The problem with the system in America is that it is designed to kick people when they are already down and then hold them there. People of all races and upbringings make mistakes. The American system is much more unforgiving to those who get caught making mistakes.
This, for example, and ridiculous bank overdraft fee policies among others.
-- Ethanol-fueled
Much more unforgiving than what? My understanding is that in England, most of the time if you are born in the "working class", your children will die as part of the "working class". If you look at U.S. statistics, you discover that most of the people in the bottom quarter of wealth in the population ten years ago, aren't in the bottom quarter today.
Sorry, to reply twice, but this sort of post really frustrates me. Read the post that was being replied to and TRY to follow the thoughts of the poster you reply to. I am the poster you originally replied to (and the one you replied to here as well, you can't seem to pay attention to the thread) with your completely off topic comment about the merchant's cost of using credit cards. The person using Paypal, also, pays the cost of using credit cards. In addition, they pay the cost of using Paypal.
The inability of people on Slashdot to follow a thread can be really frustrating. I had a several day exchange with some people who reacted strongly to one part of my post, it finally turned out that they AGREED with the point I was making, but since they couldn't be bothered to track the thread they tried to show how wrong I was in when I was using an example of taking the OP's argument to its logical conclusion.
I agree those would make great movies, especially the original trilogy. I would love to see the first Dragonriders of Pern trilogy made into three movies. My question is do you leave it like it is and get an R rating (maybe even NC-17 depending on how graphic you make a couple of the scenes) or do you clean it up for a PG-13. There are only a couple of scenes in the book that would put it over the top and they don't effect the plot much. On the other hand those scenes do a lot to explain the culture.
I would also love to see the Harper Hall of Pern trilogy made into a movie trilogy as well.
Oh, I thought we were talking about my business documents, not my web site. Sure, if I wanted to run apps in my website, I would consider Google apps. But there is no way I am using Google apps on the "cloud" for my business documents.
There was a study done where fingerprint "experts" were asked to identify fingerprints from a "crime scene". Except these fingerprints were actually fingerprints that the expert had previously identified. The experts identified the fingerprints the same the second time around at a rate of less than 50% (my recollection is that only 1 in 10 of the experts gave the same identification for the fingerprints the second time around).
I agree with your point, there are uses for the "cloud" idea, just not nearly as much as the hype suggests. "Cloud" computing is just an update of an idea that has been around as long as computers. There are always people who want to put the genie back in the bottle and centralize control of computing.
There will always be a place for centralized computing services, but there will always be a need for distributed computing services as well.
Do you have a citation for that? I would think that there would be a lot of different services which need servers at different times. Most business services would peak during the day, but I would think most consumer based services (entertainment, shopping) would peak in the evening. And then you have to consider that there are other countries in the world and their day is different than yours. So, their peak times would probably be different.
Absolutely, the problem is that the consumer services actually have a pretty high demand during the day, even though it peaks in the evening.
The problem with using cloud computing around the globe is that relying on servers that are in Japan to get business done in Europe or the U.S. puts one at significant risk of regular inability to access the servers due to communication disruption.
It's not that cloud computing serves no purpose, it's just that it is not the "world changing" idea that its proponents keep claiming.
Yeah, why would we need weapons, after all the Kellog-Briand pact outlawed war just shy of 80 years ago? It's been working so well, I'm surprised there are any weapons left in the world.
Your nuclear-powered carrier fleet is on patrol in a war zone. Resupply convoys are a risky business.
Note that supply convoys also carry things like food, supplies, and personnel. When my ship was being UNREPed, refueling was only one (albeit huge) part of the operation.
Yes, but removing the refueling (or at least reducing) significantly reduces the danger involved (no large store of a highly volatile chemical compound on the ships of the supply convoy). It also reduces either the number of ships in the supply convoy, or the frequency of the supply convoy.
The U.S. government can use any patent. While they have to pay licensing fees, I'm not sure that they will necessarily be "hefty". The definition of "hefty" when it comes to the U.S. government is significantly different than for a private corporation. My understanding of usual Defense Department policy is to tell a patent holder how much they are going to pay for the license to use a patented invention (which is usually a pretty good sum). The patent holder cannot refuse to license it to the Defense Department (or any other part of the U.S. government).
The person I replied to did. Context is everything. I replied to someone who said that even with these new charges Paypal was cheaper than using a credit card. In that context your reply makes no sense.
And maybe this robot doesn't need to blow up on command, maybe it should strobe lights or drop a flash bang just before the entry team comes in.
I suspect that when these go into production there will eventually be a whole series of options available. Ones that go BOOM. Ones that go FLASH. Ones that give off lots of smoke. There will probably be ones that fire rifle(or pistol) rounds.
to do certain things and not do certain other things. Nobody is in favor of "big government" generally, and people who tell you they're in favor of "small government" are generally lying -- they always want to shrink some parts of government and expand others.
