Because it's bogus, regardless of what the supreme court has held.
Think of it this way: What if you had to give your "implied consent" to be sodomized by a law enforcement officer at will in order to get a driver's license? You don't *have* get have a driver's license.
This is why I'm so vehemently opposed to this "driving is a privilege, not a right" nonsense that people have been programmed to accept.
Because those sites are determining your location based on an HTTP request directly from your browser, not a recursive DNS query through your DNS server.
Just in case you didn't realize, on Windows you *can* uninstall Bonjour. iTunes will happily re-install it every time you upgrade, but it's not necessary for it to stay installed.
I'm an older guy who can afford to buy cd's and stuff.
I choose not to, though.
Forgive me for sounding rude, but shouldn't you instead just abstain from consumption altogether?
If you don't want to buy the CD, that's great, I like that. But the right thing to do would NOT be to then download the CD. If for no other reason than the fact that it then validates the industry's claims that piracy results in lost revenue.
I'm straight up with you on the used CD thing. Sadly, the used CD stores seem to be few and far between these days.
I'm so sick of that BS line being shoved down my throat.
I have a right to drive. I pay the taxes that build the roads, and it is perfectly reasonable for me to expect to be able to use the roads that I helped pay for.
Like many other rights, it can be taken away for cause. But pretending like driving is some pat on the head I get from the Government if I've behaved myself is condescending nonsense.
The unalienable rights endowed by our creator (sound a little familiar?)
Yes, but it's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And the Bill of Rights is not about inalienable rights, it enumerates legal rights. Which, depending on how you argue it, might or might not apply to non-US citizens. I personally think they do.
Inalienable rights are ones that you have by virtue of being a human, e.g., a right to live, and a right to liberty.
A fair argument, most certainly, and I didn't mean to convey any doctrinal certainty in my statement. I believe most certainly that God has worked through government to accomplish plenty of things.
BUT where I'm going with this is: Taking money from the government is the easy way out, and it carries risk. (When have you known a government to hand out money without attached strings?) Jesus spoke of and demonstrated the character trait of sacrificial giving, which to me should be the primary mechanism of any church. (or Christian church, anyway.)
The "render unto Caesar" statement is generally interpreted more about submitting to governmental authority. Christians are to submit to authority over them, when it does not conflict with God's law.
Allocating money to a theme park requires the use of legislation. If that legislation supports Fundie Evangelical Protestant Christianity, then it violates the first amendment.
Fundamentalist Christian here. Just wanted to weigh in and say: Spot on.
It might surprise you, but most churches I've attended actually shy away from accepting any government money, even if they qualify for it, even if they're in dire need of it. In fact, that kicked off an argument at an old church I attended when apparently our pastor was discussing accepting state funds for a community project.
My personal belief is that if God can't work through his followers to accomplish something, it's probably reasonable to say it shouldn't be done.
(p.s.: Do you remember why are we foe and freak? I have no idea who shot first there, but I'm going to unfoe you)
Apparently they have a invested in a pretty good network though.
That's because it's outsourced.
Oh, and just some brief gloating: I was in the audience.;)
I really enjoyed the back and forth between scientists there. It was neat to see a boisterous idealist scientist talking excitedly about the possibilities being tempered by the self-described "curmudgeon" scientist cautioning about reading too deeply into the results.
Sorry, but that's not the case. In fact, I have a friend who has a larger McMansion-class home, and he has 400 amp service. In his case it is accomplished by providing two 200-amp drops, but both come off of the same pad-mount transformer in his yard. I believe that the minimum service requirements are generally based on the square footage of the house (his being something in the neighborhood of 3200 sq ft.)
Most utilities to save a few bucks wire up that 200amp house with wire that is good for 160amps
Not that I have seen. Pretty much every modern 200 amp installation I have seen is 4/0 aluminum service entrance cable, which is more than adequate for 200 amp service at reasonable temperatures. See National Electric Code Table 310.15(B)(6) -- Also note that that table shows amperage ratings up to 400.
they have sized neighborhoods for considerably less power than they have sold
Yes, my best guess (without having RTFA) is that they're actually saying that they're oversubscribed to 50 amps/household, but even that seems low to me.
And now for something intelligent because your a moron.
Your poor grammar and rudeness notwithstanding, let me show you how I arrived at that number:
watts = volts * amps
12 000 = 240 * amps
12 000 / 240 = amps
amps = 50
The math really is that brain-dead simple. Yet somehow, you managed to throw numbers out like a crazy person and come up with no actual answer to show how my calculation of current is wrong. In fact, you seem to demonstrate an astounding lack of understanding of either simple algebra or the fundamentals of electricity.
I am, by no means, an expert in electricity, but just so you know I'm not talking from my rectum: Most of my knowledge comes from growing up with a father who worked for Baltimore Gas & Electric, being a stage lighting geek (where getting these numbers and calculations wrong means putting the lives of hundreds or thousands of people in jeopardy), and being heavy into home improvement including working in new residential construction for about a year of my life.
