It's better that the government not steal our money for the purpose of handing it to rich people, or using it to murder brown people so that those same rich people can profit. And the cost of entitlements to business (which includes nearly every war we've been in, with a couple of obvious exceptions) so far dwarfs the entitlements for the poor as to be laughable, if it weren't so sad.
Are you suggesting this sarcasm? Or were you just doing a cut and paste of random words that happen to suggest that with money our government "[hands] it to rich people" , that it "murder[s] brown people" and that those costs "dwarf the entitltements for the poor".
Either you're a fucking idiot, or you're hoping desperately that we are.
Oh, so you believe we have controlled our government well when it comes to keeping it from killing "brown people" or from making deals with industrialists? And that it does a great job in giving to those in need?
So we've only failed to control our government in how it kills "brown people" and its inscestuous relationship with "the evil rich". It works perfectly when it comes to benefits programs and entitlements. Those are different bureaucrats who are immune to corruption, misjudgement, and unintended consequences?
Tell me, which government at any point in history has held sufficient enough power and wealth to provide for the basic needs of every citizen, and has:
- Protected Liberty of thought, religion, parental rights, etc.
- Has been even mostly free of corruption
- Has, thru even one century, maintained the good of the people as paramount
- Has not been warlike.
- Has not imprissoned political dissidents
- Has not had deaths due to famine, disease, or other causes directly related to the activity of that government.
- Has not collapsed under its own weight, or from the over-indulgences of its citizens.
See, you have this notion that government is either something that isnt run by people (who are inherently flawed), or that all we need is a specific kind of person in every position of authority in government. Both are wholly false notions. Government is run by people. And in general anyone who desires a position of authority (and therefore power) who would run for office in government is already compromised by that desire for power. Their personality type will leave them more open to the very corruption and compromise that you say is our fault for allowing (which I do not totally disagree with, btw).
You further believe that this authoritarian government will mandate levels of involvement on all, and that everyone being mandated will agree on it!
While it's true that "government" is not an invalid concept, a powerful authoritarian government (which is by definition what you describe) is dangerous and historicailly devolves into collapse at best , or attrocities commited "for the good of the people" at worst.
I'm picturing a fly slamming into a window pane: "This time it'll work and I will fly right through. Ok, this time. No, this time. This time.This timeThis timeThis timeThis time."
So the government you believe kills innocent people, and believe has become corrupt and give favors to the rich and powerful in return for other favors; that government is the one you trust to make millions (perhaps most) of people become wholly reliant on it for food, housing, heat, power, communication, etc, and never abuse that power over them to coerce them to act / say / think exactly what that government demands them to. .
Oh, and this is all ensures that you control anyone that you give that free living wage to. You essentially have them hostage from that point on. Everyone becomes wholly reliant on the government for their basic existence unless they happen to be one of the people who's working harder. Which means that if they step out of line and rebel against what the government says they should have, or what they should say, or what they should eat, or what they should do with their freetime, the government can strongarm them.
And I know you're thinking that this President would never do that, because he's such a great guy *coughbulllshit*. But can you promise that the elected officials 50 years from now will be so noble? No. you cant. But you're sure as hell happy enough to give them all the power they need now to fuck you completely then.
And that makes perfect sense, if selling my one song to one person will allow me to eat and put a roof over my head. But you and I know this isn't true, and you're using this "scarcity" argument to justify you avoiding the burden of spending a whopping $1.
If you intend to allow them to do a thing and then pass a law that makes all their efforts to do it irrelevant, it has retroactive impact.
Date X doesn't "just happen" to be anything. It is specifically planned Date X so as to have the greatest financial and operational impact you can muster so that you can do the maximum possible damage to them.
And get this line fucking clear : OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT DADDY.
It was never intended to be daddy.
It is not there to rule us.
It is there to serve us in very limited scope.
It's fucking little tyrant nanny asswipes like you that have distorted government and helped it amass power so that a minority of self-important arrogant pedantic jackasses can tell the masses to shut the fuck up and do it their way.
