Sure, slavery is beyond comprise. But security theater? I agree that it's all idiotic, by I'd be very happy to see a 50% reduction in idiocy. If we had a compromise that let me keep my water bottle and and my shoes and cut way back on all the intrusive searches, I'm supposed to say "No! It's all or nothing! Let me keep my pocket knife or no deal!" Get real.
I get the "you're an idiot" from the article summary, with its reference to the Bear Patrol episode of the Simpsons. I have no problem with strongly-worded arguments, but belittlement is not an argument — it's a refusal to even listen. And however lame somebody else is being, why should they listen to you when you're not listening to them?
OK, reiterating that I agree this is a bad idea. But I don't see how it prevents reporting of sexual abuse. Coverage in mass media of sexual abuse is just not that detailed. It's possible to communicate the fact that a sexual act occurred without providing an orifice-by-orifice account.
But let's just say you're right and I'm wrong. What's the best way to shoot down this proposition? It's with evidence and argument. It's not with snide characterizations that belittle the advocates of this idea. If you just go around making mocking reference to Simpson's episodes, you're not working to get this proposal stopped, you're just satisfying your own smug sense of superiority.
Vehement disagreement is fine. It's even necessary. But the whole point of having a vehement opinion is to be heard by people who disagree with you. If everybody expresses their opinions in the form of ridicule, nobody's listening and nobody's being heard.
How does personally believing that someone is stupid sabotage the democratic process?
Your personal beliefs are your problem. The way you participate in the democratic process is everybody's problem. You have every right to think somebody's an idiot, but if your political rhetoric consists of "you're an idiot" and everyone else does the same thing, then democracy stops working. Which is precisely what's happened in the U.S.
The democratic process isn't just about people voting for whatever politician panders to them the best. It's about a conflict of views and people working together to come up with public policies that nobody sees as perfect but most people can live with. That's not happening right now because everybody's in My Way or the Highway mode.
Oh lord. You think people who believe in ID don't have the right to be heard? It's a huge movement. I thought you were here to defend free speech.
It's hard to tell where you stand on the climate change thing, but it sort of sounds like you're one of those people who think it's all a hoax. From my POV, that makes you an idiot. Does that mean I have the right to shut you up? I think we can both agree on the answer to that.
You're kind of making my case for me. Millions of people believe something is true, but because you think they're stupid, their opinion doesn't matter. Good way to sabotage a democratic process based on free speech and open debate. Congratulations: you've become the thing you hate!
I'm tired of the way taglines from the Simpsons get abused. This is not a mob of ignorant Springfielders demanding that we set up a Bear Patrol. This is an attempt to do something about child abuse, That is, as you may have heard, a real problem.
Now, you may not care for the argument that depictions of a sexual act cause people to rush out and perform that sexual act. I myself think that it's not very credible. But a lot of people believe it's true. And it's not because they're stupid or hysterical. They simply interpret the evidence differently from you and me.
We desperately need to squash the idea that anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot who needs to be shouted down. It's distorting everything we do, from the way comments are moderated on Slashdot to the viability of pizza making. Oh yeah, and it's making political debate just a little incoherent.
Your statement about BGP makes no sense to me. How does BGP interfere with cloud-type connections and not others?
You seem to be claiming that that cloud computing is simply impossible. And yet Google, Facebook, Amazon, Salesforce, and Microsoft all operate huge data centers that run only cloud technology. Not only are big companies using it, but they're selling their excess cloud capacity. That's how the two biggest cloud services got started: Amazon and Salesforce developed cloud technology because they needed it to serve millions of customers at a time, and realized they'd created a service they could sell.
One is reminded of that story about the guy who proved that bumblebees can't fly.
Internal power supplies that don't make a lot of noise are becoming increasingly common now. But for most of the PC's 30-year history, PC PSUs have been noisy power hogs. It was only when people started worrying about energy waste that anything was done about it.
I'm probably guilty of overstating the potential of passively-cooled PSUs. I just noticed that they seemed to work well on some pre-PC systems I worked with (you dislike cables, but I dislike noise, and everybody dislikes wasting energy) They only disappeared because an extreme level of IBM PC compatibility become essential to anybody hoping to manufacture systems at a reasonable cost. But I don't have the hardware engineering skills to defend their wide applicability, and indeed I notice that Google's special low-energy PSUs are internal and fan-cooled.
