Because if man is to survive as a species, we must leave this planet.
Every single thing that could possibly be cut from the budget has some kind of "good" reason why it is vital. The problem is, we dont have the money to do all of them.
You know what you call it when someone spends money they dont have, with no plan or ability to repay the deby? Irresponsible.
The ENTIRE point i was making is that NO, Brandenburg did NOT turn the "fire in a crowded theatre" thing on its head. I am not an expert in this, and will readily admit that there are likely several mistakes in my posts-- but the fact is, Hazel made a statement waaay back up at the top that Brandenburg upheld some so-called right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, when in fact nearly the opposite is true-- regardless of the other facts of the case. Its ONLY mention was in direct contradiction to Hazel's statement.
It would be helpful if Hazel could affirm or deny his statement that this argument hinges around-- does he still claim that Brandenburg v Ohio upholds some "right to yell fire in a crowded theatre"? And if so, can he give a citation please, because when i went to the case and did a page search on "fire in a crowded", it took me directly to Douglass stating that such actions were in fact prosecutable.
So yes. I was wrong in several areas; specifically I missed the part about how Shenck was overturned by Brandenburg; but the overturning was to clarify where precisely these limitations on free speech were, but NOT to say that speech is never illegal, a prime example being where it can be reasonably expected to cause harm (though the specific legal criteria are more specific and limited than that).
2 comments, because I feel more than that is going in circles. 1) Why did you neglect the case that IS precedent forming that I linked, Shenck v United states, where this supposedly ficticious prohibition of "fire, crowded theatre" originates?
2) How are you reconciling your original statement that Bergman v Ohio "upholds... the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre", with a Justices specific (majority, concurring) opinion that no such right exists? Context may be important, but that is the only mention of "fire in a crowded theatre" in the opinions; and no such right is upheld.
I am repeating it because i see nowhere where any Justice upholds such a right; I only see a Justice reinforcing the prior precedent that there IS no such right.
No, it couldn't, since http://web.mit.edu/nse/ actually links to www.mitnse.com as their official blog. Its on their homepage, right side.
This is exactly the kind of frothing mouthed paranoia and FUD that needs to stop. Being responsible about reporting doesnt mean youre a shill, and anyone making that claim is part of the problem with the media today, in general. Not everything needs to be sensationalist.
You're skimming over words but you're ignoring the language and the context.
No, Im pointing out that your statement,
The right to falsely "shout fire in a crowded theat[er]" principle is upheld in Brandenburg v. Ohio
is utterly false-- the only MENTION of the phrase "fire in a crowded theatre" is by Douglass, where his statement COMPLETELY contradicts your assertion. They did NOT uphold that right.
As for precedent, the earlier precedent being cited is Shenck v United States, where the "fire in a crowded theatre" example comes from. This isnt some urban legend thing; it is real case law, and it has been known for quite some time. And in THIS instance, the "fire in a crowded theatre" quote comes from the unanimous opinion, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr, and in THIS instance, it WAS a precedent forming opinion. And as for context, THIS case was SPECIFICALLY about speech that incited insubordination.
Are you suggesting that people there died from a stampede?
Im suggesting that people are prone to panic, and that people in a panic are prone to do foolish and dangerous things; and that a person bears some responsibility for his speech (which is well understood in many areas-- from this scenario, to perjury, to laws on threats).
Did you not read those court cases? The supreme court, which you invoked in your own defense, disagrees with you. The case you quoted used "fire in a crowded theatre" as the PRIME example of acceptable and prosecutable restrictions on free speech. They quoted an earlier supreme court case which used that as the PRIME example of why not all free speech is acceptable.
As for whether loudly announcing the evils of the government may cause someone to be influenced into targetting government official - of course that's a reasonable expectation.
In the very case you brought up, Justice Douglass used the term "speech brigaded with action"; it seems implicit that one must use judgement to determine whether ones speech might reasonably be expected to cause "clear and present danger to others". So saying "our government needs to be change" is a far ways removed from "lets go murder some politicians with these guns right here". If you cant understand the difference, then I am not sure how to clarify it any further; in issues like these the courts tend to appeal to the fact that people have some degree of sense, and if they do not then they are culpable for that (it is often termed "negligence" or "manslaughter").
I don't perceive that at all. Maybe it was a credible risk before fire regulations limited crowding in a theatre. If merely yelling "fire!" is likely to cause a dangerous stampede then there's already something very wrong either with the theatre layout or with its patrons or staff.
