar was in the mid-60s. Canadians went to the US for more selection, and because in the end it still was less expensive. Since then, however, global distribution means there is virtually no selection advantage, and the rate of inflation in the US has far outpaced Canada - Now even with an appreciated relative dollar, American consumer goods are jus ridiculously expensive.
gives a clear impression that everything is mostly there, but there is more work to be done
In software one could perpetually claim that there is "work to be done" (`maybe emacs could use a object model of a kitchen sink..') which is why the standard is that you choose a feature-set for a release, go through the various refinement steps of alpha/beta/rc, and then release. You're then free to move to the next version number.
What we're seeing instead is a large number of organizations using "beta" as a rather lame cop out of any responsibility for quality -- "It's beta!" (ICQ was [still is?] beta for years. They hilariously kept cycling the version number up, but perpetually released "beta" versions). This is irresponsible, and betrays a lack of respect for the intelligence of users.
This isn't Linux versus Windows -- it's SQL Server versus Oracle. Shops are choosing Oracle and then choosing Linux as the platform (given that it's largely irrelevant what platform it runs on). The submission implies that it was a toss up between Windows and Linux, and after choosing Linux they started looking around for a RDBMS.
The military has the keys to the encrypted stream, so their GPS units still work.
What's the likelihood that someone hasn't scored a military unit and reverse engineered the encryption key? I'm very curious about that as it sounds like a security measure that is strong in theory, but weak in practice.
All six of the Russian-made GPS jammers fielded by Iraq were destroyed in short order, some of them by GPS guided missiles!
Indeed - by the time the guided unit was in range of the jammer, the accuracy of non-GPS measures (magnetic direction, speed, etc) is sufficient to hit the target accurately enough. Jammers would have to cover hundreds or thousands of km in all directions to really have value.
They didn't "disprove" it - recent studies have failed to conclusively prove it (they aren't the same thing). More recent studies are pointing to saturated fat as being a component in Alzheimer's.
The article in question is more of the lying, self-serving crap we Canadians like to feed ourselves
To quote from the article: The study...was conducted by The Ponemon Institute, a Tucson, Ariz.-based privacy think tank.
In any case, you're exactly right: Our corporations are primarily driven by greed, and I think that was a given in this article -- having a consumer friendly privacy policy wins you loyalty and respect in Canada, whereas in the US perhaps most consumers just don't care (we've seen quite a few), so it's up to the government to enforce minimal privacy standards.
I find this very strange coming out of an essentially socialist country.
Isn't it nice when you can box up complex democracies and give them simple, clear-cut black and white titles?
Definitions
Capitalism (AKA the USA): Citizens are forced, through an extremely heavy handed beauracracy (the IRS) of an overbearing government, to hand over a good part of their paycheque to subsidize farmers who can't make ends meet, steel makers that are uncompetitive, a wood industry that just can't cut it, pardon the pun, among a vast and endless array of special interests. Every citizen is forced to support a massive military, whether they like it or not, as well as a massive social structure (primarily for the poor and elderly). Every single citizen who can afford it opts into healthcare through a private insurer.
Socialism (AKA Canada): Oh, they have universal healthcare like the rest of the world. SOCIALIST!
I had the exact same situation as the grandparent post: I was calling about my cable modem being out, and after being directed through all of the idiotic OS configuration steps (despite the little "link" light being out on the cable modem coincidentally occurring in concert with being unable to see the outside world), which I played along with, I could see where the conversation was going (headed towards "there's nothing on our end...we'll schedule a tech for a week but hope it clears up before then") so I disconnected the cable from the cable modem, and then listened as the telephone support narrated as they supposedly connected to my cable modem, and then supposedly pulled diagnostic codes and evaluated its health, etc.
I listened for about two minutes, and then said "Well that's odd as I disconnected the cable modem two minutes ago" she became flustered and was clearly caught in a lie -- it was a pretty awkward situation. In other words it's just as probable that they were just bullshitting to make you feel like they've done what they can do, when really they just want you to suck it for a while, or to call back for some other sucker to deal with.
Re:You know, he's doing a bayesian survey
on
Google IPO Swami
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
experts don't determine prices in the stock market. The irrational public does.