But Google PSUs are also very different from PSUs in standard rack-mount systems, with unusual form factors and lack of support for lower voltages. This suggests that they are one of many custom components that would make Google's servers uncompetitive in the open marketplace. And that's really the only point I was trying to make.
And so is career growth and a shorter commute. On the minus side there's uncertainties of many kinds (job definition, future of the new company, potential happiness at new job).
You need to figure out how much these things are worth to you. And only you can do that.
I've always been appalled by the way PCs rely on big, hot, wasteful noisy internal power supplies. When IBM entered the workstation market, 30 years ago (Oh, Lord, that makes me feel old) I worked for a company that made a pre-PC x86 system that relied entirely on external, passively cooled power supplies. To me, this was clearly the way of the future, but once IBM entered the market, everything had to be IBM compatible, even the way the power system worked. Because if you couldn't use IBM-compatible power supplies, your system cost too much to build. (I once had to throw out a perfectly good Zenith PC with a blown PS; although it was mostly IBM-compatible, its power supply was proprietary, and cost too much to replace.)
So, Google can't go into the hardware business, because their machines would cost too much and would rely too much on proprietary infrastructure. Easier to justify using your own technology regardless of cost when you're gigantic and profitable.
HP and Dell's nightmare isn't Google. It's cloud computing in general. The cloud providers (which includes Google, if you ignore the fact that they only provide high-level cloud services, unlike Amazon) mostly build their own hardware. Those that don't buy cheap no-name hardware.
Fine, as long as Professor Moriarty doesn't develop self-awareness.
I came to loathe the holodeck stories on the various ST sequels. Some of them were OK, but mostly the holodeck was used as a lame device for generating bogus dramatic tension. And the thing was always malfunctioning and threatening to destroy the ship or station or whatever. The first or second time that happened, you think they'd unplug it, dismantle it, and tell people to find another way to recreate.
The Overrated and Underrated mods are meant to compensate for bursts of upmods or downmods when a post first appears. I've never seen them used that way. Really, they need to be retired.
Why is it the manufacturer's problem when third-party publishers want to use proprietary DRM mechanisms that are not supported?
Because it's straightforward attempt to create a monopoly.
But I'm not even talking about what Amazon is doing right and wrong. (How many times do I have to say that?) I'm talking about how consumers and authors should respond to Amazon's attempt at creating a monopoly. Consumers should respond by buying devices that don't lock them into Amazon's walled garden. Authors should respond by not signing exclusive distribution deals with Amazon.
Unfortunately, that's not happening: the Kindle is dominating the ebook marketplace, and authors can't resist Amazon's incentives. So the monopoly is pretty much here. And *that* is my point, not all the other crap you're choosing to read into my arguments.
I think you misunderstand....
Please don't lecture me on what I don't understand until *you* make an effort to understand my argument.
Sure, if I don't own a Kindle I'm not locked into Amazon. So what? When I talk about lockin, I'm talking about the lockin of Kindle owner, who can only buy content from Amazon.
This discussion seems to consist of people attacking statements I did not make. You seem to think that I said that Amazon is evil or should be forced to carry everything, or something like that. I never said any of that. I only said that they're running a walled garden, that I don't think people should buy a device that locks them into a walled garden, and that authors should not make their content exclusively available in a specific walled garden
Sigh. Once again, you're arguing with things I did not say.
I don't have any problems with books being DRM-encumbered. I have problems with the fact a device manufactured by a ebook retailer does not support an DRM-enabled format except the retailer's own. Which is why I am refusing to buy that device, discouraging other people from doing so, and discouraging authors from signing exclusive deals with that retailer.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of the question people ask on Ask Slashdot boggle my mind. I mean, tax advice? Are you kidding?
Sure, slavery is beyond comprise. But security theater? I agree that it's all idiotic, by I'd be very happy to see a 50% reduction in idiocy. If we had a compromise that let me keep my water bottle and and my shoes and cut way back on all the intrusive searches, I'm supposed to say "No! It's all or nothing! Let me keep my pocket knife or no deal!" Get real.
I get the "you're an idiot" from the article summary, with its reference to the Bear Patrol episode of the Simpsons. I have no problem with strongly-worded arguments, but belittlement is not an argument — it's a refusal to even listen. And however lame somebody else is being, why should they listen to you when you're not listening to them?
OK, reiterating that I agree this is a bad idea. But I don't see how it prevents reporting of sexual abuse. Coverage in mass media of sexual abuse is just not that detailed. It's possible to communicate the fact that a sexual act occurred without providing an orifice-by-orifice account.
