You and I know somewhat what a REASONABLE set of rules of rules might be, but GP is right as to the draft language. It basically said every packet has to be treated the same. As to company A and company B, if company A is a hospital and company B is a Nigerian prince, that's a difficult situation to write legislation for. Is it okay to deprioritize email from known spammers and allow the email from a search and rescue team to go through first? That's not allowed if the rule is "all users must be treated the same."
I don't see how "the ISP should treat every packet the same" is unreasonable. The ISP should guarantee latency, throughput, jitter, availability, etc. per their SLAs. The end user can do their own QOS and decide whether they want netflix or remote robotic surgeries to take priority. If the user needs a stronger guarantee, they should get a better connection with a better SLA. None of this is illegal or unreasonable.
How about ads? On a slow wireless link, is it okay to deliver the text of a web page before the ads from DoubleClick ? They are both http web traffic.
Data should be delivered as determined by the client and the server, not the ISP. I'm not a web developer, but I suspect any real browser will load title, layout, text, then images.
Administrators making case-by-case decisions can make reasonable decisions in most cases. Coming up with simple rules deciding what admins must do in all cases for the next 20 years is much trickier, especially for bureaucrats who don't know the tech as well.
Thanks for proving my point. Local administrators should be allowed to prioritize their own networks. ISPs coming up with simple rules that override admins is much trickier, especially for large media companies with conflicts of interest. I mean, bureaucrats.
A lot of us use OS X for server work. A real terminal (though I really just need ssh and scp), can use nearly every tool I can use on Linux, yet not stuck with the *cough* horrendous Linux desktop experience.
Plus, I get the added bonus of being able to ARD mac systems, test AFP shares from servers that use them, and run Win and Linux VMs. The only way to run all three without wasting a lot of time is on a Mac.
That is not going to happen for any private mac user who has not running an Apache etc. and has not activated CGI scripts (and a router configured to route port 80 traffic to your Mac).
In other words, the thousands of businesses and people using xserves or OS X Server to host various sites/apps with the OS-included software?
Sorry, this "Apple is late" mantras are simply bullshit.
Apple is late. Stupid though it may be, many people are using OSX for servers. Apple did once sell these servers, cater to this market, and have enterprise support. Apple didn't even bother to release a patch for 10.6, even though it is still in use on most of these servers.
Are you talking about the War in Iraq, which Obama boasted continuously about ending, despite loud criticism at the time that he was creating the conditions for what's going on right now with ISIS?
I wouldn't be boasting about that anymore, his related words are now one of those things his opponents publish on Twitter so as to illustrate how incompetent he is.
So you're telling me we wouldn't be at war now if only we hadn't ended the war? It's not enough that my friends did 5-10 tours? How many more did you want us to do?
It works if and only if the target system is also using LSI RAID controllers.
In the business world where you don't change the underlying OS on a critical system just because you feel like it, it's pretty easy to make sure the target hardware meets the spec.
In the business world, if you don't have the scale and expertise to build your own cluster, you use real enterprise gear in redundant configurations. Whether NetApp/EMC or ZFS on qualified hardware.
If availability isn't important to you, and you can afford to keep spare controllers on hand so you don't have to wait days to source a compatible controller 5 years from now... fine, use LSI. But don't pretend it's somehow smarter to use HW RAID on a critical system.
Your examples strike me as extraordinarily simple. Are these the things you're actually filtering out applicants on? I figure we're talking junior admin work here, but still..
I am fairly secure in my current position, but I occasionally contemplate becoming a fulltime Unix admin to make my life easier. However, all the postings I see have high listed requirements (e.g. 3-5 years experience in an environment with over 1,000 servers). I figured it was really that competitive these days, even for junior positions.
Or is there something else at play here? Are those posted requirements generally bullshit? Are you going for undermarket salaries? Is your organization somehow unique?
Re:bringing in more H1Bs will solve this problem
on
IT Job Hiring Slumps
·
· Score: 1
Could you please point out the benefit for US American programmers of a job they don't get hired for being in the US compared to a job they can't get hired for abroad?
A US job that they don't get hired for still: 1) reduces competition for other jobs 2) increases wage competition for skilled workers
Both of which benefit the person who did not get the local job.
