Pi is not a viable option because it isn't a complete solution on its own.
And not considering TCO is also a problem with "low cost" solutions, because if the initial cost is low, but ends up being a complete time sink for IT to support the "low cost", all you have done is cost shifted from product to services by IT. The cost of servicing IT devices is the bane of IT departments everywhere.
You don't have to accept it.. but you also have to fucking deal with it.
Emotional argument. You're right (correct) on an emotional argument level, but you haven't answered the question, where is the LAW the says I have to "deal with it"
BTW, Courts are not allowed to make law, only interpret them. Making law is bound to the Legislative branch (which is punting its duties to the court)
SCOTUS said there is no legal basis to exclude homosexuals from marriage, any more than there was to exclude mixed race marriages.
Emotional argument. Marriage is a contract, defined by law. And as I pointed out above, laws can only be passed by legislative branch. In this case, Marriage was defined as between man and woman, by law. There is no exception for gay people, because it doesn't affect gay people at all. In the other case it did have exception (mixed race) which is why that ruling was correct. If you want to redefine marriage, beyond Man and Woman, that would take a law (legislative branch) to redefine marriage, legally. The court has no jurisdiction on creating law, i.e. redefining marriage, legally.
Which means assholes can't come along and claim it's their right to define marriage in such a way as to specifically preclude homosexuals just because their asshole beliefs say so.
Emotional argument, not one based on law. IF the state has a right to define marriage, it has a right to define it any way it wants. If it does not have that right, then marriage means everything and nothing. In this case, marriage WAS defined, as between a man an woman, via legislation. IT didn't exclude gay people, because it wasn't about gay people, it was about defining marriage. The court has no legislative ability to redefine marriage. The court's ruling was emotionally based change in law, something it does not have a right to do, because it isn't legislative branch.
The government provides legal benefits to people who are married. It has an inherently legal and civil function. It sure as fuck is defining marriage, but all states must follow the Constitution, and the court rules those laws were not Constitutional.
Another great emotional argument. Please show me where in the constitution the courts have a right to redefine marriage laws as it sees fit. IF the state has the right to define marriage, then by definition that right to define marriage is found in the legislative branch (not the court). If it doesn't, then it should get out of the marriage definition business altogether. Yes, there are benefits to marriage, this has nothing to do with defining marriage.
Which means a) the religious people can fuck off, and b) the morons who think they can pass laws which say "except you guys" are trying to pass unconstitutional laws.
Another great emotional argument. My case doesn't require religion or calling people names. Why does yours?
So either you agree that we should make it OK to discriminate against religious beliefs... or you have to accept that someone's religious beliefs don't fucking exempt them from the law.
Actually, I don't require religion to support legal definitions of marriage, which is the exclusive right of government via Legislative branch Either that or it has no right to define marriage at all. I'll let you decide which is more appropriate;)
Google Apps for Education is free to schools. Includes everything a school might need, including "Google Classroom" which is an excellent tool already.
Who exactly are the prejudiced against? You can't say Indians, as if you read through, they say to hire the lower caste student.
Because the Caste system offends you, you jump to conclusions. The problem is, India does in fact have a Caste system and it still is a large part of their culture. It isn't prejudice to point out what actually exists. And yes, there is exceptions to every "stereotype". But stereotypes exist for a reason, fair or not.
So, yes, judge the individual, but don't ignore the warning signs of stereotypes for "outrage" sake.
We spend more, and get less per dollar, typical American idiocy of top down management (see Common Core) while maintaining the industrial education system in a modern information age.
I work in education, and I see tons of wasted money being spent on people who will never recover that lost value("Special Education") while neglecting kids who actually want to succeed (exceptional). We cater to whiny parents of school brats while ignoring the good kids and parents who are there trying to dodge all the crappy raindrops in the system that is rewarding failure in the name of "fairness".
In one example, I know of a teacher, legally required to spend one hour a day dedicated to each one of six kids with "Special needs" (one on one time). The rest of the class can suck it, as there are only 5.5 hours of instruction time. What does the teacher do? Not teach other kids? or break the law by not spending the required amount of time with each kid that "needs it".
In my view, each kid should have equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Each kid deserves the teacher's best, not just those that "need it more". Each kid should be allowed to excel to their own capabilities. We have the technology and ability to do so. So, why aren't we?
Capitalism is neither good or bad. It is inanimate "thing". People are good or bad. Most people act good most of the time. Some people don't. Some people act "legal" but are bad, some people act "illegal" but are otherwise good.