But let's just say you're right and I'm wrong. What's the best way to shoot down this proposition? It's with evidence and argument. It's not with snide characterizations that belittle the advocates of this idea. If you just go around making mocking reference to Simpson's episodes, you're not working to get this proposal stopped, you're just satisfying your own smug sense of superiority.
Vehement disagreement is fine. It's even necessary. But the whole point of having a vehement opinion is to be heard by people who disagree with you. If everybody expresses their opinions in the form of ridicule, nobody's listening and nobody's being heard.
How does personally believing that someone is stupid sabotage the democratic process?
Your personal beliefs are your problem. The way you participate in the democratic process is everybody's problem. You have every right to think somebody's an idiot, but if your political rhetoric consists of "you're an idiot" and everyone else does the same thing, then democracy stops working. Which is precisely what's happened in the U.S.
The democratic process isn't just about people voting for whatever politician panders to them the best. It's about a conflict of views and people working together to come up with public policies that nobody sees as perfect but most people can live with. That's not happening right now because everybody's in My Way or the Highway mode.
Oh lord. You think people who believe in ID don't have the right to be heard? It's a huge movement. I thought you were here to defend free speech.
It's hard to tell where you stand on the climate change thing, but it sort of sounds like you're one of those people who think it's all a hoax. From my POV, that makes you an idiot. Does that mean I have the right to shut you up? I think we can both agree on the answer to that.
You're kind of making my case for me. Millions of people believe something is true, but because you think they're stupid, their opinion doesn't matter. Good way to sabotage a democratic process based on free speech and open debate. Congratulations: you've become the thing you hate!
Anybody who's against human rights needs to be denied their human rights? Yeah, that's logical.
I'm tired of the way taglines from the Simpsons get abused. This is not a mob of ignorant Springfielders demanding that we set up a Bear Patrol. This is an attempt to do something about child abuse, That is, as you may have heard, a real problem.
Now, you may not care for the argument that depictions of a sexual act cause people to rush out and perform that sexual act. I myself think that it's not very credible. But a lot of people believe it's true. And it's not because they're stupid or hysterical. They simply interpret the evidence differently from you and me.
We desperately need to squash the idea that anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot who needs to be shouted down. It's distorting everything we do, from the way comments are moderated on Slashdot to the viability of pizza making. Oh yeah, and it's making political debate just a little incoherent.
Your statement about BGP makes no sense to me. How does BGP interfere with cloud-type connections and not others?
You seem to be claiming that that cloud computing is simply impossible. And yet Google, Facebook, Amazon, Salesforce, and Microsoft all operate huge data centers that run only cloud technology. Not only are big companies using it, but they're selling their excess cloud capacity. That's how the two biggest cloud services got started: Amazon and Salesforce developed cloud technology because they needed it to serve millions of customers at a time, and realized they'd created a service they could sell.
One is reminded of that story about the guy who proved that bumblebees can't fly.
Internal power supplies that don't make a lot of noise are becoming increasingly common now. But for most of the PC's 30-year history, PC PSUs have been noisy power hogs. It was only when people started worrying about energy waste that anything was done about it.
I'm probably guilty of overstating the potential of passively-cooled PSUs. I just noticed that they seemed to work well on some pre-PC systems I worked with (you dislike cables, but I dislike noise, and everybody dislikes wasting energy) They only disappeared because an extreme level of IBM PC compatibility become essential to anybody hoping to manufacture systems at a reasonable cost. But I don't have the hardware engineering skills to defend their wide applicability, and indeed I notice that Google's special low-energy PSUs are internal and fan-cooled.
But Google PSUs are also very different from PSUs in standard rack-mount systems, with unusual form factors and lack of support for lower voltages. This suggests that they are one of many custom components that would make Google's servers uncompetitive in the open marketplace. And that's really the only point I was trying to make.
If Microsoft had been the vendor for Star Fleet holodecks, there would have been an obnoxious musical chord playing every time a simulation began.
And so is career growth and a shorter commute. On the minus side there's uncertainties of many kinds (job definition, future of the new company, potential happiness at new job).
You need to figure out how much these things are worth to you. And only you can do that.
I stand corrected.
Sorry, you're wrong. Wish you were right.
