We have used Postini and Google Apps for Business as well as AdWords, and I have never heard of Google calling. Adwords would be understandable as I do not handle marketing, but I DO handle the email side of things and have never even seen a phone number for any google service.
Hunger is everywhere. Vaccinatable childhood diseases are everywhere.
There will always, in every single culture now, past, and to come, be hungry, homeless, violent, abused, and / or unvaccinated people on the fringes. You can push for fixes to these things, but you will never completely suceed, which means you absolutely must take into account what the societal costs will be for trying to fix one more case of unvaccinated child.
Keep in mind that there are limited resources and that you cannot throw infinite money, time, and effort at each one of those, and that generally there are much bigger problems to deal with than trying to make sure theres yet another homeless shelter on X street.
That said, I do not know exactly what the situation is in each city; there are likely places where another shelter is in dire need. But my point is that there are also likely places where another shelter would provide minimal benefit for a disproportionate cost, and if you look at everything through the lens of "but its doing SOMETHING", then you will end up wasting what resources you have.
how about at least trying in the slightest to offer a few valid ideas on why homelessness can't be eradication entirely?
How about these: A) Some people legitimately do not want to settle down. There are some people (arguably mentally unstable) who would prefer to be on the streets. This isnt arguable, as I know of such cases. B) Some people have mental issues which make functioning in society nigh upon impossible. You can have all the shelters and loan / mortgage programs and tax benefits and pro-bono advisors you want, some people simply are unable to take advantage of it. C) Some people are neither unstable nor do they desire homelessness, but are unwilling to ask for help. I am not aware of a safe / right way to force help upon someone who will not receive it.
Those 3 at a minimum ensure you will never succeed 100%. Fight homelessness, be compassionate, but dont lose perspective. I have in the past (and should more often) taken homeless people out to lunch; it is a real good, and should be encouraged by society, but do not think for a minute that having "enough money" would be able to fix this problem.
Doesnt anyone find it really odd to hear that Google is offering to sell websites when... A) Ive never heard of Google calling ANYONE, or even having any call centers B) Im not aware of Google having a business selling or creating websites C) Scammers will claim ANYTHING that will get you to sign up for something
I mean I get the whole Google is evil thing, but this just isnt Google's style, and it sounds like a classic scam. Especially when the caller starts with "Im from G-o-o-g-l-e-dot-c-o-m".
Really, none of this strikes anyone as strange and out of character?
Compare standard of living between your average capitalist system and your average communist (so-called) system, and tell me which is superior.
China is kind of an odd-ball, since they used to be poor and communist, but now theyre shifting (economically) to some kind of hyper-unregulated capitalism, and are actually starting to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become less poor.
There are systems that work in theoretical mathematics sense, and then there are systems that work in a practical engineering sense. Which do you suppose communism is?
1) Dont blame windows for 3rd party app vulnerabilities. 2) UAC was not set properly if the application elevated with no prompt. 3) Usermode infections are possible on any system.
Most infections follow a set pattern, and many have targetted removal tools. TDSS, for example, can be removed with Kaspersky's TDSSkiller. Ditto with Sality.
Some are serious enough that you do need to reinstall, but it is perfectly possible to remove a virus / rootkit, and generally its very obvious if your efforts fail.
You do realize that 95% of infections arent an actual hacker furiously backdooring your system, right? Its droppers and rootkits installing X components, and then making sure those components stay installed. And there are a number of tests you can perform to make sure your system is clean-- for example, if you use mbrcheck to try to re-write the MBR to a Win7 mbr, and yet it continues to report an XP mbr, theres a good chance youre still rooted.
Im not sure if MSSE was developed in house or purchased, but its one of the finest pieces of software ever to come from them. Its unobtrusive, and does its job quite well, even managing to recover from nasty infections on some occasions.
Really, when it comes to designing a user-friendly piece of software that does its job and stays the heck out of the way of the user, Security Essentials should be the model all software developers use.
And may that be the last time I gush about an MS product, it makes me feel unclean.
My links didnt come through due to a bad copy-paste; you are right that Bush had no declaration of war, but that is not a constitutional requirement, and international law allows retaliation in self defense (which, it is argued, Afghanistan was).