Most conservatives I know, believe that the parts of government that do the certain things they want the government to do are big enough and don't need expanding. Most liberals I know think the parts of government that do the certain things they want to do aren't big enough and do need expanding.
During peak hours you can spawn a few more servers and at night you can shut down a few without having to worry about the physical hardware and their associated maintenance burden.
Right, but what does it cost, because guess what, just about everybody else wants more servers at peak hours and wants to shut down a few at night. What does the "cloud" service provider do with all of those servers when nobody wants them? How do they cover their maintenance costs for the time when their servers are idle?
That's right, by charging more for them when you want to use them. The big problem with the cloud concept is that it assumes that the need for servers is spread out evenly across the day and the year. The fact of the matter is that it isn't, most businesses need/want more servers at the same time.
I wish that would work for me. I have one of the more common last names in the U.S.. I live in an apartment complex with over 1,000 apartments. There is a couple with the same last name in the complex who have had their telephone disconnected. There are some creditors who call for them. The problem is that every three months or so, the debt gets passed down the line to the next debt collector. When the calls start, I tell them that I don't know either of these people. They are very polite and tell me that they will take my number off their records. The calls stop and in 2 to 3 months start again from a different collection agency.
I know how this happens. There is a company that sells information to track people down. This company lists my wife and I as possible relatives of this couple. What is really funny about this company is that even though I am part of a large family, the only people they list as my possible relatives is this guy and my father. My father has been dead for 10 years. They don't even list my wife as one of my relatives, although they list her as related to this guy.
Other than that they should stay the hell out of the media, off the billboards, off the news, off any kind of promotion that can be bought for money.
So, are you saying that the news should not be able to tell us which politician voted for which law, because that might affect the next election?
As for other promotion that can be bought for money, are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed to buy air time, or billboard space to promote the candidate of my choice? What about posting my opinion on my blog? If I can buy promotion to support or oppose some candidate, why can't the candidate?
If I can't buy promotion to support or oppose a candidate, what about the First Amendment (if you live in the U.S.)?
I'd also like to see campaign contributions banned. There should be a pool of money provided by the government specifically for campaigning. That money is then equally distributed amongst all the candidates. Fundraising events can still be held but the money should go into the pot and not directly to that candidate.
Of none of this will ever happen. Politicians will never do anything to limit their power.
You appear to be saying that if I want to use my money to support a particular candidate (or to oppose a particular candidate), I should not be allowed. What about my time? Is it ok if I tell everyone I talk to why I think they should vote for or against a particular candidate? Is it ok if I send email to everyone on my email list about a candidate?
Politicians will happily do some of what you suggest, because despite what you appear to think, every form of campaign finance limitation favors the incumbents. The incumbents can use government money to campaign, only they don't call it campaigning, it is "informing their constituents about government activity". If you make that illegal, you will make it harder to find out what the government is doing.
There are two important differences. One, if they break into your home, there is a good chance you would know that someone had, if they break into your ISP, there is a good chance you won't know that someone broke in (even if you do, you probably won't know if they were after your stuff). Two, if someone breaks into your home, they only get your stuff, if they want someone else's stuff, they have to break into their home. If someone breaks into your ISP, not only can they get your stuff, but they can get the stuff of everyone else who uses that ISP.
This is definitely not true. The laws which regulate the election advertisements where largely introduced in the 1990s by the LDPs opposing parties.
From the summary, "A 59-year-old election law prevents Japanese candidates from blogging and twittering during the campaigning window." I checked the article actually says the same thing. Now according to the math I was taught 1990 was only 29 years ago, so I either the article got it wrong when the law was passed, or you are talking about something other than what the poster you responded to (and both the summary and the article) was.
What an excellent idea. Instead of saturating the media with insincere sound-bites from politicians who are judged more by their hair, makeup and height than their policies or competences, people actually get to meet the individuals they'll be voting for and are able to judge the person who wil represent them.
Maybe what we need is a news blackout on anything political as soon as an election is called. Make the candidates work for their election and getting comment from real people.. They'll still lie through their teeth, but they'll have to do it up-front and personal, to the voters - which is a much less forgiving environment.
Right, that way only incumbents will be able to easily get their names in front of people. Even better, then the politicians can pass all the laws that will make people howl during the news blackout. Man, you are a genius, the politicians would love a law like that.
Considering that the tech did not lose his job, or received essentially no punishment from the court system, it seems likely that there is significantly more to this story than what is in the article. This doesn't mean that the tech's actions were justified, merely that the evidence suggests that they were provoked.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with the system in America is that it is designed to kick people when they are already down and then hold them there. People of all races and upbringings make mistakes. The American system is much more unforgiving to those who get caught making mistakes.
