The reason it's commonly used in finance is that it makes clear the subtle distinction between "percent decrease" and "decrease in a value reported as a percentage." A 0.84% decrease from 55.11% brings you only to 54.65% (55.11 * (1-0.0084)), a drop of 46 basis points. A decrease of 84 basis points from 55.11% is a 1.52% decrease. The author used it appropriately except for that factor of 100 error.
That's actually a really good question. You'd think if they could count them they could stop them.
I really like the unity shell too, for casual computing. Trying to do serious work on it actually pushed me back to KDE for the first time in ten years.
Tornadoes ravage the area in the worst local storm in recorded history, knocking out transmission lines to nearly a half million people, taking a week to repair. Browns Ferry responds perfectly.
News reports an issue first discovered last year that might potentially have been a serious problem together with other unlikely failures, but it was caught in time to avoid that.
No, I don't sense an anti-nuclear bias in the media at all.
I've been pretty impressed by the training my company has been able to put together lately.
Most of these guys are well respected in their fields, and while not exactly famous, are names I had seen more than once in connection with those topics. All of them spent some time looking at our company's needs specifically before doing the training in order to customize it for us. Our company isn't small, but not huge either. We have around 1600 employees, a few hundred of which took the training. It has really helped us revitalize a lot of our old school techniques. If a company our size can put a line up of training like that together, it ought to be within reach of most mid-size organizations.
Stuff costs money because there isn't enough stuff for everyone to have as much as they want. Breathing air is free because there's plenty of it. Land and water used to be free until things became crowded enough that communities had to make trade offs. Radio broadcasts and a lot of software is free because making additional copies of it has negligible cost and there are people willing to bear the cost of making the first copy.
Health care costs money because there's not enough available for everyone to have as much as they want. The shortage may not be visible or easily definable, but we know it's there because it's not free. Prices are set accordingly. Some people choose not to purchase health care. Shortage solved.
Prices mean some people can't afford to purchase health care even if they want it. This makes people sad. The government seizes money from some people to pay for other people's health care. Access solved.
Shortage created again. Patients respond by consuming as much free health care as they can get away with. Doctors react by charging the government more, spending less time with each patient, or refusing to take on new patients. Government responds with onerous quotas and regulations. Health care rationing being enforced by inefficient and far-removed bureaucrats instead of patients.
Ideally you want consumers to efficiently and equitably ration their own health care. This would require instead of using general taxes to make health care free for the poor, that people's health care prices increase both proportional to their ability to pay and to the amount of health care they consume. If we have enough resources to do cholesterol screenings every year for 95% of the people, then the price Warren Buffet is charged should make him decide against it 5% of the time, and the price some random poor person pays should make him decide against it 5% of the time. Unfortunately, no one is smart enough to make that work.
Here I am impressed that a site whose vast majority of readers are in the US or UK, most of whom have rarely or never even had the occasion to dial emergency services in their own country, let alone abroad, actually gives a nod of recognition that 911 and 999 aren't the only emergency numbers out there, and we still have someone whining that the specific number isn't mentioned. Someone who "arrogantly didn't spend a single thought on it" wouldn't have mentioned other numbers in the first place. If you go that far out of your way to get offended, maybe slashdot isn't the best site for you.
In addition to what the other guys said, someone who knows what they are doing would install perl instead of downloading the script over and over.
You can actually see what commands he copy/pastes and what he types himself, because the entire line appears at once.
It's easy to find everyone who defriended you. Of course, I have no idea who any of those people are, let alone why they want to hide my posts.
Anyone else think facebook would be a lot more interesting with disliking, foes, and freaks?
However, there is no good reason to run a telnet daemon these days, especially on the public Internet.
Interesting you should say that, because the article actually says they don't know if it's brute force login attempts or botnet traffic. A largely unused port with traffic that most people ignore makes sense to park a botnet on. It makes a lot more sense than a sudden spike in system administrator incompetence, which means most of the comments on this story are likely off the mark.
This state of the union address contains forward-looking statements which reflect the administration's best judgment based on factors currently known. However, these statements involve risks and uncertainties, including a Republican-controlled House, talk radio, the tea party, as yet undiscovered problems to blame Bush for, and other risks detailed in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 and our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. These risks and uncertainties could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements included in this speech.
Because it lets you focus your time on what makes your site unique, instead of on reinventing functionality that's common to 99% of all the sites out there. Throwing away 90 thousand lines of widely used, production tested code to make your own is rarely easier by any stretch of the word.
I know what you mean. Slashdot, facebook, yahoo, wikipedia, whitehouse.gov, and all those other low-traffic scripting language powered websites are mere amateurish attempts. I demand a professional C++ website like, uh, help me out here...
Maybe you should do some research before making claims. AppArmor is included by default on Ubuntu and allows application level internet permissions. Granted, it is configured very liberally by default, and I'm not aware of an easy GUIfied way for end users to grant exceptions. That's a plus in my book, though. Any system administrator is free to lock it down as tight as they want, and if the general populace of Linux users starts running untrusted software willy nilly instead of using the package manager, a strengthening of defaults is only an update away.
Also, AppArmor handles the reverse functionality very well, which is arguably more important: software that is allowed to connect to the internet can be restricted in other ways. For example, I can set up a folder that is completely invisible to internet connected applications for storing sensitive data in.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
