One study != one sample. Each study should have enough cases to make it statistically significant. The problem is related to issues with the sample population or systematic flaws in what you're measuring. To bring it into the realm of physics, if we do a high school gravity experiment and ignore air resistance we can make as many tests as we like, check for measurement uncertainty in our clocks and whatnot and put up some confidence intervals that are still horribly wrong. It's very hard to isolate and experiment with one tiny aspect of the human psyche and most of the problem is the result is nothing but either a statistical fluke or quirk with the people tested that doesn't generalize to the general population.

It might not be all of it, but I'm pretty sure it's the end of it. Nobody settles half a case, particularly not when you bend over like this. The only reason Grooveshark would agree is if they got an exit opportunity where they could fold their hand and walk away from it, presumably because the other side's lawyers found there was nothing more to be gained from the company and piercing the corporate veil or pursuing criminal convictions wasn't possible or not worth it.

92% round-trip DC efficiency. Basically, if you put 100% DC power in, you get 92% DC power back. That's nice, but...

One AC/DC round trip costs 25% so if you get 100% AC power from the grid, convert to DC, store it in the battery and convert it back to AC for use as a drop-in replacement your total efficiency will be more like 0.75*0.92 = 69% efficiency. On the other hand if you have a DC source like solar panels, store it in this battery and use it to charge a DC sink like an electric car which is the ideal case you get 92% efficiency.

Has the fact that there's three major BSDs and one Linux been in BSD's favor? I have to pick an implementation and live with its bugs, either my machine is compromised or it's not. And those using other implementations will be hit with other bugs compromising their machines. Does it really provide any tangible benefit that not all of us are hit at the same time with the same bug, when we're all vulnerable some of the time? You divide the number of targets, but you also divide the number of developers and testers. For that matter, the eyes in "many eyes makes all bugs shallow" as well. And if you think the only true test is the test of time, the total value and exposure to the bad guys.

Am I supposed to swap browsers every time a vulnerability is found in Firefox/Chrome/Safari/IE? And wouldn't that quickly lead to a monoculture as a project dies every time it screws up big? Or if not, what exactly are the other implementations going to do for me? Software isn't like experimental physics where you want independent verification that if you try the same thing you get the same result. It's more like math where you need a formal proof that the code will always do what you intend for it to do and that it stands up under scrutiny.

We're not talking about something that must have a fail rate, if you get it right it's good. For example look at Apache and IIS, they're massively exposed yet there's very, very few exploits of significance. Okay so that's two not one implementation, but lack of diversity is mostly a problem when you have one bad product like java or flash that is a serial offender. Nobody has a problem with a monoculture that works and there's many of those. Don't allow crap in, code defensively, have reviews and fix the security bugs that get past you in a timely fashion and there won't be any need to reinvent the wheel.

The Greek economy is something like 2% of the EU. Germany could pay it all off alone and still be in the comfort zone. There was a time when it looked like many dominoes could fall, but Ireland, Portugal and Spain all seem to be on a slow recovery, Italy still gives grounds for concern. The reason they can't give in to Greece is because many countries have been responsible. Many countries have taken harsh steps to bring their budgets in line. The opposition against giving Greece special treatment is strong all the way from the rich countries to the other poor countries.

Just to add to that list the boss is the natural point of escalation when two people butt heads and won't agree. I don't expect my bosses to know the details or even the subject, but they need to understand technical write-ups listing the pros and cons so we can settle it and move on. If the boss clearly has no understanding of the issue and just goes with the person he likes best, of course he'll lose respect.

The other issue is representation, my boss often have to represent our interests in various formal channels. A tech explaining things to a non-tech might be hard enough but having a non-tech boss explaining to other non-techs in other departments means most will be lost in translation. And while it's natural that you need to bring back some questions or issues they raised, a non-tech will have to do it all the time creating a very long feedback loop.

That said, he does not need to be down into the nitty-gritty details. But really, would you hire a guy with no understanding of sales as sales manager? A guy with no understanding of financials as financial manager? It's very rare that you need just "generic people management" and nothing else, because usually you have a business role too not just an administrative role. And you can't do that without some understanding of the subject matter.

Americans have an intriguing tendency to vote as the social class they want to be, not the social class they are which seems heavily linked in to the American Dream. When you work hard, become a big success and make lots of money they don't want socialists to come take their money and give to slackers who haven't risen above the pack. Where in other countries workers allied together to get higher wages and better conditions on the bottom of the ladder, US workers are all about getting up the ladder and into a better job, those who can't don't deserve more.

Which might not be such a bad thing, if everybody started at zero. Reality is that most people are busy just making a living, while those with lots of free cash to invest make even more money so the rich get richer and the poor rarely make their dream come true. I think it goes far beyond rich men's propaganda, it's a cultural thing deeply embedded in Americans. What you've made is your own, I don't want it and when I get mine I don't want nobody taking it either. The rich just float on that attitude.

