Do you believe an antelope is "entitled" to all the grass it can eat?
Do you believe a lion is "entitled" to all the antelope it can eat?
Do you believe a human is somehow less "entitled" to what he makes for himself than the above examples?
Or is what you really believe that you (or some group of intellectuals you approve of) should be the arbiters, deciding just how much each man is entitled to? I rather think it's this one.
You're talking about the UI elements? Not actual content? Contrasting the resolution of those between models of TVs? You do realize that may have nothing to do with the TV's resolution, right?
Generally people can see the difference between 1080p and 4k if they sit pretty close - closer than normal couch distance, but still relevant for real-world viewing.
To see the difference between 4k and 8k the picture basically needs to fill your field of color vision (which is narrower than people think - the brain synthesizes colors at the edges). Relevant for movie projectors, but not much else.
If we can only vote enough times, we can just stop when we get the result I want! Democracy!
The EU seems to have been built on that. Nation votes not to accept a charter? Vote again every so often until you get the vote you want, then it's forever binding.
Racism is wrong regardless of whether 52% of people apparently think otherwise at a given point in time.
Yup, that's your value system (more specifically, what you call "racism" is). Look back through history at the variety of other deeply-held beliefs people have had over the years which horrify us today. Then think about what's required for progress. Democracy remains the least-bad system, despite difference in deeply-held beliefs.
You seem to have this idea that you are the smart one who can see the truth but the voters are dumb and easily led and fall for every lie. Just so you know, that what "rejection of democracy" looks like. Voting is never about detailed analysis of facts - that's only important to rationalizing the decision after the fact. For issues that affect people in their daily lives, they can see what's actually happening around them, and vote accordingly. Lots of people just haven't been happy with how the whole EU thing has affected their lives, for a variety of reasons. You're saying "but they're wrong," but that really just comes back to values.
I'd put it a different way: I can watch just about anything online, but the quality of my Bluray rips is better IMO than the torrents. The selection of stuff you can pay to stream is so low it's a rounding error - it's all about Netflix DVD vs P2P.
The hated of democracy will never stop. The people got what they wanted, not because they were stupid, nor because there was some grand conspiracy: they simply disagree with you about what's best.
People disagree on important things. That's humanity. It's not because one side of an issue is stupid, or because of Reds under the bed, but because people have different value systems, and thus can come to different conclusions as to what's best from the same data.
The more general English usage, and really the only common usage in America of "government" is the whole apparatus of state: executive, legislative, and judicial. Use of "government" to mean only the executive function is regional, and not the only usage anywhere.
But it's a distinction without a difference here, as it's selective and creative enforcement by the executive that is the danger (and the basis of early totalitarian states).
It is like in any law extremely well defined.
Is that a German thing? You'll find most laws the world round have plenty of room for interpretation.
Hard to search for UK examples, as they had a minister of immigration arrested for employing illegal immigrants (kind of the whole story right there), which drowns search results.
There's no problem with using SSNs as your username in a system. The problem is using them as a password. They're fine to use as an identifier, but not as a proof of identity.
Credit agencies can suck air. They have no business extending easy credit to anybody who knows my SSN at the cash register of a clothing store.
Credit agencies don't extend credit to anyone - they just keep a DB of creditworthiness. It's the banks that are the eternal villains in this story, and they should never escape blame.
I believe there's a very simple fix here: any time a bank issues fraudulent credit, they're fined 3x the amount of credit issued. If that turns out to not produce sufficient ID checking, up it to 10x or 30x, or keep going until it does.
Aether the way it was understood in M&M's day clearly does not exist, but that being said it remains not at all clear how light propagates (or perhaps it's one of those annoying "why" questions). But we are back to light being a wave (along with everything else, which I find mind-bending).
What makes a good model? If you work with it day-to-day to solve problems: simplicity of (accurate) computation. But if you don't have those concerns, there's nothing wrong with preferring one for its aesthetic qualities. There's an infinity of theories that accurately describe any data set, after all, and I'll choose the one that I find the most entertaining on any given day.
Of course, you're free to prefer the one you like as well.
It's fundamentally the same measurement: is the speed of light the same in all directions, over time? Now we understand that there's no difference between detecting a change in distance and a change in the speed of light, but the instrument doesn't need to understand that. So, really, what's the difference in the instruments beyond sensitivity?
Heck, the difference between GR and the aether is itself fairly subtle: turns out the aether moves along with massive objects, but substitute "flow of aether" for "curvature of spacetime" and you can make a valid subset of GR.* The difference in kind is that we now understand that time is imaginary distance (or whatever way you state the T^2 - X^2 signature of Minkowski space), so the speed of light and measurement of distance and time can't be disentangled.
