It's a binary thing, and I'm not relying on anecdotes. I know what I heard, and I've heard a lot of conspiracy stories since. I've discussed it with family and friends since - who also remember the actual event - as opposed to someone who says someone told them, and they all say the same thing. Of course it's possible everyone but your sources were brainwashed (or part of the conspiracy), and the original recording were doctored to match the broadcast records (length of the broadcast). But I'll give more weight to the simplest explanation.
Don't you think you are being a little bite arrogant?
No. Your response is arrogant - or do you call dismissing the opinion of the majority in favor of the opinions of a few, open-minded?
I said, 'Anecdotal'
Noted on the first read. You're not new to/. so you know the anecdote adage.
I was speculating on what the Russian government wanted investigated about the moon landing because it didn't say in the article.
It didn't? Which article - the one referenced by the/. story? Or the one it sourced?:- "We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened," Markin wrote.ref1
I suspect it's just a case of "don't criticise us about the Ukraine or our hosting the 2018 FIFA", amongst other things - hard to tell from the google-translate of the sourcearticle, unless you happen to be fluent in the language. He's a politician, and he writes a blog, or at least someone does in his name - it may have just been the first thing that popped into the writer's head when they spent two minutes trying to think of something suitably click-bait for the day's feed. What is clear is that he does not question whether the Lunar landing occurred or not.
I do know that it was at least 2 people who told me the same thing and they had adult mature brains with an adult capacity for memory, making them approximately 20 years older than you at the time.
What are you trying to say? That you can't do maths - or am ad-hominen attack properly? (if they're 20 years older than me they've been pensioners for some time - maybe there's an organic explanation? see that's how it's done) That my parents, uncles (including one who worked at Parkes as a non-NASA employee at the time), aunties, teachers and many thousands of other "non-school age" Australians are part of the same conspiracy? (bear in mind we didn't have fluoridated water in our youth).
I read about a U.S Congressman asking Congress question about exactly the same statement by Apollo 11.
I'm curious and wouldn't be at all surprised if that happened, not that it'd mean that much given that members of congress believe all sorts of wacky shit - and represent some truly weird beliefs. (as do some of our senators e.g. the shower of stupid that came down prior to the Bill of Rights referendum). Do you have a reference for that, and how much weight do you believe it adds to the conspiracy?
Ok so this is completely anecdotal from some people in my family who watched it in Australia. They watched/listened to it live off the feed from Parkes and a bit after the Eagle landed they heard a very excited Armstrong say: "Huston, Huston, There is something large and unusually* white coming off the crater ri..." and then the feed was cut.
* could have also been suspiciously.
I watched it and I never heard that. Neither did anyone else I went to school with. At best someone has been yanking your chain. You say you heard that from someone who saw it - almost every Australian from a few years younger than me - to 5 years older would have watched (tv wasn't in every home, but most schools had one, even if they borrowed it) it - yet only the supposed source of you anecdote heard "Huston, Huston, There is something large and unusually* white coming off the crater ri..." and then the feed was cut?!
Not only that, but at the time of the Moon landing, the Russians themselves were rather heavily involved in that arena. Had the landing been faked, Russia absolutely would have known; they would have distributed the proof far and wide to humiliate and one-up the Americans. It's just a tad late for a Russian to start asking questions.
That and Parkes (I have a relative who worked there at the time, he didn't work for NASA). And Fresnedillas.. Oh, and the Japanese.
Why is it that the same people who claim the Moon mission was a fake, happily believe the Moon is now a secret military base, the world is ruled by shape shifting lizard aliens, all technology was reverse engineered from crashed alien space craft, and that 9/11 was an inside demolition job kept totally secret (and that no one outside the Manhattan project knew the US was working on nuclear weapons). Is it the fluoride in the water, gang-stalking mind-control rays, or just the high altitude chem sprays?
His abilities as a programmer are debated, and largely unconfirmed. He co-wrote DONKEY.BAS with Neil Konzen - but while Bill has often told the story, I've never heard Neil say what Bill's contribution was. Aside from that little is proven - the people I've met who were around at the time described him as a disingenuous self-marketer who was a good BASIC programmer, but who liked to let people (not lied, but took credit for) believe the work of Paul Allen (who was confirmed as a very good programmer) was his. He certainly was not a project manager, but he was very good at politics and made good use of his fathers contacts.
How many comparable sized projects are there to the Linux kernel?
How many comparable projects are there were competing companies co-operatively contribute?