No, you instead planned to not do anything until industry had spent money, and then planned to use retroactive law to bludgeon them after the fact. You knowingly and with intent, plan to use law as a weapon against industry. And you're too fucking stupid to recognize that course of action is equally dishonest to anything BP is planning. Arguably its far worse because it is attempting to use government of the people with specific malice against the people.
And as demonstrated in the real world in communist China, Russia, and North Korea where millions have died of starvation and abuse in order to ensure that things are as orderly and even for all as possible.
Ironically I just posted about how government teaches industry how to side-step the law by using the laws as weapons against industry. I'm curious, do you consciously support that dishonesty while railing against the industrial dishonesty? I guess what I'm asking is, are you a hypocrite or a fucking idiot?
Hell, don't stop there. Why not ask them why our President is circumventing Congress in order to make up new laws, or edit them, or eliminate them? Or perhaps ask why our Attorney General finds it perfectly acceptable to state publicly that we're just not going to enforce laws he doesn't like.
And it's not a new thing. Not only does government at all levels choose what they will or will not enforce based on political expedience, they also abuse the intent of the law in order to use it as a weapon against their adversaries.
In a very real way industry is simply following the lead of government.
If the argument here is the "free market" and "fair competition", then the political affiliation of the those assisting a manufacturer of electric vehicles to compete against other manufacturers is exactly as relevent as the political affiliation of those who oppose the method of sale of those competing vehicles. Perhaps more so. If is pertinent to state that its proof of Republican corruption when they try to curb the sale of Vehicle X, then it is relevent to point out that Democrats provided unfair advantage that allowed Vehicle Y to be created and become a competitor of Vehicle X in the first place.
Like you, I am not stating a position on this particular bill because I have an instinctive aversion to regulation against the "free market". But like your statement is it then also worth commenting on the fact that Tesla has recieved pretty hefty startup funding from a Democratic federal administration?
A half trillion dollar loan (trillion with a T) is not just a thumb on the scale weighing free market equality. The scales were artificially tipped in favor of Tesla before they tried to sell the first vehicle in Ohio.
You forgot middle-aged. There can be some sympathy still for young straight white males because they are victims of their parents and are still potentially "our future". And old straight white males are invaluable in the retirement and healthcare debates.
You cant exactly write that down and profess it has your position. Being so obvious would get you laughed at. Instead, whenever someone suggests that you are acting like that, you have to declare them a denialist/capatilist pig/racist in order to silence them. This has proven to be exponentially more effective.
And they (Stalin and Mao), like Hitler and other dictators, only nudged the laws and beliefs of the society in their favor of granting themselves more and more power. Historically its not until this power is complete and secured do those step well past the bounds of morality and into abhorent behavior such as genocide.
The Constitutional founders recognized this basic historical truism (obviously before Stalin, Mao or Hitler) and built a system specifically designed to prevent it from occuring in America. Over the last century our leaders have actively campaigned to undermine this system, granting greater and greater power to the three branches. And today we see efforts to break down the lines between those branches at every oppurtunity to make them less and less checks against one another, and more so cooperative entities assisting one another in taking more power.
At what point do the citizens rightfully fear the power that has been amassed and centralized?
WTF is a "true atheist"? By definition this person is nothing more than someone that does not believe in a higher power. By that definition there can be no central tenant of morality or behavior unless you are one of those atheists that have coopted that word to encapsulate your new anti-religion zealotry, and have effectively created a new religion of non-worship.
Unless you claim to belong to an atheist "church" that has adopted a charter, then your statement is ignorant at best. And even then you paint any atheist with your brush of what all atheists are, and my bet is that you would estrange and offend many of them by doing so. It would be exponentially more ridiculous and inaccuate than claming that the Westboro Baptist Church is morally equal to the Presbyterian Church USA (an LBGT-affirmative church), simply because they both profess a foundation in Christianity, because you dont even have a recorded moral foundation to distort to your position.
