There was a big Congressional email meltdown several years ago, wasn't there? I think it was during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. Anyway, I heard that was because the MS email servers couldn't handle the load.
I know what you're talking about. Normally, when a hardware vendor's service rep shows up at XYZ, Inc. for a service call on a bad HDD, he/she installs a new one and takes the old one with them. Service contracts on servers and storage arrays for govt end users generally carry an exemption, stipulating that the HDD stays onsite.
Yes. So? This press release doesn't change the other pre-existing factors that contributed to this mess; all it does is build on what was already there. Not to mention, Presidents aren't elected if they promise lower home ownership in an election year.
Home ownership by itself is a noble goal, and our leadership should support that. The problem is, how do you do that responsibly? Can the free market do that, or is regulation needed? IMHO, regulations simply create more obstacles for the good guys, and crooks always seem to worm their way around them. The problem is far more complicated than most people are making it out to be. Any discussion (or solution) that doesn't take that into account is superficial.
The money is there, but the competition got to be too much. In the mid-90's we were doing great. Our business plan was solid, and we were swimming in venture capital. We even considered an IPO at one point. Then in the late 90's, Microsoft got wind of what we were doing, and met with us to discus a merger. The rest of the story is fairly predictable: sell to them at a discount, or they would simply "embrace and extend" our blackmail model and include it as a free feature in the next version of Windows.
After we sat back, talked it over amongst ourselves and considered it, we agreed to sell to them. Looking back, I'm not so sure that was really the right thing to do, but at the time the ground was littered with companies who had crossed them and lost. Anyway, a few of us got buyout packages and moved on elsewhere, but most stayed with Microsoft for awhile at least. It's not a bad place to work. Nice campus and all, but it sure wasn't as cool as the supersecret lair was.
Eventually, they managed to integrate some of our world-domination technology into the next build of their OS, but they never really understood it, and it was a disaster (remember ME?). At that point, I was pretty disgusted, so I left to join another start-up.
That depends on your definition of "important". If by "important" you mean, has the most value to the person who received it, then I'd personally have to go with sex vids/pics. Those I can use right away, as often as I want, and then trade to get more nudie pics.
WTF am I going to use nuclear bomb codes for? I'm no longer in the nuclear blackmail business, and all my former henchmen are employed elsewhere. Mostly at Oracle and Microsoft. We still send each other xmas cards, and talk about getting together for a reunion, but it's hard to get all our schedules to line up, especially since most of us have young families now anyway. Back in the day when we were all single, it was easy to commit all our waking hours to work (building a massive underground fortress in a dormant volcano, etc.), but none of us really have the time anymore. Sigh. I guess you really can't go back to the glory days once they're gone.
Excellent info. However, just to be a wiseass, let me just say how glad I am that there is no worldwide series of interconnected electronic devices that might indirectly connect his home computer to mine or yours.
It seems that it is in vogue to blame Bush for the crisis, which is an rather simplistic argument. Obama is repeating over and over that the crisis is due to "8 years of failed Bush policies", which, not too surprisingly, is being eaten up by a populace eager to blame someone for the state we're in. Unfortunately for Obama, this argument ignores the fact that elements of this crisis were set in motion long before the Bush administration existed.
For example, the passing of the IBBEA under Clinton in '94. Also around the same time, Clinton passed the Community Reinvestment Act (probably what you're referring to re: "racist"... etc.). Record-low interest rates under Clinton/Greenspan helped propel our economy out of the doldrums of the early 90's, while contributing to enormous levels of home sales and construction. After the dot-com bubble, rates were continually held low to stave off economic troubles. That helped spur skyrocketing home prices even while the economy sputtered. Combine disproportionally high housing costs with 1) low/no money down loans, 2) interest-only payments, and 3) natural market cycles in real estate, you ended up with a lot of people upside-down on their home value, unable to make the rising payments, and unable to get out from under the loan by selling the house, not unlike what the mid-to-late-eighties was like, especially here in the northeast.
Also, Shortsightedness in the private sector was critical to this meltdown, and began before Bush even took office, and therefore before he did any deregulation. Some deregulation did occur under Bush, but that's a side show compared to the other sources of the problems.
Go ahead and blame Bush for the stuff he's actually involved in (entering Iraq without a proper exit strategy, for example), but scapegoating him for this whole crisis is nothing but convenient political rhetoric for the Dems. You'll never really get to the bottom of it that way.
Someone will try it; the world is always building a better idiot. Like the saying goes, I think we ought to just remove all the warning labels and let the problem solve itself.
