Oh, as far as the US Govt, no doubt. No doubt at all. If it was convenient for us, we did it. If we wanted to make a change in a country but couldn't operate either diplomatically or politically, we've done it. However, history shows we aren't much good at it... actually, we're quite bad at it and every time we try it the situation blows up in our faces, or we pull a double-cross and piss everyone off. Osama bin Laden is an obvious example of that type of fuckup. But, that really has nothing to do with the meat of my post: that Saudi Arabia is spending (percentage of GDP wise) as much as the US is on foreign aid, which they should be commended for, and which probably goes unnoticed and unrewarded in the public eye. Not sure why you seem to be trolling me about this???
As far as the Christians, you are right, they did (IN THE PAST) commit atrocities. Obviously the Crusades is the first event to come to mind. In the US alone, the whole Salem debacle was a fun time. But, I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Christians in my response to KGill, nor even named the Islamic religion; simply "terrorists" in general. So, your straw man argument will not be discussed. Get the hell off my lawn, AC. Oh, and if you want to have a discussion (or an argument), use your real name and not AC.
However, we aren't fighting against a government, or even a fixed piece of land, this time. This war is with hidden combatants, not physically localized in any one area. As much as ISIS (or ISIL, or whatever the hell they are calling themselves) wants to believe, suggest, or force upon the world that they do indeed have a piece of land somewhere under full Islamic State laws (the closes would be Iran, maybe?) they really don't. And it's hard to bomb something to kingdom come that does not exist.
Keeping them out of other countries, and allowing them to only blow themselves and their own relatives up, is what the world really does need to do. They'll peter out at some point in the future. Just keep them the hell out of our countries (ie: Europe, Asia, and the west). Let their own deal with them locally in the Middle East. Those countries are either already going down that path, or are so aligned with the western way of life that they won't put up with the threat against their new, modern lifestyle for long. For that to work, though, we have to keep them contained there, and not allow them to infiltrate our societies.
And that's the really, really hard part... How do you pick out the bad guys from the benign groups? No one has yet figured that out...
OS X systems also tend to be updatable more times before the newest accompanying hardware undergoes some major change that prevents the upgrade from running on older systems.
Seriously, if you're gonna be an M$ fanboi, at least don't make yourself look so goddamn stupid while you're doing it! You're making all of the others look bad!
How can you call it an unlimited resource??? Internet connectivity is by no means free!
First of all, pipes to the internet are not unlimited in size, the cost of increasing those pipes is not flat, and the requirement to increase them is being pushed by consumer demand. Unlimited is NOT the proper term here. It used to be that demand increased in proportion to the amount that costs dwindled per Mbps over a time period. That allowed ISPs to increase the available speeds that customers demanded without raising prices. That is not true anymore. Demand is increasing at a far greater pace than the cost per Mbps is dropping, causing an environment where simply increasing the pipe, without charging users more, is not feasible.
Secondly, getting that higher speed to the customer is requiring rollouts of new infrastructure. In the past, ISPs were able to use existing, in-place infrastructure and were able to provide speed increases by simply changing out equipment. We are now far beyond what that original infrastructure is able to handle, yet the demand is not reaching a platteau. Infrastructure (in the form of fiber) is generating a huge cost to providers, but customers would be up in arms if they were asked to shoulder some of that burden, or accept a monthly cost increase to help offset the costs. "But the INTERNET IS FREE!!!!"
Sooner or later, every provider will reach the point where they have to get more from their customers or close their doors. It's as simple as that. They have tried other funding sources (such as trying to get Netflix to help fund their share, typically more than 30% of the total bandwidth usage), but the people who would have been the beneficiaries of that kind of deal (the end users, the customers!) cried foul about it. So, eventually, all of the providers will need to raise rates to keep up. Jumping to another, competitive provider will not help, because the burden will simply be shifted to them, causing them to have to increase their infrastructure/pipes and pushing them to do exactly the same thing.
