The scary thing is that the GP is probably able to vote. And worse is poorly educated enough to not know the following:
The czars were killed by communists, Hitler was a fascist, fascists are the mortal enemies of socialists and most of the economic problems have been caused by fascists running the economy.
Which is why fascists are so opposed to proper education, it puts all kinds of holes in their arguments.
Where have you been? The federal government frowns on talking about obvious security holes because doing so makes them exploitable. As long as we pretend that the DoD and other government agencies are properly securing their networks the crackers can't get in.
That's a good point. I recall my senior year in college the IT department installed traffic shaping hardware on the network. Basically killing the performance of P2P apps. in order to make the network useful for more general use applications
At that time, most of the file sharing was being done directly via file shares and often times there'd be virus infected files. From what you're saying, it's probably not that much different than when antivirus software would delete files on r/w enabled shares.
But to be honest, the terms kind of scare me, just because you're a professional doesn't mean the nitwits running that network are, and it's a blatant violation of copyright law to declare ownership over files in that manner.
I handle that by ripping my CDs to something uncompressed like APE or FLAC with a cue sheet to go with it. I like having the discs for that very reason.
It's a good system as only theft or fire leaves me needing to replace discs. In practice, only on rare occasion do I need to actually pull out any of my discs. None of that's really possible with DRMed downloads. Services like GoG are more like physical discs than some physical disc formats.
Not really, businesses make those sorts of claims because the ignorant buy into them.
Cost of doing business is only really one third of it. The other two thirds is what you get for the cost and regulatory constraints.
Which is why China still lags the US in terms of manufacturing out put. Sure they charge less to do business, but the regulations are a mess and the quality tends to be shit. On top of that the costs are going to go way up when the Chinese government allows employees to keep more of their wages.
If you feel that way, you should read up on it. If it's useless it's because we've allowed these egregious abuses of loopholes to go on.
The problem is that you can't cut corporate taxes far enough to stop the whining and threats. Corporations are used to being spoiled by fascists and will threaten to leave the country for absolutely any reason. Trade agreements like the WTO just make it worse since free trade undermines the ability of nations to look out for their own interests. As long as countries like China and Japan refuse to play by the same rules as everybody else, we're going to see this sort of thing. Ultimately MS cheats quite a bit and probably ought to be investigated for those fraudulent visas they've been using.
The point of corporate taxes is that if you remove it is that you lose the ability to impact how the corporation does business. You're restricted to out right bans on certain practices rather than influencing the cost curves.
I don't agree with that, what this sort of thing does is ensure that you're being directed to the correct site. Meaning that if you think you're logging into your bank's URL, you can be assured that it's going to the correct IP address. The site would still need to be secured beyond that, but it makes it a lot tougher to phish.
The issue of how domains are sold, is really a completely different matter. While that is important, it's not really that important while we're running around not necessarily knowing that we're on the correct server.
No, really it shouldn't, it's nearly impossible to get that sort of data. If the person was tired and high on pot, which do you count? Or if a person had a drink and a joint, which one is it? The decisions of that sort are made upon the basis of what the chemical is expected to do. There are provisions available for cases where a reaction causes the same dangerous situation.
I can't personally think of a good reason to change it, except that people want any reason at all to legalize pot.
That's a mighty fine straw many you've got there, it'd be a shame if somebody were to point out that it's completely irrelevant.
Any substance that causes impaired driving or reckless behavior in sufficient amount to cause dangerous conditions is sufficient for citation. That includes any number of legal OTC medications and in some cases herbs. It might be harder for the police to detect oxycontin or other prescriptions, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.
You might end up being cited for reckless endangerment instead of the DUI, but the police do have plenty of tools available for those that represent a danger to those around them. Unfortunately, not stiff enough sentences though. If you're only a bit buzzed and are driving responsibly, it's unlikely that you're ever going to be pulled over, that's just the way that it works.