I have absolutely no numbers to back this up (and I'm too lazy to look), but I highly suspect that institutional and fund investors outnumber low-skill private investors on daily volume by a ratio of at least 100:1. It seems that for every Joe Average flipping a couple of shares in a couple of companies, there are hundreds of massive institution investors and fund managers flipping billions of shares.
I am, of course, talking about real companies with a real market, and not penny stock where only the low-skill investor is involved.
Increasingly the world is not buying American products.
The US is the world's largest exporter (exporting more than even China), and often is the controlling\owning strings behind most "foreign" companies.
The trade defecit is just indicative that while the US exports $X, the world financial community lets it get away with importing $Xx(Y>1.0) without excessively punishing its dollar. That's a huge win for the US (all of the great goodies without having to pay for them).
For once it appears like the right hand knows what the left hand is doing
Why would investment decisions of the investment branch have to coincide with internal politics and technical direction? There is no credible reason, and there's no reason why an organization can't internally bet all their chips on Linux, while the investment division bets all their chips on Microsoft (though to better compare with this situation, the investment divisions would bet on many horses, and Microsoft would just happen to be one of them): The two have completely disparate criteria. Any organization that vetted investment decisions through every branch of the organization to make sure the left and right hand agreed would be bankrupt pretty quickly. Of course in this case it's entirely possible that there was some pressure to distance from SCO for publicity reasons (given that RBC is the most respected Canadian company several years running), but normally the two should be entirely exclusive.
Of course there is some relief by a lot of the tech workers at RBC for the simple reason that SCO is seen as the enemy, and no one wants to be associated with the enemy.
Well first let's accept that if a group of teens could take separate cars, they would. The teen driving is the alpha-human, and they all want to be alpha-humans, so if four teens had access to four cars, they would take four cars. The point is that this rule isn't forcing kids who would otherwise car-pool to drive separately, but rather is forcing them to get a ride by their parents, take a cab, or just skip the venture altogether.
Secondly, there is no doubt that kids in separate cars often act like aholes, probably worse than when they're in the same car. However it would be extremely difficult to legislate this ("You can't drive within 200m of a car driven by another teen..."), and as the first point indicates a passenger rule is unlikely to increase the probability of teens driving multiple cars.
Now they have upped it to longer (2 or 3 years) with the additional restriction that you can only have ONE passenger in the vehicle. The reasoning: There was an accident one year that involved a bunch of teens being loud in a car.
I call bullshit, and either you're a really poor liar that thinks denial will change things, or you really have a very limited view of the world.
Having been a teen at one point, and having shared the road with teens since, teens don't just "get loud" when there's a group in the car -- often they foolishly risk life and limb of themselves and anyone else on the roads in a competition of cool that's dangerously coupled with a sense of invincibility and irresponsibility. I've seen this myself countless times on the road (put several teens in the car and you'll usually see the classic hand hung over the steering wheel in a precarious and uncomfortable position and you'll quickly witness someone with limited skills barely keeping the car on the road as they try their damndest to exert the least effort possible driving in hopes of appearing to be a pro), and was personally involved with an incident as a teen (Mustang playing follow the leader. I wasn't the driver, but with my foolish teen bravado I certainly wasn't disuading the activities).
The stats are very clear in the insurance industry (don't tell that to the idiot in the other thread who claimed that "my insurance agent told me that teens are the safest group of drivers". That one had me rolling on the floor given that I have the actuarial numbers involved). Teens in cars have a substantially higher risk of being involved in crashes, particularly single-vehicle accidents (but occasionally taking innocents with them), and the greatly elevated risk alone justifies limiting the number of passengers, but we know socially that increasing the passenger count increases the risk even more.
That sounds like to me that Cisco will not be charging a whole lot for this license, it will probably be one of those $1 license deals where once you have it, you have it in perpetuity.
And what, exactly, do you base the "probably" on? I see it as distinctly more probable that Cisco, being a dominant player, will implement what would otherwise be a discarded solution, and smaller vendors will be basically forced to follow suit. They will, of course, have to line up to pay the Cisco tax, and that internet tax will fall on the shoulders of every person using the services or products, directly or indirectly, of any of those firms.