This, for example, and ridiculous bank overdraft fee policies among others.
-- Ethanol-fueled
Much more unforgiving than what? My understanding is that in England, most of the time if you are born in the "working class", your children will die as part of the "working class". If you look at U.S. statistics, you discover that most of the people in the bottom quarter of wealth in the population ten years ago, aren't in the bottom quarter today.
Sorry, to reply twice, but this sort of post really frustrates me. Read the post that was being replied to and TRY to follow the thoughts of the poster you reply to. I am the poster you originally replied to (and the one you replied to here as well, you can't seem to pay attention to the thread) with your completely off topic comment about the merchant's cost of using credit cards. The person using Paypal, also, pays the cost of using credit cards. In addition, they pay the cost of using Paypal.
The inability of people on Slashdot to follow a thread can be really frustrating. I had a several day exchange with some people who reacted strongly to one part of my post, it finally turned out that they AGREED with the point I was making, but since they couldn't be bothered to track the thread they tried to show how wrong I was in when I was using an example of taking the OP's argument to its logical conclusion.
And how is that more than Paypal?
I agree those would make great movies, especially the original trilogy. I would love to see the first Dragonriders of Pern trilogy made into three movies. My question is do you leave it like it is and get an R rating (maybe even NC-17 depending on how graphic you make a couple of the scenes) or do you clean it up for a PG-13. There are only a couple of scenes in the book that would put it over the top and they don't effect the plot much. On the other hand those scenes do a lot to explain the culture.
I would also love to see the Harper Hall of Pern trilogy made into a movie trilogy as well.
Oh, I thought we were talking about my business documents, not my web site. Sure, if I wanted to run apps in my website, I would consider Google apps. But there is no way I am using Google apps on the "cloud" for my business documents.
There was a study done where fingerprint "experts" were asked to identify fingerprints from a "crime scene". Except these fingerprints were actually fingerprints that the expert had previously identified. The experts identified the fingerprints the same the second time around at a rate of less than 50% (my recollection is that only 1 in 10 of the experts gave the same identification for the fingerprints the second time around).
I agree with your point, there are uses for the "cloud" idea, just not nearly as much as the hype suggests. "Cloud" computing is just an update of an idea that has been around as long as computers. There are always people who want to put the genie back in the bottle and centralize control of computing.
There will always be a place for centralized computing services, but there will always be a need for distributed computing services as well.
So, Doty wants this technology spread far and wide and to accomplish that goal, they are erecting a large barrier to entry (steep license fee)?
Do you have a citation for that? I would think that there would be a lot of different services which need servers at different times. Most business services would peak during the day, but I would think most consumer based services (entertainment, shopping) would peak in the evening. And then you have to consider that there are other countries in the world and their day is different than yours. So, their peak times would probably be different.
Absolutely, the problem is that the consumer services actually have a pretty high demand during the day, even though it peaks in the evening.
The problem with using cloud computing around the globe is that relying on servers that are in Japan to get business done in Europe or the U.S. puts one at significant risk of regular inability to access the servers due to communication disruption.
It's not that cloud computing serves no purpose, it's just that it is not the "world changing" idea that its proponents keep claiming.
Yeah, why would we need weapons, after all the Kellog-Briand pact outlawed war just shy of 80 years ago? It's been working so well, I'm surprised there are any weapons left in the world.
Your nuclear-powered carrier fleet is on patrol in a war zone. Resupply convoys are a risky business.
Note that supply convoys also carry things like food, supplies, and personnel. When my ship was being UNREPed, refueling was only one (albeit huge) part of the operation.
Yes, but removing the refueling (or at least reducing) significantly reduces the danger involved (no large store of a highly volatile chemical compound on the ships of the supply convoy). It also reduces either the number of ships in the supply convoy, or the frequency of the supply convoy.
The U.S. government can use any patent. While they have to pay licensing fees, I'm not sure that they will necessarily be "hefty". The definition of "hefty" when it comes to the U.S. government is significantly different than for a private corporation. My understanding of usual Defense Department policy is to tell a patent holder how much they are going to pay for the license to use a patented invention (which is usually a pretty good sum). The patent holder cannot refuse to license it to the Defense Department (or any other part of the U.S. government).
The person I replied to did. Context is everything. I replied to someone who said that even with these new charges Paypal was cheaper than using a credit card. In that context your reply makes no sense.
And maybe this robot doesn't need to blow up on command, maybe it should strobe lights or drop a flash bang just before the entry team comes in.
I suspect that when these go into production there will eventually be a whole series of options available. Ones that go BOOM. Ones that go FLASH. Ones that give off lots of smoke. There will probably be ones that fire rifle(or pistol) rounds.
to do certain things and not do certain other things. Nobody is in favor of "big government" generally, and people who tell you they're in favor of "small government" are generally lying -- they always want to shrink some parts of government and expand others.