[*] There are a bunch of fun theories that are just re-statements of relativity with more complex math. But I'm not sure it's possible to have math more complex than GR, so in this case it's merely colorful.
The government does not make laws, the parliament does.
I had assumed from the pun in your name that English was your native language. If not: parliament is the part of "government" that makes laws, in a parliamentary government. If so: you're babbling here.
In any case: laws must be interpreted. Hate speech laws do not list all the specific utterances that are banned; instead, they use broad language open to clever interpretation, and gradual slippage over time. It's a tool the government can wield to suppress dissent, because it's fundamentally a thoughcrime law. "Only a racist could disagree with me, so any disagreement is hate speech" is a very common position on social media.
In the US? Certainly not here in Europe/Germany.
In Sweden and to a lesser extent the UK it's illegal to question publicly whether immigration and immigrants are good for the nation, as obviously the only reason one could object is racism and hate.
No, it has not. How do you come to that absurd idea?
Why is this unclear? If the government doesn't like what you say, it fist labels it hate speech, and then bans it as such. This is already happening regarding any sort of rational discussion of immigration.
Where did you get that from? Free speech is free speech. While no one is obligated to provide you a platform to speak from, people can freely talk about whatever they'd like, and as only the most offensive speech was ever in need of protection, that's what we're talking about. The freedom to speak (or otherwise express your thoughts).
If the government gets to label speech it doesn't like "hate speech" and suppress it, then the government has to power to suppress any and all speech. The excuse isn't the point: the suppression of speech is the point.
Again, conflict will be resolved by speech or by violence. I prefer speech. I also think my ideas are better, and feel no need to prevent my opponent from speaking - let him! The more nay idiot who disagrees with me speaks, the more he'll embarrass himself. Or, you know, the possibility exists that I'm wrong. But not about free speech - there's to much evidence from history that suppressing speech never fixes anything, merely shifts thins to violence earlier.
Since they have a lot more experience with domestic terror groups than Americans do, I understand why they're going that way.
When someone "migrates" to your country, and then commits a terrorist act, that's not a domestic terrorist, but the regular sort. Britain had some experience with domestic terrorism, but the IRA stopped their antics when terrorism became uncool, many years back now.
Freedom of speech applies to "radical parties" far from the current ruling party more than anything else. That's the entire point, really, the freedom to disagree with the rulers, plus the freedom to disagree with the "intellectuals" in charge of communist regimes.
Communists(or whatever the post-modernists call themselves these days) in the US are now staging violent protests against free speech, because it's anathema to draconic rule by self-described "intellectuals".
Whatever sort of party you fear, any party that objects to free speech is the worst choice.
Fundamentally, humans have two ways to resolve disputes: speech or violence. Which do you choose?
Have you done it? The last time I messed with LTO tape tools (which everyone builds on) they let you download new FW and start the upgrade process, but the actual process required sticking a tape in the drive to use as a FUP tape. The tool would manage it all for you, but there was that step. Wouldn't be shocking if they changed that though, I think it was a crutch to avoid having double the flash memory on the drive.
Still, sounds like a stuxnet-style attack that would need government-level resources behind it to actually become real. At that point very little is safe. (There was some place - Argentina maybe? - where a bunch of government records were conveniently destroyed in a fire in an Iron Mountain facility during a scandal, which pretty much requires military incendiaries. No backup is safe from that sort of threat.)
Live mirroring is a way to make a backup, but isn't a backup until you break the mirror. Most RAID systems aren't really good at moving that sort of stuff around on the fly, unless you're talking about legacy "big box" storage systems that charge 10x-100x what the drives cost.
But, yeah, there are 3 distinct scenarios: * Backup * Disaster recovery * Archiving
Tape is far and away the best for archiving, and is the easiest/cheapest way to do DR. It's not all that good for simple backup - snapshotting of some sort (even if the backup is in the same rack or even device as the main storage) wins for backup, since most restore requests are for recovery from user error, not hardware failure.
It makes good sense to optimize backup for fast recovery from accidental file deletion and the like, as long as you also have a DR strategy that will help you if you lose a rack full of storage (or datacenter etc).
Archiving is usually the legal compliance angle, not the other two use cases. Plenty of big companies have fancy cross-site DR strategies, but still archive to tape for compliance with "store your records for N years" compliance. Heck, the same truck from Iron Mountain likely takes both their paper records and tapes.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you believe an antelope is "entitled" to all the grass it can eat?
Do you believe a lion is "entitled" to all the antelope it can eat?
Do you believe a human is somehow less "entitled" to what he makes for himself than the above examples?
Or is what you really believe that you (or some group of intellectuals you approve of) should be the arbiters, deciding just how much each man is entitled to? I rather think it's this one.