I suspect you're right about price fixing. However, the fact that someone in the economy has to pay a large sum of real money is irrelevant in determining cost-benefit.
Yes, it's real money. But so are labor costs. And, in theory, those labor costs represent [a portion of] the real value that person is adding to the economy. So anything that makes the employee able to add value more efficiently is overall good.
In general, an employee would not be earning $200/hr on a $7,000 workstation if they weren't adding more than $200/hr of value to the economy in some way. So making them more efficient either allows them to add more value, or gives them more free time to do other things (which tend to benefit the economy and society as a whole).
So maybe there is collusion, price gouging, artificial shortages, or something going on... but I know people who would gladly pay a huge premium for minor speed increases. And that really drives development, which should ultimately benefit the home user.
You are the one making an elementary mistake, I am afraid. Your conclusion does not follow, even if we accept your entire argument.
You have heard the phrase "trust, but verify". It is far too easy to fake transparency and mislead other states. Every state throughout history has done this. At the very least, you need good intelligence sources to verify a state's public pronouncements regarding intentions are sincere. Even if they are sincere, you need to know the intentions/plans/abilities of internal players who may be in opposition.
Although I guess we could just take Putin at his word that he is just conducting military exercises and has no intentions towards Crimea? I'm sure he'll be giving Crimea back to Ukraine any day now.
Advocating covert verification of states' intentions and abilities has nothing to do with government accountability. That is an extreme oversimplification and false dichotomy.
No, any enterprise that cares about its data or uptime will use "enterprise" SSDs*. All** the big storage players have been using enterprise rated/labeled SSDs, and many of them use "enterprise" HDDs as well. So that's a pretty big chunk of the storage market. I'm not saying EMC doesn't have a high markup, but if you're using EMC storage with SSDs, you're using enterprise SSDs.
There are a bunch of reasons to use enterprise stuff in other situations as well, but I'm not going to try to debate the technicals right now.
As a side note, it sounds like your company is having pretty serious issues with storage and backup. What are they going to do when data grows a bit and daily backups start taking 25 hours?
*Or have a completely different architecture to sidestep the problem. It's harder than it sounds. **There may be exceptions?
That is true of a lot of newer think tanks. You can generally judge a think tank by its ratio of PhDs to staff.
Brookings is part of the old guard. They employ a lot of serious researchers and generally strive towards objectivity. Nothing's 100%, but I'd say they're comparable to a good university.
W was a unique president. Off the top of my head, he's the only recent president who seems to have actually done everything wrong. Obama has done some good... but since everything he does is controversial and subject to the harshest rhetoric I've seen in the US, I decided to leave him out of this.
While that is correct, you are assuming vi has a steep upward slope. That was not the case for me.
1 minute in: "Oh crap... how I do I type? How do I EXIT?" 15 minutes in: "whew, helpful man page and articles." "cfg edited and saved. Go me!" 1 day later: "I just deleted two lines! Crap! How do I exit without saving? Ugh... what'd that man say again?"
A quick initial climb, a steep drop into a lake filled with tears, and then a gradual slope.
Now imagine you're neither country. Dependent on a bully country and some other random country for your internet control. Which would you take? Or the UN?
you are imaging that the US is the "bully country", and failing to imagine what most other countries would do with control over the internet. And actively ignoring what many other countries do with control over their piece of the internet.
The US bullies on plenty of issues. Control over the internet really isn't one of them.
It's government that enforces the cable monopolies. They are called franchises, and it's the government saying only one company can run service to a given neighborhood. An EXCELLENT example of government doing harm.
I got the impression you were making the argument about the federal government specifically. Sometimes the federal/state government increases liberty by getting rid of a federal/state regulation. Sometimes abolishing a regulation leads to less liberty.
Neither I nor the Green Party believes government never does harm. I am certainly not claiming that federal, state, or local governments are free of corruption.
The core of the argument is that 1) government is not inherently bad and 2) we can substantially improve the quality of our government through 3) changes in electoral rules, campaign financing, and the revolving door. When a large voting bloc stops believing 1 and 2, we're basically doomed. I'd much rather argue over the best #3 and how to get them implemented.
