I guess keep shopping at Walmart and all the other thought control corporations, since you aren't capable of taking care of what your kids buy or teaching them how to make decision that reflect your values.
Do you mind if I use your car to go to the grocery store?
Yes, and I'll shoot you for even trying.
Can we drop this nonsensical meme. All property rights are "government-granted monopolies".
Property rights, in their most basic sense, are "I have the right to whatever property I can hold onto without you taking it from me." We've layered morality onto this long before we had anything resembling government (ie, "Thou shalt not steal" and similar religious edicts from other times and religions), calling stealing wrong, and this presupposes we have property rights at all.
As we became a more organized society and formed governments, we took these moral values about property and turned them into laws which we empowered the government to enforce.
But the government never "granted" us these rights.
What the fsck is "family friendly" shopping? I find it hard to believe that an uncut version of "Requiem for a Dream" among a zillion other videos in the DVD bin amounts to "family hostile shopping." "Hustler" on the checkout aisle, sure.
Walmart has been hammered of late for their inability to cater to more "sophisticated" customers -- ie, people other than dolts wanting to gorge themselves on low-quality imported crap. I don't see how continuing down the same road built around fake Moral Majority family values aids in the growth.
Censorship is in many ways a poor word, because it begs comparisons to the coercive government control that you see in totalitarian societies like China. But in many ways it fits, since Walmart is a large organzation with significant market power that is using its choices to limit the choices that consumers can make.
Wealthy, affluent consumers are seldom affected since they generally have choices, but even in totalitarian countries, they often have choices as well (black markets, travel, etc). But people whose choice is Walmart or nothing dont really have any choices, and this is where it starts to feel like the other kind of censorship.
Due to Walmart's size, Walmart can influence the ability of others to make choices; suppliers will have to decide if its worth it to produce uncensored content while also meeting Walmart's needs at Walmart's prices.
What I don't get, though, is why Walmart censors stuff at all. It may have made sense back in the 1980s when their primary market was bible-belt rural, but now? It just seems self-limiting.
It sounds serious, but I guess I have to ask if its being widely exploited and who has significant motivation to exploit and to what gain?
I'm just thinking that there's so *many* exploits out there, that simply being exploitable isn't enough, it has to actually be exploited regularly and/or significantly enough to matter.
Can DirecTV ever economically come up with "enough" bandwidth? The HD capacity is "just barely" enough to cover their "basic cable" HD needs plus their premium HD needs plus their local affiliates in SD, let alone their locals IN HD, future HD quality improvements (note the low price of so many 1080p displays these days), etc.
It seems like they would need to put up a new bird every 18 months to get and stay ahead of it.
You're right, "traffic public safety" (to coin a bureaucratic sounding term) is really all about statistics, not individuals, and to get the stats they need "to be effective", they need instant-conviction tools like radar guns and breathalysers that "prove" instant guilt.
I'm sure the DPS' Campion is concerned that should the defendant find some reason to cast doubt on the validity of the results, the state could find itself having hundreds or possibly thousands of current cases thrown out and many times that many convictions vacated.
I think it also goes along with general cop/police state mindset where you don't want to give away anything, especially something like DUI automatic conviction machines.
Your statistics aren't true, it's a tired argument hauled out by gun ban types based on a repudiated and poor study.
The problem we have is that since the 1970s, we've emaciated homeowners and law-abiding citizens by making it difficult to use deadly force.
If, as was the case prior to 1960 in most parts of the US, it was generally assumed that a property owner could use deadly force against an intruder, it would be the equivalent of a "Protected by Smith and Wesson" sign in front of EVERY house, along with criminals having to assume the risk of such crimes.
No, it was meant to be serious. Locks keep out honest people and lazy criminals (given how often the police issue updates reminding us to lock the doors because they've had a run of unforced entry burglaries, there must be a lot of them).
Weapons keep out ANYBODY, but watch out for criminal-friendly laws on deadly force that either require you to flee your own home or prove that you were threatened with imminent risk of death or great bodily harm.
Fortunately where I live, deadly force is justified within your own home top stop the commission of a felony, and burglary is a felony.