I've always been appalled by the way PCs rely on big, hot, wasteful noisy internal power supplies. When IBM entered the workstation market, 30 years ago (Oh, Lord, that makes me feel old) I worked for a company that made a pre-PC x86 system that relied entirely on external, passively cooled power supplies. To me, this was clearly the way of the future, but once IBM entered the market, everything had to be IBM compatible, even the way the power system worked. Because if you couldn't use IBM-compatible power supplies, your system cost too much to build. (I once had to throw out a perfectly good Zenith PC with a blown PS; although it was mostly IBM-compatible, its power supply was proprietary, and cost too much to replace.)
So, Google can't go into the hardware business, because their machines would cost too much and would rely too much on proprietary infrastructure. Easier to justify using your own technology regardless of cost when you're gigantic and profitable.
HP and Dell's nightmare isn't Google. It's cloud computing in general. The cloud providers (which includes Google, if you ignore the fact that they only provide high-level cloud services, unlike Amazon) mostly build their own hardware. Those that don't buy cheap no-name hardware.
RTFA. This doesn't require a special room, and it's 3D.
Fine, as long as Professor Moriarty doesn't develop self-awareness.
I came to loathe the holodeck stories on the various ST sequels. Some of them were OK, but mostly the holodeck was used as a lame device for generating bogus dramatic tension. And the thing was always malfunctioning and threatening to destroy the ship or station or whatever. The first or second time that happened, you think they'd unplug it, dismantle it, and tell people to find another way to recreate.
I've found most Slashdot articles (well, over 98% of them) have absurd sweeping generalizations.
That's an absurd, sweeping generalization. Or, as they say in Latin, Absurdum verrentibus universalitatis.
"Overrated"? So far not rated at all.
The Overrated and Underrated mods are meant to compensate for bursts of upmods or downmods when a post first appears. I've never seen them used that way. Really, they need to be retired.
Gotta love those "peace loving muslims" don't you?
Right, because American's never kill people for no good reason or even no reason at all.
I mean...really? You go apeshit crazy, right and kill people over a fucking film?!?!
The people who made The Last Temptation of Christ got death threats.
I mean hell...the guys they murdered weren't even involved in the film.....
And the American Muslims and Americans mistaken for Muslims killed in hate crimes had nothing to do with terrorism.
You're right, those Libyans are Batshit Crazy. But no more so than many Americans. They just had better access to bombs and guns.
If we're both going to admit we're wrong about things, we're going to have to rethink our entire relationship!
Why is it the manufacturer's problem when third-party publishers want to use proprietary DRM mechanisms that are not supported?
Because it's straightforward attempt to create a monopoly.
But I'm not even talking about what Amazon is doing right and wrong. (How many times do I have to say that?) I'm talking about how consumers and authors should respond to Amazon's attempt at creating a monopoly. Consumers should respond by buying devices that don't lock them into Amazon's walled garden. Authors should respond by not signing exclusive distribution deals with Amazon.
Unfortunately, that's not happening: the Kindle is dominating the ebook marketplace, and authors can't resist Amazon's incentives. So the monopoly is pretty much here. And *that* is my point, not all the other crap you're choosing to read into my arguments.
I think you misunderstand ....
Please don't lecture me on what I don't understand until *you* make an effort to understand my argument.
Sure, if I don't own a Kindle I'm not locked into Amazon. So what? When I talk about lockin, I'm talking about the lockin of Kindle owner, who can only buy content from Amazon.
This discussion seems to consist of people attacking statements I did not make. You seem to think that I said that Amazon is evil or should be forced to carry everything, or something like that. I never said any of that. I only said that they're running a walled garden, that I don't think people should buy a device that locks them into a walled garden, and that authors should not make their content exclusively available in a specific walled garden
But it's simply not fair to demonize all business men, or all rich men, just because a few bad apples are in the bunch.
Absolutely, positively agree, without any qualification!
Oh dear, I had to admit you were right about something, now you're saying things I agree with, Scary!
Plug the holes, reform the tax code. Don't just redistribute the money through any means necessary.
OMG, I agree with you again! This has to stop!
Please recall that I'm not an Occupy zealot, even though I made the mistake of conveying my views in the form of a fallacious Occupy cliche.
Sigh. Once again, you're arguing with things I did not say.
I don't have any problems with books being DRM-encumbered. I have problems with the fact a device manufactured by a ebook retailer does not support an DRM-enabled format except the retailer's own. Which is why I am refusing to buy that device, discouraging other people from doing so, and discouraging authors from signing exclusive deals with that retailer.