Well, the deal here is that they were supposed to be taxing those sales already, this measure would just even the playing field between those that sell physical discs and those that just sell downloads. They're both supposed to be taxed in the same way, it's just that at present they aren't.
And you are right, the moratorium is on collecting sales tax, not on paying it. But then again, we're supposed to be able to deduct it and it took a really long time for that mess to get fixed.
As for tax evasion, it's not like there's an easy tool provided for handling that aspect and everybody including the state legislature knows that people don't pay it. That's the main source of tax leakage, it's just that nobody's been able to get the federal government to side with income tax utilizing states.
That's not true. Specifically, I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education. The motivation for this is that young boys (and even teenage boys) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher. And that's a win for everyone. Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men.
That's not the problem, well it's one of the problems, but not the only one. This is going to get tougher and tougher as time goes on, mainly because misguided attempts to shoehorn women into highly technical fields. Pay is one thing, but it gets tough to do when you can't do quotas and there's a distinct lack of individuals with relevant qualifications. Which is a natural consequence of the toxic environment and tendency to put off a vibe of being anti-man, particularly anti-white man.
It's hardly a small price to pay. There's going to be hell to pay in the next few decades when the consequences of taking it easy on girls becomes clear.
It's not that I don't think women can compete, it's that they aren't being required to. In order to "fix" the gender gap in math, most schools in the US have removed most of the technical bits to make it more a function of finding the answer as opposed to solving the problem. I'm all for equality, but changing the courses to assert sexism in the opposite direction serves no useful function. It's sort of like if in the 19th century we'd "solved" slavery by switch whites for blacks.
Additionally, I take it you haven't been to college recently because most college students are women, most schools have a large number of female faculty. Which leads me to wonder where all this mysterious sexism is coming from, because I didn't see it. Most of the classes I was in had women at the head of the class.
As for equal pay for equal work, that's bunk. The studies for that hold up well, as long as you don't attempt to measure the other portions of a worker's compensation, at which point it all falls apart pretty well. Making up stories to justify replacing the patriarchy with a matriarchy is hardly a constructive use of resources. At the end of the day it's equal cost for equal production and there's no evidence that women are being screwed in that sense. Female CEOs don't pay women more, they pay men less mainly because the compensation provided to women is equitable based upon the decisions they may.
Now if you want to argue that the burden of things like raising children leads to unfair decisions, I'm not going to stop you, seems like a reasonable assumption.
Because it's not doing it's job just fine if it's inefficient. There's a certain amount of inefficiency that's optimal or acceptable, but milliseconds can and do add up.
Over the entire company, what might be a minor waste of time for one person can become significant very quickly, which is one of the reasons why updating computers and adding a second monitor can be such a profitable move for a company. Tweaks like that do cost money in the short term, but frequently pay off in the long term.
The only thing that's really missing is some sort of metric for the bean counters to use to determine how much money to spend on it. I know at my work the amount of time and energy I wait for the database to do transactions with a server across the country really hurts my productivity.
That's definitely a large part of the problem, but probably the bigger problem is just the operating assumption that we can add more features just because tomorrows hardware will handle it. In most cases I would rather have the ability to add a plug in or extension for things which are less commonly done with an application than have everything tossed in by default.
Why this is news is beyond me, I seem to remember people complaining about MS doing that sort of thing years ago. Just because the hardware can handle it doesn't mean that it should, tasks should be taking less time as new advancements are going, adding complexity is only reasonable when it does a better job.
Until somebody goes to fix the natural gas line and can't figure out which one to work on. Or worse can't figure out which one to tap when rebuilding the home.
Sort of, non-intervention wouldn't necessarily be bad. What's bad is fascism. I know I'll get modded down for it, but the Republicans more or less destroyed the economy through interfering when people wanted to set limits on corporations and stepping out of the way when corporations wanted to interfere with people. Intervening on behalf of corporations against the people is definitely a popular policy amongst fascists, combine that in with the ruthless mindless nationalism and you've got the makings of a party that Mussolini would be proud of.
