So how do you justify the strict rules against racism? I'm sure there are just as many 13 year olds who would love to call people 'fags' with impunity as there are interested in harassing others over their sexual orientation.
XBox Live has strict rules against racism. Surely racism and homophobia draw on the same irrationalities, so why doesn't XBox Live have strict rules against homophobia? It doesn't matter what people think are right and wrong. You have the right to state your race on XBox Live, and people do not have the right to antagonise you for it. You should also have the right to state your sexuality on XBox Live, and people should not be allowed to antagonise you for it.
There's a time and place for everything, and XBox Live certainly is not the place for homophobia. It is, however, a place for casual conversation, whatever that may constitute. Including your sexual orientation.
My analogies are perfectly sound. If you think otherwise, I'd suggest that you explain yourself, rather than just saying so. You're stumbling over your own feet, contradicting yourself multiple times within the same post. It's definitely not my argument that needs improvement.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Why confront bigotry and set clear rules against it, when you can just ignore the problem and maintain an environment where mentioning an alternative sexual orientation will get you harassed? Let us, as you say, do absolutely nothing about the problem, and hope that education will slowly convince them.
Wait, what education? I thought nothing would be done about it? Didn't you also just say that "they don't know they're wrong, and they never will?" Can you make up your mind?
I guess people should also just keep from attaching pictures of themselves to their profiles, in case whoever's watching might have something against their race.
So you're the kind of person who, when faced with occasional disappointment, will completely abandon their endeavour? Why complain when you can just stop doing things the second you're displeased in the slightest, right?
Only on slashdot can you have front page articles featuring original "research" done with no controls, no baselines, dissimilar base conditions, and sample bases of one single result, and have the headline speak conclusively in favour of the observed results.
If it makes FOSS looks good, that is. This is worse than digg.
I tried that with my bank. I told them that I knew what my Mastercard was, and that I know racking up debt without paying it was a bad thing to do, but they didn't see that the same way.:(
Actually, in RAID 5, five 250MB/s drives will roughly offer you the same performance as a 1Gbps drive for most sequences of IO operations. SSDs feature almost linear scaling due to the extremely low seek times.
Com-X have made some poor decisions, but that isn't really the reason for their current situation. Other providers with identical or similar business models have posted loss after loss after loss. Some aren't even seeing positive monthly operating results after five years of negative fiscal year results to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. They say running an ISP is an exercise in limiting losses, and these ISPs are sitting with the shortest of straws.
This is a loss-generating business in Denmark as it is, and Denmark with its relatively concentrated and dense population areas is the ideal place for rolling out this sort of technology on a national basis. Add the often lacking rural infrastructure in the US, and distance between dwellings in general, and you're lucky if you're ever going to see ROI. Especially when the service needs to remain competitive with low-priced solutions running on existing infrastructure.
Oh, I understood you perfectly well. You went in a circle.
I don't think you understand market dynamics, because you seem to be stuck in a frame of mind in which you think that "advancing the tech base" can somehow make the country economically sound with the more than 75% living in poverty hanging ball and chain from its ankles. It is not possible. It will not ever be possible. The only way out of the current situation for India is to engage as many people as possible, and generate as many jobs as possible, because the rewards of Indian technical innovation cannot feed 800 million impoverished people. You talk of encouraging the generation of jobs as "having a zero multiplier effect", which tells me that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. You're saying that the unemployed are just as productive for society as the employed.
It's amusing how you're advocating the concept of a select few being responsible for the economic fate of the vast majority after deriding the former oppressive forces in earlier posts. You're advocating the repetition of the failures of history depsite obviously knowing about them.
Now you're saying that it's impossible to gather the necessary capital for the government to do something about alleviating poverty, unlike your previous posts where all you said was that it wasn't their job. Now that we're talking about the issue of the government gathering the necessary resources to alleviate poverty, I think we can both agree that allocating resources in other areas leaves fewer resources to be allocated to alleviating poverty, meaning that we came full circle, and that I've seen no reason why my views should be wrong.