You're talking about the UI elements? Not actual content? Contrasting the resolution of those between models of TVs? You do realize that may have nothing to do with the TV's resolution, right?
Generally people can see the difference between 1080p and 4k if they sit pretty close - closer than normal couch distance, but still relevant for real-world viewing.
To see the difference between 4k and 8k the picture basically needs to fill your field of color vision (which is narrower than people think - the brain synthesizes colors at the edges). Relevant for movie projectors, but not much else.
If we can only vote enough times, we can just stop when we get the result I want! Democracy!
The EU seems to have been built on that. Nation votes not to accept a charter? Vote again every so often until you get the vote you want, then it's forever binding.
Racism is wrong regardless of whether 52% of people apparently think otherwise at a given point in time.
Yup, that's your value system (more specifically, what you call "racism" is). Look back through history at the variety of other deeply-held beliefs people have had over the years which horrify us today. Then think about what's required for progress. Democracy remains the least-bad system, despite difference in deeply-held beliefs.
You seem to have this idea that you are the smart one who can see the truth but the voters are dumb and easily led and fall for every lie. Just so you know, that what "rejection of democracy" looks like. Voting is never about detailed analysis of facts - that's only important to rationalizing the decision after the fact. For issues that affect people in their daily lives, they can see what's actually happening around them, and vote accordingly. Lots of people just haven't been happy with how the whole EU thing has affected their lives, for a variety of reasons. You're saying "but they're wrong," but that really just comes back to values.
I'd put it a different way: I can watch just about anything online, but the quality of my Bluray rips is better IMO than the torrents. The selection of stuff you can pay to stream is so low it's a rounding error - it's all about Netflix DVD vs P2P.
The hated of democracy will never stop. The people got what they wanted, not because they were stupid, nor because there was some grand conspiracy: they simply disagree with you about what's best.
People disagree on important things. That's humanity. It's not because one side of an issue is stupid, or because of Reds under the bed, but because people have different value systems, and thus can come to different conclusions as to what's best from the same data.
The more general English usage, and really the only common usage in America of "government" is the whole apparatus of state: executive, legislative, and judicial. Use of "government" to mean only the executive function is regional, and not the only usage anywhere.
But it's a distinction without a difference here, as it's selective and creative enforcement by the executive that is the danger (and the basis of early totalitarian states).
It is like in any law extremely well defined.
Is that a German thing? You'll find most laws the world round have plenty of room for interpretation.
Sweden: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=swed...
Hard to search for UK examples, as they had a minister of immigration arrested for employing illegal immigrants (kind of the whole story right there), which drowns search results.
Wat?
There's no problem with using SSNs as your username in a system. The problem is using them as a password. They're fine to use as an identifier, but not as a proof of identity.
Credit agencies can suck air. They have no business extending easy credit to anybody who knows my SSN at the cash register of a clothing store.
Credit agencies don't extend credit to anyone - they just keep a DB of creditworthiness. It's the banks that are the eternal villains in this story, and they should never escape blame.
I believe there's a very simple fix here: any time a bank issues fraudulent credit, they're fined 3x the amount of credit issued. If that turns out to not produce sufficient ID checking, up it to 10x or 30x, or keep going until it does.
Aether the way it was understood in M&M's day clearly does not exist, but that being said it remains not at all clear how light propagates (or perhaps it's one of those annoying "why" questions). But we are back to light being a wave (along with everything else, which I find mind-bending).
What makes a good model? If you work with it day-to-day to solve problems: simplicity of (accurate) computation. But if you don't have those concerns, there's nothing wrong with preferring one for its aesthetic qualities. There's an infinity of theories that accurately describe any data set, after all, and I'll choose the one that I find the most entertaining on any given day.
Of course, you're free to prefer the one you like as well.
I like the way the Saturn V is the height of rocketry in your example. Not sure I disagree, mind you, until SpaceX makes re-use routine.
Is that map color-coded by Nobels-per-capita, or by distance from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences building? Funny old world.
The really striking thing though is that China and India have very large populations with surprisingly few such prizes
They are quite far from Sweden.
It's fundamentally the same measurement: is the speed of light the same in all directions, over time? Now we understand that there's no difference between detecting a change in distance and a change in the speed of light, but the instrument doesn't need to understand that. So, really, what's the difference in the instruments beyond sensitivity?
Heck, the difference between GR and the aether is itself fairly subtle: turns out the aether moves along with massive objects, but substitute "flow of aether" for "curvature of spacetime" and you can make a valid subset of GR.* The difference in kind is that we now understand that time is imaginary distance (or whatever way you state the T^2 - X^2 signature of Minkowski space), so the speed of light and measurement of distance and time can't be disentangled.