How many comparable projects are the basis of so much industry?
I suspect the answer is none - regardless of time frame.
If you're claiming that Torvalds had more economic impact than Greenspan, Bernanke or Yellen, you, quite frankly are out of touch.
What companies make their fortune based upon their work? And before you claim something is their work please provide a modicum of evidence that the results they "produced" would not have happened anyway. e.g. if not for Greenspan there would be no economy because _____.
Re-read my post less selectively. We now work less hours. Most of our work is for employers (or as employers). Much of our work used to be not for employers. No Macdonalds, pizza, or throw something in the microwave, no washing machines, no instant heat. Except for a privileged few much of life was work from cain'tsee to cain'tsee. Prior to industrialisation we got more sleep, other than that, for most of the world life was a lot more work than it is now for much of the so-called 'developed' world.
The article you referenced would be amongst the poorest pieces of research I've read recently. Pilkington knew little of "ordinary" life other than what he heard, or "observed" while briefly pretending to be a beggar - with servants. He failed to notice plagues and civil wars, and like the good Protestants of the day promoted a caste system where the "workers" were lazy and morality was something that came to them as a result of fear of punishment. His selective and ignorant quotes say nothing of sailors, workhouses, orphanages, tanneries, mines, foundries or laundries. Not surprisingly given the era he didn't comment on indentured labor (slavery for debt) or child labor. Despite all the authors (More, Rabelais, Servetus, Bacon, Machieavelli and many others) of that period you reference one based almost soley on Pilkington! To Pilkington England didn't include Wales, Scotland, or Orkney (and even so far from represents "much of the developed world"). That's the equivalent of viewing the 21st century through the eyes of Jerry Seinfield, or Snoop Dogg.
That's not the full truth, it's Bullshit. Yes there are no shortage of companies claiming to offer unlimited and unmetered. But claims and reality are different things. Try testing it (or read the fine print). If you like I'm happy to prove that to you any time you like. I'll supply the public key, you supply the ssh login and configure the proxy, and I'll see how many hours it takes before your default web page gets changed to a notice from your unlimited/unmetered host or they choke your bandwidth to a trickle.
And yes - I've used the VPSCheap offer - it took two hours before they choked the unmetered 1000MB bandwidth down to 15MB and sent us a warning email. Maybe you didn't read the weasel fineprint (VPSCheap.NET INC makes no warranties of any kind, expressed or implied for services we provide.)on the Terms of Service or simply failed to check your facts. It's not unreasonable - bandwidth isn't free, what's unreasonable is offering something they won't deliver. Warning: they won't honor the 30 days money back when they fail to deliver either.
Before you cry "you must of been doing something illegal"... a promise is a promise. And no, just OpenStack and virtualbox images from our e2, and video streams from remote monitoring sites - all perfectly legal.
P.S. Google isn't a real university, and just because you can read a web page doesn't make you less uninformed.
a lot of VPS sites don't allow you to set a cap on bandwidth used
Can you expand on that please? What VPS manages to over-ride basic Linux bandwidth and quota tools - and what mechanism enables them to do this? Certainly I've never had any problems setting quota and limiting bandwidth for virtual hosts on any of our VPS - across a wide range of different providers. Likewise QoS.
There is still the problem of shared hosting where they force you to use their own certificates which aren't free.
If you're referring to HostGator and their ilk:-
they don't force you to use their SSL certs (have you read the documentation?)
It's hard to take complaints seriously from anyone who does use their sites and then complains. Did you do any research prior?
You can rent an SSD based VPS in the country of your choice, and host half a dozen sites on it for around the same price (each). If you need cPanel maybe you shouldn't be thinking about running a site that needs SSL.
P.S. Real "unlimited" is only available on services run by the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus - as you'll find out if you ever get any real traffic on those cheap shared hosting sites.
I tried using StartSSL... Their site was very slow, too complicated and confusing to use, didn't work properly on non-windows OSes.
While I agree it's not a well designed site, and their service is slow, at least it separates the dangerously ill-informed from the clicketty, clicketty no-thoughts. For which reason I won't link to a much easier site that also does free limited time period certificates from a much better known vendor - as almost all the sites that use those free certs offer visitors insecure SSL ciphers, many are malware vectors because they're built by the clueless (WordPress - too damn easy to shoot foot and visitors), and it's commonly used on one-man "websight" "company" sites - that use tables. If you can't navigate the StartSSL site you're going to have trouble managing the keys securely, and have little hope of properly configuring your SSL ciphers. If that sounds harsh - it's meant to be (did you even try reading the StartSSL FAQs? Do you know what a browser cert is?) i.e. plan, research, review, test, deploy - not impulse, click. The rest of us have no problems with the StartSSL site. I've been using if for years for several hundred free SSL and email certs (for pro-bono websites). Browsers used - Iceweasel, Konqueror and Qupzilla.