Iraq was because Hussein refused to allow UN weapons inspectors in, along with an informant who claimed WMDs and bio / chem weapons were being stockpiled. You can argue that all day long, but basically everyone was for the Iraq invasion when it happened; It is possible Bush would have been "in trouble" had he not done Iraq, and very possible he would have been impeached if he had not done Afghanistan (Congress voted some 520 to 10 on that; whens the last time they were so united?)
All that aside, Im pretty certain that no declarations of war were issued for Libya, so any attacks on bush must be doubly leveled at Obama.
Though this too may be a fatal flaw to Google Plus: Its social networking, for people who hated facebook (because they didnt want social networking). It would be like Honda making a new car for people who loathe cars.
There is nothing illegal, wrong, or anticompetitive about MS, Google, or Yahoo putting links to image or map search on their home page. In fact, pretty much every vendor in existence has links on their website from one product to another.
There is also a miniscule barrier to entry to make a competing service to Google. Making an Operating System and getting it preinstalled on every OEM machine has a HUGE barrier, and preinstalling IE leveraged that to achieve market dominance. If memory serves, one of the issues was that for most people the barrier of downloading and installing a new browser was high enough that dominance was inevitable once IE was bundled. It could be argued that without a browser, noone would have a way to download anything, but thats not relevent; the point is that there were several factors to the MS anti trust case.
With google, the barrier you're dealing with is going to google, searching "mapquest", and clicking a link. Outside of making the decision for someone, it doesnt get lower than that. What would you propose Google do? What remedy do you suppose is adequate, have Google search pretend that Google Maps doesnt exist? Should image search be broken off too? Where does it end?
As the Windows and Apple folks are so keen to point out, Android is FAR from a monopoly, and Android 4.0 is hardly a dominant player. You can draw some parallels to the MS / IE situation years ago, but they fall apart at that critical part.
Also, I rather have a hunch that that requirement is only for Android by Google (tm) devices-- can anyone confirm that?
When you say "illegal war", you mean "military activity not authorized authorized by congress?"
Because heres the huge irony of all these bashing statements about "Bushe's War" being illegal getting +5 interesting: All of Bush's military activity was explicitly authorized [wikipedia.org] by Congress, in one case by a landslide [wikipedia.org]. The huge irony here is that Obama voted "yea" for both.
The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for Obama, despite his vocal opposition to non-authorized military activity-- Libya was not approved by Congress (though it was by the UN; I guess that trumps constitutionality requirements in Obama's book).
To be clear, I am not against the intervention in Libya-- I can give Obama credit where credit is due; but there is some HUGE hypocrisy from a guy who stated "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." and even more so from those who ignore Libya and continue blithely attacking Bush. At least Obama had the good sense to shut up about Bush's "Kinetic Military Actions" being unconstitutional; yall should take a page out of his book.
That laptop you linked looks nothing like a macbook pro. In fact, the article linked doesnt even assert that it does; they simply moan that the user logon symbol resembles some kind of abstract apple (which is a heck of a stretch).
I mean, the trackpad is not a single piece, the keyboard looks nothing like a macbooks, the colors are all wrong, the plastic casing is all wrong, etc.
Virtualization is always pushed as a cost savings when it's not if you're doing it right.
Thats not correct.
A lot of the cost of a server is its drive-bays, its RAID card, its motherboard, its backplane. All of those can be shared with minimal performance loss. Overprovision the CPU (which is really not that expensive), over provision the RAM (which is downright cheap) and overprovision the storage (which has been and will be cheap), and you can now have multiple servers running on one server; where before you needed 3 $1500 cheapo dell servers, now you get one $3500 dell server which has more aggregate performance, more hardware redundancy (PSUs, disks), and can be scaled up in the future if the need arises.
I have a client where we went this route. We started by moving from Exchange 2003 and a Server 2003 domain (2 boxes) to a virtualized, 2-guest ESXi install. We later added a second host, with 2 more hosts, and later a third. The benefits have been wide: A) When our crappy firewall appliance took a dive, I was able in about an hour to provision a new VM running pfSense, and rewire the network through that VM so that our network was able to come back up. In otherwords, virtualizing gave us the ability to quickly implement if a need arose, rather than having to wait for new hardware. B) We can easily test new services by deploying a new VM. C) We can do hardware upgrades without bringing a service down (or could, if we paid for Storage Motion licenses). D) If in the future we desire, we can fill in the remaining drive bays on the servers, pump up the RAM, and set up High Availability.