The problem is that transformers that distribute power from the electrical grid to homes are often designed to handle less than about 12,000 watts
often designed to handle 12,000 watts? Hogwash. That's 50 amp service (in North America, where homes are almost always supplied at 240VAC). Most new homes in North America receives at minimum 200 amp service. Even my rural 1956 rancher has 70 amp service.
And this is a single home. Most transformers supply several houses. If there are any transformers rated at 12KW, they are very few and far between, and probably service locations that aren't likely to have electric cars anyhow.
It shouldn't. Lets face it, if the server goes down - the server does down.
It really depends on how critical it is, yes?
In my previous job, I ran security-related infrastructure for a decent amount of HPC. I was, in theory, on call 24/7. We ranked failures of certain subsystems (including security) with a given severity level, which required differing response requirements.
I based my ranking on what I would do if I got an automated page at 2 AM on Christmas morning with a light dusting of snow on the ground. Would I feel it important enough to drive in to work and fix it?
For the things that were indeed in the critical path (firewalls, LDAP servers, and the like), I ensured I engineered enough redundancy in that I *could* ignore a single failure in such a situation and be reasonably confident that I could restore full service without interruption on my next scheduled work day.
As a result, I can count on one hand the number of times I actually *had* to drive into work to respond to a failure in the final 3 or so years of my employment there.
That, combined with what I like to term a "healthy level of indifference", made for a relatively stress-free job. (The real stress came in project meetings and other managerial and customer interactions.)
You don't have to worry about watching it - someone will let you know when it goes down.
Not necessarily. For example, I've drawn portions of my own network as a cloud before, again, because it was an abstracted function, the specifics of which were not relevant to the concepts I was attempting to convey on the rest of the diagram.
This is most certainly common usage in my experience.
The cloud is the symbol used in network diagrams to symbolize parts of the network that you have not knowledge or control of. That is why it is called "cloud". Because it is not clear.
No, it's because it's abstracted, the details of which are irrelevant to the rest of the drawing as long as you accept that the "cloud" on the diagram performs its function.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the browser with the largest market share uses Bing by default.
Because it's bogus, regardless of what the supreme court has held.
Think of it this way: What if you had to give your "implied consent" to be sodomized by a law enforcement officer at will in order to get a driver's license? You don't *have* get have a driver's license.
This is why I'm so vehemently opposed to this "driving is a privilege, not a right" nonsense that people have been programmed to accept.
For the record, I loathe iTunes/Quicktime as well.
Because those sites are determining your location based on an HTTP request directly from your browser, not a recursive DNS query through your DNS server.
Just in case you didn't realize, on Windows you *can* uninstall Bonjour. iTunes will happily re-install it every time you upgrade, but it's not necessary for it to stay installed.
Perhaps my sarcasm detector failed, but that should be 2%, not 0.2%.
I'm an older guy who can afford to buy cd's and stuff.
I choose not to, though.
Forgive me for sounding rude, but shouldn't you instead just abstain from consumption altogether?
If you don't want to buy the CD, that's great, I like that. But the right thing to do would NOT be to then download the CD. If for no other reason than the fact that it then validates the industry's claims that piracy results in lost revenue.
I'm straight up with you on the used CD thing. Sadly, the used CD stores seem to be few and far between these days.
They should've gone into China like he said.
Only Nixon could go to China.
C-SPAN.
If it was an across-the-board tax for across-the-board health coverage it'd clearly be constitutional.
Serious question: Could you please point to where in the Constitution you see the federal government having the authority to do this?
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
I'm so sick of that BS line being shoved down my throat.
I have a right to drive. I pay the taxes that build the roads, and it is perfectly reasonable for me to expect to be able to use the roads that I helped pay for.
Like many other rights, it can be taken away for cause. But pretending like driving is some pat on the head I get from the Government if I've behaved myself is condescending nonsense.
Read my reply to your sibling reply: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1902038&cid=34502196
Well, yes, very true, and I've corrected other people in the same way.
But the point I'm trying to make is that the Bill of Rights concerns itself with legal rights, as opposed to inalienable rights.
The unalienable rights endowed by our creator (sound a little familiar?)
Yes, but it's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And the Bill of Rights is not about inalienable rights, it enumerates legal rights. Which, depending on how you argue it, might or might not apply to non-US citizens. I personally think they do.
Inalienable rights are ones that you have by virtue of being a human, e.g., a right to live, and a right to liberty.
A fair argument, most certainly, and I didn't mean to convey any doctrinal certainty in my statement. I believe most certainly that God has worked through government to accomplish plenty of things.
BUT where I'm going with this is: Taking money from the government is the easy way out, and it carries risk. (When have you known a government to hand out money without attached strings?) Jesus spoke of and demonstrated the character trait of sacrificial giving, which to me should be the primary mechanism of any church. (or Christian church, anyway.)
The "render unto Caesar" statement is generally interpreted more about submitting to governmental authority. Christians are to submit to authority over them, when it does not conflict with God's law.
Allocating money to a theme park requires the use of legislation. If that legislation supports Fundie Evangelical Protestant Christianity, then it violates the first amendment.