All of your examples are equally ludicrous as mine. And you're actually too stupid to recognize you have made my point exactly just using different ludicrous examples.
By that line of reasoning, if you take all a person's possessions you remove any incentive a criminal would have to steal it. Which obviously proves that taking everyone's possessions is the only sane way to eliminate theft.
The article isnt talking about backups. It's talking about long-term data preservation and storage. While those can be configured to be the same thing, the way the article presents things that's not the case for the LHC data.
Regardless, NAS/SAN is a very viable solution for backups. Why duplicate your full dataset for every full backup you retain and exponentially increase your tape count, when you can do one full backup ever and only keep the incremental changes from that point on? Why pay someone to pick up tapes for offsite data protection, pay them to store it, pay them to retrieve it, and wait for as long is it takes for someone to get a tape that MIGHT have the specific data you need restored, when you can replicate the few gigs of incremental change weekly on a several hundred terabyte dataset that is actually new or changed to a site not just in the same city (as is usually the case of tapes) but to another state or even another country? And have the entire history of backups online and available in a few seconds and from a fail-over location? If you have a city-wide disaster and you've got your tapes just down the street in a "vault", you're probably screwed. If it's 1000 miles away your business/research group/agency can recover.
Every point the article makes about why tape is an advantage is easily disqualified by anyone with basic understanding of the technologies. I mean seriously, the article actually argues that a tape is superior because if a tape snaps it can be spliced back together and you only lose "a few hundred megabytes", whereas if you lose a TB disk drive you lose the whole TB. If you're too fucking stupid to use striping then you deserve to lose the data.
It further argues that you dont have to pay to power tapes. Sure, true. You just have to pay to ship it around, pay for it in terms of floorspace to store it, and do so exponentially more so than disk (see dedup argument above). But the article aslo proves perfect ignorance of NAS/SAN tech allowing for very low cost idle disks. So the disks remain spun down until/unless the data on them is accessed. There is minimal cooling/power costs associated unless you're accessing the data regularly over the whole of the storage, and if you're doing that you've further negated any professed benefit from tapes.
And the article also gives no consideration for technology refresh for "long term" data storage, which shows an amazing lack of foresight. If all your data is on LTO tape, for instance, what happens in 5 years? Do you copy all that data from old tape tech to new tape tech? Or do you keep all or some subset of the old tape hardware online and available so that you can still access the old tapes? If the latter, do you start paying more and more for the support on that hardware? Or do you risk failures that you may or may not be able to find replacement parts to repair? If it's the former, is it easier to copy the pb's of data that the LHC project is describing from one tape tech to another? Or from one disk storage tray to another?
The more I consider the article the more it pisses me off because it's so flat out false. There might be a very small set of scenarios in which the article's view is viable, but they are by far the exception rather than the norm.
Who, exactly, are you refering to that is storing TBs of data on unattached drives that are in some form other than SAN or NAS? If you have data sets that are being regularly accessed that are in the TBs in size and you're not using SAN or NAS then your IT manager needs to be flogged. Or you're a small company on a shoestring budget that couldnt afford to replace the tapes you're wearing out even if you could afford to purchase a high-capacity, high-performance tape changer in the first place. I mean, even if you had 100 laptops with USB drives attached holding the data you're talking about some simple AD permissions would allow a person to script retrieval of the data that would be faster than tapes could perform.
The capability of retrieving that data efficiently has little do with the medium, and much more to do with the format that the data is in. If it's in a standardized format it can be easily searched and retrieved concurrently with scripting. If it's not in a standardized format then your tape search is going to be a colosal cluster****.
SAN/NAS negates your argument entirely because all the data is in one pooled location. Which is then protected by a backup paradigm even more easily, and deduplication even more easily applied to make the storage footprint of backups minute compared to tape.
Slashdot Mirror
How about if we start by acknowledging that there was never supposed to be a "ruling class" and elminating that philosophy from our culture.