A policy of complete non-intervention would likely work better than that, but still over the long term you'd end up with the upper classes owning everything with the everybody else in indentured servitude.
You'll have to forgive my skepticism. But wouldn't that be a pretty blatant violation of anti-trust rules? Not producing enough of a processor is legitimate, but deliberately mislabeling or manipulating produced ones to make a false scarcity is pushing the limits of anti-trust regulations if not actually violating them.
I realize you're being funny, but the "Turbo" button was always a bit of a misnomer. It was meant to be on by default and actually slowed down the computer. Basically so games and such that weren't programmed right could be run on a faster computer. I remember being unable to get King's Quest IV to run properly without turning off the turbo. I can't really recall the exact issue, but I think it had to do with the sound not working properly.
Most of the time when Intel or AMD underclocks it, there's a good reason. That's not to say that it can't be done in a reliable and safe fashion, but often times it's because the chips aren't guaranteed to work reliably at the designed frequency.
Sort of like how the tri-core Phenoms are quad-core Phenoms with one of the cores inoperable. Yes, sometimes they have in the past down clocked them just for supply and demand reasons, but I'm not aware of that happening in recent memory.
Not so fast, if you remove the taxes on businesses that causes its own set of headaches. Business decisions made by well run outfits include tax costs in the decision making process. If you remove the taxes completely then you remove the possibility of impacting how the goods are produce shy of formal regulation.
It's far more desirable to allow businesses to work their mojo to reduce their own tax burden than to force the consumer to do so. Consumers are limited to basically buying or not buying a product. They could buy from a third party, but with the removal of the tax from businesses there's no way of minimizing the size.
I know that doesn't sound like a big deal, but it means that rather than shifting the cost curve a bit for production the government has to use regulations to handle things which could more efficiently be handled via tax and rebate. So, if you want a business to cut down on carbon emissions for instance, you'd be stuck with requiring certain technologies and banning certain technologies. Rather than things like cap and trade or using the taxes to fix the damage.
Most things look a lot more desirable when you ignore the cons.
That is not true. Serious photographers don't generally suggests that digital has the properties you're suggesting unless they're Luddites.
Trust me on this, I've shot with film, slide film and digital. Digital is by far the hardest of those to work with. You have to get it right the first time, you get similar dynamic range to slide film, but the range in each channel varies with typically the red or magenta blowing out earlier. Good luck trying to preserve the detail if you're shooting something that's rusty in the sun without losing the shadows completely or blowing the highlights all to hell.
Sure you get a teensy bit of leeway with digital and raw on white balance, but that's about it, if you didn't get the exposure right you're not any better off than you were with film. And as I mentioned already, it's harder to get the right exposure with digital. And at any rate it's not really any more than you could get with dark room techniques. Assuming that you've got the money for a proper darkroom.
Or to put it another way, if that's the way that you treat digital, then no wonder you're not getting the kind of results that you were getting out of film. I personally treat digital exactly the same way that I treat film, and I get much better results than I otherwise get. Blaming the equipment for sloth and ignorance is really not the way to get good results.
true, however digital photography is a.) modifiable (sometimes you don't want this)
Digital definitely can do that, the fact that you haven't run across the proper set up for that is not the same thing as the archaic practice being better.
Canon for one makes a system that demonstrates that it hasn't been modified. You can get a portable printer which prints the pictures out. But for all intents and purposes the fetish for a physical copy is well above and beyond what is needed for legal purposes. You can just sign the original on the spot and hand out copies to all that need it. On top of that it's far easier to archive for possible future need.
Slashdot Mirror
The scary thing is that the GP is probably able to vote. And worse is poorly educated enough to not know the following:
The czars were killed by communists, Hitler was a fascist, fascists are the mortal enemies of socialists and most of the economic problems have been caused by fascists running the economy.
