Trump isn't running against Bernie though. The right is in open rebellion about being ignored on immigration and other issues where people who think themselves our betters just want us to believe what we're told. Trump is gaming that, and gaming it very well. Cruz is addressing that with at least partial sincerity (really, the best you could reasonably hope for in any politician). Rubio is a Democrat running in the wrong primary.
Calling Trump "racist" tells me you're probably a Democrat - great for you, but it's not your primary. Sadly I predict the general will be Trump losing to Hillary, and 4 more years of the same problems we've been having, but the primaries aren't over quite yet, and maybe we'll have a surprise Bernie or Cruz.
No sure what you mean by "state monopolies", but the model used for water and power utilities sure seems like a better model for "last mile" for telecoms than what we have now. Let the last mile be an independent utility company, and certainly "just a pipe". Let the ISPs compete behind that, where there's no natural monopoly.
Corporations are wonderfully flexible machines; they adapt whatever way they have to to maximize profits. That's why the notion that regulation will destroy profit and wealth generation is practically superstitious.
Depends on the kind of regulations, of course. Contract enforcement? Preventing fraud? Standardizing weights and measures? Preventing abuse of monopoly? All of that is straight-up beneficial.
Most other things are a trade-off. Some trade-offs are worth it, some aren't. Any new regulation in this environment, where all the low-hanging fruit is long gone, is likely to have a real cost in creation of jobs and wealth. Still might be worth it, of course, but it's nonsense to take an extreme stance in either direction.
If we actually had a competitive free market for ISPs, I'd be right there with Cruz and Rubio on this. If consumer choice was a real thing in the ISP market, net neutrality would be a terrible trade off. But of course, monopolies created and enforced by local governments are the norm, which is of course the root problem here, so the trade-off looks very different.
Vastly better to fix the root problem, and make last-mile service a utility like any other, but until that glorious day, Cruz and Rubio are smoking crack on this one. Clinton's biggest donors after the investment backs are the cable companies, so we know where she'll come down on this. I'm sure Trump has a comically entertaining position here - anyone know what it is?
Basically, John presents no evidence whatsoever for his claim that the NSA caused the backdoor.
But it's a reasonable guess, give we do have proof, thanks to Snowden, that the NSA has successful programs to put backdoors into similar gear. The Chinese government has done similar, but so far we only have evidence of that happening in gear manufactured in China (no idea where the Juniper boxes were made, so maybe just as likely?).
Well, I thought in the US you don't have bribes, you have lobby.
The Clintons went beyond "donate funds to my election warchest" (most of which actually does get spent on getting re-elected, not moved to a Swiss bank account BTW) to "donate to my personally-controlled corporation".
The two investigations are tied together because the suspected reason for the insecure email server in the first place was to hide the pay-for-play emails from FOIA requests.
I'd be shocked if there were an indictment for this, because it's too close to what everyone else does (just one step further), and no one wants the attention.
don't think that's what GP meant. More like, "I know I ain't 'sposed to say Mexicans are rapists, but dangit they are! Trump's right about them, and bout the Chinas, Blacks, and Jews, too! Thas why I'm talkin to ya real low and confidential like, Jimbob."
You, you're completely agreeing with my post then? And you're using crude offensive stereotypes to do so? Crude offensive stereotypes you agree with are fine, but those you disagree with should be whispered.
The Clinton bribery racket is an open secret. Pay to play: donate a million or two to the Clinton Foundation if you want to get your way. The FBI is also investigating here for this, it's not just the mishandling of classified information. How is this in any way a misuse of "bribes" when you hand money to a politician in return for policy?
So... you support a culture of fear, of chilling effects that cause most people to discuss what most people believe in a whisper? Only ideas you agree with should be spoken out loud?
Now you're talking about "well-informed voter" stuff. That's never really been the basis of democracy in any age. He runs attack ads against the "DC Elite". They seem to be working, but not help him beat Trump.
This whole election is about the working class being entirely fed up with the "DC elites" shitting all over them on immigration, on the economy, on terrorism, and so on. They feel very much not represented right now. Since Trump is on the stage, Cruz looks mild by comparison, and those two are the only guys in years who can even say the phrases "illegal immigrant" and "Muslim terrorist". Looking more sane than Trump is an easy bar to clear. Bernie at least talks about the economic issues, and so gets traction from the same crown for the same populism.
And it's hard to get more "DC Elite" than the Clintons. Hillary is seen as the puppet of the investment banks, who are blamed for the last 10 years of economic woes (and, frankly, she's not a very likable person - if she was sweet and sincere, she'd like be stomping everyone in this current field on the basis of sanity alone.)
Cruz beats Hillary consistently in the polls (though not by much). Hillary does beat Trump in the polls though.