Trust doesn't necessarily mean they're "on your side", but can be "trusted" to act in a certain way... [snipped]
The bit I should have bolded was believe. I "believe" intuition is my greatest bias. A failing that is of course unique to me, as the rest of the planet tests their gut instincts whereas I rarely do. When I do test my intuition (e.g. journalise and later review) I find it's wrong more often than it's right, and in the latter case it's damn hard to be certain (did I really "know" Apple was going to "improve their security"). Damn duality [mutter mutter impel, compel, confabulation, mutter mutter, nutters talk to themselves, mutter].
Trustafarian is pretty close. Thoreau was just a dilettante waxing his wick with the "primitive, natural, and simple" myth (2 days living in a cabin == romantic transcendental experience). Little House on the Prairie for sensitive men (except Ronald Reagan who preferred watching LHothP - while wearing gingham). These days he'd a Libertarian and professional protestor (leading the anti-systemd/fork Debian movement). Maybe a little raki healing and charkra alignment workshops on the side. He actively helped promote a delusioned (back-to-fake-nature for the effete and blister-free) movement, so does bear some responsibility for all those who don't seem to have either read his "work", or thought about it. Just as the "artists" behind Spiderman bear some responsibility for so called adults with spidey-power fantasies.
Unabomber, on the other hand, was the more obvious tosspot, a better mathematician, but not less a writer, and at at least he did more than just talk about doing things (plus he washed his own clothes).
nothing like the angry Unabomber wannabees who act in his name.
I've heard any of those are there any of them that have even heard of him? Sounds like vegan vampires. Do they have a website (or are you making the story more interesting)? I don't know that I'd blame either of them for preppers (try John Wayne and the cowboy myths) - but reckon Thoreau could well be partially to blame for the paleo diet, as well as influencing Ghandi's more Hallmark quotes. Both the Unabomber and Thoreau had "issues" with women (both symptoms of the failures of the patriarchy they worshipped).
The early phases of the industrial revolution saw very high unemployment.
Yes, and no. The land holders owned the tenants (serfs), provided them with work and lodgings, and begrudgingly, food. Industrialization saw the transition from lord of the manor to owner of the factory - which made the tenants a liability. So they became homeless and unemployed simultaneously. Being homeless was a crime, as it still is in some US states, the punishment became work. Not everyone was keen on working for nothing - even with free floggings or travel to exotic locations. This made petty crime more attractive, like stealing bread - the punishment for which was often, work. The welfare system evolved as a result of both social conscience and a means of reducing crime.
Why are there so many poor and why do we still need welfare? It stimulates the economy (someone has to buy all the crap), reduces crimes, gives jobs to a lot of otherwise unemployable people (jailers, social workers, drug counselors, marketers, social services "workers", used car salespeople, television weather forecast presenters, career counselors etc) - and it provides plenty of cannon fodder. Mostly the latter - it's hard to breed up an army of the willing overnight.
In parts of the USA. True. In a fairly large part of the world a functionally literate bum can live better than a king from 1000 years ago - without handouts. The functional literacy is the difficult part. Wander into the wrong parts of the USA, and to a lesser extent, other parts of the "developed" world, and the bum will wind up working under a gunbull and living like a slave from 1000 years ago (without the beer).
Rob Enderle, principal analyst with Enderle Group.
A highly speculative article on a pump-and-dump marketing site used as the basis of a highly speculative article on formerly popular social click-bait for technology site, Slashdot, said, um, basically, nothing of substance.:-
[weasel-speak] A(un-named) spokeswoman for GitHub (allegedly)declined to comment. A representative for Andreessen Horowitz didn’t immediately respond to a phone call and e-mail seeking comment. [/weasel-speak] Emphasis and bracketed comments mine. tl;dr Merrill Lynch own a chunk of the publishers of the original article - which makes it almost as reliable as anything from the Murdock group.
In other slow-news day non-news Slashdot posters (some of which are inanimate) further speculated on vaguely related subjects without reference to the original source of the (non) information?
it really isn't useful except where there is a changing atmosphere and the absence of a stronger source of energy such as the Sun.