That is unfortunate-- particularly that you seem to think human nature changes over time. Do tell, do you think that during Sept 11, 2001, folks in the Trade Center towers were being orderly? Or do you suppose there was a degree of panic?
In reality, Japanese officials already have caused a few 10'000 cancer deaths beyond what was unavoidable. The increased allowable dosage for Children (who are hugely vulnerable to radiation) is just the last batch of randomized death sentences they are implementing.
Lets start here, because this is the biggest flaw in your post. There are several websites where you can view the actual radiation reported in various areas. Except within a few kilometers of Fukushima Daiichi, the radiation levels fall to biologically insignificant levels.
At this point, the nature of the disaster is that it is hugely expensive, is leaking radioactive, hard-to-clean-up water, and is rather difficult to bring to a "probably wont catch fire or explode anymore" state. But there are no deadly radioactive clouds floating around, there is no substantial increase in the radiation in milk in the US, there is no plutonium floating around in the atmosphere, and as of now the most severely irradiated individuals (some of the workers) have received a dose that is roughly equivalent to what they would normally receive in a year, anyways-- of concern, but unlikely to cause them to keel over and die.
Further, just because we have an actual, real, substantial crisis on our hands, doesnt mean we need to lose all perspective and start comparing it to Chernobyl or (heaven forbid) Hiroshima. Its a problem, yes, and there is a lot of blame to apportion; but losing our heads and falling for all the hyperbole running around is unlikely to make matters any better.
Im not entirely sure what the dosage received by those in the immediate vicinity of the plants was; but as the area of "concern" around the plants was evacuated pretty rapidly (within about 36 hours), I have trouble believing such emphatic statements as "Japanese officials have already caused a few 10,000 cancer deaths beyond what was avoidable"; especially when the MIT Nuclear Science blog seems to indicate that in total, if you were at the plants perimeter, you basically recieved 2-3 whole body CT scans-- this less than 3km away from the plant, when the evacuation zone is 30km. That blog seems to be one of the BEST sources of information, as it plainly presents the facts without any breathless panic or fearmongering; they state that there is some danger, where it comes from, how to protect yourself, and how to get more information-- but it doesnt state "Tens of thousands of you are likely to die of cancer" or "beware floating radioactive clouds".
This is precisely why this information IS harmful, and if it shouldnt be censored because of the tyrannical tendencies of anyone given such a power, that does not mean that anyone should go spreading FUD and misinformation about a crisis while people are trying to deal with it.
Some of the stuff being reported on the news is true. Most of it is bogus scaremongering.
I dont think that the US could get away with this kind of censorship, because there is very little risk of someone being injured directly from this irresponsible reporting. It may do long term harm in various ways, but our media does have that freedom.
However, just because the Japanese govt may be wrong in the actions it takes, its concern is very valid-- all of this frothing-mouthed reporting does very little good, and increases the ignorance of the populace in general.
The difference is that you could have no reasonable expectation that saying "the government is doing bad things" would directly, in itself, be responsible for pushing someone to commit a murder. Any 10 year old could understand that yelling fire or pulling a fire alarm in a crowded theatre has a moderate risk of causing a dangerous stampede.
By your logic, you could never be prosecuted for leaving valuables in plain sight near a window and rigging up a lethal trap on any would be robbers. I mean, you didnt TELL someone to try to break in, so you cant be responsible for their death right? Except that there are very few states where you could even hope to get away with that; any reasonable person would understand that such a scenario is likely to lead to someone's death.
The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. [...] They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused.
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
So your logic is wrong, and the courts seem to disagree. Using speech that is likely and can reasonably be understood to cause riots or dangerous situations is NOT protected in our law books, and I really doubt you would like living in a country where that was not the case.
Taking notes on what you read is a highly effective way of committing it to memory. It is very easy to sit through a lecture or read through a book and not have any idea of what you just took in at the end, if you do it passively. Taking notes forces you to rephrase and thus actively participate in taking the knowledge in.
Not if you pay for it. Only free "clouds" have this limitation. Paid "cloud" can be governed by SLAs and contracts; only a bankruptcy might throw a wrench of the "all your data gone with no recourse" sort into things.
The problem with eugenics is that its goal, inevitably, will be to restrict one of the most fundamental rights of certain classes of people-- to reproduce and raise offspring.
Really, its scary that many people get shiny eyed about eugenics and manage to overlook the horrors it tends to lead to, every time it is tried.