So, the idea of metered billing comes into play. Just like any other utility. You don't pay the same monthly electrical cost in your home as the Wal-Mart down the street does, do you? Why??? Because they use more! The communication infrastructure is absolutely no different than the electrical infrastructure. It costs money to improve and expand the power grid; the same is for the communication grid, wired or wireless. Even though most people won't see a difference in their costs, some will see a decrease, and extreme power users will see an increase, people are still screaming foul.
Something has to give somewhere. So tell me, SuperKendall, what is the solution? I have asked this question dozens of times on/., and have NEVER, EVER gotten an intelligent answer. Let's see how you propose to keep the business viable without changing the fundamental way of billing, and keeping it fair for everyone.
In this, I fully agree. However, I don't need the FUD and doom-and-gloom BS associated with AGW to make me choose to be a better steward of the earth and make more decisions as to how I conduct myself.
To see the AGW "scientists" simply shouting down any type of opposition (really? RICO laws???) rather than dealing with opposing views (as true sciences do) makes me even more resistant to them. It's unprofessional, it's unethical, and (to me) it's proof that they are relying on generating data that ensures their funding sources continue to spew dollars at them.
It simply weakens their ability to gain my trust. In the grand scheme of things, my trust means diddly squat, but if there are millions like me, that may make a difference.
Secretary of State John Kerry added, "... The United States cannot ask other nations to make tough choices to address climate change if we are unwilling to make them ourselves."
So, I take it that any politician that has a (D) after their title now uses a fully electric... um... limo then? Not a horrible, fossil-fuel powered carbon emitting polluter, but a fully solar-charged 100% electric? And when did AF-1 move from jet fuel to electric?
Or are we being rhetorical again?
Not for or against the KXL, but extremely against hypocritical assholes and statements like this one. What a fucking moron to say something like this when he doesn't do as he says we need to. And neither does Obama... Don't see any new solar panels on the roof of 1600 Pennsylvania.
... The first thing to consider is that real professionals won't be affected by this type of thing - they ensure their filesystem is properly permissioned (as per reams of security best practices) to prevent this attack.
FTFY
The rest of your post is irrelevant if this. Because the site would not go down due to incompetence of the SA.
Let's treat this the same way the Government wants to handle citizen gun ownership. Just make the area above and around the prisons a "no fly zone". That'll stop the bad guys from using drones.
It's logical, right? Using their ideas in this situation? And if it doesn't work here, why the hell would it work with "gun free zones"? It can be a teaching moment...
Sure, if something like this actually existed then it could be the gateway to interstellar travel. But that only makes these dubious claims more suspicious.
Don't even you see that as the exciting part, though? I mean, sooner or later, we as a species will stumble on that technology. And I expect "stumble" is the correct term for how it'll be found.
What if this is it? I mean, based on your statements (and I am in no way a scientist; I have neither the knowledge nor the experience to argue any of this on the level that you obviously can), most likely it's not, but just what if? Isn't that entirely what scientific research and experimentation is all about? Maybe it's just the stumble needed to find something else that IS the answer...
All my post is about is just to not consider the testing a waste of time and energy, which is what I sense you are saying. Allow the theory to be found wrong, that's OK. It's just another way to NOT make a light bulb, you know? Because the payback, if there is something there, is worth the cost, IMHO.
So far, it appears that this is one of those rare and precious, "Hmm... That's odd..." moments in science. But it could still turn out to be a previously unidentified flaw in the testing apparatus.
To me, this sums everything up and generates the excitement about this technology. Rare and precious indeed: that's what technological advances start out as, technology such as the MRI, for instance. In this day and age, with energy so important and becoming more expensive every day, this tech could be a game changer. We as a society need to support the research and give them the time and space needed to try to prove, and more importantly, try to disprove this. Everyone expects the latter, but think of the implications if they cannot. It is truly exciting, IMHO, even if it does fail.
You should have posted AC, because your ignorance and bias is showing.
Everything that AntiSol suggested is commonly known as good forum and community etiquette. Doesn't matter what the subject is: an OS, an application, or a motorcycle forum. And if you don't already know that, you need to get out of your mother's basement before making idiotic statements like you have above.
As far as documentation, the Linux world is much more open and free with documentation than either the M$ or Apple worlds. Again, if you don't know that, then you shouldn't be commenting. Because obviously you haven't even tried.