What if, and I know this is way out there, but what if there was an environment where the humidity levels changed on, say, a daily basis - like, um, not inside a house?
Put the smartest people on Earth in a room, with access to all the world's current knowledge, for 20,000 years.
When those people emerge from that room, what would they be able to teach humanity?
Skeletons can't teach, nor do they emerge from rooms.
This is just a painful transition. Once all the unnecessary people died and failed to reproduce, there will the leisure society we are all dreaming about.
Which fails to account for the trend where those with a higher education (and higher income) have smaller families.
In the old 'world of the future' exhibits they prophecized that we would have machines doing the work for us and that all humans would enjoy more leisure time
Still riding a horse, sweeping the floors and hand washing are you? Do you think your ancestors would've been able to watch as much television as you if it had existed? Did they take holidays? Most of them would have worked before and after school - and between semesters. If you think the jobs of today are as physically hard on the body as the jobs of the not so distant past you should spend a little time researching the bones of your ancestors. Even your teeth have it easier now.
Modern life is largely leisure time - the forty hour week and retirement are relatively recent changes.
While I share Stephen Hawkings concerns about the danger of AI for the most part my concern comes from the huge disparity between those that understand the technology and those that deploy and employ it - much like the infernal combustion engine.
That said - few civilizations spent as little time gathering food and working to provide shelter as the Hawaiians did at the time Cook first visited, and none do now. But that overlooks other factors - like decreased rates of death during childbirth, potatoes, grains, penicillin, blood transfusions, books, higher education, and holidays in Portugal.
As for the dystopian nightmare - I don't want it, and I fiercely oppose it, but if I was given a choice between living now and living during the Holy Roman Empire the decision is a no brainer. The middle-class is also a relatively recent phenomena, a direct result of technology. It's easy to be a Luddite, but it's hard to make the reality of manual labor attractive. Most of the cab drivers I talk to would prefer a "better job" (that's why so many did their MSCEs). Likewise the truck drivers. Much of this "debate" smacks of knee-jerk unrealistic conservatism that romanticizes the past (like the bullshit of Walden Pond). Little different to the introduction of steam engines, trains, automobiles, electricity, cinemas, radio, television, and video. They all "posed" threats of mass unemployment that failed to deliver. The only real difference economically between pre-industrialisation and the present is the growth of the middle class and the transition from lord of the manor/slave owner and guild member, to factory owner, distributor and retailer. Different dogs, same leg action doesn't quite cover it considering the vast increase in knowledge available to those that seek it.
Gates is considerably more wealthy (and healthy) than that limey cripple freak..
Dear Troll, money is not a measure of intelligence - neither Leonardo Da Vinci or Einstein were rich, and Gates total worth is based on the theoretical return from selling shares he can't sell without massively devaluing them. Further, his contribution to human knowledge or making the world a better place is surpassed only by the efforts of Mother Teresa.
If we really "trusted nobody", then nobody would ever build another electronic device. Heck, we'd have to pretty much destroy all of them we've got in use already.
No. You're conflating two different ideas: deciding to take a calculated risk, vs trust. They are not the same things.
When you trust, you are assuming the other party is "on your side".
True - they are not the same things. When I trust it means I believe I know how something or someone will act - not that they/it are "on my side", just that I "believe" they are predictable. And yes - I have trouble determining what is currently a fact, and I suspect the few things I "completely trust" are the result of insufficient thought.
I trust that when I go swimming the chance are slim that I'll get eaten by a shark. It's a poorly calculated risk in which I place limited trust - which can/will be reassessed when my perceptions change. To me "trust" is a noun that needs qualification and a certain amount of faith. Even calculated risks require a degree of trust, the type of trust will vary.
Not simple enough for everyone? Perhaps that's why "simple" is a synonym for "dumb". Like the clickbait phrasing of this "story" which deliberately conflates Snowden's support for Apple marketing improved privacy and security. It doesn't mean Apple should be trusted - only that it's possible (even healthy) to be skeptical about Apple products while simultaneously endorsing the trend - the alternative is rank all software companies on the same level regardless of whether they even play lip service to security.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's a pretty absolute statement to make.
It's a binary thing, and I'm not relying on anecdotes. I know what I heard, and I've heard a lot of conspiracy stories since. I've discussed it with family and friends since - who also remember the actual event - as opposed to someone who says someone told them, and they all say the same thing. Of course it's possible everyone but your sources were brainwashed (or part of the conspiracy), and the original recording were doctored to match the broadcast records (length of the broadcast). But I'll give more weight to the simplest explanation.