Fundamentalist Christian here. Just wanted to weigh in and say: Spot on.
It might surprise you, but most churches I've attended actually shy away from accepting any government money, even if they qualify for it, even if they're in dire need of it. In fact, that kicked off an argument at an old church I attended when apparently our pastor was discussing accepting state funds for a community project.
My personal belief is that if God can't work through his followers to accomplish something, it's probably reasonable to say it shouldn't be done.
(p.s.: Do you remember why are we foe and freak? I have no idea who shot first there, but I'm going to unfoe you)
Truth be told, female scientists get me hot.
Don't forget female engineers.
Apparently they have a invested in a pretty good network though.
That's because it's outsourced.
Oh, and just some brief gloating: I was in the audience. ;)
I really enjoyed the back and forth between scientists there. It was neat to see a boisterous idealist scientist talking excitedly about the possibilities being tempered by the self-described "curmudgeon" scientist cautioning about reading too deeply into the results.
The NASA press release specifies "EST". http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-167_Astrobiology.html
no it is a maximum of a 200 amp service.
Sorry, but that's not the case. In fact, I have a friend who has a larger McMansion-class home, and he has 400 amp service. In his case it is accomplished by providing two 200-amp drops, but both come off of the same pad-mount transformer in his yard. I believe that the minimum service requirements are generally based on the square footage of the house (his being something in the neighborhood of 3200 sq ft.)
Most utilities to save a few bucks wire up that 200amp house with wire that is good for 160amps
Not that I have seen. Pretty much every modern 200 amp installation I have seen is 4/0 aluminum service entrance cable, which is more than adequate for 200 amp service at reasonable temperatures. See National Electric Code Table 310.15(B)(6) -- Also note that that table shows amperage ratings up to 400.
they have sized neighborhoods for considerably less power than they have sold
Yes, my best guess (without having RTFA) is that they're actually saying that they're oversubscribed to 50 amps/household, but even that seems low to me.
And now for something intelligent because your a moron.
Your poor grammar and rudeness notwithstanding, let me show you how I arrived at that number:
watts = volts * amps
12 000 = 240 * amps
12 000 / 240 = amps
amps = 50
The math really is that brain-dead simple. Yet somehow, you managed to throw numbers out like a crazy person and come up with no actual answer to show how my calculation of current is wrong. In fact, you seem to demonstrate an astounding lack of understanding of either simple algebra or the fundamentals of electricity.
I am, by no means, an expert in electricity, but just so you know I'm not talking from my rectum: Most of my knowledge comes from growing up with a father who worked for Baltimore Gas & Electric, being a stage lighting geek (where getting these numbers and calculations wrong means putting the lives of hundreds or thousands of people in jeopardy), and being heavy into home improvement including working in new residential construction for about a year of my life.
The problem is that transformers that distribute power from the electrical grid to homes are often designed to handle less than about 12,000 watts
often designed to handle 12,000 watts? Hogwash. That's 50 amp service (in North America, where homes are almost always supplied at 240VAC). Most new homes in North America receives at minimum 200 amp service. Even my rural 1956 rancher has 70 amp service.
And this is a single home. Most transformers supply several houses. If there are any transformers rated at 12KW, they are very few and far between, and probably service locations that aren't likely to have electric cars anyhow.
It shouldn't. Lets face it, if the server goes down - the server does down.
It really depends on how critical it is, yes?
In my previous job, I ran security-related infrastructure for a decent amount of HPC. I was, in theory, on call 24/7. We ranked failures of certain subsystems (including security) with a given severity level, which required differing response requirements.
I based my ranking on what I would do if I got an automated page at 2 AM on Christmas morning with a light dusting of snow on the ground. Would I feel it important enough to drive in to work and fix it?
For the things that were indeed in the critical path (firewalls, LDAP servers, and the like), I ensured I engineered enough redundancy in that I *could* ignore a single failure in such a situation and be reasonably confident that I could restore full service without interruption on my next scheduled work day.
As a result, I can count on one hand the number of times I actually *had* to drive into work to respond to a failure in the final 3 or so years of my employment there.
That, combined with what I like to term a "healthy level of indifference", made for a relatively stress-free job. (The real stress came in project meetings and other managerial and customer interactions.)
You don't have to worry about watching it - someone will let you know when it goes down.
Nagios, meet Monkeedude1212. Monkeedude1212, meet Nagios.
I will avoid discussing any further specifics of NASA infrastructure than I already have, except to say that your concerns are not without merit.
Regardless, the example still holds that there is an argument to be made that there *is* a place for cloud offerings within an organization.
Not necessarily. For example, I've drawn portions of my own network as a cloud before, again, because it was an abstracted function, the specifics of which were not relevant to the concepts I was attempting to convey on the rest of the diagram.
This is most certainly common usage in my experience.
The cloud is the symbol used in network diagrams to symbolize parts of the network that you have not knowledge or control of. That is why it is called "cloud". Because it is not clear.
No, it's because it's abstracted, the details of which are irrelevant to the rest of the drawing as long as you accept that the "cloud" on the diagram performs its function.