The quality of drinking water in the United States remains universally high, however. Even though pipes and mains are frequently more than 100 years old and in need of replacement, outbreaks of disease attributable to drinking water are rare.
Universally high quality drinking water? That's "remarkably well". Yes, infrastructure needs work because nobody is willing to spend the money to do it. But, as of today, nearly everyone has potable water.
I'm sorry, but you are misinterpreting or misrepresenting Greens, at least in this paragraph:
It's pretty clear, isn't it, that they are for more government - WAY more government. In fact, the preamble of their platform says they seek to refute the idea "that government is intrinsically undesirable and destructive of liberty". They think more federal government leads to more liberty. How cute.
The entire point of that line is that governments are not always bad, and they can lead to liberty. The rest of the platform is basically saying "we need all of these things to have a good government again".
I'd call the notion that government never leads to more liberty "cute", but it's ugly and overly cynical. Let me give you a few examples of the federal government creating more liberty: * abolishment of slavery (Civil War will give you a lot of fun arguing points, I'm sure, but still true) * abolishment of Jim Crow laws * child labor laws * Roe v Wade (trollbait, but millions of Americans have been grateful for this liberty) * hopefully someday, breaking cable's blockade of good internet (I don't have the liberty to have fiber because a municipal official made a deal with a donor?)
I'm not a Green, but I'm with them on this. And I think any sane person should be. Government is not always bad.
Hell, take things "programmed" in Excel for that matter. I've seen people use 3 columns to do things which could've been written in 1 operation especially when it comes to adding percentages to a value (they'll calculate 4%, then add it's outcome to the source value to get a +4% and then hide the other 2 columns instead of just doing 104%). That will take them 2 hours to complete.
I agree with your point. But to be fair, I have seen 'geniuses' use one formula to do things which could have been written in 50 columns. There are advantages to breaking up the formula and "showing your work" in hidden columns. I hate trying to debug or change formulas with a thousand parentheses. Now if we can only get people to make their excel formulas readable and then start documenting...
Yeah, it's kind of sad how very few places will tolerate anyone who truly cares (rather than pretends to care while supporting policies infringe upon free speech rights) about free speech.
Freedom? You want the "free speech right" of a rapist to trump a rape victim's freedom to decide whether or not to be be in an adult video.
It's possible you're not trolling, but it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would mod you up. So much for #NotAllMen and all those "slashdot isn't misogynist!" comments...
No, that would be a subsidy, if it wasn't applied to all businesses equally. My point was that some people claim a tax cut, usually in the form of a rate cut, is "the same thing as spending." E.g., if a tax cut is expected to reduce revenues by $100 million, they will say it's the same as the government spending $100 million. It's not, for various reasons too off-topic to go into.
I am glad we agree on the first point. I may have missed some of the context of your post, and I often get the impression that some on slashdot would not agree that targeted rate cuts are a subsidy.
On the latter, I suspect we disagree somewhat. But we don't have to argue that point. Over the last 14 years, I have seen an ugly cycle of: 1) cut taxes disproportionately for the wealthy and corporations; 2) increase defense spending; 3) cite new deficits as justification for cutting entitlements by an amount dwarfed by 1 and 2; 4) propose new tax cuts. The claim that "tax cuts [always] pay for themselves" concerns me greatly.
Today on/. we find out who doesn't know the difference between subsidies, tax deductions, tax breaks, and taxes.
You'd have a mod point if I had one right now. You could have added "spending," because I've seen people argue that tax cuts (i.e. taking less of someone's money) is the same thing as more government spending.
So, to be clear, if Obama got on TV and announced that no taxes would need to be paid on corporate or personal income from renewable energy sales, you would NOT consider that a form of subsidy? And he would get no resistance from the right, because it would just be "taking less of someone's money"?
I know it's broad, as are the definitions of combat zones. However, I think that's more reflective of America's extreme involvement across the globe, and doesn't necessarily diminish the value of a legitimate medal.
Now, the paperpushers who get bronze stars for their heroic hiring of contractors and writing of contracts...
Slashdot Mirror
You and I know somewhat what a REASONABLE set of rules of rules might be, but GP is right as to the draft language. It basically said every packet has to be treated the same. As to company A and company B, if company A is a hospital and company B is a Nigerian prince, that's a difficult situation to write legislation for. Is it okay to deprioritize email from known spammers and allow the email from a search and rescue team to go through first? That's not allowed if the rule is "all users must be treated the same."