If a commenter has researched and have done due diligence, and still doesn't understand, and they express that in their question, typically people will help. They understand that they tried and won't ding them for asking an uninformed question. I don't consider ANY question stupid: that's the absolute wrong attitude. Especially when I am dealing with someone who is trying to learn something new to them. For you to even suggest that there are stupid questions makes you part of the problem. Unfortunately, there are a lot of "you"s out there.
You are proving that you're a fanboi of (most likely) Microsoft, since that's what the original article was about. Your post needs to be modded highly troll.
Strike 3 indeed. Please get outta here. And don't come back if you don't have anything more helpful to add.
How many more years and how many more billions of taxpayer dollars need to be spent until your alarm goes quiet?
Billions? BILLIONS? Really? How about lets keep to reasonable discussion, shall we? There hasn't been BILLIONS of dollars spent investigating Clinton.
Kind of surprised Jhon didn't get you on this point as well as all your others... I agree with his other points, that there are reasonable doubts about her integrity. But I already had that opinion from other debacles she has been involved in; she lost my vote and respect many, many years ago...
LOL That's true in every industry... Don't feel bad. We're all jaded. And when we really want to push "good" to a specific project, it's always fought against.
Good, fast, cheap: pick two. You've chosen fast and cheap, which is typical of the modern American society. Not saying this in a derogatory way, just stating my observation. I like fast and cheap too, in some cases.
I think the point of KGIII's post was that post and beam outlasts "modern" stick construction (fulfilling the "good" choice above). It may not be faster, nor cheaper. But it does withstand the tests of time and abuse. If someone is looking to build a home that their great-great-great grandchildren will be able to enjoy, pick "good".
It's all in your preferences, and what your expectations are.
Exactly... and, aren't drugs like meth and heroin (and even weed) illegal? AFAIK, it isn't very hard to obtain any of them (so I have heard, I personally do not partake). Laws do not pertain to criminals. And the lawful aren't a threat. So, I just do not understand the logic behind disarmament of the American citizen, other than some conspiracy-theory end-game oppressive Federal government takeover. Though I dare Feinstein and Obama to practice what they preach, and make all of their personal safety squads gun-free. They won't, of course.
bugs2squash is making references to "how successful other countries have been in driving up the bar to there being a gun involved in crime", without any citations. Most of those "studies" have been proven to be backed and cherry-picked by the anti-gun establishment. Not that the pro-gun crowd is any less innocent in this manner...
Look at the highest gun crime areas in the US: Detroit and Chicago being two of the biggest offenders. Both cities have strict anti-gun laws and neither have concealed carry. Proof that disarmament and laws do not help stop gun-related crimes, and may even increase the number of them. Unexpected consequences.
The line is well defined in the law: it's called "use of force continuum". An officer is not allowed to use a force greater than that which he (or she) is confronted with. in other words, they can't use a gun in a dance battle. But they can in a knife fight, as a knife is considered a deadly weapon, and they can respond in kind, whether the object of that threat is themselves or another person.
A person running away from a shoplifting episode is NOT a viable situation for deadly force. A person in the act of committing armed robbery is definitely a target, though.
No, dynamite was made of wood particles infused in nitroglycerin... so, essentially, they are also wooden sticks. Though organic substances are much less stable and aren't used anymore. Still...
This artificial scarcity is created by government intervention (in the form of laws like copyright) - and the more easy technology has made the replication, the more draconian the artificial scarcity laws have had to get.
Or, in the form of a monopoly (far fewer instances, of course). Diamonds are a good example. But your point is valid; just trying to add to it with a well-known product.
So, with your opinion in mind, explain just exactly how more laws will ever help to stop these massacres? Really, I'd like to hear a logical proof as to how more laws will stop gun violence. No one has EVER been able to prove that more laws will stop these things.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, as far as the US Govt, no doubt. No doubt at all. If it was convenient for us, we did it. If we wanted to make a change in a country but couldn't operate either diplomatically or politically, we've done it. However, history shows we aren't much good at it... actually, we're quite bad at it and every time we try it the situation blows up in our faces, or we pull a double-cross and piss everyone off. Osama bin Laden is an obvious example of that type of fuckup. But, that really has nothing to do with the meat of my post: that Saudi Arabia is spending (percentage of GDP wise) as much as the US is on foreign aid, which they should be commended for, and which probably goes unnoticed and unrewarded in the public eye. Not sure why you seem to be trolling me about this???
