Defense of Marriage Act: Third federal judge rules law unconstitutional

quadcem · 2012-05-25T22:12:21.243088+00:00

Productivity's numerator depends upon the denominator (GDP/hour), so the more hours you work, the higher your GDP is supposed to be (your profits and exports should at least increase). This isn't the case here, of course, since they're working more hours (and theoretically producing more stuff, for instance) but their GDP is not increasing at a rate fast enough to compensate for it (which is the opposite of what is intended).

quadcem · 2012-05-25T21:36:13.891072+00:00

I'm more concerned about size of the water tank you'll have to wear on your back for the phone's cooling system

twolf1 · 2012-05-25T20:43:54.880069+00:00

It looks like the AP is taking into account the CEO's total pay package (including bonuses and stock awards, etc.) while the BoL is only looking at the raw salary by itself.

Based on the AP article:

David Simon of Simon Property received a pay package worth more than $137 million for last year, and the typical CEO took home $9.6 million, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Simon's $137 million is almost entirely in stock awards that could eventually be worth $132 million

quadcem · 2012-05-25T20:33:17.832095+00:00

Absolutely, there's clearly a major breakdown happening here and it's certainly not the workers who are all to blame. I guess it's a "Mythical Man-Month" type of mentality, where if your company is not making enough money you demand you workers work harder, but in actuality this ends up lowering productivity even further and makes things worse.

You can spend 16 hours a day making a product or service, but if the product isn't competitive or desirable enough for others to want to buy then you're wasting your time. This certainly isn't the employee's fault, since they're just doing their job. Like I wrote before, it's about "how much the output/result of your work is worth", not about how much work you put into it. If higher-ups are failing to do their jobs (or realize problems with the business), then having the workers work harder will certainly not fix the problem. The entire Greek economy can't be held up by just tourism alone, especially when the global economy is suffering and fewer people are traveling.

quadcem · 2012-05-25T18:09:28.017608+00:00

I'm sure there are a lot of hard-working Greeks that generate a lot of income for the country, but the overall stats don't lie -- Greece is below average on productivity compared to the rest of the EU, even though they're tied as the hardest-working country (based on hours) in the EU

quadcem · 2012-05-25T15:07:57.932550+00:00

Unfortunately for Greece it's not about how many hours you spend at work, but how much useful work you actually get done throughout the day, and how much the output/result of your work is worth.

justinisntfunny · 1 day

It was most likely taken down through the automated system on YouTube, which is not an official DMCA takedown request. It does highlight the hypocrisy where select groups of corporate giants are given permission to violate the content distribution rights of others en masse in an effort to protect their own content. It also shows how they already have more power than they can control, and clearly need no additional legal help in protecting their IP online.

sullen_ole_geezer · 1 day

You can always start your own website and forbid anyone from posting to it unless they have published, peer-reviewed evidence to back everything they say up.

thamuffinmane · 2 days

Apparently they're a titanium-based alloy

okayUK · 2 days

So 1000 students at a university all behind 1 IP will all count as a single user? And the same thing with people working at companies? And people who use computers at work and at home (i.e., almost everyone) will be counted at least twice, potentially with different browsers each time (if they use a different browser at work than at home). Attempting to track unique users by single visits is a more flawed way of determining popularity than basing it off of page views, especially when you cannot use cookies to track them.

And it is relevant, because if time spent on the internet is equal across browsers on average (which it mostly likely is) then the number of page views per browser is equivalent to how many people are using that browser when you're talking about percentages. What part of that is hard to understand? I am convinced at this point that you are just trolling me.

edit: This is the last message I'm posting about this, then I'm clearing out this nonsense debate that's cluttering up my overview page.

If each user, on average, views 1000 pages per day, and we have (in a single day) 3000 page views for IE, 6000 for Firefox and 8000 for Chrome, then we have 3000/17000=18% for IE, 35% for Firefox and 47% for Chrome.

Equivalently, we can estimate that 3000/1000=3 people were on IE that day, 6 were on Firefox and 8 were on Chrome. 3/17 = 18% of the people are using IE, 35% Firefox and 47% on Chrome. Ta-da! Equivalent measurements. I'd give my left nut that there is not, on average, a very strong correlation between time spent online and browser choice, so this estimate should be pretty darn accurate, and a heck of a lot more accurate than tracking by cookie or IP address.

DrJulianBashir · 2 days

I absolutely agree with you about going after the password that's protecting the key, which is almost always the weak link. My argument was about brute forcing the key itself, which is (even with today's best technology) infeasible -- the key itself is completely random and a dictionary attack would generally be useless against it.

DrJulianBashir · 2 days

Although their technology is probably very impressive, there is no way that they are capable of brute forcing even AES-128. The fastest supercomputer in the world today can operate at 10 pflops, and it is predicted that by 2019 we will be able to reach the exaflops range. Let's say that they have that technology today, and lets also assume that a single floating point operation is all that is needed for an AES decryption with each key (which is obviously well below reality, so we're really giving them a major leg-up here):

2¹²⁸ (AES-128) / 10¹⁸ (exaflops) = 1.078312783 x 10¹³ years (or about 10¹² years to try half of the keys) -- longer than the age of the earth!

All of the supercomputers in the world combined wouldn't be able to brute force AES-128, and that's assuming he's only using AES-128 (and not AES-256). They would have to attack weaknesses in the implementation he was using, or guess his password (protecting the key) if there is one.

okayUK · 2 days

These days I think it matters a lot to the browser developers, mainly. If no one uses Firefox then Google will not have a big incentive to want to pay for them to use their search engine by default (Firefox currently gets a lot of money with their contract with them because of this). Popular browsers tend to get the most funding and attention (from various sources), so (as a developer) you want to be able to say that a lot of people prefer to use your browser.

edit: It's also a good metric for customer satisfaction -- if your share is dropping then it means you need to start looking into what changes need to be made to your browser/processes to fix the issue.

okayUK · 3 days

I don't think I would say StatCounter is less reliable than others, but that it is measuring something a little different than Net Apps is. StatCounter is measuring popularity as web browser usage. If someone uses three browsers, but uses one of them in particular 90% of the time, then that one should count for 90% of their usage (and this is reflected in page views, not unique browser counts).

There is no reason to believe that IE users view less pages on the internet than Chrome users, or Firefox users for that matter. Because of this, basing usage stats on page views should have no inherent bias towards one browser or the other. No metric is perfect, and StatCounter is just one way of doing the tracking.

Dananddog · 4 days

"Reply hazy, try again"

quadcem

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login