Which is why fascists are so opposed to proper education, it puts all kinds of holes in their arguments.
Where have you been? The federal government frowns on talking about obvious security holes because doing so makes them exploitable. As long as we pretend that the DoD and other government agencies are properly securing their networks the crackers can't get in.
That's a good point. I recall my senior year in college the IT department installed traffic shaping hardware on the network. Basically killing the performance of P2P apps. in order to make the network useful for more general use applications
At that time, most of the file sharing was being done directly via file shares and often times there'd be virus infected files. From what you're saying, it's probably not that much different than when antivirus software would delete files on r/w enabled shares.
But to be honest, the terms kind of scare me, just because you're a professional doesn't mean the nitwits running that network are, and it's a blatant violation of copyright law to declare ownership over files in that manner.
I handle that by ripping my CDs to something uncompressed like APE or FLAC with a cue sheet to go with it. I like having the discs for that very reason.
It's a good system as only theft or fire leaves me needing to replace discs. In practice, only on rare occasion do I need to actually pull out any of my discs. None of that's really possible with DRMed downloads. Services like GoG are more like physical discs than some physical disc formats.
Not really, businesses make those sorts of claims because the ignorant buy into them.
Cost of doing business is only really one third of it. The other two thirds is what you get for the cost and regulatory constraints.
Which is why China still lags the US in terms of manufacturing out put. Sure they charge less to do business, but the regulations are a mess and the quality tends to be shit. On top of that the costs are going to go way up when the Chinese government allows employees to keep more of their wages.
If you feel that way, you should read up on it. If it's useless it's because we've allowed these egregious abuses of loopholes to go on.
The problem is that you can't cut corporate taxes far enough to stop the whining and threats. Corporations are used to being spoiled by fascists and will threaten to leave the country for absolutely any reason. Trade agreements like the WTO just make it worse since free trade undermines the ability of nations to look out for their own interests. As long as countries like China and Japan refuse to play by the same rules as everybody else, we're going to see this sort of thing. Ultimately MS cheats quite a bit and probably ought to be investigated for those fraudulent visas they've been using.
The point of corporate taxes is that if you remove it is that you lose the ability to impact how the corporation does business. You're restricted to out right bans on certain practices rather than influencing the cost curves.
I don't agree with that, what this sort of thing does is ensure that you're being directed to the correct site. Meaning that if you think you're logging into your bank's URL, you can be assured that it's going to the correct IP address. The site would still need to be secured beyond that, but it makes it a lot tougher to phish.
The issue of how domains are sold, is really a completely different matter. While that is important, it's not really that important while we're running around not necessarily knowing that we're on the correct server.
No, really it shouldn't, it's nearly impossible to get that sort of data. If the person was tired and high on pot, which do you count? Or if a person had a drink and a joint, which one is it? The decisions of that sort are made upon the basis of what the chemical is expected to do. There are provisions available for cases where a reaction causes the same dangerous situation.
I can't personally think of a good reason to change it, except that people want any reason at all to legalize pot.
That's a mighty fine straw many you've got there, it'd be a shame if somebody were to point out that it's completely irrelevant.
Any substance that causes impaired driving or reckless behavior in sufficient amount to cause dangerous conditions is sufficient for citation. That includes any number of legal OTC medications and in some cases herbs. It might be harder for the police to detect oxycontin or other prescriptions, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.
You might end up being cited for reckless endangerment instead of the DUI, but the police do have plenty of tools available for those that represent a danger to those around them. Unfortunately, not stiff enough sentences though. If you're only a bit buzzed and are driving responsibly, it's unlikely that you're ever going to be pulled over, that's just the way that it works.
Well, the deal here is that they were supposed to be taxing those sales already, this measure would just even the playing field between those that sell physical discs and those that just sell downloads. They're both supposed to be taxed in the same way, it's just that at present they aren't.
