Decentralization had fuck-all to do with efficiency. It had to do with the fact that the more power you put into someone's hands, the more you have to trust them, and the old maxim is true: power corrupts. A totalitarian government is incredibly efficient if you have a skilled, trustworthy leader. The problem is that even if you can find people worthy of such trust, they will be replaced by those who aren't.
Because one of the big ideas floating around when the government was founded (though it was not a unanimous sentiment) was that power should be decentralized where possible. More and more, our government is moving away from that idea, but some things still carry that influence.
My biggest problem with the new series is the way the Daleks kept getting handled. They kept getting wiped out, only to reappear in some new hand-waving feat of deus ex machina. Thankfully, Steven Moffat finally stopped that nonsense, and let the Daleks get away after having their plans foiled. Sure, the Doctor needs to try to wipe the Daleks out completely. They're a great threat. That doesn't mean that you, as the writer, should allow him to succeed in that.
And in the book, there's an explanation for it (unlike what TFA says). Gandalf is basically a demigod, and killing his mortal shell doesn't actually kill him.
Assuming that's true (and I have my doubts), you're doing something horribly wrong. I ran Vista on a mere Athlon 64, with 2 GB of ram, and it worked great.
There's nothing wrong with it. I used it from release until Win7 release and never had a single issue, and I know others who didn't have issues as well. Everyone I have ever heard reporting issues either a) was trying to cram it into a machine with 256 MB of memory or something obscene like that, or b) was hating just because everyone else was.
Which is in turn a stupid policy set by management who is apparently too ignorant to understand that simply because project A is their baby, doesn't mean that all projects are suddenly related to it.
I checked and it's somewhat SFW. It's from Doctor Who, and it does involve an unclothed man, but you only really see him from the waist up. That'd be SFW at my work place, but definitely not at some.
Indeed. I did most of my dicking around developing web pages when IE4 was out, not IE5, but IE4 was head and shoulders above Netscape from a developer's standpoint. Accordingly, it also was superior from a user standpoint because web pages which utilized IE's capabilities could offer a better experience.
Do you not have insurance now? Do you prefer to not have insurance? Just how large is this fundamental constituency of the Republican party that prefers to voluntarily not have health insurance?
Were it not for the fact that my employer subsidizes my insurance premium, I absolutely would prefer to not have insurance. Also, you're buying into the idea that politics is binary. It's quite possible to oppose this asinine law without supporting the Republican party, and I stand as living proof of that.
Basically if everyone is not in the pool, the whole system falls apart and we're back to letting insurance companies have their way with us, with expensive rates if you're healthy and unaffordable rates if you're not, and many poor people unable to afford either getting free care by going to emergency rooms.
That's no excuse. Requiring people to have insurance is diametrically opposed to personal liberty, which is the fundamental principle of this country. The law (or more precisely, this part of the law) deserves to be struck down.
The status quo currently is in an abysmal state. Only a fool would think the status quo is a good health care system. Maybe the president's plan was not the best, and it certainly has a lot of flaws and is chock full of incomprehensible legalese, but the Republican contribution was steadfastly do nothing. They offered no alternatives, despite the core basis in the bill originally coming from Republicans. That's why there's this whole anti-"Obamacare" campaign out there, because they'd rather work up the masses against the Democrats instead of actually having to come up with a solution of their own. It's easier to just partake in political theater, since they know they can't overturn it in the senate, than do the actual hard work of coming up with fixes or improvements or better ideas.
That's irrelevant. If a law is out of line, it should be opposed, whether or not you can personally engineer a better solution. So what if the status quo was bad? That doesn't make the new status quo acceptable either.
I would hope so. Streaming one's own uploaded music is nothing more than a specialized form of data retrieval. It's asinine to claim that Amazon cannot allow this.
No, that's an invalid argument. Morality does not necessarily get overridden by a desire to make money, it is a choice to allow that to happen. Furthermore, the morality of an action does not in any way hinge upon whether the action will be carried out by someone else in the event of one's refusal. It is either moral or immoral (as the case may be) regardless.
That has never happened. Newer hardware revisions don't have PS2 compatibility, it's true, but if your PS3 could run PS2 games when you bought it, it can still do so today.
There are two extremes, and both are bad. While one shouldn't deny themselves everything in the short term simply to prepare for the future, neither should one sacrifice their future for today. Living every day like it's your last is a stupid way to live, financially speaking.
Yeah, this guy is a moron. What's next, he's going to rule out any developers that used dual displays at a previous job? I can see it now: "We can't afford to buy two displays for our developers, and once you have two displays you're forever tainted by their influence, so we can't hire you."
Slashdot Mirror
Decentralization had fuck-all to do with efficiency. It had to do with the fact that the more power you put into someone's hands, the more you have to trust them, and the old maxim is true: power corrupts. A totalitarian government is incredibly efficient if you have a skilled, trustworthy leader. The problem is that even if you can find people worthy of such trust, they will be replaced by those who aren't.