Don't you think you are being a little bite arrogant?
No. Your response is arrogant - or do you call dismissing the opinion of the majority in favor of the opinions of a few, open-minded?
I said, 'Anecdotal'
Noted on the first read. You're not new to /. so you know the anecdote adage.
I was speculating on what the Russian government wanted investigated about the moon landing because it didn't say in the article.
It didn't? Which article - the one referenced by the /. story? Or the one it sourced?:- "We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened," Markin wrote. ref1
I suspect it's just a case of "don't criticise us about the Ukraine or our hosting the 2018 FIFA", amongst other things - hard to tell from the google-translate of the source article, unless you happen to be fluent in the language. He's a politician, and he writes a blog, or at least someone does in his name - it may have just been the first thing that popped into the writer's head when they spent two minutes trying to think of something suitably click-bait for the day's feed. What is clear is that he does not question whether the Lunar landing occurred or not.
I do know that it was at least 2 people who told me the same thing and they had adult mature brains with an adult capacity for memory, making them approximately 20 years older than you at the time.
What are you trying to say? That you can't do maths - or am ad-hominen attack properly? (if they're 20 years older than me they've been pensioners for some time - maybe there's an organic explanation? see that's how it's done) That my parents, uncles (including one who worked at Parkes as a non-NASA employee at the time), aunties, teachers and many thousands of other "non-school age" Australians are part of the same conspiracy? (bear in mind we didn't have fluoridated water in our youth).
I read about a U.S Congressman asking Congress question about exactly the same statement by Apollo 11.
I'm curious and wouldn't be at all surprised if that happened, not that it'd mean that much given that members of congress believe all sorts of wacky shit - and represent some truly weird beliefs. (as do some of our senators e.g. the shower of stupid that came down prior to the Bill of Rights referendum). Do you have a reference for that, and how much weight do you believe it adds to the conspiracy?
Ok so this is completely anecdotal from some people in my family who watched it in Australia. They watched/listened to it live off the feed from Parkes and a bit after the Eagle landed they heard a very excited Armstrong say: "Huston, Huston, There is something large and unusually* white coming off the crater ri..." and then the feed was cut.
* could have also been suspiciously.
I watched it and I never heard that. Neither did anyone else I went to school with. At best someone has been yanking your chain. You say you heard that from someone who saw it - almost every Australian from a few years younger than me - to 5 years older would have watched (tv wasn't in every home, but most schools had one, even if they borrowed it) it - yet only the supposed source of you anecdote heard "Huston, Huston, There is something large and unusually* white coming off the crater ri..." and then the feed was cut?!
The feed wasn't "cut" either.
A while back there was a huge hunt to find the original tapes used to record the lunar landing.
... and the last entry in the borrowers book was signed Alex Jones .
The truth is "out there", if you can't find it:-
I know for a fact - because Shirley McLaine told me (when she channeled Depack Chopra).
Not only that, but at the time of the Moon landing, the Russians themselves were rather heavily involved in that arena. Had the landing been faked, Russia absolutely would have known; they would have distributed the proof far and wide to humiliate and one-up the Americans. It's just a tad late for a Russian to start asking questions.
That and Parkes (I have a relative who worked there at the time, he didn't work for NASA). And Fresnedillas.. Oh, and the Japanese.
Why is it that the same people who claim the Moon mission was a fake, happily believe the Moon is now a secret military base, the world is ruled by shape shifting lizard aliens, all technology was reverse engineered from crashed alien space craft, and that 9/11 was an inside demolition job kept totally secret (and that no one outside the Manhattan project knew the US was working on nuclear weapons). Is it the fluoride in the water, gang-stalking mind-control rays, or just the high altitude chem sprays?
He is a business man not a real programmer.
His abilities as a programmer are debated, and largely unconfirmed. He co-wrote DONKEY.BAS with Neil Konzen - but while Bill has often told the story, I've never heard Neil say what Bill's contribution was. Aside from that little is proven - the people I've met who were around at the time described him as a disingenuous self-marketer who was a good BASIC programmer, but who liked to let people (not lied, but took credit for) believe the work of Paul Allen (who was confirmed as a very good programmer) was his. He certainly was not a project manager, but he was very good at politics and made good use of his fathers contacts.
I suspect the answer is none - regardless of time frame.
