Do I look all rancid and clotted? You look at me, Jack. Eh? Look, eh? And I drink a lot of water, you know. I'm what you might call a water man, Jack - that's what I am. And I can swear to you, my boy, swear to you, that there's nothing wrong with my bodily fluids. Not a thing, Jackie.
I am not used to shareholders able to foresee what can happen beyond 3 minutes.
FTFY.
And yeah, it's odd, but I can't think of any other explanation.
UK.
I ask because we just had this tax passed last year for implementation this year. I thought our brand of insanity was unique. Guess not.
Nope - you didn't mention time horizon in your article. Top tip - describing finite things as infinite is bad style.
What seem to have wanted to say is
1) that the number of bugs in a non-trivial piece of software is sufficiently large that they will probably not all be found before the software is obsolete. Which is dull but probably mostly true (given the wriggle room in "non-trivial" and "probably")
2) that offering a bug bounty because of this large latent pool of bugs is pointless.
This second one is just not valid because
1) bug bounties encourage reporting of bugs
2) not all bugs are equal - there are different costs for finding them in a particular product and a bug bounty will encourage people to find and report the easier ones.
3) There are finitely many black-hats. As the easy-to-find bugs in the pool are exhausted then the cost per bug to the black-hat increases in this product.
At this point the black hat has a choice - pursue finding harder bugs in product A (which has a bounty) or go for the easy to find bugs in product B (which doesn't). Blackhats are running a business - they will go for the return on investment in product B.
This neglects the very large positive advantages of reporting which others have covered earlier (discovery of systematic issues, healthy ecosystem of investigators, disincentive to black-hats).
At this point your "bug bounties are useless" falls apart because it neglects the fact that black-hats are running a business - spending $10million to find a bug in Apache will not happen because the blackhats cannot get a return on their investment. They will spend $10k looking for exploits in Flash, or PDF, or other low hanging fruit.
You're right - I can only offer my unreserved apologies to the cockroaches.
Yes, it's in one monolithic file.
Try making a minor typo in the syntax, then restart networking. You will lose all network connectivity on ALL interfaces.
Fix your typo and try to start networking again. It won't work until you reboot.
Or you can try adding your config to one of the seemingly infinite network config subdirectories (ifup.d, post-ifup.d, etc). Make the same typo anywhere in the subdirectories and you'll still mess up all networking and have to reboot.
I guess this is acceptable if you haven't used any OS besides Windows 98. For the rest of us it's maddening.
Shuttleworth has done nothing but help the open source community in every way imaginable.
You really consider a distro that can't change basic network configuration without a reboot to be 'helping'? Worse yet, some insane people are even using it as a server OS.
what's next? researchers use beads to do arithmetic?
Never heard of an abacus?
Honestly I don't get the stance of some ppl from the US against Russia.
Russia is the best friend and has been the most loyal, the strongest and the most valuable ally for the USA. Really. At times of apocalyptic events Russians and Americans stood together. It was before and it may be again when we have to save the Earth itself. Nobody can help the US but Russia when things get hot. Alienating Russians is what make things worse.
Those things are called movies. The space aliens didn't really invade Earth.
Idiot, he was referring to the documentary about the asteroid that they blew up with the nuke. You know, when Daredevil makes out with Arwen.
Replying to myself: I assumed they would cut expenses to feed the shareholders but I was wrong. TFA explains:
Amazon generated a whopping $74.45 billion in revenue for its financial year to 31 December 2013, but just $274 million in net income, a margin of roughly 0.3 percent. It sells Kindles at cost.
Compare this with Google, which saw net income of $12.9 billion on revenues of $59.8 billion for the year to 31 December 2013, a margin on 21.6 percent; or to Microsoft, which posted revenue of $77.9 billion for the year to 30 June, with a net income $21.9 billion, a margin of 28.1 percent
Question is: how do they manage to make shareholders accept that?
I'm guessing the investors expect Amazon to become and stay the Walmart of the internet (or perhaps the Sears and Roebuck from catalog days) and be be able to either ramp up margins or pay them at that level for a LONG time.
IIRC, the standard deduction this year was $6900 for single payers. Pretty easy to top that via mortgage interest.
Here, there's a fee to pay for the rain that lands on your property. It's a drainage fee - you have to pay the company that operates the storm drains to take it away.
Fellow MD resident?
Looks like the rest of your comment was truncated. Let me help:
"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. "
"Then candidate Bush referred to this as what? Something d-o-o economics. Anyone? Anyone?"
It was actually wishful thinking rather than faith. I've seen the same things you describe. I've also seen where things like this are swept under the rug forever. Then, the root cause analysis comes back and people flip shit because nothing was done about it in the past. Well, nothing other than ignore the recomendations of us morlocks...
How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz
