Comment Another complexity with robotic window washers (Score 1) 203
Assume for a moment that robotic window washers could work:
Who will wash the washers?
Assume for a moment that robotic window washers could work:
Who will wash the washers?
The open-source x-platform server announcement was revealed on Scott Hanselman's blog in August 2014. But oddly, the permalink now points to this new announcement. Is there some conspiracy to pretend this wasn't already announced?
1) Because SSL/TLS was so poorly supported for years, many email clients default to using security only if the server supports it. Email software should simply drop support for unencrypted SMTP, or report a big warning if the server doesn't support it. We would not tolerate such a proxy for the web, so we should not tolerate it for email either.
2) A recent Slashdot discussion revealed that the STARTTLS stripping was due to misconfigured proxy servers. I think this is a rehash of the same incident.
So if I shoot a bike out of a cannon can I win the record for fastest bike? How about if I strap it to an airplane?
Shame on the author of the article though. This is a truly awesome creation. But focusing on the "record breaking" aspect taints the accomplishment. It shifts the discussion from "hey, look at this cool thing!! Awesome!!!!!" to "That's cheating!"
The summary claims that the retailers would bear the brunt of the legislation. The opposite is true. The letter is written by retailers, asking for increased regulation of cloud providers and banks. The letter is specifically calls out Apple and J.P. Morgan as the causes of recent data breaches. It complains that the retailers are responsible for notifying their customers of breaches, but they aren't the only link in the chain.
I like your comment, but I do want to point out a difference in magnitude about your example:
Case in point, a friend in the medical profession was actually complaining about tax dodges while setting up his own backdoor Roth IRA [personalcapital.com]. When I asked him about abusing the very rules he was decrying, he simply shrugged and said he doesn't make the rules he just follows them. He acknowledged it's shady as hell but pretty much felt like his hands were tied.
I will say that this example is an order of magnitude different from cheating on a school exam. In this case, the doctor is following the written laws. Of course, the laws are foolishly written in this case, and should probably be fixed, but few people believe that tax loopholes represent a "moral" quandary. (Update - another poster explained that backdoor Roth IRAs are explicitly allowed by the law, so it isn't a mistake apparently. Perhaps the name makes it sound worse than it really is.) Cheating however, is closer to lying. The cheater is lying about their knowledge and skills. That lie denies someone else their right to education, instead granting it to some lazy person who does not have the credentials.
Back to your medical professional, I would still go to a doctor who had a backdoor Roth IRA. But I would not want to go to a doctor who cheated their way through medical school! In America, we mostly accept the concept of "merit," but I'm not sure that all cultures do. It wasn't that long ago that India had castes, where birthright was more important than merit. Is it like racism in the US: publicly most everyone agrees it is wrong but there are still deep-seated biases?
I know very few people who turn down tax benefits because they disagree with that particular tax benefit.
I'm not sure how you came to your conclusions, but they certainly aren't universally true.
If you regularly out perform your peers that have more experience, then you get more pay than those slackers.
Some places don't give significant merit raises. Instead, they give bonuses or long-term-incentives that vest. That means that if you have been there for 5 years, and someone else has been there for 30 years, they might make more money than you do even if you perform better. This might depend on your location and vocation. What is the difference in profit between a top performer and a low performer? That is really really hard to calculate, and varies a lot.
Understand that Paying you an additional $10,000 a year is absolutely nothing to a stable and healthy company.
LinkedIn has $5,312 revenue per employee. That's revenue, not profit. So giving a $10,000 raise to an employee means that employee puts the company in the negative. Dreamworks makes $25,045 per employee. So I don't know if a $10,000 pay hike would make an employee no longer profitable or not, it depends on the actual profit per employee. Microsoft makes $221,212 per employee, so yes, all their employees could make $10,000 more and the company would still have revenue, but I cannot say about profit.
And honestly it's almost nothing to you when you look at your paycheck.
That can depend a lot. If you are in a position where 90% of your income goes to basic living expenses, then a 10% pay increase might double the amount of spending money you have.
Stupid Slashcode. I actually wrote "less than 0.3mm" using the "less than" symbol, but Slashdot filtered it out causing all kinds of confusion.
Mod up! Good research!
The summary explains why that sand isn't appropriate for beaches.
One might think that desert sand would be a ready substitute, but its grains are finer and smoother; they don't adhere to rougher sand grains, and tend to blow away. As a result, the desert state of Dubai brings sand for its beaches all the way from Australia.
I did a quick search on Death Valley. Wikipedia mentions that the grains are "booming" which means they are 0.3mm. Beaches are 0.2m to 2mm. So Death Valley sand doesn't work either.
The NSA has a dual mission of information assurance–protecting American networks–and signals intelligence–gathering electronic data on foreign networks.
Unfortunately for them, both American networks and foreign networks use the same software. So their mission is "make sure nobody can get in that safe, including you" and also "break into that safe." This is a no win situation.
The problem with these kinds of studies is that there is no actual way to objectively measure software quality. You can correlate all the data you want, but garbage in means garbage out.
For this study they used two thinfactor gs to determine software quality: one is the number of bugfix commits. Ugh. I'm not even clear if the number of bugfix commits means higher quality, or lower quality. That could go either way. It might mean you had better testers, or that you committed things in small batches, or that you had more branches. The other factor was a natural language processor that read the check-in comments. While this is a really cool idea, you would need a lot of research just to prove that this approach actually works before you can start using the technique to draw conclusions about some other data.
So while this was very cool, and very ambitious, the results are completely meaningless until someone can prove that this technique actually measures software quality at all.
Space itself may be there, but the equipment to get there is around 10 million times more expensive than the equipment required to climb Everest. Thus, the OP's point holds: the financial model for Everest tourism is not comparable to the financial model for space tourism.
Can someone explain why a video decoder cannot decode at any arbitrary frame rate? The algorithm doesn't change.
The key difference is that Everest was already there before we arrived. Mount Everest could never be built by charging people a fee to climb it. It would not be economical.
It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".