If you're claiming that Torvalds had more economic impact than Greenspan, Bernanke or Yellen, you, quite frankly are out of touch.
What companies make their fortune based upon their work? And before you claim something is their work please provide a modicum of evidence that the results they "produced" would not have happened anyway. e.g. if not for Greenspan there would be no economy because _____.
Modern life is largely leisure time - the forty hour week and retirement are relatively recent changes.
Umm, yes and no.
Re-read my post less selectively. We now work less hours. Most of our work is for employers (or as employers). Much of our work used to be not for employers. No Macdonalds, pizza, or throw something in the microwave, no washing machines, no instant heat. Except for a privileged few much of life was work from cain'tsee to cain'tsee. Prior to industrialisation we got more sleep, other than that, for most of the world life was a lot more work than it is now for much of the so-called 'developed' world.
The article you referenced would be amongst the poorest pieces of research I've read recently. Pilkington knew little of "ordinary" life other than what he heard, or "observed" while briefly pretending to be a beggar - with servants. He failed to notice plagues and civil wars, and like the good Protestants of the day promoted a caste system where the "workers" were lazy and morality was something that came to them as a result of fear of punishment. His selective and ignorant quotes say nothing of sailors, workhouses, orphanages, tanneries, mines, foundries or laundries. Not surprisingly given the era he didn't comment on indentured labor (slavery for debt) or child labor. Despite all the authors (More, Rabelais, Servetus, Bacon, Machieavelli and many others) of that period you reference one based almost soley on Pilkington! To Pilkington England didn't include Wales, Scotland, or Orkney (and even so far from represents "much of the developed world"). That's the equivalent of viewing the 21st century through the eyes of Jerry Seinfield, or Snoop Dogg.
http://lowendbox.com/?s=unmetered&searchsubmit=Find
That's not the full truth, it's Bullshit. Yes there are no shortage of companies claiming to offer unlimited and unmetered. But claims and reality are different things. Try testing it (or read the fine print). If you like I'm happy to prove that to you any time you like. I'll supply the public key, you supply the ssh login and configure the proxy, and I'll see how many hours it takes before your default web page gets changed to a notice from your unlimited/unmetered host or they choke your bandwidth to a trickle.
And yes - I've used the VPSCheap offer - it took two hours before they choked the unmetered 1000MB bandwidth down to 15MB and sent us a warning email. Maybe you didn't read the weasel fineprint (VPSCheap.NET INC makes no warranties of any kind, expressed or implied for services we provide.)on the Terms of Service or simply failed to check your facts. It's not unreasonable - bandwidth isn't free, what's unreasonable is offering something they won't deliver.
Warning: they won't honor the 30 days money back when they fail to deliver either.
Before you cry "you must of been doing something illegal"... a promise is a promise. And no, just OpenStack and virtualbox images from our e2, and video streams from remote monitoring sites - all perfectly legal.
P.S. Google isn't a real university, and just because you can read a web page doesn't make you less uninformed.
a lot of VPS sites don't allow you to set a cap on bandwidth used
Can you expand on that please? What VPS manages to over-ride basic Linux bandwidth and quota tools - and what mechanism enables them to do this? Certainly I've never had any problems setting quota and limiting bandwidth for virtual hosts on any of our VPS - across a wide range of different providers. Likewise QoS.
There is still the problem of shared hosting where they force you to use their own certificates which aren't free.
If you're referring to HostGator and their ilk:-
You can rent an SSD based VPS in the country of your choice, and host half a dozen sites on it for around the same price (each). If you need cPanel maybe you shouldn't be thinking about running a site that needs SSL.
P.S. Real "unlimited" is only available on services run by the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus - as you'll find out if you ever get any real traffic on those cheap shared hosting sites.
I tried using StartSSL... Their site was very slow, too complicated and confusing to use, didn't work properly on non-windows OSes.
While I agree it's not a well designed site, and their service is slow, at least it separates the dangerously ill-informed from the clicketty, clicketty no-thoughts. For which reason I won't link to a much easier site that also does free limited time period certificates from a much better known vendor - as almost all the sites that use those free certs offer visitors insecure SSL ciphers, many are malware vectors because they're built by the clueless (WordPress - too damn easy to shoot foot and visitors), and it's commonly used on one-man "websight" "company" sites - that use tables. If you can't navigate the StartSSL site you're going to have trouble managing the keys securely, and have little hope of properly configuring your SSL ciphers. If that sounds harsh - it's meant to be (did you even try reading the StartSSL FAQs? Do you know what a browser cert is?) i.e. plan, research, review, test, deploy - not impulse, click.