The censorship I am aware of in Germany has to do with DMCA type restrictions; there used to be a default router password list hosted in Germany, which had to relocate due to their laws.
ICE domain seizures have nothing to do with censoring unpopular or offensive material. Its about enforcing IP law, which is an entirely different issue, and you do no favors to anyone by conflating the two.
Once you get past the thin gloss of the production values of a game like Starcraft 2, you're left with a mechanical Quest for Mastery. Instead of a novel, you're reading a technical manual.
Some (many) people like that; its why Arenas are popular in WoW (although it takes many many months to learn all the different classes), and why people enjoy FPSes-- its not like "point gun at head, pull trigger" takes very long to figure out, and learning the intricacies of any given FPS wont generally take more than a few hours, but people still play them.
Basically what youre saying is you cant just throw the "cloud" around like its a magical fix-all; and thats true. But every time one of these "big company goes down" stories arises, people seem to take that as proof that the cloud is not useful for anything, and I would challenge that assertion. There are a number of times where you need to rapidly expand, or where you need good uptime and scalability but dont havea big budget; and for that, the cloud really shines.
Pop quiz: Youre a small company that does software development. You need servers to do deployment testing, basically just apache and the customized package. Uptime is a must, and your budget is limited.
Do you... A) Spend tens of thousands on servers, plus backup power, plus racks, plus redundant switches, plus dual WAN links, plus a backup solution (for 10 servers, so far youre looking at ~$35k, plus a thousand a month on WAN links) or B) Trust that Amazon will have FAR better uptime than you could EVER dream of architecting on a budget, with far greater convenience, and a lower price tag to boot (the "cloud" is generally billed on CPU usage and bandwidth, which will be low for testing)?
Every time Google or Amazon or Rackspace suffers an outage, people start hollering that the cloud is a menace, a curse, a sham, or whatever. But if you look at the length of, for example, Googles outages over 8 years, their record is head and shoulders above anything that slashdot armchair engineers could throw together, especially given the load they carry.
Unless I missed a news story, this will be Amazon cloud's first outage, and the beauty here is that none of the "rebuild" or "restore from backup" burden will be on their customers. They have to pay technicians to come out and replace hardware; they have to provide the hardware. The downside, of course, is that their services are unavailable; but of course you would be facing that if your own setup failed, and you would be footing the bill to boot.
The real lesson here, I suppose, is that if you really really really need 100% uptime, you should be prepared to fire up a hot- or cold- standby system of your own, or that you should get a rather large budget approved to build a real redundant system-- but not that you can out-architect Amazon on anything less than a large budget.
NB-- I say this as a technician typically dealing with networks up to 100 users and up to 30 servers. If you have multi-million dollar budgets, certainly go ahead and build out that server room.
I was raised with it. Once I got a GPS that was switchable to metric, I fell in love with it. 1 km is short enough to know "you need to be getting over for the exit now";90-100km/h (aka 56-62.5mph) is about the standard speed limit on highways; "turn left in 250meters" means "at the next city block".
The only advantage to base 10 is that you've been forced to learn the multiplication tables in it. That's the only advantage.
That, and incredibly easy conversion between volumes and masses and densities and other physical measurements, since the systems are designed to meet up with certain reference points (ie, 1g of water is 1 cu. cm; 1 calorie is enough to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree celsius; etc etc).
Great. Now define for me the measurements of a 1-pint (aka 1 lb) cube of water.
Protip-- Its really easy with metric to do this for a 1kg cube: its 10cm^3.
Seriously, if folks on slashdot are trying to argue that imperial is better for precision or conversion, that pretty quickly sums up why all hope is lost for switching over.
Metric is a heck of a lot easier to explain than imperial.
Lets see, 2.5 cm per inch, 12 inches per foot, 5 foot per fathom, but its also 5280 feet per mile...and its 3 feet to a yard, which is kind of like a meter, but not quite...
As opposed to simple powers of 10 for metric. If we could today snap our fingers and have everything switched over, with no conversion costs, it would be a no brainer.
Slashdot Mirror
Because if man is to survive as a species, we must leave this planet.
Every single thing that could possibly be cut from the budget has some kind of "good" reason why it is vital. The problem is, we dont have the money to do all of them.
You know what you call it when someone spends money they dont have, with no plan or ability to repay the deby? Irresponsible.