[*] There are a bunch of fun theories that are just re-statements of relativity with more complex math. But I'm not sure it's possible to have math more complex than GR, so in this case it's merely colorful.
The government does not make laws, the parliament does.
I had assumed from the pun in your name that English was your native language. If not: parliament is the part of "government" that makes laws, in a parliamentary government. If so: you're babbling here.
In any case: laws must be interpreted. Hate speech laws do not list all the specific utterances that are banned; instead, they use broad language open to clever interpretation, and gradual slippage over time. It's a tool the government can wield to suppress dissent, because it's fundamentally a thoughcrime law. "Only a racist could disagree with me, so any disagreement is hate speech" is a very common position on social media.
In the US? Certainly not here in Europe/Germany.
In Sweden and to a lesser extent the UK it's illegal to question publicly whether immigration and immigrants are good for the nation, as obviously the only reason one could object is racism and hate.
6 days you work, hard as you are able; on the seventh holystone the deck and scrub the cable.
Heh, the build system they used clearly had a hard limit at 64K lines of code. I've worked on systems like that.
No, it has not.
How do you come to that absurd idea?
Why is this unclear? If the government doesn't like what you say, it fist labels it hate speech, and then bans it as such. This is already happening regarding any sort of rational discussion of immigration.
You can speak in privacy, what ever you want.
Oh, you'll come for that next.
Where did you get that from? Free speech is free speech. While no one is obligated to provide you a platform to speak from, people can freely talk about whatever they'd like, and as only the most offensive speech was ever in need of protection, that's what we're talking about. The freedom to speak (or otherwise express your thoughts).
If the government gets to label speech it doesn't like "hate speech" and suppress it, then the government has to power to suppress any and all speech. The excuse isn't the point: the suppression of speech is the point.
Again, conflict will be resolved by speech or by violence. I prefer speech. I also think my ideas are better, and feel no need to prevent my opponent from speaking - let him! The more nay idiot who disagrees with me speaks, the more he'll embarrass himself. Or, you know, the possibility exists that I'm wrong. But not about free speech - there's to much evidence from history that suppressing speech never fixes anything, merely shifts thins to violence earlier.
Since they have a lot more experience with domestic terror groups than Americans do, I understand why they're going that way.
When someone "migrates" to your country, and then commits a terrorist act, that's not a domestic terrorist, but the regular sort. Britain had some experience with domestic terrorism, but the IRA stopped their antics when terrorism became uncool, many years back now.
Freedom of speech applies to "radical parties" far from the current ruling party more than anything else. That's the entire point, really, the freedom to disagree with the rulers, plus the freedom to disagree with the "intellectuals" in charge of communist regimes.
Communists(or whatever the post-modernists call themselves these days) in the US are now staging violent protests against free speech, because it's anathema to draconic rule by self-described "intellectuals".
Whatever sort of party you fear, any party that objects to free speech is the worst choice.
Fundamentally, humans have two ways to resolve disputes: speech or violence. Which do you choose?
I just use an analog clock. No light. Also, battery powered so I wake up even if there was a power flicker while sleeping. How weird is that?
Have you done it? The last time I messed with LTO tape tools (which everyone builds on) they let you download new FW and start the upgrade process, but the actual process required sticking a tape in the drive to use as a FUP tape. The tool would manage it all for you, but there was that step. Wouldn't be shocking if they changed that though, I think it was a crutch to avoid having double the flash memory on the drive.
Still, sounds like a stuxnet-style attack that would need government-level resources behind it to actually become real. At that point very little is safe. (There was some place - Argentina maybe? - where a bunch of government records were conveniently destroyed in a fire in an Iron Mountain facility during a scandal, which pretty much requires military incendiaries. No backup is safe from that sort of threat.)
Live mirroring is a way to make a backup, but isn't a backup until you break the mirror. Most RAID systems aren't really good at moving that sort of stuff around on the fly, unless you're talking about legacy "big box" storage systems that charge 10x-100x what the drives cost.
But, yeah, there are 3 distinct scenarios:
* Backup
* Disaster recovery
* Archiving
Tape is far and away the best for archiving, and is the easiest/cheapest way to do DR. It's not all that good for simple backup - snapshotting of some sort (even if the backup is in the same rack or even device as the main storage) wins for backup, since most restore requests are for recovery from user error, not hardware failure.
It makes good sense to optimize backup for fast recovery from accidental file deletion and the like, as long as you also have a DR strategy that will help you if you lose a rack full of storage (or datacenter etc).
Archiving is usually the legal compliance angle, not the other two use cases. Plenty of big companies have fancy cross-site DR strategies, but still archive to tape for compliance with "store your records for N years" compliance. Heck, the same truck from Iron Mountain likely takes both their paper records and tapes.