It's better that the government not steal our money for the purpose of handing it to rich people, or using it to murder brown people so that those same rich people can profit. And the cost of entitlements to business (which includes nearly every war we've been in, with a couple of obvious exceptions) so far dwarfs the entitlements for the poor as to be laughable, if it weren't so sad.
Are you suggesting this sarcasm? Or were you just doing a cut and paste of random words that happen to suggest that with money our government "[hands] it to rich people" , that it "murder[s] brown people" and that those costs "dwarf the entitltements for the poor".
Either you're a fucking idiot, or you're hoping desperately that we are.
Oh, so you believe we have controlled our government well when it comes to keeping it from killing "brown people" or from making deals with industrialists? And that it does a great job in giving to those in need?
So we've only failed to control our government in how it kills "brown people" and its inscestuous relationship with "the evil rich". It works perfectly when it comes to benefits programs and entitlements. Those are different bureaucrats who are immune to corruption, misjudgement, and unintended consequences?
Tell me, which government at any point in history has held sufficient enough power and wealth to provide for the basic needs of every citizen, and has:
- Protected Liberty of thought, religion, parental rights, etc.
- Has been even mostly free of corruption
- Has, thru even one century, maintained the good of the people as paramount
- Has not been warlike.
- Has not imprissoned political dissidents
- Has not had deaths due to famine, disease, or other causes directly related to the activity of that government.
- Has not collapsed under its own weight, or from the over-indulgences of its citizens.
See, you have this notion that government is either something that isnt run by people (who are inherently flawed), or that all we need is a specific kind of person in every position of authority in government. Both are wholly false notions. Government is run by people. And in general anyone who desires a position of authority (and therefore power) who would run for office in government is already compromised by that desire for power. Their personality type will leave them more open to the very corruption and compromise that you say is our fault for allowing (which I do not totally disagree with, btw).
You further believe that this authoritarian government will mandate levels of involvement on all, and that everyone being mandated will agree on it!
While it's true that "government" is not an invalid concept, a powerful authoritarian government (which is by definition what you describe) is dangerous and historicailly devolves into collapse at best , or attrocities commited "for the good of the people" at worst.
I'm picturing a fly slamming into a window pane: "This time it'll work and I will fly right through. Ok, this time. No, this time. This time.This timeThis timeThis timeThis time."
So the government you believe kills innocent people, and believe has become corrupt and give favors to the rich and powerful in return for other favors; that government is the one you trust to make millions (perhaps most) of people become wholly reliant on it for food, housing, heat, power, communication, etc, and never abuse that power over them to coerce them to act / say / think exactly what that government demands them to. .
Brilliant. Way to think that one thru.
Oh, and this is all ensures that you control anyone that you give that free living wage to. You essentially have them hostage from that point on. Everyone becomes wholly reliant on the government for their basic existence unless they happen to be one of the people who's working harder. Which means that if they step out of line and rebel against what the government says they should have, or what they should say, or what they should eat, or what they should do with their freetime, the government can strongarm them.
And I know you're thinking that this President would never do that, because he's such a great guy *coughbulllshit*. But can you promise that the elected officials 50 years from now will be so noble? No. you cant. But you're sure as hell happy enough to give them all the power they need now to fuck you completely then.
And that makes perfect sense, if selling my one song to one person will allow me to eat and put a roof over my head. But you and I know this isn't true, and you're using this "scarcity" argument to justify you avoiding the burden of spending a whopping $1.
If you intend to allow them to do a thing and then pass a law that makes all their efforts to do it irrelevant, it has retroactive impact.
Date X doesn't "just happen" to be anything. It is specifically planned Date X so as to have the greatest financial and operational impact you can muster so that you can do the maximum possible damage to them.
And get this line fucking clear : OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT DADDY.
It was never intended to be daddy.
It is not there to rule us.
It is there to serve us in very limited scope.
It's fucking little tyrant nanny asswipes like you that have distorted government and helped it amass power so that a minority of self-important arrogant pedantic jackasses can tell the masses to shut the fuck up and do it their way.
