After playing with the problem for a bit, I can prove that if the three people base their answer solely on the X or Y shown to them, they cannot produce a set of answers that is certain to produce the desired product. I am not a quantum physicist though, so it is not clear to me how quantum mechanics could help them in surviving.
...but not as much sodium.
There is nothing wrong with processed food in theory, but in practice a lot of it has been optimized more for low cost than for health or taste. For example, a minimal amount of the taste-providing ingredients and then a lot of salt and MSG to compensate for that.
Physically, if there is nothing there to be represented, why is it counted?
Because people tend to decide what they count before they actually start counting. If someone asks you to count forks in an initially closed drawer, do you open the drawer and start counting, or do you answer "I cannot do that, since I don't know if the drawer contains any forks"?
I recommend indexing from 0 and using exclusive upper bounds in all languages. The number of off-by-one errors decreases dramatically in my experience.
What I heard is that Renault realized that the cost of the battery is one of the main problems in electric car adoption, both because it is expensive and because it is unclear how its value will depreciate over time. Therefore, instead of letting people buy the car with the battery, they sell the car much cheaper without a battery and the battery can be leased. At least here it is clear the battery is not sold, unlike many products with DRM.
I haven't looked into this further, but a possible reason for refusing to recharge would be if someone stopped paying the lease of the battery but didn't return it. Or if the battery pack got stolen from the person who leased it.
Of course some people don't like the idea of any kind of kill switch existing at all, which I can understand. It is a sign of distrust and it is also a potential mode of failure (both technical and administrative). But making the battery a rental was done for a good reason here, not just out of corporate greed or control freaking.
This post (found in the comments of TFA) contains more details. The bundling only happens if the project owner requests it. And the user can reject installing anything other than the application they came for.
I still think it's a bad idea though: apparently some projects did accept this (they get a cut of the revenue) and as a result users might become wary of downloading things from SourceForge. Trust is easier lost than gained. In fact, some users are so paranoid about installers that we've been releasing our Windows build of openMSX as a ZIP file in addition to an installer for several years now.
Please tell me those alternatives, because I've been looking for them and couldn't find them.
I need something that has decent sound quality and echo cancellation, can easily traverse NAT and runs on Windows, Linux and Mac OS X.
Looks like it would be a fun game. Do you know if anyone is maintaining it for current Linux systems? I found this, but it is from 2005 and both the D language and OpenGL have evolved quite a bit since then. I was hoping to play it on a GL ES device (GCW Zero).
First, as long as he's spending it in volume, no one should care.
That's true if your only concern is the size of the economy. However, there is a finite amount of resources and if cash goes to Ellison, materials, energy and man hours could be spent on a yacht, while if his employees would get more cash it could be spent on 10 smaller boats. So it does matter who does the spending.
Second, we're not talking about taking his compensation and giving it to employees.
I agree that the share holders are most likely not arguing for higher wages for regular employees, but for higher dividends instead. And if the cash is paid to share holders, it is more likely to get reinvested than spent.
Thirdly, if people like him do not exist, then no one will try.
It is fine if he is well compensated for his efforts. But what is reasonable compensation for the head of a large company? Ten times what a regular employee makes? A hundred times? A thousand times? Because a thousand is the order of magnitude we're talking about here.
Executive compensations have gotten to a level where they have a significant impact on company finances. Some projects which are canceled because they were not profitable might have been profitable without the high overhead. I think it is hard to justify layoffs while at the same time paying millions to executives (talking in general here, not about Oracle).
Progress is slowly being made in the use of capability based security. This will eventually (15-20 years from now) mean that computer security will be a solved problem.
Assuming capability based security will be the next big thing (I don't have enough experience to confirm or deny that), there will still be a need for people who design, write and audit programs using capability based security. So "a solved problem" would mean "the approach everyone uses" not "something that doesn't need attention".
Additionally, computer security can be outsourced and managed remotely, so it is likely to be commoditized, in much the same way as IT Administration was.
Only if you can trust a third party with your data. Also, I don't think you can fully separate computer security from information security: someone has to decide which people and automated processes get access to what data. The design of business processes and information systems (these must be in sync) in a way that minimizes security risks while still being workable is specific to a particular organization and therefore not a commodity.
It's taking a while to teach editing to the dolphins with their new Minority Report-style interfaces.
The twin inverted post repeater (TWIPR) approach uses the same technique as dolphins do to capture page views. Like dolphins, Slashdot editors post two times in quick succession to cancel out background noise. This finding, as demonstrated by this duplicate post, explains how Slashdot editors post two times in quick succession to cancel out background noise.
Ars recently had an article about Google replacing open source Android core apps with proprietary ones.
Okay, so it's complete shite to use but it's not just an office suite, it's a platform on which you can run your business.
So they have reinvented Lotus Notes?
Seems reasonable to think that they could server both the interests of their client while still being kept in check by the community. Having some Wikipedia admins on staff would actually make a lot of sense. At least it's better than not having any, and finding out the stuff you're creating and editing has violated some rules after the fact.
The rules are not secret; you don't need anyone on the inside to comply with the rules. It might help to have one or more experienced editors on staff, but admins is just asking for conflicts of interest.
As for the page management and preventing people from tarnishing a client's image, that alone doesn't imply page ownership.
The passages the GP quoted use "your page" and even "your own page", which does suggest ownership. Neutral would be "the page about you".
There's nothing wrong with removing mud slinging from an article when it isn't true or backed up with facts and references. Now if they are claiming to keep a page clean from all negative information, even if it's true, then there are problems.
Their page says "you need not worry about anyone tarnishing your image"; this either oversells their service or they don't care whether negative information is true or false.
I can understand that a company/celebrity is concerned about their image and having a third party between them and Wikipedia to spot and resolve problems is not a bad idea in itself. However, this PR firm's advertising suggests they are entirely on the side of their client rather than trying to find a balance.