1) Take your pick. SCA isn't that good. How about Kaspersky?
2) Arcserve or NTBackup. If you only ever expect to do DR, NTBackup. It's basically a Veritas engine and the scheduler works; with the savings you can buy some trick SAN and avoid doing many restores anyway.
After Stalin's death the maximum sentence in USSR was reduced from 25 years to 15 -- although many crimes were still punishable by death (as they are here) and one also got to spend their days in much harsher conditions than in the US
Do you really take a window dressing law in the Soviet criminal justice system seriously? As if the Soviets were actually reforming anything and not just engaging in some kind of PR exercise for internal or external consumption?
What works best is the inevitability of punishment, rather then the harshness of it. 25% of the spammers receiving a 1 year sentence would deter more scumbags, than 2 of them (a fraction of a percent) getting publicly chopped up on a wheel.
You need both; if your odds are only 1 in 4 that a highly profitable venture will end up costing you a very short prison sentence, why would it deter you if the likely outcome was a low chance of getting caught coupled with a short sentence -- make your money and then enjoy it when you get out.
In an ideal world, we'd have a two-tiered prison system. A highly punitive system where prisoners spent long hours in isolation, deprived of recreation, and a social rehabilitation system for prisoners with 1-3 years left on their sentence where they could focus on rehabilitation and re-entry to society, with the stipulation that fucking up there meant another long stretch in the punitive system, and the punitive system itself should have a stipulation that screwing up in it (violence against guards or inmates) could result in permanent, irrevocable life sentences in total isolation -- no mail, no reading, just 23.5 hours per day in a concrete closet.
In the event of a significant regional disaster, how good are those quick-refill contracts, anyway? I just keep thinking of fuel diversion by emergency services or simply the inability to deliver fuel due to transit woes, employee shortages, etc. In the event of a significant situation, fuel is a top priority for lots of people, many of them with guns and/or legal authority to seize it.
It always struck me as somewhat more resilient to have N+1 generators capable of being run on natural gas and LP. Sure, some regions might lose natural gas delivery (earthquake, etc), but it seems more likely to me that natural gas would keep running in spite of problems that might prevent or badly slow diesel delivery. And being capable of switching to LP means that even if you lose natural gas, you can keep running on on-site fuel.
The downside is that you probably are more limited in LP storage facilities in dense urban areas (diesel seems more fire marshal friendly) and diesel is more fuel efficient, but overall it seems that the odds favor longer term survivability of natural gas + LP vs. diesel.
And one enables the other. You really want to be able to dedicate boxes to specific services, but you also can't have a zillion boxes. VMs allow some slack to at least get the most annoying (*cough*BES*cough*) and least cooperative stuff on their own boxes.
Do any of the more "enterprise" APs, supposedly designed for large environments like campuses, have multiple ethernet jacks for failover/redundancy?
It sounds more like a misnegotiation between the iPhone and the AP and the iPhone falling back to some kind of "default" (eg, 169.x.x.x) addressing and doing an arp request to ensure it doesn't get a duplicate.
Assuming a tiered internet, you have telcos investing in the manpower and equipment to tier their services, and them passing these costs onto the sites paying the tiering fees, who in turn raise their prices to cover the tiering fees. In the end, you have $N spent.
Assuming an untiered internet, you have telcos investing manpower and equipment increasing bandwidth. These costs are passed onto bandwidth consumers, who in turn raise their prices to cover the cost of increased bandwidth. IN the end, you have $N spent.
From a very rough economic perspective, it looks the same to me, but one leaves the telcos with the ability to raise prices arbitrarily and squeeze supply artificially.
The Pantheon is much more impressive -- in continuous use since 125 AD, *still* the largest unreinforced concrete dome ever built and was the largest dome in the world for 1,600 years!
Many people doing interviewing (above the HR gatekeeper) are interested in:
1) Establishing their power. They're looking for poeple willing to be subservient.