The ENTIRE point i was making is that NO, Brandenburg did NOT turn the "fire in a crowded theatre" thing on its head. I am not an expert in this, and will readily admit that there are likely several mistakes in my posts-- but the fact is, Hazel made a statement waaay back up at the top that Brandenburg upheld some so-called right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, when in fact nearly the opposite is true-- regardless of the other facts of the case. Its ONLY mention was in direct contradiction to Hazel's statement.
It would be helpful if Hazel could affirm or deny his statement that this argument hinges around-- does he still claim that Brandenburg v Ohio upholds some "right to yell fire in a crowded theatre"? And if so, can he give a citation please, because when i went to the case and did a page search on "fire in a crowded", it took me directly to Douglass stating that such actions were in fact prosecutable.
So yes. I was wrong in several areas; specifically I missed the part about how Shenck was overturned by Brandenburg; but the overturning was to clarify where precisely these limitations on free speech were, but NOT to say that speech is never illegal, a prime example being where it can be reasonably expected to cause harm (though the specific legal criteria are more specific and limited than that).
2 comments, because I feel more than that is going in circles.
1) Why did you neglect the case that IS precedent forming that I linked, Shenck v United states, where this supposedly ficticious prohibition of "fire, crowded theatre" originates?
2) How are you reconciling your original statement that Bergman v Ohio "upholds... the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre", with a Justices specific (majority, concurring) opinion that no such right exists? Context may be important, but that is the only mention of "fire in a crowded theatre" in the opinions; and no such right is upheld.
I am repeating it because i see nowhere where any Justice upholds such a right; I only see a Justice reinforcing the prior precedent that there IS no such right.
No, it couldn't, since http://web.mit.edu/nse/ actually links to www.mitnse.com as their official blog. Its on their homepage, right side.
This is exactly the kind of frothing mouthed paranoia and FUD that needs to stop. Being responsible about reporting doesnt mean youre a shill, and anyone making that claim is part of the problem with the media today, in general. Not everything needs to be sensationalist.
You're skimming over words but you're ignoring the language and the context.
No, Im pointing out that your statement,
The right to falsely "shout fire in a crowded theat[er]" principle is upheld in Brandenburg v. Ohio
is utterly false-- the only MENTION of the phrase "fire in a crowded theatre" is by Douglass, where his statement COMPLETELY contradicts your assertion. They did NOT uphold that right.
As for precedent, the earlier precedent being cited is Shenck v United States, where the "fire in a crowded theatre" example comes from. This isnt some urban legend thing; it is real case law, and it has been known for quite some time. And in THIS instance, the "fire in a crowded theatre" quote comes from the unanimous opinion, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr, and in THIS instance, it WAS a precedent forming opinion. And as for context, THIS case was SPECIFICALLY about speech that incited insubordination.
Are you suggesting that people there died from a stampede?
Im suggesting that people are prone to panic, and that people in a panic are prone to do foolish and dangerous things; and that a person bears some responsibility for his speech (which is well understood in many areas-- from this scenario, to perjury, to laws on threats).
Did you not read those court cases? The supreme court, which you invoked in your own defense, disagrees with you. The case you quoted used "fire in a crowded theatre" as the PRIME example of acceptable and prosecutable restrictions on free speech. They quoted an earlier supreme court case which used that as the PRIME example of why not all free speech is acceptable.
As for whether loudly announcing the evils of the government may cause someone to be influenced into targetting government official - of course that's a reasonable expectation.
In the very case you brought up, Justice Douglass used the term "speech brigaded with action"; it seems implicit that one must use judgement to determine whether ones speech might reasonably be expected to cause "clear and present danger to others". So saying "our government needs to be change" is a far ways removed from "lets go murder some politicians with these guns right here". If you cant understand the difference, then I am not sure how to clarify it any further; in issues like these the courts tend to appeal to the fact that people have some degree of sense, and if they do not then they are culpable for that (it is often termed "negligence" or "manslaughter").
I don't perceive that at all. Maybe it was a credible risk before fire regulations limited crowding in a theatre. If merely yelling "fire!" is likely to cause a dangerous stampede then there's already something very wrong either with the theatre layout or with its patrons or staff.
That is unfortunate-- particularly that you seem to think human nature changes over time. Do tell, do you think that during Sept 11, 2001, folks in the Trade Center towers were being orderly? Or do you suppose there was a degree of panic?
In reality, Japanese officials already have caused a few 10'000 cancer deaths beyond what was unavoidable. The increased allowable dosage for Children (who are hugely vulnerable to radiation) is just the last batch of randomized death sentences they are implementing.