As far as the Christians, you are right, they did (IN THE PAST) commit atrocities. Obviously the Crusades is the first event to come to mind. In the US alone, the whole Salem debacle was a fun time. But, I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Christians in my response to KGill, nor even named the Islamic religion; simply "terrorists" in general. So, your straw man argument will not be discussed. Get the hell off my lawn, AC. Oh, and if you want to have a discussion (or an argument), use your real name and not AC.
Wow, that is extremely interesting... They are spending (percentage-wise) about the same as the US on this. Thanks for that, I did not know.
Not that it forgives them for supporting, funding, and harboring terrorism, but it does show another facet that really isn't well known.
Yep, it did... Japan surrendered.
However, we aren't fighting against a government, or even a fixed piece of land, this time. This war is with hidden combatants, not physically localized in any one area. As much as ISIS (or ISIL, or whatever the hell they are calling themselves) wants to believe, suggest, or force upon the world that they do indeed have a piece of land somewhere under full Islamic State laws (the closes would be Iran, maybe?) they really don't. And it's hard to bomb something to kingdom come that does not exist.
Keeping them out of other countries, and allowing them to only blow themselves and their own relatives up, is what the world really does need to do. They'll peter out at some point in the future. Just keep them the hell out of our countries (ie: Europe, Asia, and the west). Let their own deal with them locally in the Middle East. Those countries are either already going down that path, or are so aligned with the western way of life that they won't put up with the threat against their new, modern lifestyle for long. For that to work, though, we have to keep them contained there, and not allow them to infiltrate our societies.
And that's the really, really hard part... How do you pick out the bad guys from the benign groups? No one has yet figured that out...
Wow, did you really even READ his statement???
OS X systems also tend to be updatable more times before the newest accompanying hardware undergoes some major change that prevents the upgrade from running on older systems.
Seriously, if you're gonna be an M$ fanboi, at least don't make yourself look so goddamn stupid while you're doing it! You're making all of the others look bad!
How can you call it an unlimited resource??? Internet connectivity is by no means free!
First of all, pipes to the internet are not unlimited in size, the cost of increasing those pipes is not flat, and the requirement to increase them is being pushed by consumer demand. Unlimited is NOT the proper term here. It used to be that demand increased in proportion to the amount that costs dwindled per Mbps over a time period. That allowed ISPs to increase the available speeds that customers demanded without raising prices. That is not true anymore. Demand is increasing at a far greater pace than the cost per Mbps is dropping, causing an environment where simply increasing the pipe, without charging users more, is not feasible.
Secondly, getting that higher speed to the customer is requiring rollouts of new infrastructure. In the past, ISPs were able to use existing, in-place infrastructure and were able to provide speed increases by simply changing out equipment. We are now far beyond what that original infrastructure is able to handle, yet the demand is not reaching a platteau. Infrastructure (in the form of fiber) is generating a huge cost to providers, but customers would be up in arms if they were asked to shoulder some of that burden, or accept a monthly cost increase to help offset the costs. "But the INTERNET IS FREE!!!!"
Sooner or later, every provider will reach the point where they have to get more from their customers or close their doors. It's as simple as that. They have tried other funding sources (such as trying to get Netflix to help fund their share, typically more than 30% of the total bandwidth usage), but the people who would have been the beneficiaries of that kind of deal (the end users, the customers!) cried foul about it. So, eventually, all of the providers will need to raise rates to keep up. Jumping to another, competitive provider will not help, because the burden will simply be shifted to them, causing them to have to increase their infrastructure/pipes and pushing them to do exactly the same thing.