All of this cost us literally nothing; there was added implementation time, but there were savings on buying a pimped out server rather than 2 weaker ones, and it has given us enormous flexibility.
Step 2: create multiple VM hosts with high-availability
Step 3: set up redundant networking (switches, etc)
Im not seeing the problem, nor the single point of failure. In fact, virtualization is much cooler than those crappy servers, since you can take a server offline without taking the service offline by migrating a guest between hosts. That is, in fact, one of the main reasons you use virtualization to begin with-- to disassociate the service from the piece of hardware.
Rule of driving: Never assume that the other person will act in a safe manner. Because one of these days during the next 50 years of your driving life, they wont, and you will come out much better if you are prepared.
As an administrator with full rights to their system, and knowing my users fairly well, I can check to see if they are telling me white lies. I wouldnt be much of an admin if I couldnt do that.
I have only once or twice in recent years (out of hundreds of cases) seen a viral download in a user-reachable location. Most virus infections seem to stem from the %temp% folder, and write their data directly to AppData. Hey, guess where flash and PDF temporary files are located? Thats right, %temp%. Pretty sure java applets go there too.
Those offices generally didnt have the power the Pope had, and Protestantism wasnt united in the way catholocism was, so they COULDNT have the power the Pope did.
Slashdot Mirror
WhoIs is neither enforced nor verified. It is very common to fake.
Additionally, there was no hard link from the phone calls to the WhoIs; that correlation was made by the author of the article, on tenuous grounds.
This could be legit, but it could very easily be scam + overexcitable blogger
We have used Postini and Google Apps for Business as well as AdWords, and I have never heard of Google calling. Adwords would be understandable as I do not handle marketing, but I DO handle the email side of things and have never even seen a phone number for any google service.
Hunger is everywhere. Vaccinatable childhood diseases are everywhere.
There will always, in every single culture now, past, and to come, be hungry, homeless, violent, abused, and / or unvaccinated people on the fringes. You can push for fixes to these things, but you will never completely suceed, which means you absolutely must take into account what the societal costs will be for trying to fix one more case of unvaccinated child.
Keep in mind that there are limited resources and that you cannot throw infinite money, time, and effort at each one of those, and that generally there are much bigger problems to deal with than trying to make sure theres yet another homeless shelter on X street.
That said, I do not know exactly what the situation is in each city; there are likely places where another shelter is in dire need. But my point is that there are also likely places where another shelter would provide minimal benefit for a disproportionate cost, and if you look at everything through the lens of "but its doing SOMETHING", then you will end up wasting what resources you have.
how about at least trying in the slightest to offer a few valid ideas on why homelessness can't be eradication entirely?
How about these:
A) Some people legitimately do not want to settle down. There are some people (arguably mentally unstable) who would prefer to be on the streets. This isnt arguable, as I know of such cases.
B) Some people have mental issues which make functioning in society nigh upon impossible. You can have all the shelters and loan / mortgage programs and tax benefits and pro-bono advisors you want, some people simply are unable to take advantage of it.
C) Some people are neither unstable nor do they desire homelessness, but are unwilling to ask for help. I am not aware of a safe / right way to force help upon someone who will not receive it.
Those 3 at a minimum ensure you will never succeed 100%. Fight homelessness, be compassionate, but dont lose perspective. I have in the past (and should more often) taken homeless people out to lunch; it is a real good, and should be encouraged by society, but do not think for a minute that having "enough money" would be able to fix this problem.
How is it that you allow young people, let alone whole families, to be homeless, to live in "shelters".
If someone cannot afford a home, and someone else providing one for them is unacceptable (those shelters you deride), what do you propose instead?
Doesnt anyone find it really odd to hear that Google is offering to sell websites when...
A) Ive never heard of Google calling ANYONE, or even having any call centers
B) Im not aware of Google having a business selling or creating websites
C) Scammers will claim ANYTHING that will get you to sign up for something
I mean I get the whole Google is evil thing, but this just isnt Google's style, and it sounds like a classic scam. Especially when the caller starts with "Im from G-o-o-g-l-e-dot-c-o-m".