Lets start here, because this is the biggest flaw in your post. There are several websites where you can view the actual radiation reported in various areas. Except within a few kilometers of Fukushima Daiichi, the radiation levels fall to biologically insignificant levels.
At this point, the nature of the disaster is that it is hugely expensive, is leaking radioactive, hard-to-clean-up water, and is rather difficult to bring to a "probably wont catch fire or explode anymore" state. But there are no deadly radioactive clouds floating around, there is no substantial increase in the radiation in milk in the US, there is no plutonium floating around in the atmosphere, and as of now the most severely irradiated individuals (some of the workers) have received a dose that is roughly equivalent to what they would normally receive in a year, anyways-- of concern, but unlikely to cause them to keel over and die.
Further, just because we have an actual, real, substantial crisis on our hands, doesnt mean we need to lose all perspective and start comparing it to Chernobyl or (heaven forbid) Hiroshima. Its a problem, yes, and there is a lot of blame to apportion; but losing our heads and falling for all the hyperbole running around is unlikely to make matters any better.
Im not entirely sure what the dosage received by those in the immediate vicinity of the plants was; but as the area of "concern" around the plants was evacuated pretty rapidly (within about 36 hours), I have trouble believing such emphatic statements as "Japanese officials have already caused a few 10,000 cancer deaths beyond what was avoidable"; especially when the MIT Nuclear Science blog seems to indicate that in total, if you were at the plants perimeter, you basically recieved 2-3 whole body CT scans-- this less than 3km away from the plant, when the evacuation zone is 30km. That blog seems to be one of the BEST sources of information, as it plainly presents the facts without any breathless panic or fearmongering; they state that there is some danger, where it comes from, how to protect yourself, and how to get more information-- but it doesnt state "Tens of thousands of you are likely to die of cancer" or "beware floating radioactive clouds".
This is precisely why this information IS harmful, and if it shouldnt be censored because of the tyrannical tendencies of anyone given such a power, that does not mean that anyone should go spreading FUD and misinformation about a crisis while people are trying to deal with it.
Some of the stuff being reported on the news is true. Most of it is bogus scaremongering.
I dont think that the US could get away with this kind of censorship, because there is very little risk of someone being injured directly from this irresponsible reporting. It may do long term harm in various ways, but our media does have that freedom.
However, just because the Japanese govt may be wrong in the actions it takes, its concern is very valid-- all of this frothing-mouthed reporting does very little good, and increases the ignorance of the populace in general.
The difference is that you could have no reasonable expectation that saying "the government is doing bad things" would directly, in itself, be responsible for pushing someone to commit a murder. Any 10 year old could understand that yelling fire or pulling a fire alarm in a crowded theatre has a moderate risk of causing a dangerous stampede.
By your logic, you could never be prosecuted for leaving valuables in plain sight near a window and rigging up a lethal trap on any would be robbers. I mean, you didnt TELL someone to try to break in, so you cant be responsible for their death right? Except that there are very few states where you could even hope to get away with that; any reasonable person would understand that such a scenario is likely to lead to someone's death.
Finally, and most emphatically, the case Brandenburg v Ohio did NOT uphold "shouting fire in a crowded theatre". In fact, the court SPECIFICALLY stated that that is one of the exceptions to free speech (last paragraph) -- to quote (from the actual case):
The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. [...] They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused.
And further, in an earlier supreme court ruling, we have this gem--
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
So your logic is wrong, and the courts seem to disagree. Using speech that is likely and can reasonably be understood to cause riots or dangerous situations is NOT protected in our law books, and I really doubt you would like living in a country where that was not the case.
Taking notes on what you read is a highly effective way of committing it to memory. It is very easy to sit through a lecture or read through a book and not have any idea of what you just took in at the end, if you do it passively. Taking notes forces you to rephrase and thus actively participate in taking the knowledge in.
Not if you pay for it. Only free "clouds" have this limitation. Paid "cloud" can be governed by SLAs and contracts; only a bankruptcy might throw a wrench of the "all your data gone with no recourse" sort into things.
The problem with eugenics is that its goal, inevitably, will be to restrict one of the most fundamental rights of certain classes of people-- to reproduce and raise offspring.
Really, its scary that many people get shiny eyed about eugenics and manage to overlook the horrors it tends to lead to, every time it is tried.
Care to give some examples of Germany censoring Nazi-related information? As they say in wikipedia, [citation needed].
Thats not really true, at all, in any way. In fact, denying the holocaust is a crime in Germany.