Of course we're both just pissing in the wind because ultimately we have no idea, however Cisco has provided a bad precedent by going for this patent (and the "defensive patent" angle doesn't really fit here).
Slashdot Mirror
This is actually a pretty insightful comment - trade shows at tourist locations like Vegas are often "benefits" handed out to worthy employees as a sort of present, even though the value of it is pretty questionable. It's basically a legitimate way to give an employee a semi-work-related reward without every other lobster in the office pissing about them getting a free vacation.
that I'm uber-qualified. I have no certifications, degrees, or qualifications of any sort
Add several dozen "MCSE" style comments below yours, despite the fact that the article is actually about organization certifications (CMM 5, etc).
My dear pedantic nitwit,
"Begs the question" has fallen in common language (that is, language spoken by mortal human beings), to the delight of ivory tower relics that relish the idea of pointing of the foibles of others, to mean "invites the question". This is fairly commonplace, although I'm sure you're kept up at nights writing letters to the editor to set things straight. One day, several decades down the road, you'll still be carrying on your campaign to fight for "Ye Old English". Cheers!
To humor your petty pedantry, though, my use could be construed as entirely apt per logic rules, given that the Apple claim PRESUMES that 2X less = 1/2, allowing them to derive the conclusion that the sound is "2x quieter", when in actuality that presumption is incorrect.
Of course it begs the question of how something could be "2x less" by any scale, unless you're dropping into negative territory.
1/2 as loud seems like a pretty clear way of stating it.
Have you read the book "Farenheit 451"?
Do you mean when you compare it against what Irving stations in America and your other exports...
...when you add the Canadian taxes, surcharges, and fees, yes.
I was being facetious. That's capitalism and commerce, and it's just a fact of life that there are pluses and minuses (sort of like how Hollywood bitches about "runaway" productions by the [foreign owned] production companies. They don't seem to complain when those "foreign" locations add billions to the take every year). Pointing out that Vancouver is fighting Walmart is absolutely inane unless you're going to point out every California town fighting Walmart -- that isn't national protectionism.
Firstly, the US has import levies just like Canada does, and the GST tax is equally applied whether you buy the product here or there -- it's a total non-issue. Secondly, I'm not talking about cross-border shopping (where such fees apply), but actually going and staying in the US on business - everything from a tube of toothpaste to a dinner out costs an absurd amount from what I'm used to here, and that's before even taking into account the exchange rate. This has absolutely nothing to do with border fees or GST.
"The canadian looney is artificially kept "low" by toying with the interest rates index to favor US exports, wich is the buyer of 90% of our exports."
Seems like a win/win, but on the flip side this means that our corporations have reduced financial power worldwide, and it means that Canadians live "poorer" lives because we have to pay more for global goods and services, and it also makes some of our industries less competitive because they need to buy supplies (like computer equipment) from US suppliers.
As a result, even WalMarts in America near the Canadian border draw few Canadian customers. ...so instead the American corporation Walmart opens stores across Canada (you do know we have Walmarts here, right? The idea of Canadians driving to the US to go to Walmart seems pretty bizarre), which we fully allow and patronize, and yield millions across Canada which they drive back home. Hardly seems equitable, does it?
As a sidenote: Back in the 90s there was a HUGE "problem" with cross border shopping, and that was when the Canadian dollar was in the mid-60s. Canadians went to the US for more selection, and because in the end it still was less expensive. Since then, however, global distribution means there is virtually no selection advantage, and the rate of inflation in the US has far outpaced Canada - Now even with an appreciated relative dollar, American consumer goods are jus ridiculously expensive.
Those brigands charge money every time you use a non-Royal DEBIT MACHINE!
Doesn't every Canadian bank do this now? This is the 'disloyalty' fee.
gives a clear impression that everything is mostly there, but there is more work to be done
In software one could perpetually claim that there is "work to be done" (`maybe emacs could use a object model of a kitchen sink..') which is why the standard is that you choose a feature-set for a release, go through the various refinement steps of alpha/beta/rc, and then release. You're then free to move to the next version number.