Because one of the big ideas floating around when the government was founded (though it was not a unanimous sentiment) was that power should be decentralized where possible. More and more, our government is moving away from that idea, but some things still carry that influence.
A politician in favor of increased taxes - is there a person on the planet who's actually surprised by this?
FTFY.
My biggest problem with the new series is the way the Daleks kept getting handled. They kept getting wiped out, only to reappear in some new hand-waving feat of deus ex machina. Thankfully, Steven Moffat finally stopped that nonsense, and let the Daleks get away after having their plans foiled. Sure, the Doctor needs to try to wipe the Daleks out completely. They're a great threat. That doesn't mean that you, as the writer, should allow him to succeed in that.
And in the book, there's an explanation for it (unlike what TFA says). Gandalf is basically a demigod, and killing his mortal shell doesn't actually kill him.
Assuming that's true (and I have my doubts), you're doing something horribly wrong. I ran Vista on a mere Athlon 64, with 2 GB of ram, and it worked great.
There's nothing wrong with it. I used it from release until Win7 release and never had a single issue, and I know others who didn't have issues as well. Everyone I have ever heard reporting issues either a) was trying to cram it into a machine with 256 MB of memory or something obscene like that, or b) was hating just because everyone else was.
A successful company [with] a product others are still playing catchup with?
Don't make me laugh. The only one playing catchup in the PC market today is Apple.
That's what you get when you keep the glorified salesman rather than the technical genius.
No, it really is unlimited. If your ISP caps you, that isn't Netflix's fault.
Voyager was fine. Enterprise is the only series which sucked.
Which is in turn a stupid policy set by management who is apparently too ignorant to understand that simply because project A is their baby, doesn't mean that all projects are suddenly related to it.
Why? MongoDB is web scale, we don't need anything else!
I checked and it's somewhat SFW. It's from Doctor Who, and it does involve an unclothed man, but you only really see him from the waist up. That'd be SFW at my work place, but definitely not at some.
JASON!
Indeed. I did most of my dicking around developing web pages when IE4 was out, not IE5, but IE4 was head and shoulders above Netscape from a developer's standpoint. Accordingly, it also was superior from a user standpoint because web pages which utilized IE's capabilities could offer a better experience.
Do you not have insurance now? Do you prefer to not have insurance? Just how large is this fundamental constituency of the Republican party that prefers to voluntarily not have health insurance?
Were it not for the fact that my employer subsidizes my insurance premium, I absolutely would prefer to not have insurance. Also, you're buying into the idea that politics is binary. It's quite possible to oppose this asinine law without supporting the Republican party, and I stand as living proof of that.
Basically if everyone is not in the pool, the whole system falls apart and we're back to letting insurance companies have their way with us, with expensive rates if you're healthy and unaffordable rates if you're not, and many poor people unable to afford either getting free care by going to emergency rooms.
That's no excuse. Requiring people to have insurance is diametrically opposed to personal liberty, which is the fundamental principle of this country. The law (or more precisely, this part of the law) deserves to be struck down.
The status quo currently is in an abysmal state. Only a fool would think the status quo is a good health care system. Maybe the president's plan was not the best, and it certainly has a lot of flaws and is chock full of incomprehensible legalese, but the Republican contribution was steadfastly do nothing. They offered no alternatives, despite the core basis in the bill originally coming from Republicans. That's why there's this whole anti-"Obamacare" campaign out there, because they'd rather work up the masses against the Democrats instead of actually having to come up with a solution of their own. It's easier to just partake in political theater, since they know they can't overturn it in the senate, than do the actual hard work of coming up with fixes or improvements or better ideas.
That's irrelevant. If a law is out of line, it should be opposed, whether or not you can personally engineer a better solution. So what if the status quo was bad? That doesn't make the new status quo acceptable either.
I have to have insurance or get fined. That was easy.
I would hope so. Streaming one's own uploaded music is nothing more than a specialized form of data retrieval. It's asinine to claim that Amazon cannot allow this.
No, that's an invalid argument. Morality does not necessarily get overridden by a desire to make money, it is a choice to allow that to happen. Furthermore, the morality of an action does not in any way hinge upon whether the action will be carried out by someone else in the event of one's refusal. It is either moral or immoral (as the case may be) regardless.
Holy shit. That's the most disturbing thing I've read in a long time. What the hell happened to liberty of conscience in this country?
Disabling PS2 compatibility from the PS3
That has never happened. Newer hardware revisions don't have PS2 compatibility, it's true, but if your PS3 could run PS2 games when you bought it, it can still do so today.
There are two extremes, and both are bad. While one shouldn't deny themselves everything in the short term simply to prepare for the future, neither should one sacrifice their future for today. Living every day like it's your last is a stupid way to live, financially speaking.
Yes, but if you had to, you could most likely adapt. That's the point, and that's what this guy is missing.
Yeah, this guy is a moron. What's next, he's going to rule out any developers that used dual displays at a previous job? I can see it now: "We can't afford to buy two displays for our developers, and once you have two displays you're forever tainted by their influence, so we can't hire you."