Really, none of this strikes anyone as strange and out of character?
Because Unix owns GUI-less configuration, now. I see how this works.
Clearly no Windows product ever ran with the GUI as a mask over the DOS internals, no, GUI has always been the realm of Windows.
Compare standard of living between your average capitalist system and your average communist (so-called) system, and tell me which is superior.
China is kind of an odd-ball, since they used to be poor and communist, but now theyre shifting (economically) to some kind of hyper-unregulated capitalism, and are actually starting to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become less poor.
There are systems that work in theoretical mathematics sense, and then there are systems that work in a practical engineering sense. Which do you suppose communism is?
Its a pity that there was such a small supply of Germans; if only someone would figure out how to make more...
1) Dont blame windows for 3rd party app vulnerabilities.
2) UAC was not set properly if the application elevated with no prompt.
3) Usermode infections are possible on any system.
Most infections follow a set pattern, and many have targetted removal tools. TDSS, for example, can be removed with Kaspersky's TDSSkiller. Ditto with Sality.
Some are serious enough that you do need to reinstall, but it is perfectly possible to remove a virus / rootkit, and generally its very obvious if your efforts fail.
You do realize that 95% of infections arent an actual hacker furiously backdooring your system, right? Its droppers and rootkits installing X components, and then making sure those components stay installed. And there are a number of tests you can perform to make sure your system is clean-- for example, if you use mbrcheck to try to re-write the MBR to a Win7 mbr, and yet it continues to report an XP mbr, theres a good chance youre still rooted.
Rootkit revealer is BADLY dated. What you want is a combination of aswMBR, GMER, MBRcheck, and targetted tools like Kaspersky's removal tools.
Having a linux boot disk or MS Recovery console to check for hidden drivers and services is nice too, if you really want to dig in deep.
Im not sure if MSSE was developed in house or purchased, but its one of the finest pieces of software ever to come from them. Its unobtrusive, and does its job quite well, even managing to recover from nasty infections on some occasions.
Really, when it comes to designing a user-friendly piece of software that does its job and stays the heck out of the way of the user, Security Essentials should be the model all software developers use.
And may that be the last time I gush about an MS product, it makes me feel unclean.
My links didnt come through due to a bad copy-paste; you are right that Bush had no declaration of war, but that is not a constitutional requirement, and international law allows retaliation in self defense (which, it is argued, Afghanistan was).
Iraq was because Hussein refused to allow UN weapons inspectors in, along with an informant who claimed WMDs and bio / chem weapons were being stockpiled. You can argue that all day long, but basically everyone was for the Iraq invasion when it happened; It is possible Bush would have been "in trouble" had he not done Iraq, and very possible he would have been impeached if he had not done Afghanistan (Congress voted some 520 to 10 on that; whens the last time they were so united?)
All that aside, Im pretty certain that no declarations of war were issued for Libya, so any attacks on bush must be doubly leveled at Obama.
But its still not facebook.
Though this too may be a fatal flaw to Google Plus: Its social networking, for people who hated facebook (because they didnt want social networking). It would be like Honda making a new car for people who loathe cars.
There is a huge difference.
There is nothing illegal, wrong, or anticompetitive about MS, Google, or Yahoo putting links to image or map search on their home page. In fact, pretty much every vendor in existence has links on their website from one product to another.
There is also a miniscule barrier to entry to make a competing service to Google. Making an Operating System and getting it preinstalled on every OEM machine has a HUGE barrier, and preinstalling IE leveraged that to achieve market dominance. If memory serves, one of the issues was that for most people the barrier of downloading and installing a new browser was high enough that dominance was inevitable once IE was bundled. It could be argued that without a browser, noone would have a way to download anything, but thats not relevent; the point is that there were several factors to the MS anti trust case.
With google, the barrier you're dealing with is going to google, searching "mapquest", and clicking a link. Outside of making the decision for someone, it doesnt get lower than that. What would you propose Google do? What remedy do you suppose is adequate, have Google search pretend that Google Maps doesnt exist? Should image search be broken off too? Where does it end?
As the Windows and Apple folks are so keen to point out, Android is FAR from a monopoly, and Android 4.0 is hardly a dominant player. You can draw some parallels to the MS / IE situation years ago, but they fall apart at that critical part.