No, you instead planned to not do anything until industry had spent money, and then planned to use retroactive law to bludgeon them after the fact. You knowingly and with intent, plan to use law as a weapon against industry. And you're too fucking stupid to recognize that course of action is equally dishonest to anything BP is planning. Arguably its far worse because it is attempting to use government of the people with specific malice against the people.
And as demonstrated in the real world in communist China, Russia, and North Korea where millions have died of starvation and abuse in order to ensure that things are as orderly and even for all as possible.
Ironically I just posted about how government teaches industry how to side-step the law by using the laws as weapons against industry. I'm curious, do you consciously support that dishonesty while railing against the industrial dishonesty? I guess what I'm asking is, are you a hypocrite or a fucking idiot?
Mod Up !
So when I create a song, I am not allowed to enforce how that song will be used, or demand payment for its use?
Hell, don't stop there. Why not ask them why our President is circumventing Congress in order to make up new laws, or edit them, or eliminate them? Or perhaps ask why our Attorney General finds it perfectly acceptable to state publicly that we're just not going to enforce laws he doesn't like.
And it's not a new thing. Not only does government at all levels choose what they will or will not enforce based on political expedience, they also abuse the intent of the law in order to use it as a weapon against their adversaries.
In a very real way industry is simply following the lead of government.
Maybe. But he's still an asshole.
If the argument here is the "free market" and "fair competition", then the political affiliation of the those assisting a manufacturer of electric vehicles to compete against other manufacturers is exactly as relevent as the political affiliation of those who oppose the method of sale of those competing vehicles. Perhaps more so. If is pertinent to state that its proof of Republican corruption when they try to curb the sale of Vehicle X, then it is relevent to point out that Democrats provided unfair advantage that allowed Vehicle Y to be created and become a competitor of Vehicle X in the first place.
Like you, I am not stating a position on this particular bill because I have an instinctive aversion to regulation against the "free market". But like your statement is it then also worth commenting on the fact that Tesla has recieved pretty hefty startup funding from a Democratic federal administration?
A half trillion dollar loan (trillion with a T) is not just a thumb on the scale weighing free market equality. The scales were artificially tipped in favor of Tesla before they tried to sell the first vehicle in Ohio.
You forgot middle-aged. There can be some sympathy still for young straight white males because they are victims of their parents and are still potentially "our future". And old straight white males are invaluable in the retirement and healthcare debates.
You cant exactly write that down and profess it has your position. Being so obvious would get you laughed at. Instead, whenever someone suggests that you are acting like that, you have to declare them a denialist/capatilist pig/racist in order to silence them. This has proven to be exponentially more effective.
And they (Stalin and Mao), like Hitler and other dictators, only nudged the laws and beliefs of the society in their favor of granting themselves more and more power. Historically its not until this power is complete and secured do those step well past the bounds of morality and into abhorent behavior such as genocide.
The Constitutional founders recognized this basic historical truism (obviously before Stalin, Mao or Hitler) and built a system specifically designed to prevent it from occuring in America. Over the last century our leaders have actively campaigned to undermine this system, granting greater and greater power to the three branches. And today we see efforts to break down the lines between those branches at every oppurtunity to make them less and less checks against one another, and more so cooperative entities assisting one another in taking more power.
At what point do the citizens rightfully fear the power that has been amassed and centralized?
WTF is a "true atheist"? By definition this person is nothing more than someone that does not believe in a higher power. By that definition there can be no central tenant of morality or behavior unless you are one of those atheists that have coopted that word to encapsulate your new anti-religion zealotry, and have effectively created a new religion of non-worship.
Unless you claim to belong to an atheist "church" that has adopted a charter, then your statement is ignorant at best. And even then you paint any atheist with your brush of what all atheists are, and my bet is that you would estrange and offend many of them by doing so. It would be exponentially more ridiculous and inaccuate than claming that the Westboro Baptist Church is morally equal to the Presbyterian Church USA (an LBGT-affirmative church), simply because they both profess a foundation in Christianity, because you dont even have a recorded moral foundation to distort to your position.