I don't think Hillary with withdraw even if she does get indicted, and she might actually win the primary (heck, she might win from a jail cell in a brokered convention). Indictment might keep her form beating Trump in the general - for sure that would be an odd race.
For high IOPS big-box load, you don't use 1 TB drives though. You use ~500GB 15K SAS drives, and maybe use half the space, because it's all about spindle count.
Enterprise-quality SSDs are already cheaper than big-box storage, but that doesn't really help - you can't replace a FC/iSCSI-attached storage array with some local drives. There are a variety of competing "off-brand" SSD storage arrays, but EMC has really good salesmen and really good FUD.
SSDs will conquer when big, less-technical companies dare to move away from the Oracle/EMC world to a distributed computing model and commodity servers with SSDs for far, far cheaper. But those business application written for Oracle are very sticky.
Google never went there in the first place. They started with a "lots of disposable commodity servers" model, and each server has a far more reasonable IOPS load, well within what local SSDs can do, and well within the lifetime IOPS limit of those SSDs. It's just about cost, and in a few years is there really going to be that much cost difference?
Old SSDs died quickly under DB loads - not enough write count in their lifetime. New ones are better, but still won't last as long as HDD. This is only going to improve over time, though, and at the right price, who cares about 2 vs 4 year lifetime?
The HDDs you have to use for high IOPS DB load are dammed expensive in the first place: it's the last domain of big-box storage (think 10x consumer drive cost, 100x with fancy replication software built-in).
Google doesn't use that big-box crap of course, but I'm baffled why they want a faster HDD standard that won't come for years - in a few years, will anyone still care about HDD speed?
Sure, but there's a difference between a role-model human encountering the sort of challenges we encounter and acting ideally in each, and an abstract entity who happens to have a relatable emotion or two.
It's sort of odd how small the intersection is between anthropomorphic and role-model, come to think of it. So many pantheons of gods with so few that anyone would consider a role model.
And those more refined philosophies are basically indistinguishable from atheistic ones, except that they've arbitrarily decided that the name "God" is applicable to something that could just as well be called by some other name entirely.
Or perhaps one wants to be an atheist in a society where that's unheard of, and yet still admire the grandeur of the universe.
There are many Christian traditions. Some hold that a life of good works is sufficient, no belief required. Some hold that humans are simply too flawed to ever qualify for Heaven, and so only by God's grace can you make it. The latter never made sense to me, as it just shifts the blame to a flaw in our creation IMO.
The notion of Hell as a place of torture is mostly from Bible fan-fiction - I'm no expert, but I've been told the Biblical read is that Hell is simply "not being in God's presence", or perhaps the simple absence of an afterlife.
So, it is an entirely different meaning to "love" than is used anywhere else in the English language. You might as well say, "Aopilus of God is accepting his Son christ Jesus as your savior. Aopilus from God, is the forgiveness of your sins."
Remember those 4 Greek words that all translate as love? Yeah, they all have distinct meanings.
Agape from God is the forgiveness of your sins. Agape of God is accepting his Son christ Jesus as your savior. (Or, if you're bitter and cynical, storge is accepting the situation that you find yourself in).
Yeah, it all makes more sense in the original Klingon.
A non-anthropomorphic god undermines the premise of most western religions, and reduces what they treat as an intelligent character in their sacred stories, a person, like you and me but better in every way, and turns it into
Say what? I'm no Christian, but I know that the point of the religion is that God is this vast unknowable eternal entity, and Jesus, specifically, is a person, like you and me but better in every way. Isn't Islam similar? Heck, are there any monotheist religions with an anthropomorphic god?
Or the big bang itself, perhaps. At which point you're just a naturalistic pantheist going "whoa, like, the universe, man, wow."
Or you follow Spinoza (God is the universe), or you're a Deist (God the clockmaker), like most of the founding fathers. Deism is still pretty common, though few know the term itself.
Science moved past the evidence of our unaided senses in the 1600s. If you don't believe what we see with telescopes of various kinds, you don't believe in much.
Do you also believe that quantum mechanics and general relativity are both conspiracies? Or is 100 years enough time to get used to new ideas?
We haven't fought an enemy with access to modern medical facilities in 70 years, which coincidentally is the last time we fought an enemy who had signed the Geneva convention. (Do note that everyone who's in the chain of tending the wounded, from medics to back-line hospitals, is someone not pointing a rifle.)
Still enough to cripple or kill, as we sadly have plenty of evidence for. Spent rifle rounds will still penetrate skin and do damage, at which point you're in real trouble if you lack access to modern medical care.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump isn't running against Bernie though. The right is in open rebellion about being ignored on immigration and other issues where people who think themselves our betters just want us to believe what we're told. Trump is gaming that, and gaming it very well. Cruz is addressing that with at least partial sincerity (really, the best you could reasonably hope for in any politician). Rubio is a Democrat running in the wrong primary.