Of course serving individuals is part of the governments responsibilities, as the government exists for individuals, and is funded by individuals. The majority of jobs are in the private sector, but the private sector sometimes needs incentives to sustain and develop otherwise unprofitable jobs, and that is part of what alleviating poverty constitutes. You don't seem to know at all what a government is.
Perhaps you should stop and ask yourself if the current problems in India are indicative of a private sector which is capable of managing the labour shortages and general poverty on its own. The answer is right in front of you.
Why are you replying to me with this comment? Neither am I American, nor am I preaching socialism by stating the obvious truth that a democratically elected government exists to serve the citizenry.
Of course combatting poverty is the job of the government. The government exists for the people, and it is in the interest of the people to escape poverty. You say Indians can work harder and pull themselves out of poverty as if there are jobs waiting around the corner for anyone willing, which absolutely is not the case. Your inability to understand the magnitude of poverty in India, and the responsibilities of a democratically elected government must make it easy for you to make the arguments you're making, but they don't correspond with reality.
Taking X from one side of a scale and putting it on the other means that you have a relative deficit of X on the side that you took it from. I doubt that anyone in this thread has enough insight into India's governmental budgets to know how precisely how much we're talking about, but I don't think it's a stretch to assume that the money would otherwise have gone at least partly into projects aimed at combatting poverty.
Whether or not it's an appropriate allocation of funds is a subjective matter, but the money has to come from somewhere.
More expensive IPv6 equipment? You'd be hard pressed to find any contemporary, decent quality networking equipment without support for IPv6. The majority of this gear is even IPv6 capable with basic software licenses.
Slashdot Mirror
So how do you justify the strict rules against racism? I'm sure there are just as many 13 year olds who would love to call people 'fags' with impunity as there are interested in harassing others over their sexual orientation.
XBox Live has strict rules against racism. Surely racism and homophobia draw on the same irrationalities, so why doesn't XBox Live have strict rules against homophobia? It doesn't matter what people think are right and wrong. You have the right to state your race on XBox Live, and people do not have the right to antagonise you for it. You should also have the right to state your sexuality on XBox Live, and people should not be allowed to antagonise you for it.
There's a time and place for everything, and XBox Live certainly is not the place for homophobia. It is, however, a place for casual conversation, whatever that may constitute. Including your sexual orientation.
My analogies are perfectly sound. If you think otherwise, I'd suggest that you explain yourself, rather than just saying so. You're stumbling over your own feet, contradicting yourself multiple times within the same post. It's definitely not my argument that needs improvement.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Why confront bigotry and set clear rules against it, when you can just ignore the problem and maintain an environment where mentioning an alternative sexual orientation will get you harassed? Let us, as you say, do absolutely nothing about the problem, and hope that education will slowly convince them.
Wait, what education? I thought nothing would be done about it? Didn't you also just say that "they don't know they're wrong, and they never will?" Can you make up your mind?
I guess people should also just keep from attaching pictures of themselves to their profiles, in case whoever's watching might have something against their race.
This developer is an idiot. He's an idiot because:
A) He's wrong, and bundling does lead to market share, which is obvious, or
B) Bundling doesn't lead to market share, and yet they bundled Firefox with Google apps despite knowing that it did them no good.
Theoretically, it's not guaranteed that he'll actually get sex, either.
Is it in yet?
There's no Iraqi information minister here. There are no Iraqi information ministers within a hundred miles of this post.
So you're the kind of person who, when faced with occasional disappointment, will completely abandon their endeavour? Why complain when you can just stop doing things the second you're displeased in the slightest, right?
I don't blame you for posting that anonymously.
Only on slashdot can you have front page articles featuring original "research" done with no controls, no baselines, dissimilar base conditions, and sample bases of one single result, and have the headline speak conclusively in favour of the observed results.
If it makes FOSS looks good, that is. This is worse than digg.
Which high-end routers would they be? I've never seen a piece of Linksys gear that got even close to the 870 series Cisco high-end equivalent.