What we're seeing instead is a large number of organizations using "beta" as a rather lame cop out of any responsibility for quality -- "It's beta!" (ICQ was [still is?] beta for years. They hilariously kept cycling the version number up, but perpetually released "beta" versions). This is irresponsible, and betrays a lack of respect for the intelligence of users.
This isn't Linux versus Windows -- it's SQL Server versus Oracle. Shops are choosing Oracle and then choosing Linux as the platform (given that it's largely irrelevant what platform it runs on). The submission implies that it was a toss up between Windows and Linux, and after choosing Linux they started looking around for a RDBMS.
The military has the keys to the encrypted stream, so their GPS units still work.
What's the likelihood that someone hasn't scored a military unit and reverse engineered the encryption key? I'm very curious about that as it sounds like a security measure that is strong in theory, but weak in practice.
All six of the Russian-made GPS jammers fielded by Iraq were destroyed in short order, some of them by GPS guided missiles!
Indeed - by the time the guided unit was in range of the jammer, the accuracy of non-GPS measures (magnetic direction, speed, etc) is sufficient to hit the target accurately enough. Jammers would have to cover hundreds or thousands of km in all directions to really have value.
If by "raped" you mean "performs comparably", then sure.
1 5.html
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/barton-
Given the information from a map another poster referenced, would you be happy with East South East?
They disproved the Alzheimer thing ages ago
They didn't "disprove" it - recent studies have failed to conclusively prove it (they aren't the same thing). More recent studies are pointing to saturated fat as being a component in Alzheimer's.
The article in question is more of the lying, self-serving crap we Canadians like to feed ourselves
To quote from the article: The study...was conducted by The Ponemon Institute, a Tucson, Ariz.-based privacy think tank.
In any case, you're exactly right: Our corporations are primarily driven by greed, and I think that was a given in this article -- having a consumer friendly privacy policy wins you loyalty and respect in Canada, whereas in the US perhaps most consumers just don't care (we've seen quite a few), so it's up to the government to enforce minimal privacy standards.
I find this very strange coming out of an essentially socialist country.
Isn't it nice when you can box up complex democracies and give them simple, clear-cut black and white titles?
Definitions
Capitalism (AKA the USA): Citizens are forced, through an extremely heavy handed beauracracy (the IRS) of an overbearing government, to hand over a good part of their paycheque to subsidize farmers who can't make ends meet, steel makers that are uncompetitive, a wood industry that just can't cut it, pardon the pun, among a vast and endless array of special interests. Every citizen is forced to support a massive military, whether they like it or not, as well as a massive social structure (primarily for the poor and elderly). Every single citizen who can afford it opts into healthcare through a private insurer.
Socialism (AKA Canada): Oh, they have universal healthcare like the rest of the world. SOCIALIST!
Hrmm...not sure if you didn't get the reference, but that was a Simpsons reference.
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/5F03
I had the exact same situation as the grandparent post: I was calling about my cable modem being out, and after being directed through all of the idiotic OS configuration steps (despite the little "link" light being out on the cable modem coincidentally occurring in concert with being unable to see the outside world), which I played along with, I could see where the conversation was going (headed towards "there's nothing on our end...we'll schedule a tech for a week but hope it clears up before then") so I disconnected the cable from the cable modem, and then listened as the telephone support narrated as they supposedly connected to my cable modem, and then supposedly pulled diagnostic codes and evaluated its health, etc.
I listened for about two minutes, and then said "Well that's odd as I disconnected the cable modem two minutes ago" she became flustered and was clearly caught in a lie -- it was a pretty awkward situation. In other words it's just as probable that they were just bullshitting to make you feel like they've done what they can do, when really they just want you to suck it for a while, or to call back for some other sucker to deal with.
experts don't determine prices in the stock market. The irrational public does.
I have absolutely no numbers to back this up (and I'm too lazy to look), but I highly suspect that institutional and fund investors outnumber low-skill private investors on daily volume by a ratio of at least 100:1. It seems that for every Joe Average flipping a couple of shares in a couple of companies, there are hundreds of massive institution investors and fund managers flipping billions of shares.