2) In IT especially, establishing their "smarts". They ask the Mensa-type trivia questions because (A) they know the answers and (B) unless you do, too, you'll give some variant of the "wrong" answer which makes them look even "smarter" than they already are. That the questions have fuck all to do with the real world is all the better, as should you actually give a functionally correct answer they weren't expecting, they can easily brush it off as "not really relevant to the job, just a probing question."
I find its best when interviewing (if you want the job...) to defer to "bosses" on #1 and to co-workers on #2. Bosses WANT you to be smart (this means less supervision and better output). Co-workers are looking to minimize internal threats to their positions, so they want someone smart enough to not drag them down but dumb enough not to be a threat.
I think the bigger problem is that its so short acting -- you can lie at the dentist office for 45 minutes getting your teeth fixed and they let you drive home within a half hour of the procedure.
Some guys in college used to buy the little 10 gram BB-type cylinders of it and release it into a balloon and then inhale the contents; they'd be really wasted for like 60 seconds and then fine.
I can only imagine it being marginally workable if the "bullets" were large (along the lines of a 12 gauge slug) and the gas was actually combined with some other misting/fogging agent to allow it to hang in the air sufficiently to be inhaled, and only then if it was fired in enough quantity to create a large enough impact area to affect a crowd. Even then, the short duration would make it generally ineffective.
I think its multifaceted. To the extent its about money and advertising, controversial topics about Apple, etc bring in eyeballs, and gadget stuff brings in searchers.
I also think technology is so deep anymore in any particular direction, that the "old" Slashdot circa 1999 has a hard time covering 2007's technology. You could (and somebody probably does!) an entire site devoted to web development languages, whereas 10 years ago you had much fewer choices making it more possible to cover them in a generic technology site.
I also think that the editors are probably less programming-type tech oriented than they used to, and I think thats the case for a lot of tech type blogs. They've been "taken over" or their operators have evolved from hard-core developers to more technology "generalists" and gadgets are an easier focus.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess keep shopping at Walmart and all the other thought control corporations, since you aren't capable of taking care of what your kids buy or teaching them how to make decision that reflect your values.
Pay attention to your fucking kids and what they consume! Don't require that the nanny corporate state do it for you.
Do you mind if I use your car to go to the grocery store?
Yes, and I'll shoot you for even trying.
Can we drop this nonsensical meme. All property rights are "government-granted monopolies".
Property rights, in their most basic sense, are "I have the right to whatever property I can hold onto without you taking it from me." We've layered morality onto this long before we had anything resembling government (ie, "Thou shalt not steal" and similar religious edicts from other times and religions), calling stealing wrong, and this presupposes we have property rights at all.
As we became a more organized society and formed governments, we took these moral values about property and turned them into laws which we empowered the government to enforce.
But the government never "granted" us these rights.
What the fsck is "family friendly" shopping? I find it hard to believe that an uncut version of "Requiem for a Dream" among a zillion other videos in the DVD bin amounts to "family hostile shopping." "Hustler" on the checkout aisle, sure.
Walmart has been hammered of late for their inability to cater to more "sophisticated" customers -- ie, people other than dolts wanting to gorge themselves on low-quality imported crap. I don't see how continuing down the same road built around fake Moral Majority family values aids in the growth.
Censorship is in many ways a poor word, because it begs comparisons to the coercive government control that you see in totalitarian societies like China. But in many ways it fits, since Walmart is a large organzation with significant market power that is using its choices to limit the choices that consumers can make.
Wealthy, affluent consumers are seldom affected since they generally have choices, but even in totalitarian countries, they often have choices as well (black markets, travel, etc). But people whose choice is Walmart or nothing dont really have any choices, and this is where it starts to feel like the other kind of censorship.
Due to Walmart's size, Walmart can influence the ability of others to make choices; suppliers will have to decide if its worth it to produce uncensored content while also meeting Walmart's needs at Walmart's prices.
What I don't get, though, is why Walmart censors stuff at all. It may have made sense back in the 1980s when their primary market was bible-belt rural, but now? It just seems self-limiting.
It sounds serious, but I guess I have to ask if its being widely exploited and who has significant motivation to exploit and to what gain?