Running on low margins doesn't help much if the competition is undercutting you with lower costs. At least in the bragging video komplett.no made with AutoStore, they claimed going from a picker performance of 100 pieces/day to 100 pieces/hour = 8x performance as the system lines up the boxes at the picking station. Pick, scan, pick, scan, pick, scan, put in box for shipping, scan shipping box, done as opposed to running around the warehouse, particularly for new employees who have a hard time finding things. It also has other benefits like making employee theft much harder, since nothing silently disappears off the shelves or gets misplaced and they know what boxes you've had access to. The chance of accidents is vastly reduced, the storage area itself can be run in the dark and can operate colder/hotter than humans would like saving money on AC and heating.

Now obviously there's a solid investment cost but the question is how long can you afford to not make the investment? It might only be a nibble each time but higher running costs will add up and eat away at your profits too. Just look at all the other industrial robots, none of them were cheap to start with but those with money to invest will make the business case that in the long run it'll save money. Those who refuse to invest and renew themselves usually ends up on history's scrap yard.

Except it's not agile, what you're describing is iterative waterfall. You're not completing any business requirements, each component is working on a classic interface/function spec like a traditional work breakdown structure would do. When you say it's done, it's the traditional task that is done. You might get feedback from other developers, but the customer has no way to verify that it is done. Waterfall is not static, it's always had change orders and it's not like a revised spec makes it agile. You'll have all the traditional problems that the component you're building might not fit in the final picture, over-engineering to solve the general case creating inner platform effects and so on.

The whole mantra in agile is to deliver functionality, not code modules. Developers write lots and lots of code that may or may not end up actually being useful in solving the business requirements. I wouldn't go so far as saying quick and dirty but the point is to do exactly what is needed to meet the requirement, have it tested and signed off on then call it done and only generalized as needed. Once you start building big and complex components and layers that are supposed to cover all your current and possible future needs you've abandoned the core ideas.

Sure, sometimes you need a lot of plumbing to deliver the first drop of water and it makes sense that you don't dimension the system to deliver just one faucet. But it's not agile. Agile says that the only thing that's worth anything is if the user can turn the faucet and water comes out. If he wants another faucet, we'll modify that when it hits the top of the priority queue. Often a system is a total no-go until certain critical requirements are met, but it terms of building it agile wants you to do it one requirement at the time. It works best with a little moderation, build infrastructure you know you need but don't try to solve all the maybes and nice-to-haves.

At least when it comes to forks, a lot of what decides the winner is momentum. People who don't feel strongly either way about the divide who just want to work on their non-related part of the project and will eventually switch, but not until after the fact. That is why many dysfunctional projects and organizations keep on going, you might feel that your fork is the long term better way and you're just waiting for the old project to die and wither away so you can effectively get behind one rally flag again. From your perspective it's not so much a competition as the car ahead of you swerving all over the road to keep you behind him, so you get pissed. And sometimes there is a lot of sour grapes that you stole their thunder too.

Sure, but there's a few more options than doing this and doing nothing. For example, if the connection is so unreliable would you rather have someone on-site try doing it under audio/video/photo/sketch/text guidance and if the connection breaks down he'll just have to wing it or do you really want a remotely operated robot that'll leave you stranded when the connection fails. Not to mention the latter is harsh, but maybe needed on-the-job training. And if you want remotely operated robots, well you need some pretty advanced skills to maintain and repair them so you might just replace one skill they don't have for another.

Well, I wouldn't bother to start poking at it but I would at least search online if there's a workaround if I managed to get hit with a cryptolocker. So by publicly announcing this tool a few may be helped, isn't that good enough? I didn't bother to read TFA but I imagine it came for "free" looking for the malware's infection vector/hiding techniques/C&C central/whatever so there's no reason to complain about a lucky break.

If Microsoft wants to charge 40% to use DirectX, let them. Like certain GPL proponents like to point out, if you don't like the terms don't use it. Imagine this was something bigger and more formal than a mod, like a partnership. They make and sell the base game, you build DLC content for it. They're not going to give away their content and engine for free so you can make money off it, you won't write the DLC for free so they can make money off it. You'll agree to some commercial terms, a 40% cut is one possibility. I really fail to see the problem here.

They will in vacuum. Helium is lighter than air. It is not an anti-gravity gas.

Oh please, one of the most common forms of self-delusion is to focus on one little thing you do that is contrary to your usual behavior or line you won't cross making you not such a bad guy after all. Like focusing on that your bacon-cheese, greasy meat and white bread tower drenched in dressing with lots of oil-soaked fries has a leaf of lettuce and a slice of tomato too. And you ordered a Diet Coke, it's not that unhealthy right? I guess some of them are honest with themselves, it's still a calorie monster just without the final topping. But I'm guessing a lot more are lying to themselves, I know I've been prone to do so.