The rest of us have no problems with the StartSSL site. I've been using if for years for several hundred free SSL and email certs (for pro-bono websites). Browsers used - Iceweasel, Konqueror and Qupzilla.
Trust doesn't necessarily mean they're "on your side", but can be "trusted" to act in a certain way... [snipped]
The bit I should have bolded was believe. I "believe" intuition is my greatest bias. A failing that is of course unique to me, as the rest of the planet tests their gut instincts whereas I rarely do. When I do test my intuition (e.g. journalise and later review) I find it's wrong more often than it's right, and in the latter case it's damn hard to be certain (did I really "know" Apple was going to "improve their security"). Damn duality [mutter mutter impel, compel, confabulation, mutter mutter, nutters talk to themselves, mutter].
Thoreau is not the villain here.
Trustafarian is pretty close.
Thoreau was just a dilettante waxing his wick with the "primitive, natural, and simple" myth (2 days living in a cabin == romantic transcendental experience). Little House on the Prairie for sensitive men (except Ronald Reagan who preferred watching LHothP - while wearing gingham). These days he'd a Libertarian and professional protestor (leading the anti-systemd/fork Debian movement). Maybe a little raki healing and charkra alignment workshops on the side.
He actively helped promote a delusioned (back-to-fake-nature for the effete and blister-free) movement, so does bear some responsibility for all those who don't seem to have either read his "work", or thought about it. Just as the "artists" behind Spiderman bear some responsibility for so called adults with spidey-power fantasies.
Unabomber, on the other hand, was the more obvious tosspot, a better mathematician, but not less a writer, and at at least he did more than just talk about doing things (plus he washed his own clothes).
nothing like the angry Unabomber wannabees who act in his name.
I've heard any of those are there any of them that have even heard of him? Sounds like vegan vampires. Do they have a website (or are you making the story more interesting)? I don't know that I'd blame either of them for preppers (try John Wayne and the cowboy myths) - but reckon Thoreau could well be partially to blame for the paleo diet, as well as influencing Ghandi's more Hallmark quotes. Both the Unabomber and Thoreau had "issues" with women (both symptoms of the failures of the patriarchy they worshipped).
The early phases of the industrial revolution saw very high unemployment.
Yes, and no. The land holders owned the tenants (serfs), provided them with work and lodgings, and begrudgingly, food. Industrialization saw the transition from lord of the manor to owner of the factory - which made the tenants a liability. So they became homeless and unemployed simultaneously. Being homeless was a crime, as it still is in some US states, the punishment became work. Not everyone was keen on working for nothing - even with free floggings or travel to exotic locations. This made petty crime more attractive, like stealing bread - the punishment for which was often, work. The welfare system evolved as a result of both social conscience and a means of reducing crime.
Why are there so many poor and why do we still need welfare? It stimulates the economy (someone has to buy all the crap), reduces crimes, gives jobs to a lot of otherwise unemployable people (jailers, social workers, drug counselors, marketers, social services "workers", used car salespeople, television weather forecast presenters, career counselors etc) - and it provides plenty of cannon fodder. Mostly the latter - it's hard to breed up an army of the willing overnight.
even a bum doesn't have to starve in the US
In parts of the USA. True. In a fairly large part of the world a functionally literate bum can live better than a king from 1000 years ago - without handouts. The functional literacy is the difficult part. Wander into the wrong parts of the USA, and to a lesser extent, other parts of the "developed" world, and the bum will wind up working under a gunbull and living like a slave from 1000 years ago (without the beer).
Rob Enderle, principal analyst with Enderle Group.
A highly speculative article on a pump-and-dump marketing site used as the basis of a highly speculative article on formerly popular social click-bait for technology site, Slashdot, said, um, basically, nothing of substance.:-
[weasel-speak]
A (un-named) spokeswoman for GitHub (allegedly)declined to comment. A representative for Andreessen Horowitz didn’t immediately respond to a phone call and e-mail seeking comment.
[/weasel-speak]
Emphasis and bracketed comments mine.
tl;dr Merrill Lynch own a chunk of the publishers of the original article - which makes it almost as reliable as anything from the Murdock group.
In other slow-news day non-news Slashdot posters (some of which are inanimate) further speculated on vaguely related subjects without reference to the original source of the (non) information?
it really isn't useful except where there is a changing atmosphere and the absence of a stronger source of energy such as the Sun.