The problem is, we have legal system being built on "emotion" rather than on facts. Gay Marriage is a great example. Can anyone tell me where in the constitution the Federal Government has a right to force people to accept contracts between two unrelated people? This has noting to do with homosexuality at all, it has to do with the government defining who can and cannot enter into a contract. And unless I can marry my Mom or Daughter or Brother, or two wives or.... then by definition, the government STILL is defining marriage. And if the government can define marriage, then it has every right to define it any way it wants. Period.
However, since EMOTION is ruling here, and Homosexuals are all emotional about re-defining marriage, our legal system has started to collapse under such silly emotional arguments.
BTW, "hate" is an emotion, so if you label me a hater, then you're making my case for me.
You get Vitamin D when you're in the sun, same as getting a tan. To get one, you have to get the other. They are linked. But yes, you're right, a dark tan (darker skin) lowers the Vitamin D production.
Yes, there is a benefit to tans, it is called Vitamin D, which has substantial benefits. Not enough sun, and you start having other health issues. So much so, that they give people in the far northern climates UV light to counteract winter. And dark skinned people actually fair much worse the further north one lives.
Oh, but I am willing to kill off corporations. Since corporations are the creation of the state, and are sanctioned by said state, the state has every right to dissolve the corporation for gross violation of public trust, trust the corporation is entrusted with by the state upon creation.
We do allow them too much authority over government, which is why I oppose corporations (and unions) from contributing to political causes, either directly or indirectly. We call these subversions of public servants "lobbyists".
I am not your envisioned version of Libertarian. I believe that corporations can and should be killed off. It is the only way to hold them accountable for their actions.
Your view, there are no rights except by convention (legal or otherwise), which are thereby granted by government, which can then take those rights it grants away by any arbitrary reason it can come up with. Which is exactly what Tyranny looks like. You're nothing but a slave to the tyranny you believe in.
We have great consumer protections on US made goods. Everything else imported not so much. China doesn't care if there is malware on phones, or poison in the pet food or anything else. The only fix for this is to hold the IMPORTERS and DISTRIBUTORS here in the US fully responsible, and put them out of business. The problem is, there is too much money involved in the politics of killing off corporations.
I beg to differ. Rights as I see them are outlined in gross form here:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted...
Rights exist apart from governance. Governance is supposed to "secure" (protect) these rights. The fact that you don't understand how any of this works makes me sad for our society in the future.
But I understand, you remove "creator" from this, and there is nothing to base "rights" upon, and that leads us to tyranny. If there is no higher power than government, and mobs (power by force) then we are doomed to tyranny and mob rule.
A right isn't protection. I have the right to keep and bear arms. IT requires NOTHING from anyone to practice. It doesn't require government. It doesn't require anyone else to do anything. It exists on its own, apart from anyone or anything else. I have that right if I am alone on an island.
The point of government is supposed to be to secure(protect) the rights of individuals, NOT rule over men. The moment government compels someone to do something against his conscience, it is necessarily harming him.
Relating this back to the original topic, the "harm" caused by the boy sending dick pic to a girl was miniscule. It may have been unwanted and may have been a threat (implied or directed) or just clumsy flirting (bad taste), but that requires judgment, not rules of absolutes (zero tolerance). I oppose zero tolerance laws simply because the are an over reaction to bad judgements and end up worse position.
Considering many (most) homes where I live already have a water treatment system (aka Water Softener) in place, considering that a few more also have reverse osmosis to make chlorinated water actually taste good... Yeah.
Chlorine produces cancer causing chemicals. Water treatment at the plant is nice, but contamination along the way is worse. Use Ozone at the delivery endpoint, and eschew Chlorine altogether.
A right is something each individual has against the mob. Government is classified as a Mob.
This kind of thing is what happens when you don't understand what is, and what isn't a right. Rights exist and require nothing. You don't have a "right" to healthcare, because to give you "healthcare" denies the rights of someone else (Dr, Nurses....) But hey, I'm a big fat mean libertarian who sees the tyranny as it encroaches.
mom-and-pop does code up an LDAP, who's to say the customer has it together on its end?
You see problem, I see opportunity. I see an excellent opportunity to expand your companies services, and earn additional revenue.
"We've coded our application so that you put your authorized LDAP query user name here, password here, the sever address here, the LDAP scope here... Fairly simple process. If you don't know how to do that, we can send one of our consultants over and help implement LDAP in your organization, please see our Technical Sales group to define the scope of that project and get a quote together for you"
My take, is that all encryption is suspect. Maybe not that variation of that method right at the moment, but at some point, sometime in the future, it will have issues. When we get to quantum computers, many, if not all of the encryption techniques we have will fail.
That being said, we can agree, using informed consensus, what works for today. No, I don't listen to government only, or private sector only, or white hat only, or theoretical math guys only. I listen to all of them, and I apply the system that makes the most sense. I don't need the highest grade crypto service for my forum website. On the other hand, having the Secretary of State have a private email server being run out of a bathroom of a communal flat (apartment complex) with little or no crypto on it is problematic.