I don't see how "the ISP should treat every packet the same" is unreasonable. The ISP should guarantee latency, throughput, jitter, availability, etc. per their SLAs. The end user can do their own QOS and decide whether they want netflix or remote robotic surgeries to take priority. If the user needs a stronger guarantee, they should get a better connection with a better SLA. None of this is illegal or unreasonable.
How about ads? On a slow wireless link, is it okay to deliver the text of a web page before the ads from DoubleClick ? They are both http web traffic.
Data should be delivered as determined by the client and the server, not the ISP. I'm not a web developer, but I suspect any real browser will load title, layout, text, then images.
Administrators making case-by-case decisions can make reasonable decisions in most cases. Coming up with simple rules deciding what admins must do in all cases for the next 20 years is much trickier, especially for bureaucrats who don't know the tech as well.
Thanks for proving my point. Local administrators should be allowed to prioritize their own networks. ISPs coming up with simple rules that override admins is much trickier, especially for large media companies with conflicts of interest. I mean, bureaucrats.
A lot of us use OS X for server work. A real terminal (though I really just need ssh and scp), can use nearly every tool I can use on Linux, yet not stuck with the *cough* horrendous Linux desktop experience.
Plus, I get the added bonus of being able to ARD mac systems, test AFP shares from servers that use them, and run Win and Linux VMs. The only way to run all three without wasting a lot of time is on a Mac.
That is not going to happen for any private mac user who has not running an Apache etc. and has not activated CGI scripts (and a router configured to route port 80 traffic to your Mac).
In other words, the thousands of businesses and people using xserves or OS X Server to host various sites/apps with the OS-included software?
Sorry, this "Apple is late" mantras are simply bullshit.
Apple is late. Stupid though it may be, many people are using OSX for servers. Apple did once sell these servers, cater to this market, and have enterprise support. Apple didn't even bother to release a patch for 10.6, even though it is still in use on most of these servers.
Apple completely dropped the ball.
Thanks! Just ordered a set...
Are you talking about the War in Iraq, which Obama boasted continuously about ending, despite loud criticism at the time that he was creating the conditions for what's going on right now with ISIS?
I wouldn't be boasting about that anymore, his related words are now one of those things his opponents publish on Twitter so as to illustrate how incompetent he is.
So you're telling me we wouldn't be at war now if only we hadn't ended the war? It's not enough that my friends did 5-10 tours? How many more did you want us to do?
Read the other comments in this article that point out all the pros. I love md and lvm, but they are little league compared to ZFS.
Hell, just the snapshotting alone. User accessible previous copies of files!
It works if and only if the target system is also using LSI RAID controllers.
In the business world where you don't change the underlying OS on a critical system just because you feel like it, it's pretty easy to make sure the target hardware meets the spec.
In the business world, if you don't have the scale and expertise to build your own cluster, you use real enterprise gear in redundant configurations. Whether NetApp/EMC or ZFS on qualified hardware.
If availability isn't important to you, and you can afford to keep spare controllers on hand so you don't have to wait days to source a compatible controller 5 years from now... fine, use LSI. But don't pretend it's somehow smarter to use HW RAID on a critical system.
Your examples strike me as extraordinarily simple. Are these the things you're actually filtering out applicants on? I figure we're talking junior admin work here, but still..
I am fairly secure in my current position, but I occasionally contemplate becoming a fulltime Unix admin to make my life easier. However, all the postings I see have high listed requirements (e.g. 3-5 years experience in an environment with over 1,000 servers). I figured it was really that competitive these days, even for junior positions.
Or is there something else at play here? Are those posted requirements generally bullshit? Are you going for undermarket salaries? Is your organization somehow unique?
Could you please point out the benefit for US American programmers of a job they don't get hired for being in the US compared to a job they can't get hired for abroad?
A US job that they don't get hired for still:
1) reduces competition for other jobs
2) increases wage competition for skilled workers
Both of which benefit the person who did not get the local job.
I suspect you're right about price fixing. However, the fact that someone in the economy has to pay a large sum of real money is irrelevant in determining cost-benefit.