What if, and I know this is way out there, but what if there was an environment where the humidity levels changed on, say, a daily basis - like, um, not inside a house?
Put the smartest people on Earth in a room, with access to all the world's current knowledge, for 20,000 years. When those people emerge from that room, what would they be able to teach humanity?
Skeletons can't teach, nor do they emerge from rooms.
This is just a painful transition. Once all the unnecessary people died and failed to reproduce, there will the leisure society we are all dreaming about.
Which fails to account for the trend where those with a higher education (and higher income) have smaller families.
In the old 'world of the future' exhibits they prophecized that we would have machines doing the work for us and that all humans would enjoy more leisure time
Still riding a horse, sweeping the floors and hand washing are you? Do you think your ancestors would've been able to watch as much television as you if it had existed? Did they take holidays? Most of them would have worked before and after school - and between semesters. If you think the jobs of today are as physically hard on the body as the jobs of the not so distant past you should spend a little time researching the bones of your ancestors. Even your teeth have it easier now.
Modern life is largely leisure time - the forty hour week and retirement are relatively recent changes.
While I share Stephen Hawkings concerns about the danger of AI for the most part my concern comes from the huge disparity between those that understand the technology and those that deploy and employ it - much like the infernal combustion engine.
That said - few civilizations spent as little time gathering food and working to provide shelter as the Hawaiians did at the time Cook first visited, and none do now. But that overlooks other factors - like decreased rates of death during childbirth, potatoes, grains, penicillin, blood transfusions, books, higher education, and holidays in Portugal.
As for the dystopian nightmare - I don't want it, and I fiercely oppose it, but if I was given a choice between living now and living during the Holy Roman Empire the decision is a no brainer. The middle-class is also a relatively recent phenomena, a direct result of technology. It's easy to be a Luddite, but it's hard to make the reality of manual labor attractive. Most of the cab drivers I talk to would prefer a "better job" (that's why so many did their MSCEs). Likewise the truck drivers. Much of this "debate" smacks of knee-jerk unrealistic conservatism that romanticizes the past (like the bullshit of Walden Pond). Little different to the introduction of steam engines, trains, automobiles, electricity, cinemas, radio, television, and video. They all "posed" threats of mass unemployment that failed to deliver. The only real difference economically between pre-industrialisation and the present is the growth of the middle class and the transition from lord of the manor/slave owner and guild member, to factory owner, distributor and retailer. Different dogs, same leg action doesn't quite cover it considering the vast increase in knowledge available to those that seek it.
Gates is considerably more wealthy (and healthy) than that limey cripple freak..
Dear Troll, money is not a measure of intelligence - neither Leonardo Da Vinci or Einstein were rich, and Gates total worth is based on the theoretical return from selling shares he can't sell without massively devaluing them. Further, his contribution to human knowledge or making the world a better place is surpassed only by the efforts of Mother Teresa.
If he doesn't want the salty liquorice I'll have it.
Likewise. As with pickled herrings (accompanied by Dutch beer) it's something I've learned to enjoy.
If we really "trusted nobody", then nobody would ever build another electronic device. Heck, we'd have to pretty much destroy all of them we've got in use already.
No. You're conflating two different ideas: deciding to take a calculated risk, vs trust. They are not the same things. When you trust, you are assuming the other party is "on your side".
True - they are not the same things. When I trust it means I believe I know how something or someone will act - not that they/it are "on my side", just that I "believe" they are predictable. And yes - I have trouble determining what is currently a fact, and I suspect the few things I "completely trust" are the result of insufficient thought.
I trust that when I go swimming the chance are slim that I'll get eaten by a shark. It's a poorly calculated risk in which I place limited trust - which can/will be reassessed when my perceptions change. To me "trust" is a noun that needs qualification and a certain amount of faith. Even calculated risks require a degree of trust, the type of trust will vary.
Not simple enough for everyone? Perhaps that's why "simple" is a synonym for "dumb". Like the clickbait phrasing of this "story" which deliberately conflates Snowden's support for Apple marketing improved privacy and security. It doesn't mean Apple should be trusted - only that it's possible (even healthy) to be skeptical about Apple products while simultaneously endorsing the trend - the alternative is rank all software companies on the same level regardless of whether they even play lip service to security.
Resume falsified, yup sounds like a typical "expert" to me.
And your qualifications?
It works about as well as you'd expect.
Better than bitching on Slashdot? Noooooo