And you are right, the moratorium is on collecting sales tax, not on paying it. But then again, we're supposed to be able to deduct it and it took a really long time for that mess to get fixed.
As for tax evasion, it's not like there's an easy tool provided for handling that aspect and everybody including the state legislature knows that people don't pay it. That's the main source of tax leakage, it's just that nobody's been able to get the federal government to side with income tax utilizing states.
I'd be happy to pay them 8.25% for anything I buy. Considering that would be a bit of a break off the 9.5% rate I pay now.
That's not true. Specifically, I know that there has been a big push to get more men involved in education. The motivation for this is that young boys (and even teenage boys) who are behaviorally disruptive in class respond very well to a male teacher. And that's a win for everyone. Unfortunately, teachers are not well-payed, so it's hard to get people into the field, period, let alone men.
That's not the problem, well it's one of the problems, but not the only one. This is going to get tougher and tougher as time goes on, mainly because misguided attempts to shoehorn women into highly technical fields. Pay is one thing, but it gets tough to do when you can't do quotas and there's a distinct lack of individuals with relevant qualifications. Which is a natural consequence of the toxic environment and tendency to put off a vibe of being anti-man, particularly anti-white man.
It's hardly a small price to pay. There's going to be hell to pay in the next few decades when the consequences of taking it easy on girls becomes clear.
It's not that I don't think women can compete, it's that they aren't being required to. In order to "fix" the gender gap in math, most schools in the US have removed most of the technical bits to make it more a function of finding the answer as opposed to solving the problem. I'm all for equality, but changing the courses to assert sexism in the opposite direction serves no useful function. It's sort of like if in the 19th century we'd "solved" slavery by switch whites for blacks.
Additionally, I take it you haven't been to college recently because most college students are women, most schools have a large number of female faculty. Which leads me to wonder where all this mysterious sexism is coming from, because I didn't see it. Most of the classes I was in had women at the head of the class.
As for equal pay for equal work, that's bunk. The studies for that hold up well, as long as you don't attempt to measure the other portions of a worker's compensation, at which point it all falls apart pretty well. Making up stories to justify replacing the patriarchy with a matriarchy is hardly a constructive use of resources. At the end of the day it's equal cost for equal production and there's no evidence that women are being screwed in that sense. Female CEOs don't pay women more, they pay men less mainly because the compensation provided to women is equitable based upon the decisions they may.
Now if you want to argue that the burden of things like raising children leads to unfair decisions, I'm not going to stop you, seems like a reasonable assumption.
Except unlike the coelecanth, IE6 just seems like an artifact left by God to test the faith of young Earth creationists.
Because it's not doing it's job just fine if it's inefficient. There's a certain amount of inefficiency that's optimal or acceptable, but milliseconds can and do add up.
Over the entire company, what might be a minor waste of time for one person can become significant very quickly, which is one of the reasons why updating computers and adding a second monitor can be such a profitable move for a company. Tweaks like that do cost money in the short term, but frequently pay off in the long term.
The only thing that's really missing is some sort of metric for the bean counters to use to determine how much money to spend on it. I know at my work the amount of time and energy I wait for the database to do transactions with a server across the country really hurts my productivity.
That's definitely a large part of the problem, but probably the bigger problem is just the operating assumption that we can add more features just because tomorrows hardware will handle it. In most cases I would rather have the ability to add a plug in or extension for things which are less commonly done with an application than have everything tossed in by default.
Why this is news is beyond me, I seem to remember people complaining about MS doing that sort of thing years ago. Just because the hardware can handle it doesn't mean that it should, tasks should be taking less time as new advancements are going, adding complexity is only reasonable when it does a better job.
But what IEEE spec covers that? It's IEEE1394, isn't it?
Until somebody goes to fix the natural gas line and can't figure out which one to work on. Or worse can't figure out which one to tap when rebuilding the home.