Most conservatives I know, believe that the parts of government that do the certain things they want the government to do are big enough and don't need expanding. Most liberals I know think the parts of government that do the certain things they want to do aren't big enough and do need expanding.
During peak hours you can spawn a few more servers and at night you can shut down a few without having to worry about the physical hardware and their associated maintenance burden.
Right, but what does it cost, because guess what, just about everybody else wants more servers at peak hours and wants to shut down a few at night. What does the "cloud" service provider do with all of those servers when nobody wants them? How do they cover their maintenance costs for the time when their servers are idle?
That's right, by charging more for them when you want to use them. The big problem with the cloud concept is that it assumes that the need for servers is spread out evenly across the day and the year. The fact of the matter is that it isn't, most businesses need/want more servers at the same time.
I wish that would work for me. I have one of the more common last names in the U.S.. I live in an apartment complex with over 1,000 apartments. There is a couple with the same last name in the complex who have had their telephone disconnected. There are some creditors who call for them. The problem is that every three months or so, the debt gets passed down the line to the next debt collector. When the calls start, I tell them that I don't know either of these people. They are very polite and tell me that they will take my number off their records. The calls stop and in 2 to 3 months start again from a different collection agency.
I know how this happens. There is a company that sells information to track people down. This company lists my wife and I as possible relatives of this couple. What is really funny about this company is that even though I am part of a large family, the only people they list as my possible relatives is this guy and my father. My father has been dead for 10 years. They don't even list my wife as one of my relatives, although they list her as related to this guy.
Since as you say, merchants build the fees they pay for accepting credit cards into the price of the items I buy, how does it cost less to use Paypal?
How so? When I use a credit card to make payments, it doesn't cost me anything if I pay off my bill at the end of the month.
Other than that they should stay the hell out of the media, off the billboards, off the news, off any kind of promotion that can be bought for money.
So, are you saying that the news should not be able to tell us which politician voted for which law, because that might affect the next election?
As for other promotion that can be bought for money, are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed to buy air time, or billboard space to promote the candidate of my choice? What about posting my opinion on my blog? If I can buy promotion to support or oppose some candidate, why can't the candidate?
If I can't buy promotion to support or oppose a candidate, what about the First Amendment (if you live in the U.S.)?
I is fact.
I'd also like to see campaign contributions banned. There should be a pool of money provided by the government specifically for campaigning. That money is then equally distributed amongst all the candidates. Fundraising events can still be held but the money should go into the pot and not directly to that candidate.
Of none of this will ever happen. Politicians will never do anything to limit their power.
You appear to be saying that if I want to use my money to support a particular candidate (or to oppose a particular candidate), I should not be allowed. What about my time? Is it ok if I tell everyone I talk to why I think they should vote for or against a particular candidate? Is it ok if I send email to everyone on my email list about a candidate?
Politicians will happily do some of what you suggest, because despite what you appear to think, every form of campaign finance limitation favors the incumbents. The incumbents can use government money to campaign, only they don't call it campaigning, it is "informing their constituents about government activity". If you make that illegal, you will make it harder to find out what the government is doing.
There are two important differences. One, if they break into your home, there is a good chance you would know that someone had, if they break into your ISP, there is a good chance you won't know that someone broke in (even if you do, you probably won't know if they were after your stuff). Two, if someone breaks into your home, they only get your stuff, if they want someone else's stuff, they have to break into their home. If someone breaks into your ISP, not only can they get your stuff, but they can get the stuff of everyone else who uses that ISP.
This is definitely not true. The laws which regulate the election advertisements where largely introduced in the 1990s by the LDPs opposing parties.
From the summary, "A 59-year-old election law prevents Japanese candidates from blogging and twittering during the campaigning window." I checked the article actually says the same thing. Now according to the math I was taught 1990 was only 29 years ago, so I either the article got it wrong when the law was passed, or you are talking about something other than what the poster you responded to (and both the summary and the article) was.
What an excellent idea. Instead of saturating the media with insincere sound-bites from politicians who are judged more by their hair, makeup and height than their policies or competences, people actually get to meet the individuals they'll be voting for and are able to judge the person who wil represent them.
Maybe what we need is a news blackout on anything political as soon as an election is called. Make the candidates work for their election and getting comment from real people.. They'll still lie through their teeth, but they'll have to do it up-front and personal, to the voters - which is a much less forgiving environment.
Right, that way only incumbents will be able to easily get their names in front of people. Even better, then the politicians can pass all the laws that will make people howl during the news blackout. Man, you are a genius, the politicians would love a law like that.
Considering that the tech did not lose his job, or received essentially no punishment from the court system, it seems likely that there is significantly more to this story than what is in the article. This doesn't mean that the tech's actions were justified, merely that the evidence suggests that they were provoked.