Calling Trump "racist" tells me you're probably a Democrat - great for you, but it's not your primary. Sadly I predict the general will be Trump losing to Hillary, and 4 more years of the same problems we've been having, but the primaries aren't over quite yet, and maybe we'll have a surprise Bernie or Cruz.
No sure what you mean by "state monopolies", but the model used for water and power utilities sure seems like a better model for "last mile" for telecoms than what we have now. Let the last mile be an independent utility company, and certainly "just a pipe". Let the ISPs compete behind that, where there's no natural monopoly.
Telecoms (last mile) are somehow different than power and water in terms of "natural monopoly"?
So, basically,
make last-mile service a utility like any other
then?
No, I'm in favor of ending the local monopolies - it's right there in my post.
Corporations are wonderfully flexible machines; they adapt whatever way they have to to maximize profits. That's why the notion that regulation will destroy profit and wealth generation is practically superstitious.
Depends on the kind of regulations, of course. Contract enforcement? Preventing fraud? Standardizing weights and measures? Preventing abuse of monopoly? All of that is straight-up beneficial.
Most other things are a trade-off. Some trade-offs are worth it, some aren't. Any new regulation in this environment, where all the low-hanging fruit is long gone, is likely to have a real cost in creation of jobs and wealth. Still might be worth it, of course, but it's nonsense to take an extreme stance in either direction.
If we actually had a competitive free market for ISPs, I'd be right there with Cruz and Rubio on this. If consumer choice was a real thing in the ISP market, net neutrality would be a terrible trade off. But of course, monopolies created and enforced by local governments are the norm, which is of course the root problem here, so the trade-off looks very different.
Vastly better to fix the root problem, and make last-mile service a utility like any other, but until that glorious day, Cruz and Rubio are smoking crack on this one. Clinton's biggest donors after the investment backs are the cable companies, so we know where she'll come down on this. I'm sure Trump has a comically entertaining position here - anyone know what it is?
Basically, John presents no evidence whatsoever for his claim that the NSA caused the backdoor.
But it's a reasonable guess, give we do have proof, thanks to Snowden, that the NSA has successful programs to put backdoors into similar gear. The Chinese government has done similar, but so far we only have evidence of that happening in gear manufactured in China (no idea where the Juniper boxes were made, so maybe just as likely?).
...then eats the crayon.
... then eats the napkins.
Well, I thought in the US you don't have bribes, you have lobby.
The Clintons went beyond "donate funds to my election warchest" (most of which actually does get spent on getting re-elected, not moved to a Swiss bank account BTW) to "donate to my personally-controlled corporation".
The two investigations are tied together because the suspected reason for the insecure email server in the first place was to hide the pay-for-play emails from FOIA requests.
I'd be shocked if there were an indictment for this, because it's too close to what everyone else does (just one step further), and no one wants the attention.
don't think that's what GP meant. More like, "I know I ain't 'sposed to say Mexicans are rapists, but dangit they are! Trump's right about them, and bout the Chinas, Blacks, and Jews, too! Thas why I'm talkin to ya real low and confidential like, Jimbob."
You, you're completely agreeing with my post then? And you're using crude offensive stereotypes to do so? Crude offensive stereotypes you agree with are fine, but those you disagree with should be whispered.
The Clinton bribery racket is an open secret. Pay to play: donate a million or two to the Clinton Foundation if you want to get your way. The FBI is also investigating here for this, it's not just the mishandling of classified information. How is this in any way a misuse of "bribes" when you hand money to a politician in return for policy?
So ... you support a culture of fear, of chilling effects that cause most people to discuss what most people believe in a whisper? Only ideas you agree with should be spoken out loud?
Now you're talking about "well-informed voter" stuff. That's never really been the basis of democracy in any age. He runs attack ads against the "DC Elite". They seem to be working, but not help him beat Trump.
This whole election is about the working class being entirely fed up with the "DC elites" shitting all over them on immigration, on the economy, on terrorism, and so on. They feel very much not represented right now. Since Trump is on the stage, Cruz looks mild by comparison, and those two are the only guys in years who can even say the phrases "illegal immigrant" and "Muslim terrorist". Looking more sane than Trump is an easy bar to clear. Bernie at least talks about the economic issues, and so gets traction from the same crown for the same populism.
And it's hard to get more "DC Elite" than the Clintons. Hillary is seen as the puppet of the investment banks, who are blamed for the last 10 years of economic woes (and, frankly, she's not a very likable person - if she was sweet and sincere, she'd like be stomping everyone in this current field on the basis of sanity alone.)