I'm just thinking that there's so *many* exploits out there, that simply being exploitable isn't enough, it has to actually be exploited regularly and/or significantly enough to matter.
Can DirecTV ever economically come up with "enough" bandwidth? The HD capacity is "just barely" enough to cover their "basic cable" HD needs plus their premium HD needs plus their local affiliates in SD, let alone their locals IN HD, future HD quality improvements (note the low price of so many 1080p displays these days), etc.
It seems like they would need to put up a new bird every 18 months to get and stay ahead of it.
Especially when you haven't shown her the value in a two-way yet.
You're right, "traffic public safety" (to coin a bureaucratic sounding term) is really all about statistics, not individuals, and to get the stats they need "to be effective", they need instant-conviction tools like radar guns and breathalysers that "prove" instant guilt.
You mean corporate shills lie and cheat to get rich?
I'm sure the DPS' Campion is concerned that should the defendant find some reason to cast doubt on the validity of the results, the state could find itself having hundreds or possibly thousands of current cases thrown out and many times that many convictions vacated.
I think it also goes along with general cop/police state mindset where you don't want to give away anything, especially something like DUI automatic conviction machines.
Your statistics aren't true, it's a tired argument hauled out by gun ban types based on a repudiated and poor study.
The problem we have is that since the 1970s, we've emaciated homeowners and law-abiding citizens by making it difficult to use deadly force.
If, as was the case prior to 1960 in most parts of the US, it was generally assumed that a property owner could use deadly force against an intruder, it would be the equivalent of a "Protected by Smith and Wesson" sign in front of EVERY house, along with criminals having to assume the risk of such crimes.
No, it was meant to be serious. Locks keep out honest people and lazy criminals (given how often the police issue updates reminding us to lock the doors because they've had a run of unforced entry burglaries, there must be a lot of them).
Weapons keep out ANYBODY, but watch out for criminal-friendly laws on deadly force that either require you to flee your own home or prove that you were threatened with imminent risk of death or great bodily harm.
Fortunately where I live, deadly force is justified within your own home top stop the commission of a felony, and burglary is a felony.
...with a Smith & Wesson (or a Glock, or a Bushmaster, or a Remington).
1) Take your pick. SCA isn't that good. How about Kaspersky?
2) Arcserve or NTBackup. If you only ever expect to do DR, NTBackup. It's basically a Veritas engine and the scheduler works; with the savings you can buy some trick SAN and avoid doing many restores anyway.
After Stalin's death the maximum sentence in USSR was reduced from 25 years to 15 -- although many crimes were still punishable by death (as they are here) and one also got to spend their days in much harsher conditions than in the US
Do you really take a window dressing law in the Soviet criminal justice system seriously? As if the Soviets were actually reforming anything and not just engaging in some kind of PR exercise for internal or external consumption?
What works best is the inevitability of punishment, rather then the harshness of it. 25% of the spammers receiving a 1 year sentence would deter more scumbags, than 2 of them (a fraction of a percent) getting publicly chopped up on a wheel.
You need both; if your odds are only 1 in 4 that a highly profitable venture will end up costing you a very short prison sentence, why would it deter you if the likely outcome was a low chance of getting caught coupled with a short sentence -- make your money and then enjoy it when you get out.
In an ideal world, we'd have a two-tiered prison system. A highly punitive system where prisoners spent long hours in isolation, deprived of recreation, and a social rehabilitation system for prisoners with 1-3 years left on their sentence where they could focus on rehabilitation and re-entry to society, with the stipulation that fucking up there meant another long stretch in the punitive system, and the punitive system itself should have a stipulation that screwing up in it (violence against guards or inmates) could result in permanent, irrevocable life sentences in total isolation -- no mail, no reading, just 23.5 hours per day in a concrete closet.
In the event of a significant regional disaster, how good are those quick-refill contracts, anyway? I just keep thinking of fuel diversion by emergency services or simply the inability to deliver fuel due to transit woes, employee shortages, etc. In the event of a significant situation, fuel is a top priority for lots of people, many of them with guns and/or legal authority to seize it.