So, the idea of metered billing comes into play. Just like any other utility. You don't pay the same monthly electrical cost in your home as the Wal-Mart down the street does, do you? Why??? Because they use more! The communication infrastructure is absolutely no different than the electrical infrastructure. It costs money to improve and expand the power grid; the same is for the communication grid, wired or wireless. Even though most people won't see a difference in their costs, some will see a decrease, and extreme power users will see an increase, people are still screaming foul.
Something has to give somewhere. So tell me, SuperKendall, what is the solution? I have asked this question dozens of times on /., and have NEVER, EVER gotten an intelligent answer. Let's see how you propose to keep the business viable without changing the fundamental way of billing, and keeping it fair for everyone.
In this, I fully agree. However, I don't need the FUD and doom-and-gloom BS associated with AGW to make me choose to be a better steward of the earth and make more decisions as to how I conduct myself.
To see the AGW "scientists" simply shouting down any type of opposition (really? RICO laws???) rather than dealing with opposing views (as true sciences do) makes me even more resistant to them. It's unprofessional, it's unethical, and (to me) it's proof that they are relying on generating data that ensures their funding sources continue to spew dollars at them.
It simply weakens their ability to gain my trust. In the grand scheme of things, my trust means diddly squat, but if there are millions like me, that may make a difference.
Secretary of State John Kerry added, "... The United States cannot ask other nations to make tough choices to address climate change if we are unwilling to make them ourselves."
So, I take it that any politician that has a (D) after their title now uses a fully electric... um... limo then? Not a horrible, fossil-fuel powered carbon emitting polluter, but a fully solar-charged 100% electric? And when did AF-1 move from jet fuel to electric?
Or are we being rhetorical again?
Not for or against the KXL, but extremely against hypocritical assholes and statements like this one. What a fucking moron to say something like this when he doesn't do as he says we need to. And neither does Obama... Don't see any new solar panels on the roof of 1600 Pennsylvania.
... The first thing to consider is that real professionals won't be affected by this type of thing - they ensure their filesystem is properly permissioned (as per reams of security best practices) to prevent this attack.
FTFY
The rest of your post is irrelevant if this. Because the site would not go down due to incompetence of the SA.
Let's treat this the same way the Government wants to handle citizen gun ownership. Just make the area above and around the prisons a "no fly zone". That'll stop the bad guys from using drones.
It's logical, right? Using their ideas in this situation? And if it doesn't work here, why the hell would it work with "gun free zones"? It can be a teaching moment...
Sure, if something like this actually existed then it could be the gateway to interstellar travel. But that only makes these dubious claims more suspicious.
Don't even you see that as the exciting part, though? I mean, sooner or later, we as a species will stumble on that technology. And I expect "stumble" is the correct term for how it'll be found.
What if this is it? I mean, based on your statements (and I am in no way a scientist; I have neither the knowledge nor the experience to argue any of this on the level that you obviously can), most likely it's not, but just what if? Isn't that entirely what scientific research and experimentation is all about? Maybe it's just the stumble needed to find something else that IS the answer...
All my post is about is just to not consider the testing a waste of time and energy, which is what I sense you are saying. Allow the theory to be found wrong, that's OK. It's just another way to NOT make a light bulb, you know? Because the payback, if there is something there, is worth the cost, IMHO.
So far, it appears that this is one of those rare and precious, "Hmm... That's odd..." moments in science. But it could still turn out to be a previously unidentified flaw in the testing apparatus.
To me, this sums everything up and generates the excitement about this technology. Rare and precious indeed: that's what technological advances start out as, technology such as the MRI, for instance. In this day and age, with energy so important and becoming more expensive every day, this tech could be a game changer. We as a society need to support the research and give them the time and space needed to try to prove, and more importantly, try to disprove this. Everyone expects the latter, but think of the implications if they cannot. It is truly exciting, IMHO, even if it does fail.
I accidentally the word "grows".
Ummmm....
Very well said.
You should have posted AC, because your ignorance and bias is showing.
Everything that AntiSol suggested is commonly known as good forum and community etiquette. Doesn't matter what the subject is: an OS, an application, or a motorcycle forum. And if you don't already know that, you need to get out of your mother's basement before making idiotic statements like you have above.