I am, of course, talking about real companies with a real market, and not penny stock where only the low-skill investor is involved.
Increasingly the world is not buying American products.
The US is the world's largest exporter (exporting more than even China), and often is the controlling\owning strings behind most "foreign" companies.
The trade defecit is just indicative that while the US exports $X, the world financial community lets it get away with importing $Xx(Y>1.0) without excessively punishing its dollar. That's a huge win for the US (all of the great goodies without having to pay for them).
For once it appears like the right hand knows what the left hand is doing
Why would investment decisions of the investment branch have to coincide with internal politics and technical direction? There is no credible reason, and there's no reason why an organization can't internally bet all their chips on Linux, while the investment division bets all their chips on Microsoft (though to better compare with this situation, the investment divisions would bet on many horses, and Microsoft would just happen to be one of them): The two have completely disparate criteria. Any organization that vetted investment decisions through every branch of the organization to make sure the left and right hand agreed would be bankrupt pretty quickly. Of course in this case it's entirely possible that there was some pressure to distance from SCO for publicity reasons (given that RBC is the most respected Canadian company several years running), but normally the two should be entirely exclusive.
Of course there is some relief by a lot of the tech workers at RBC for the simple reason that SCO is seen as the enemy, and no one wants to be associated with the enemy.
Well first let's accept that if a group of teens could take separate cars, they would. The teen driving is the alpha-human, and they all want to be alpha-humans, so if four teens had access to four cars, they would take four cars. The point is that this rule isn't forcing kids who would otherwise car-pool to drive separately, but rather is forcing them to get a ride by their parents, take a cab, or just skip the venture altogether.
Secondly, there is no doubt that kids in separate cars often act like aholes, probably worse than when they're in the same car. However it would be extremely difficult to legislate this ("You can't drive within 200m of a car driven by another teen..."), and as the first point indicates a passenger rule is unlikely to increase the probability of teens driving multiple cars.
Now they have upped it to longer (2 or 3 years) with the additional restriction that you can only have ONE passenger in the vehicle. The reasoning: There was an accident one year that involved a bunch of teens being loud in a car.
I call bullshit, and either you're a really poor liar that thinks denial will change things, or you really have a very limited view of the world.
Having been a teen at one point, and having shared the road with teens since, teens don't just "get loud" when there's a group in the car -- often they foolishly risk life and limb of themselves and anyone else on the roads in a competition of cool that's dangerously coupled with a sense of invincibility and irresponsibility. I've seen this myself countless times on the road (put several teens in the car and you'll usually see the classic hand hung over the steering wheel in a precarious and uncomfortable position and you'll quickly witness someone with limited skills barely keeping the car on the road as they try their damndest to exert the least effort possible driving in hopes of appearing to be a pro), and was personally involved with an incident as a teen (Mustang playing follow the leader. I wasn't the driver, but with my foolish teen bravado I certainly wasn't disuading the activities).
The stats are very clear in the insurance industry (don't tell that to the idiot in the other thread who claimed that "my insurance agent told me that teens are the safest group of drivers". That one had me rolling on the floor given that I have the actuarial numbers involved). Teens in cars have a substantially higher risk of being involved in crashes, particularly single-vehicle accidents (but occasionally taking innocents with them), and the greatly elevated risk alone justifies limiting the number of passengers, but we know socially that increasing the passenger count increases the risk even more.
That sounds like to me that Cisco will not be charging a whole lot for this license, it will probably be one of those $1 license deals where once you have it, you have it in perpetuity.
And what, exactly, do you base the "probably" on? I see it as distinctly more probable that Cisco, being a dominant player, will implement what would otherwise be a discarded solution, and smaller vendors will be basically forced to follow suit. They will, of course, have to line up to pay the Cisco tax, and that internet tax will fall on the shoulders of every person using the services or products, directly or indirectly, of any of those firms.
Of course we're both just pissing in the wind because ultimately we have no idea, however Cisco has provided a bad precedent by going for this patent (and the "defensive patent" angle doesn't really fit here).
Yeah but then they have to throw the bailiff in jail.