All of your examples are equally ludicrous as mine. And you're actually too stupid to recognize you have made my point exactly just using different ludicrous examples.
By that line of reasoning, if you take all a person's possessions you remove any incentive a criminal would have to steal it. Which obviously proves that taking everyone's possessions is the only sane way to eliminate theft.
The article isnt talking about backups. It's talking about long-term data preservation and storage. While those can be configured to be the same thing, the way the article presents things that's not the case for the LHC data.
Regardless, NAS/SAN is a very viable solution for backups. Why duplicate your full dataset for every full backup you retain and exponentially increase your tape count, when you can do one full backup ever and only keep the incremental changes from that point on? Why pay someone to pick up tapes for offsite data protection, pay them to store it, pay them to retrieve it, and wait for as long is it takes for someone to get a tape that MIGHT have the specific data you need restored, when you can replicate the few gigs of incremental change weekly on a several hundred terabyte dataset that is actually new or changed to a site not just in the same city (as is usually the case of tapes) but to another state or even another country? And have the entire history of backups online and available in a few seconds and from a fail-over location? If you have a city-wide disaster and you've got your tapes just down the street in a "vault", you're probably screwed. If it's 1000 miles away your business/research group/agency can recover.
Every point the article makes about why tape is an advantage is easily disqualified by anyone with basic understanding of the technologies. I mean seriously, the article actually argues that a tape is superior because if a tape snaps it can be spliced back together and you only lose "a few hundred megabytes", whereas if you lose a TB disk drive you lose the whole TB. If you're too fucking stupid to use striping then you deserve to lose the data.
It further argues that you dont have to pay to power tapes. Sure, true. You just have to pay to ship it around, pay for it in terms of floorspace to store it, and do so exponentially more so than disk (see dedup argument above). But the article aslo proves perfect ignorance of NAS/SAN tech allowing for very low cost idle disks. So the disks remain spun down until/unless the data on them is accessed. There is minimal cooling/power costs associated unless you're accessing the data regularly over the whole of the storage, and if you're doing that you've further negated any professed benefit from tapes.
And the article also gives no consideration for technology refresh for "long term" data storage, which shows an amazing lack of foresight. If all your data is on LTO tape, for instance, what happens in 5 years? Do you copy all that data from old tape tech to new tape tech? Or do you keep all or some subset of the old tape hardware online and available so that you can still access the old tapes? If the latter, do you start paying more and more for the support on that hardware? Or do you risk failures that you may or may not be able to find replacement parts to repair? If it's the former, is it easier to copy the pb's of data that the LHC project is describing from one tape tech to another? Or from one disk storage tray to another?
The more I consider the article the more it pisses me off because it's so flat out false. There might be a very small set of scenarios in which the article's view is viable, but they are by far the exception rather than the norm.
Who, exactly, are you refering to that is storing TBs of data on unattached drives that are in some form other than SAN or NAS? If you have data sets that are being regularly accessed that are in the TBs in size and you're not using SAN or NAS then your IT manager needs to be flogged. Or you're a small company on a shoestring budget that couldnt afford to replace the tapes you're wearing out even if you could afford to purchase a high-capacity, high-performance tape changer in the first place. I mean, even if you had 100 laptops with USB drives attached holding the data you're talking about some simple AD permissions would allow a person to script retrieval of the data that would be faster than tapes could perform.
The capability of retrieving that data efficiently has little do with the medium, and much more to do with the format that the data is in. If it's in a standardized format it can be easily searched and retrieved concurrently with scripting. If it's not in a standardized format then your tape search is going to be a colosal cluster****.
SAN/NAS negates your argument entirely because all the data is in one pooled location. Which is then protected by a backup paradigm even more easily, and deduplication even more easily applied to make the storage footprint of backups minute compared to tape.