Yes, it's real money. But so are labor costs. And, in theory, those labor costs represent [a portion of] the real value that person is adding to the economy. So anything that makes the employee able to add value more efficiently is overall good.
In general, an employee would not be earning $200/hr on a $7,000 workstation if they weren't adding more than $200/hr of value to the economy in some way. So making them more efficient either allows them to add more value, or gives them more free time to do other things (which tend to benefit the economy and society as a whole).
So maybe there is collusion, price gouging, artificial shortages, or something going on... but I know people who would gladly pay a huge premium for minor speed increases. And that really drives development, which should ultimately benefit the home user.
You are the one making an elementary mistake, I am afraid. Your conclusion does not follow, even if we accept your entire argument.
You have heard the phrase "trust, but verify". It is far too easy to fake transparency and mislead other states. Every state throughout history has done this. At the very least, you need good intelligence sources to verify a state's public pronouncements regarding intentions are sincere. Even if they are sincere, you need to know the intentions/plans/abilities of internal players who may be in opposition.
Although I guess we could just take Putin at his word that he is just conducting military exercises and has no intentions towards Crimea? I'm sure he'll be giving Crimea back to Ukraine any day now.
Advocating covert verification of states' intentions and abilities has nothing to do with government accountability. That is an extreme oversimplification and false dichotomy.
No, any enterprise that cares about its data or uptime will use "enterprise" SSDs*. All** the big storage players have been using enterprise rated/labeled SSDs, and many of them use "enterprise" HDDs as well. So that's a pretty big chunk of the storage market. I'm not saying EMC doesn't have a high markup, but if you're using EMC storage with SSDs, you're using enterprise SSDs.
There are a bunch of reasons to use enterprise stuff in other situations as well, but I'm not going to try to debate the technicals right now.
As a side note, it sounds like your company is having pretty serious issues with storage and backup. What are they going to do when data grows a bit and daily backups start taking 25 hours?
*Or have a completely different architecture to sidestep the problem. It's harder than it sounds.
**There may be exceptions?
That is true of a lot of newer think tanks. You can generally judge a think tank by its ratio of PhDs to staff.
Brookings is part of the old guard. They employ a lot of serious researchers and generally strive towards objectivity. Nothing's 100%, but I'd say they're comparable to a good university.
Fair enough. I appreciate your honest reply.
W was a unique president. Off the top of my head, he's the only recent president who seems to have actually done everything wrong. Obama has done some good... but since everything he does is controversial and subject to the harshest rhetoric I've seen in the US, I decided to leave him out of this.
While that is correct, you are assuming vi has a steep upward slope. That was not the case for me.
1 minute in: "Oh crap... how I do I type? How do I EXIT?"
15 minutes in: "whew, helpful man page and articles." "cfg edited and saved. Go me!"
1 day later: "I just deleted two lines! Crap! How do I exit without saving? Ugh... what'd that man say again?"
A quick initial climb, a steep drop into a lake filled with tears, and then a gradual slope.
Let me guess where you're from.
A place where imagination is non-existent.
The problem is that in this statement:
Now imagine you're neither country. Dependent on a bully country and some other random country for your internet control. Which would you take? Or the UN?
you are imaging that the US is the "bully country", and failing to imagine what most other countries would do with control over the internet. And actively ignoring what many other countries do with control over their piece of the internet.
The US bullies on plenty of issues. Control over the internet really isn't one of them.
It's government that enforces the cable monopolies. They are called franchises, and it's the government saying only one company can run service to a given neighborhood. An EXCELLENT example of government doing harm.
I got the impression you were making the argument about the federal government specifically. Sometimes the federal/state government increases liberty by getting rid of a federal/state regulation. Sometimes abolishing a regulation leads to less liberty.
Neither I nor the Green Party believes government never does harm. I am certainly not claiming that federal, state, or local governments are free of corruption.
The core of the argument is that 1) government is not inherently bad and 2) we can substantially improve the quality of our government through 3) changes in electoral rules, campaign financing, and the revolving door. When a large voting bloc stops believing 1 and 2, we're basically doomed. I'd much rather argue over the best #3 and how to get them implemented.