Is it possible to answer that question without laughing? I'm reminded of that scene in Good Morning Vietnam where Robin Williams mimics 'Military Intelligence':
... so we ask them, "Are you the enemy?", and if they say yes, we kill them
There was a truly multinational force in Gulf I, unlike the token participation from a small number of countries in Gulf II. It should be noted that even Afghanistan sent 300 troops. IIRC, however, the country of Slashdot was not involved at all.
Spreading democracy? No. We (and everyone else who joined us in Gulf I) kicked out one invader to put the pre-invasion government back in power. We were defending an ally (a very strategic one), NOT nation-building.
This right shouldn't be in a constitution in the first place. Times have changed since it was put in there. Society has changed. Maybe it once was a good idea to grant people this rights, but today it is not.
That's your opinion; I strongly disagree. The need for and right to self-defense has not disappeared. Perhaps we are not defending our farms from indians, Mexicans, or whomever we stole the land to begin with, but we face dangers even in our "civilized" society, and guns are an effective deterrent. Fact: violent crime goes down when there are more legal gun owners.
But if the right to own a gun isn't in the constitution in the first place there is no problem.
But it IS in the Constitution. If people think it shouldn't be there, then they have to try and create and ratify a new amendment to revoke that right.
And if freedom from unreasonable search & seizure weren't in there, all this trouble with obtaining warrants would be out the window. No killer would roam free because evidence was tossed out on a paperwork snafu. There are lots of nice-sounding reasons why people would be "safer" if we simply took a few shortcuts across a law or two, but they are universally bad ideas.
However, in your case (not a felon, etc), if you want to own a gun you can.
No, actually I can't. My right to own a handgun has been made subject to the DISCRETION of my police chief, and he is anti-gun.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a big Congressional email meltdown several years ago, wasn't there? I think it was during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. Anyway, I heard that was because the MS email servers couldn't handle the load.
I know what you're talking about. Normally, when a hardware vendor's service rep shows up at XYZ, Inc. for a service call on a bad HDD, he/she installs a new one and takes the old one with them. Service contracts on servers and storage arrays for govt end users generally carry an exemption, stipulating that the HDD stays onsite.
Yes. So? This press release doesn't change the other pre-existing factors that contributed to this mess; all it does is build on what was already there. Not to mention, Presidents aren't elected if they promise lower home ownership in an election year.
Home ownership by itself is a noble goal, and our leadership should support that. The problem is, how do you do that responsibly? Can the free market do that, or is regulation needed? IMHO, regulations simply create more obstacles for the good guys, and crooks always seem to worm their way around them. The problem is far more complicated than most people are making it out to be. Any discussion (or solution) that doesn't take that into account is superficial.
Irrelevant. If you're doing her homework, you are wrapped around her finger, and therefore not getting any.
The money is there, but the competition got to be too much. In the mid-90's we were doing great. Our business plan was solid, and we were swimming in venture capital. We even considered an IPO at one point. Then in the late 90's, Microsoft got wind of what we were doing, and met with us to discus a merger. The rest of the story is fairly predictable: sell to them at a discount, or they would simply "embrace and extend" our blackmail model and include it as a free feature in the next version of Windows.
After we sat back, talked it over amongst ourselves and considered it, we agreed to sell to them. Looking back, I'm not so sure that was really the right thing to do, but at the time the ground was littered with companies who had crossed them and lost. Anyway, a few of us got buyout packages and moved on elsewhere, but most stayed with Microsoft for awhile at least. It's not a bad place to work. Nice campus and all, but it sure wasn't as cool as the supersecret lair was.
Eventually, they managed to integrate some of our world-domination technology into the next build of their OS, but they never really understood it, and it was a disaster (remember ME?). At that point, I was pretty disgusted, so I left to join another start-up.
MI6 knows who he is. They used to have pictures, but they lost them.
That depends on your definition of "important". If by "important" you mean, has the most value to the person who received it, then I'd personally have to go with sex vids/pics. Those I can use right away, as often as I want, and then trade to get more nudie pics.
WTF am I going to use nuclear bomb codes for? I'm no longer in the nuclear blackmail business, and all my former henchmen are employed elsewhere. Mostly at Oracle and Microsoft. We still send each other xmas cards, and talk about getting together for a reunion, but it's hard to get all our schedules to line up, especially since most of us have young families now anyway. Back in the day when we were all single, it was easy to commit all our waking hours to work (building a massive underground fortress in a dormant volcano, etc.), but none of us really have the time anymore. Sigh. I guess you really can't go back to the glory days once they're gone.