Cruz beats Hillary consistently in the polls (though not by much). Hillary does beat Trump in the polls though.
I don't think Hillary with withdraw even if she does get indicted, and she might actually win the primary (heck, she might win from a jail cell in a brokered convention). Indictment might keep her form beating Trump in the general - for sure that would be an odd race.
For high IOPS big-box load, you don't use 1 TB drives though. You use ~500GB 15K SAS drives, and maybe use half the space, because it's all about spindle count.
Enterprise-quality SSDs are already cheaper than big-box storage, but that doesn't really help - you can't replace a FC/iSCSI-attached storage array with some local drives. There are a variety of competing "off-brand" SSD storage arrays, but EMC has really good salesmen and really good FUD.
SSDs will conquer when big, less-technical companies dare to move away from the Oracle/EMC world to a distributed computing model and commodity servers with SSDs for far, far cheaper. But those business application written for Oracle are very sticky.
Google never went there in the first place. They started with a "lots of disposable commodity servers" model, and each server has a far more reasonable IOPS load, well within what local SSDs can do, and well within the lifetime IOPS limit of those SSDs. It's just about cost, and in a few years is there really going to be that much cost difference?
Old SSDs died quickly under DB loads - not enough write count in their lifetime. New ones are better, but still won't last as long as HDD. This is only going to improve over time, though, and at the right price, who cares about 2 vs 4 year lifetime?
The HDDs you have to use for high IOPS DB load are dammed expensive in the first place: it's the last domain of big-box storage (think 10x consumer drive cost, 100x with fancy replication software built-in).
Google doesn't use that big-box crap of course, but I'm baffled why they want a faster HDD standard that won't come for years - in a few years, will anyone still care about HDD speed?
Sure, but there's a difference between a role-model human encountering the sort of challenges we encounter and acting ideally in each, and an abstract entity who happens to have a relatable emotion or two.
It's sort of odd how small the intersection is between anthropomorphic and role-model, come to think of it. So many pantheons of gods with so few that anyone would consider a role model.
And those more refined philosophies are basically indistinguishable from atheistic ones, except that they've arbitrarily decided that the name "God" is applicable to something that could just as well be called by some other name entirely.
Or perhaps one wants to be an atheist in a society where that's unheard of, and yet still admire the grandeur of the universe.
Only if you love a sandwich like the Heavy loves a sandwich.
There are many Christian traditions. Some hold that a life of good works is sufficient, no belief required. Some hold that humans are simply too flawed to ever qualify for Heaven, and so only by God's grace can you make it. The latter never made sense to me, as it just shifts the blame to a flaw in our creation IMO.
The notion of Hell as a place of torture is mostly from Bible fan-fiction - I'm no expert, but I've been told the Biblical read is that Hell is simply "not being in God's presence", or perhaps the simple absence of an afterlife.
So, it is an entirely different meaning to "love" than is used anywhere else in the English language. You might as well say, "Aopilus of God is accepting his Son christ Jesus as your savior. Aopilus from God, is the forgiveness of your sins."
Remember those 4 Greek words that all translate as love? Yeah, they all have distinct meanings.
Agape from God is the forgiveness of your sins. Agape of God is accepting his Son christ Jesus as your savior. (Or, if you're bitter and cynical, storge is accepting the situation that you find yourself in).
Yeah, it all makes more sense in the original Klingon.
A non-anthropomorphic god undermines the premise of most western religions, and reduces what they treat as an intelligent character in their sacred stories, a person, like you and me but better in every way, and turns it into
Say what? I'm no Christian, but I know that the point of the religion is that God is this vast unknowable eternal entity, and Jesus, specifically, is a person, like you and me but better in every way. Isn't Islam similar? Heck, are there any monotheist religions with an anthropomorphic god?
Or the big bang itself, perhaps. At which point you're just a naturalistic pantheist going "whoa, like, the universe, man, wow."
Or you follow Spinoza (God is the universe), or you're a Deist (God the clockmaker), like most of the founding fathers. Deism is still pretty common, though few know the term itself.
Science moved past the evidence of our unaided senses in the 1600s. If you don't believe what we see with telescopes of various kinds, you don't believe in much.
Do you also believe that quantum mechanics and general relativity are both conspiracies? Or is 100 years enough time to get used to new ideas?
We haven't fought an enemy with access to modern medical facilities in 70 years, which coincidentally is the last time we fought an enemy who had signed the Geneva convention. (Do note that everyone who's in the chain of tending the wounded, from medics to back-line hospitals, is someone not pointing a rifle.)
Still enough to cripple or kill, as we sadly have plenty of evidence for. Spent rifle rounds will still penetrate skin and do damage, at which point you're in real trouble if you lack access to modern medical care.