Key part of your quote:
The quality of drinking water in the United States remains universally high, however. Even though pipes and mains are frequently more than 100 years old and in need of replacement, outbreaks of disease attributable to drinking water are rare.
Universally high quality drinking water? That's "remarkably well". Yes, infrastructure needs work because nobody is willing to spend the money to do it. But, as of today, nearly everyone has potable water.
I'm sorry, but you are misinterpreting or misrepresenting Greens, at least in this paragraph:
It's pretty clear, isn't it, that they are for more government - WAY more government. In fact, the preamble of their platform says they seek to refute the idea "that government is intrinsically undesirable and destructive of liberty". They think more federal government leads to more liberty. How cute.
The entire point of that line is that governments are not always bad, and they can lead to liberty. The rest of the platform is basically saying "we need all of these things to have a good government again".
I'd call the notion that government never leads to more liberty "cute", but it's ugly and overly cynical. Let me give you a few examples of the federal government creating more liberty:
* abolishment of slavery (Civil War will give you a lot of fun arguing points, I'm sure, but still true)
* abolishment of Jim Crow laws
* child labor laws
* Roe v Wade (trollbait, but millions of Americans have been grateful for this liberty)
* hopefully someday, breaking cable's blockade of good internet (I don't have the liberty to have fiber because a municipal official made a deal with a donor?)
I'm not a Green, but I'm with them on this. And I think any sane person should be. Government is not always bad.
Hell, take things "programmed" in Excel for that matter. I've seen people use 3 columns to do things which could've been written in 1 operation especially when it comes to adding percentages to a value (they'll calculate 4%, then add it's outcome to the source value to get a +4% and then hide the other 2 columns instead of just doing 104%). That will take them 2 hours to complete.
I agree with your point. But to be fair, I have seen 'geniuses' use one formula to do things which could have been written in 50 columns. There are advantages to breaking up the formula and "showing your work" in hidden columns. I hate trying to debug or change formulas with a thousand parentheses. Now if we can only get people to make their excel formulas readable and then start documenting...
Yeah, it's kind of sad how very few places will tolerate anyone who truly cares (rather than pretends to care while supporting policies infringe upon free speech rights) about free speech.
Freedom? You want the "free speech right" of a rapist to trump a rape victim's freedom to decide whether or not to be be in an adult video.
It's possible you're not trolling, but it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would mod you up. So much for #NotAllMen and all those "slashdot isn't misogynist!" comments...
Imagine if you were kidnapped, raped, while being videotaped. Should said video be allowed to circulate all in the name of anti-censorship?
Absolutely.
Insightful? Only on Slashdot.
No, that would be a subsidy, if it wasn't applied to all businesses equally. My point was that some people claim a tax cut, usually in the form of a rate cut, is "the same thing as spending." E.g., if a tax cut is expected to reduce revenues by $100 million, they will say it's the same as the government spending $100 million. It's not, for various reasons too off-topic to go into.
I am glad we agree on the first point. I may have missed some of the context of your post, and I often get the impression that some on slashdot would not agree that targeted rate cuts are a subsidy.
On the latter, I suspect we disagree somewhat. But we don't have to argue that point. Over the last 14 years, I have seen an ugly cycle of: 1) cut taxes disproportionately for the wealthy and corporations; 2) increase defense spending; 3) cite new deficits as justification for cutting entitlements by an amount dwarfed by 1 and 2; 4) propose new tax cuts. The claim that "tax cuts [always] pay for themselves" concerns me greatly.
Today on /. we find out who doesn't know the difference between subsidies, tax deductions, tax breaks, and taxes.
You'd have a mod point if I had one right now. You could have added "spending," because I've seen people argue that tax cuts (i.e. taking less of someone's money) is the same thing as more government spending.
So, to be clear, if Obama got on TV and announced that no taxes would need to be paid on corporate or personal income from renewable energy sales, you would NOT consider that a form of subsidy? And he would get no resistance from the right, because it would just be "taking less of someone's money"?
I know it's broad, as are the definitions of combat zones. However, I think that's more reflective of America's extreme involvement across the globe, and doesn't necessarily diminish the value of a legitimate medal.
Now, the paperpushers who get bronze stars for their heroic hiring of contractors and writing of contracts...