I tried that with my bank. I told them that I knew what my Mastercard was, and that I know racking up debt without paying it was a bad thing to do, but they didn't see that the same way. :(
Read the first reply to the parent post. ;)
Err, watching Thanksgiving football and posting on slashdot is not a good idea. s/1Gbps/1GB\/s
Actually, in RAID 5, five 250MB/s drives will roughly offer you the same performance as a 1Gbps drive for most sequences of IO operations. SSDs feature almost linear scaling due to the extremely low seek times.
Com-X have made some poor decisions, but that isn't really the reason for their current situation. Other providers with identical or similar business models have posted loss after loss after loss. Some aren't even seeing positive monthly operating results after five years of negative fiscal year results to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. They say running an ISP is an exercise in limiting losses, and these ISPs are sitting with the shortest of straws.
This is a loss-generating business in Denmark as it is, and Denmark with its relatively concentrated and dense population areas is the ideal place for rolling out this sort of technology on a national basis. Add the often lacking rural infrastructure in the US, and distance between dwellings in general, and you're lucky if you're ever going to see ROI. Especially when the service needs to remain competitive with low-priced solutions running on existing infrastructure.
Score:0, Troll
This troll is right.
Oh, I understood you perfectly well. You went in a circle.
I don't think you understand market dynamics, because you seem to be stuck in a frame of mind in which you think that "advancing the tech base" can somehow make the country economically sound with the more than 75% living in poverty hanging ball and chain from its ankles. It is not possible. It will not ever be possible. The only way out of the current situation for India is to engage as many people as possible, and generate as many jobs as possible, because the rewards of Indian technical innovation cannot feed 800 million impoverished people. You talk of encouraging the generation of jobs as "having a zero multiplier effect", which tells me that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. You're saying that the unemployed are just as productive for society as the employed.
It's amusing how you're advocating the concept of a select few being responsible for the economic fate of the vast majority after deriding the former oppressive forces in earlier posts. You're advocating the repetition of the failures of history depsite obviously knowing about them.
Now you're saying that it's impossible to gather the necessary capital for the government to do something about alleviating poverty, unlike your previous posts where all you said was that it wasn't their job. Now that we're talking about the issue of the government gathering the necessary resources to alleviate poverty, I think we can both agree that allocating resources in other areas leaves fewer resources to be allocated to alleviating poverty, meaning that we came full circle, and that I've seen no reason why my views should be wrong.
Of course serving individuals is part of the governments responsibilities, as the government exists for individuals, and is funded by individuals. The majority of jobs are in the private sector, but the private sector sometimes needs incentives to sustain and develop otherwise unprofitable jobs, and that is part of what alleviating poverty constitutes. You don't seem to know at all what a government is.
Perhaps you should stop and ask yourself if the current problems in India are indicative of a private sector which is capable of managing the labour shortages and general poverty on its own. The answer is right in front of you.
Why are you replying to me with this comment? Neither am I American, nor am I preaching socialism by stating the obvious truth that a democratically elected government exists to serve the citizenry.
Of course combatting poverty is the job of the government. The government exists for the people, and it is in the interest of the people to escape poverty. You say Indians can work harder and pull themselves out of poverty as if there are jobs waiting around the corner for anyone willing, which absolutely is not the case. Your inability to understand the magnitude of poverty in India, and the responsibilities of a democratically elected government must make it easy for you to make the arguments you're making, but they don't correspond with reality.
Taking X from one side of a scale and putting it on the other means that you have a relative deficit of X on the side that you took it from. I doubt that anyone in this thread has enough insight into India's governmental budgets to know how precisely how much we're talking about, but I don't think it's a stretch to assume that the money would otherwise have gone at least partly into projects aimed at combatting poverty.
Whether or not it's an appropriate allocation of funds is a subjective matter, but the money has to come from somewhere.
It's your hypothesis. Not mine.
More expensive IPv6 equipment? You'd be hard pressed to find any contemporary, decent quality networking equipment without support for IPv6. The majority of this gear is even IPv6 capable with basic software licenses.
So you crazy Australians have direction indicating hazard lights? IT'S OVER THERE! LOOK AT WHERE I'M SHINING!