Also, I rather have a hunch that that requirement is only for Android by Google (tm) devices-- can anyone confirm that?
They're both saying that Google only catched upon social networking lately and didn't care about it at all before
Orkut? Buzz?
Surely Google had SOME interest, otherwise they wouldnt have made so many attempts at it.
When you say "illegal war", you mean "military activity not authorized authorized by congress?"
Because heres the huge irony of all these bashing statements about "Bushe's War" being illegal getting +5 interesting: All of Bush's military activity was explicitly authorized [wikipedia.org] by Congress, in one case by a landslide [wikipedia.org]. The huge irony here is that Obama voted "yea" for both.
The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for Obama, despite his vocal opposition to non-authorized military activity-- Libya was not approved by Congress (though it was by the UN; I guess that trumps constitutionality requirements in Obama's book).
To be clear, I am not against the intervention in Libya-- I can give Obama credit where credit is due; but there is some HUGE hypocrisy from a guy who stated
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
and even more so from those who ignore Libya and continue blithely attacking Bush. At least Obama had the good sense to shut up about Bush's "Kinetic Military Actions" being unconstitutional; yall should take a page out of his book.
That laptop you linked looks nothing like a macbook pro. In fact, the article linked doesnt even assert that it does; they simply moan that the user logon symbol resembles some kind of abstract apple (which is a heck of a stretch).
I mean, the trackpad is not a single piece, the keyboard looks nothing like a macbooks, the colors are all wrong, the plastic casing is all wrong, etc.
When you say "most of the country", we're still talking about Texas, right? /confused
Virtualization is always pushed as a cost savings when it's not if you're doing it right.
Thats not correct.
A lot of the cost of a server is its drive-bays, its RAID card, its motherboard, its backplane. All of those can be shared with minimal performance loss. Overprovision the CPU (which is really not that expensive), over provision the RAM (which is downright cheap) and overprovision the storage (which has been and will be cheap), and you can now have multiple servers running on one server; where before you needed 3 $1500 cheapo dell servers, now you get one $3500 dell server which has more aggregate performance, more hardware redundancy (PSUs, disks), and can be scaled up in the future if the need arises.
I have a client where we went this route. We started by moving from Exchange 2003 and a Server 2003 domain (2 boxes) to a virtualized, 2-guest ESXi install. We later added a second host, with 2 more hosts, and later a third. The benefits have been wide:
A) When our crappy firewall appliance took a dive, I was able in about an hour to provision a new VM running pfSense, and rewire the network through that VM so that our network was able to come back up. In otherwords, virtualizing gave us the ability to quickly implement if a need arose, rather than having to wait for new hardware.
B) We can easily test new services by deploying a new VM.
C) We can do hardware upgrades without bringing a service down (or could, if we paid for Storage Motion licenses).
D) If in the future we desire, we can fill in the remaining drive bays on the servers, pump up the RAM, and set up High Availability.
All of this cost us literally nothing; there was added implementation time, but there were savings on buying a pimped out server rather than 2 weaker ones, and it has given us enormous flexibility.
Step 1:
Consolidate onto virtualized servers.
Step 2: create multiple VM hosts with high-availability
Step 3: set up redundant networking (switches, etc)
Im not seeing the problem, nor the single point of failure. In fact, virtualization is much cooler than those crappy servers, since you can take a server offline without taking the service offline by migrating a guest between hosts. That is, in fact, one of the main reasons you use virtualization to begin with-- to disassociate the service from the piece of hardware.
Rule of driving: Never assume that the other person will act in a safe manner. Because one of these days during the next 50 years of your driving life, they wont, and you will come out much better if you are prepared.
As an administrator with full rights to their system, and knowing my users fairly well, I can check to see if they are telling me white lies. I wouldnt be much of an admin if I couldnt do that.
I have only once or twice in recent years (out of hundreds of cases) seen a viral download in a user-reachable location. Most virus infections seem to stem from the %temp% folder, and write their data directly to AppData. Hey, guess where flash and PDF temporary files are located? Thats right, %temp%. Pretty sure java applets go there too.
Those offices generally didnt have the power the Pope had, and Protestantism wasnt united in the way catholocism was, so they COULDNT have the power the Pope did.