Sort of, non-intervention wouldn't necessarily be bad. What's bad is fascism. I know I'll get modded down for it, but the Republicans more or less destroyed the economy through interfering when people wanted to set limits on corporations and stepping out of the way when corporations wanted to interfere with people. Intervening on behalf of corporations against the people is definitely a popular policy amongst fascists, combine that in with the ruthless mindless nationalism and you've got the makings of a party that Mussolini would be proud of. A policy of complete non-intervention would likely work better than that, but still over the long term you'd end up with the upper classes owning everything with the everybody else in indentured servitude.
You'll have to forgive my skepticism. But wouldn't that be a pretty blatant violation of anti-trust rules? Not producing enough of a processor is legitimate, but deliberately mislabeling or manipulating produced ones to make a false scarcity is pushing the limits of anti-trust regulations if not actually violating them.
I realize you're being funny, but the "Turbo" button was always a bit of a misnomer. It was meant to be on by default and actually slowed down the computer. Basically so games and such that weren't programmed right could be run on a faster computer. I remember being unable to get King's Quest IV to run properly without turning off the turbo. I can't really recall the exact issue, but I think it had to do with the sound not working properly.
Most of the time when Intel or AMD underclocks it, there's a good reason. That's not to say that it can't be done in a reliable and safe fashion, but often times it's because the chips aren't guaranteed to work reliably at the designed frequency.
Sort of like how the tri-core Phenoms are quad-core Phenoms with one of the cores inoperable. Yes, sometimes they have in the past down clocked them just for supply and demand reasons, but I'm not aware of that happening in recent memory.
Not so fast, if you remove the taxes on businesses that causes its own set of headaches. Business decisions made by well run outfits include tax costs in the decision making process. If you remove the taxes completely then you remove the possibility of impacting how the goods are produce shy of formal regulation.
It's far more desirable to allow businesses to work their mojo to reduce their own tax burden than to force the consumer to do so. Consumers are limited to basically buying or not buying a product. They could buy from a third party, but with the removal of the tax from businesses there's no way of minimizing the size.
I know that doesn't sound like a big deal, but it means that rather than shifting the cost curve a bit for production the government has to use regulations to handle things which could more efficiently be handled via tax and rebate. So, if you want a business to cut down on carbon emissions for instance, you'd be stuck with requiring certain technologies and banning certain technologies. Rather than things like cap and trade or using the taxes to fix the damage.
Most things look a lot more desirable when you ignore the cons.
That is not true. Serious photographers don't generally suggests that digital has the properties you're suggesting unless they're Luddites.
Trust me on this, I've shot with film, slide film and digital. Digital is by far the hardest of those to work with. You have to get it right the first time, you get similar dynamic range to slide film, but the range in each channel varies with typically the red or magenta blowing out earlier. Good luck trying to preserve the detail if you're shooting something that's rusty in the sun without losing the shadows completely or blowing the highlights all to hell.
Sure you get a teensy bit of leeway with digital and raw on white balance, but that's about it, if you didn't get the exposure right you're not any better off than you were with film. And as I mentioned already, it's harder to get the right exposure with digital. And at any rate it's not really any more than you could get with dark room techniques. Assuming that you've got the money for a proper darkroom.
Or to put it another way, if that's the way that you treat digital, then no wonder you're not getting the kind of results that you were getting out of film. I personally treat digital exactly the same way that I treat film, and I get much better results than I otherwise get. Blaming the equipment for sloth and ignorance is really not the way to get good results.
true, however digital photography is a.) modifiable (sometimes you don't want this)
Digital definitely can do that, the fact that you haven't run across the proper set up for that is not the same thing as the archaic practice being better.
Canon for one makes a system that demonstrates that it hasn't been modified. You can get a portable printer which prints the pictures out. But for all intents and purposes the fetish for a physical copy is well above and beyond what is needed for legal purposes. You can just sign the original on the spot and hand out copies to all that need it. On top of that it's far easier to archive for possible future need.