It always struck me as somewhat more resilient to have N+1 generators capable of being run on natural gas and LP. Sure, some regions might lose natural gas delivery (earthquake, etc), but it seems more likely to me that natural gas would keep running in spite of problems that might prevent or badly slow diesel delivery. And being capable of switching to LP means that even if you lose natural gas, you can keep running on on-site fuel.
The downside is that you probably are more limited in LP storage facilities in dense urban areas (diesel seems more fire marshal friendly) and diesel is more fuel efficient, but overall it seems that the odds favor longer term survivability of natural gas + LP vs. diesel.
And one enables the other. You really want to be able to dedicate boxes to specific services, but you also can't have a zillion boxes. VMs allow some slack to at least get the most annoying (*cough*BES*cough*) and least cooperative stuff on their own boxes.
Do any of the more "enterprise" APs, supposedly designed for large environments like campuses, have multiple ethernet jacks for failover/redundancy?
It sounds more like a misnegotiation between the iPhone and the AP and the iPhone falling back to some kind of "default" (eg, 169.x.x.x) addressing and doing an arp request to ensure it doesn't get a duplicate.
Assuming a tiered internet, you have telcos investing in the manpower and equipment to tier their services, and them passing these costs onto the sites paying the tiering fees, who in turn raise their prices to cover the tiering fees. In the end, you have $N spent.
Assuming an untiered internet, you have telcos investing manpower and equipment increasing bandwidth. These costs are passed onto bandwidth consumers, who in turn raise their prices to cover the cost of increased bandwidth. IN the end, you have $N spent.
From a very rough economic perspective, it looks the same to me, but one leaves the telcos with the ability to raise prices arbitrarily and squeeze supply artificially.
The Pantheon is much more impressive -- in continuous use since 125 AD, *still* the largest unreinforced concrete dome ever built and was the largest dome in the world for 1,600 years!
Many people doing interviewing (above the HR gatekeeper) are interested in:
1) Establishing their power. They're looking for poeple willing to be subservient.
2) In IT especially, establishing their "smarts". They ask the Mensa-type trivia questions because (A) they know the answers and (B) unless you do, too, you'll give some variant of the "wrong" answer which makes them look even "smarter" than they already are. That the questions have fuck all to do with the real world is all the better, as should you actually give a functionally correct answer they weren't expecting, they can easily brush it off as "not really relevant to the job, just a probing question."
I find its best when interviewing (if you want the job...) to defer to "bosses" on #1 and to co-workers on #2. Bosses WANT you to be smart (this means less supervision and better output). Co-workers are looking to minimize internal threats to their positions, so they want someone smart enough to not drag them down but dumb enough not to be a threat.
And exactly zero studios did too, so you're stuck warezing movies, I guess.
I think the bigger problem is that its so short acting -- you can lie at the dentist office for 45 minutes getting your teeth fixed and they let you drive home within a half hour of the procedure.
Some guys in college used to buy the little 10 gram BB-type cylinders of it and release it into a balloon and then inhale the contents; they'd be really wasted for like 60 seconds and then fine.
I can only imagine it being marginally workable if the "bullets" were large (along the lines of a 12 gauge slug) and the gas was actually combined with some other misting/fogging agent to allow it to hang in the air sufficiently to be inhaled, and only then if it was fired in enough quantity to create a large enough impact area to affect a crowd. Even then, the short duration would make it generally ineffective.
I think its multifaceted. To the extent its about money and advertising, controversial topics about Apple, etc bring in eyeballs, and gadget stuff brings in searchers.
I also think technology is so deep anymore in any particular direction, that the "old" Slashdot circa 1999 has a hard time covering 2007's technology. You could (and somebody probably does!) an entire site devoted to web development languages, whereas 10 years ago you had much fewer choices making it more possible to cover them in a generic technology site.
I also think that the editors are probably less programming-type tech oriented than they used to, and I think thats the case for a lot of tech type blogs. They've been "taken over" or their operators have evolved from hard-core developers to more technology "generalists" and gadgets are an easier focus.