Excellent info. However, just to be a wiseass, let me just say how glad I am that there is no worldwide series of interconnected electronic devices that might indirectly connect his home computer to mine or yours.
Note to whomever at MI6: next time, boot to linux cd; man wipe; man dd. Hint: you will probably find the following helpful -
/dev/usb/[stupidfsckingcamera]
wipe -rfc
and just for grins and giggles -
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/usb/[stupidfsckingcamera] bs=4096
Or, better yet, decide that recouping a few quid on ebay isn't worth it, and just destroy the damn camera.
It seems that it is in vogue to blame Bush for the crisis, which is an rather simplistic argument. Obama is repeating over and over that the crisis is due to "8 years of failed Bush policies", which, not too surprisingly, is being eaten up by a populace eager to blame someone for the state we're in. Unfortunately for Obama, this argument ignores the fact that elements of this crisis were set in motion long before the Bush administration existed.
... etc.). Record-low interest rates under Clinton/Greenspan helped propel our economy out of the doldrums of the early 90's, while contributing to enormous levels of home sales and construction. After the dot-com bubble, rates were continually held low to stave off economic troubles. That helped spur skyrocketing home prices even while the economy sputtered. Combine disproportionally high housing costs with 1) low/no money down loans, 2) interest-only payments, and 3) natural market cycles in real estate, you ended up with a lot of people upside-down on their home value, unable to make the rising payments, and unable to get out from under the loan by selling the house, not unlike what the mid-to-late-eighties was like, especially here in the northeast.
For example, the passing of the IBBEA under Clinton in '94. Also around the same time, Clinton passed the Community Reinvestment Act (probably what you're referring to re: "racist"
Also, Shortsightedness in the private sector was critical to this meltdown, and began before Bush even took office, and therefore before he did any deregulation. Some deregulation did occur under Bush, but that's a side show compared to the other sources of the problems.
Go ahead and blame Bush for the stuff he's actually involved in (entering Iraq without a proper exit strategy, for example), but scapegoating him for this whole crisis is nothing but convenient political rhetoric for the Dems. You'll never really get to the bottom of it that way.
Does anyone else here feel like we're being asking us to do someone else's math homework for them?
Great. Once every hundred years, the island gets to generate electricity like crazy for about ten minutes.
Mmmmm ... gallium-iridium pancakes, just like Mom used to make.
Someone will try it; the world is always building a better idiot. Like the saying goes, I think we ought to just remove all the warning labels and let the problem solve itself.
the editing is very pour.
FTFY
Why is the slashdot time format "06:08PM"?
Because seconds since the epoch requires too much division for most people to bother with. ;)
Well, if you were waiting for the LHC to keep you entertained, I hope you have something to keep you amused until spring.
Meow.
... so we ask them, "Are you the enemy?", and if they say yes, we kill them
Or something like that.
Music is, to a large extent, applied mathematics
In the same way that sex is applied biology? 'Cause that would really be missing the point of sex.
This must be that new Mojave I've heard so much about ...
There was a truly multinational force in Gulf I, unlike the token participation from a small number of countries in Gulf II. It should be noted that even Afghanistan sent 300 troops. IIRC, however, the country of Slashdot was not involved at all.
Spreading democracy? No. We (and everyone else who joined us in Gulf I) kicked out one invader to put the pre-invasion government back in power. We were defending an ally (a very strategic one), NOT nation-building.
... prisoners in Arizona's Maricopa County can train as admins and work from "home".
This right shouldn't be in a constitution in the first place. Times have changed since it was put in there. Society has changed. Maybe it once was a good idea to grant people this rights, but today it is not.
That's your opinion; I strongly disagree. The need for and right to self-defense has not disappeared. Perhaps we are not defending our farms from indians, Mexicans, or whomever we stole the land to begin with, but we face dangers even in our "civilized" society, and guns are an effective deterrent. Fact: violent crime goes down when there are more legal gun owners.
But if the right to own a gun isn't in the constitution in the first place there is no problem.
But it IS in the Constitution. If people think it shouldn't be there, then they have to try and create and ratify a new amendment to revoke that right.
And if freedom from unreasonable search & seizure weren't in there, all this trouble with obtaining warrants would be out the window. No killer would roam free because evidence was tossed out on a paperwork snafu. There are lots of nice-sounding reasons why people would be "safer" if we simply took a few shortcuts across a law or two, but they are universally bad ideas.
However, in your case (not a felon, etc), if you want to own a gun you can.
No, actually I can't. My right to own a handgun has been made subject to the DISCRETION of my police chief, and he is anti-gun.