The censorship I am aware of in Germany has to do with DMCA type restrictions; there used to be a default router password list hosted in Germany, which had to relocate due to their laws.
ICE domain seizures have nothing to do with censoring unpopular or offensive material. Its about enforcing IP law, which is an entirely different issue, and you do no favors to anyone by conflating the two.
Once you get past the thin gloss of the production values of a game like Starcraft 2, you're left with a mechanical Quest for Mastery. Instead of a novel, you're reading a technical manual.
Some (many) people like that; its why Arenas are popular in WoW (although it takes many many months to learn all the different classes), and why people enjoy FPSes-- its not like "point gun at head, pull trigger" takes very long to figure out, and learning the intricacies of any given FPS wont generally take more than a few hours, but people still play them.
Basically what youre saying is you cant just throw the "cloud" around like its a magical fix-all; and thats true. But every time one of these "big company goes down" stories arises, people seem to take that as proof that the cloud is not useful for anything, and I would challenge that assertion. There are a number of times where you need to rapidly expand, or where you need good uptime and scalability but dont havea big budget; and for that, the cloud really shines.
Pop quiz:
Youre a small company that does software development. You need servers to do deployment testing, basically just apache and the customized package. Uptime is a must, and your budget is limited.
Do you...
A) Spend tens of thousands on servers, plus backup power, plus racks, plus redundant switches, plus dual WAN links, plus a backup solution (for 10 servers, so far youre looking at ~$35k, plus a thousand a month on WAN links)
or
B) Trust that Amazon will have FAR better uptime than you could EVER dream of architecting on a budget, with far greater convenience, and a lower price tag to boot (the "cloud" is generally billed on CPU usage and bandwidth, which will be low for testing)?
Every time Google or Amazon or Rackspace suffers an outage, people start hollering that the cloud is a menace, a curse, a sham, or whatever. But if you look at the length of, for example, Googles outages over 8 years, their record is head and shoulders above anything that slashdot armchair engineers could throw together, especially given the load they carry.
Unless I missed a news story, this will be Amazon cloud's first outage, and the beauty here is that none of the "rebuild" or "restore from backup" burden will be on their customers. They have to pay technicians to come out and replace hardware; they have to provide the hardware. The downside, of course, is that their services are unavailable; but of course you would be facing that if your own setup failed, and you would be footing the bill to boot.
The real lesson here, I suppose, is that if you really really really need 100% uptime, you should be prepared to fire up a hot- or cold- standby system of your own, or that you should get a rather large budget approved to build a real redundant system-- but not that you can out-architect Amazon on anything less than a large budget.
NB-- I say this as a technician typically dealing with networks up to 100 users and up to 30 servers. If you have multi-million dollar budgets, certainly go ahead and build out that server room.
I was raised with it. Once I got a GPS that was switchable to metric, I fell in love with it. 1 km is short enough to know "you need to be getting over for the exit now";90-100km/h (aka 56-62.5mph) is about the standard speed limit on highways; "turn left in 250meters" means "at the next city block".
The only advantage to base 10 is that you've been forced to learn the multiplication tables in it. That's the only advantage.
That, and incredibly easy conversion between volumes and masses and densities and other physical measurements, since the systems are designed to meet up with certain reference points (ie, 1g of water is 1 cu. cm; 1 calorie is enough to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree celsius; etc etc).
Great. Now define for me the measurements of a 1-pint (aka 1 lb) cube of water.
Protip-- Its really easy with metric to do this for a 1kg cube: its 10cm^3.
Seriously, if folks on slashdot are trying to argue that imperial is better for precision or conversion, that pretty quickly sums up why all hope is lost for switching over.
er, 10 is divisible too. It divides into 4 parts easily. Worried about decimals? Change it from 10cm to 100mm. That divides far more than 12 does.
Metric is a heck of a lot easier to explain than imperial.
Lets see, 2.5 cm per inch, 12 inches per foot, 5 foot per fathom, but its also 5280 feet per mile...and its 3 feet to a yard, which is kind of like a meter, but not quite...
As opposed to simple powers of 10 for metric. If we could today snap our fingers and have everything switched over, with no conversion costs, it would be a no brainer.
Sugar is not a proper noun, and is thus not capitalized except in titles.
Yeah, no. Sorry - obesity is about the calories.
This discussion isnt centered around obesity, its centered on whether fructose is itself a harmful substance.
I'll admit, I'm too lazy to watch a presentation.
Then why are you arguing with it?