As far as documentation, the Linux world is much more open and free with documentation than either the M$ or Apple worlds. Again, if you don't know that, then you shouldn't be commenting. Because obviously you haven't even tried.
If a commenter has researched and have done due diligence, and still doesn't understand, and they express that in their question, typically people will help. They understand that they tried and won't ding them for asking an uninformed question. I don't consider ANY question stupid: that's the absolute wrong attitude. Especially when I am dealing with someone who is trying to learn something new to them. For you to even suggest that there are stupid questions makes you part of the problem. Unfortunately, there are a lot of "you"s out there.
You are proving that you're a fanboi of (most likely) Microsoft, since that's what the original article was about. Your post needs to be modded highly troll.
Strike 3 indeed. Please get outta here. And don't come back if you don't have anything more helpful to add.
How many more years and how many more billions of taxpayer dollars need to be spent until your alarm goes quiet?
Billions? BILLIONS? Really? How about lets keep to reasonable discussion, shall we? There hasn't been BILLIONS of dollars spent investigating Clinton.
Kind of surprised Jhon didn't get you on this point as well as all your others... I agree with his other points, that there are reasonable doubts about her integrity. But I already had that opinion from other debacles she has been involved in; she lost my vote and respect many, many years ago...
LOL That's true in every industry... Don't feel bad. We're all jaded. And when we really want to push "good" to a specific project, it's always fought against.
Good, fast, cheap: pick two. You've chosen fast and cheap, which is typical of the modern American society. Not saying this in a derogatory way, just stating my observation. I like fast and cheap too, in some cases.
I think the point of KGIII's post was that post and beam outlasts "modern" stick construction (fulfilling the "good" choice above). It may not be faster, nor cheaper. But it does withstand the tests of time and abuse. If someone is looking to build a home that their great-great-great grandchildren will be able to enjoy, pick "good".
It's all in your preferences, and what your expectations are.
Exactly... and, aren't drugs like meth and heroin (and even weed) illegal? AFAIK, it isn't very hard to obtain any of them (so I have heard, I personally do not partake). Laws do not pertain to criminals. And the lawful aren't a threat. So, I just do not understand the logic behind disarmament of the American citizen, other than some conspiracy-theory end-game oppressive Federal government takeover. Though I dare Feinstein and Obama to practice what they preach, and make all of their personal safety squads gun-free. They won't, of course.
bugs2squash is making references to "how successful other countries have been in driving up the bar to there being a gun involved in crime", without any citations. Most of those "studies" have been proven to be backed and cherry-picked by the anti-gun establishment. Not that the pro-gun crowd is any less innocent in this manner...
Look at the highest gun crime areas in the US: Detroit and Chicago being two of the biggest offenders. Both cities have strict anti-gun laws and neither have concealed carry. Proof that disarmament and laws do not help stop gun-related crimes, and may even increase the number of them. Unexpected consequences.
Exactly.
The line is well defined in the law: it's called "use of force continuum". An officer is not allowed to use a force greater than that which he (or she) is confronted with. in other words, they can't use a gun in a dance battle. But they can in a knife fight, as a knife is considered a deadly weapon, and they can respond in kind, whether the object of that threat is themselves or another person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A person running away from a shoplifting episode is NOT a viable situation for deadly force. A person in the act of committing armed robbery is definitely a target, though.
No, dynamite was made of wood particles infused in nitroglycerin... so, essentially, they are also wooden sticks. Though organic substances are much less stable and aren't used anymore. Still...
This artificial scarcity is created by government intervention (in the form of laws like copyright) - and the more easy technology has made the replication, the more draconian the artificial scarcity laws have had to get.
Or, in the form of a monopoly (far fewer instances, of course). Diamonds are a good example. But your point is valid; just trying to add to it with a well-known product.
President Bush, is that you?
"Gun free" is not intended...
Someone tell the gunmen that. intention is irrelevant.
So, with your opinion in mind, explain just exactly how more laws will ever help to stop these massacres? Really, I'd like to hear a logical proof as to how more laws will stop gun violence. No one has EVER been able to prove that more laws will stop these things.
Go for it... I'm listening, AC.