It is all about relative security with regard to the information that is being encrypted. Some shit is worth a lot more than other shit, take appropriate steps to protect the data. Whatever is "appropriate"
It isn't insane. I don't expect different results. In fact, after 30 years, the moment I think I have seen everything, some user does something completely unexpected.
Slashdot Mirror
Pi is not a viable option because it isn't a complete solution on its own.
And not considering TCO is also a problem with "low cost" solutions, because if the initial cost is low, but ends up being a complete time sink for IT to support the "low cost", all you have done is cost shifted from product to services by IT. The cost of servicing IT devices is the bane of IT departments everywhere.
You don't have to accept it .. but you also have to fucking deal with it.
Emotional argument. You're right (correct) on an emotional argument level, but you haven't answered the question, where is the LAW the says I have to "deal with it"
BTW, Courts are not allowed to make law, only interpret them. Making law is bound to the Legislative branch (which is punting its duties to the court)
SCOTUS said there is no legal basis to exclude homosexuals from marriage, any more than there was to exclude mixed race marriages.
Emotional argument. Marriage is a contract, defined by law. And as I pointed out above, laws can only be passed by legislative branch. In this case, Marriage was defined as between man and woman, by law. There is no exception for gay people, because it doesn't affect gay people at all. In the other case it did have exception (mixed race) which is why that ruling was correct. If you want to redefine marriage, beyond Man and Woman, that would take a law (legislative branch) to redefine marriage, legally. The court has no jurisdiction on creating law, i.e. redefining marriage, legally.
Which means assholes can't come along and claim it's their right to define marriage in such a way as to specifically preclude homosexuals just because their asshole beliefs say so.
Emotional argument, not one based on law. IF the state has a right to define marriage, it has a right to define it any way it wants. If it does not have that right, then marriage means everything and nothing. In this case, marriage WAS defined, as between a man an woman, via legislation. IT didn't exclude gay people, because it wasn't about gay people, it was about defining marriage. The court has no legislative ability to redefine marriage. The court's ruling was emotionally based change in law, something it does not have a right to do, because it isn't legislative branch.
The government provides legal benefits to people who are married. It has an inherently legal and civil function. It sure as fuck is defining marriage, but all states must follow the Constitution, and the court rules those laws were not Constitutional.
Another great emotional argument. Please show me where in the constitution the courts have a right to redefine marriage laws as it sees fit. IF the state has the right to define marriage, then by definition that right to define marriage is found in the legislative branch (not the court). If it doesn't, then it should get out of the marriage definition business altogether. Yes, there are benefits to marriage, this has nothing to do with defining marriage.
Which means a) the religious people can fuck off, and b) the morons who think they can pass laws which say "except you guys" are trying to pass unconstitutional laws.
Another great emotional argument. My case doesn't require religion or calling people names. Why does yours?
So either you agree that we should make it OK to discriminate against religious beliefs ... or you have to accept that someone's religious beliefs don't fucking exempt them from the law.
Actually, I don't require religion to support legal definitions of marriage, which is the exclusive right of government via Legislative branch Either that or it has no right to define marriage at all. I'll let you decide which is more appropriate ;)
Google Apps for Education is free to schools. Includes everything a school might need, including "Google Classroom" which is an excellent tool already.
Android 4.2 is a deal killer. Unless that model is supported by CyangenMod or other flavor, I wouldn't want an OS that old on anything new.
ONE is too many. Period.
I don't care if it is Diebold or illegitimate votes from dead relatives or illegal immigrants or felons or ....
Integrity of the polls is probably the most important thing to our system in our democratic republic representative governance.
This prejudice drivel gets modded "Informative?
Who exactly are the prejudiced against? You can't say Indians, as if you read through, they say to hire the lower caste student.
Because the Caste system offends you, you jump to conclusions. The problem is, India does in fact have a Caste system and it still is a large part of their culture. It isn't prejudice to point out what actually exists. And yes, there is exceptions to every "stereotype". But stereotypes exist for a reason, fair or not.
So, yes, judge the individual, but don't ignore the warning signs of stereotypes for "outrage" sake.
We spend more, and get less per dollar, typical American idiocy of top down management (see Common Core) while maintaining the industrial education system in a modern information age.
I work in education, and I see tons of wasted money being spent on people who will never recover that lost value("Special Education") while neglecting kids who actually want to succeed (exceptional). We cater to whiny parents of school brats while ignoring the good kids and parents who are there trying to dodge all the crappy raindrops in the system that is rewarding failure in the name of "fairness".
In one example, I know of a teacher, legally required to spend one hour a day dedicated to each one of six kids with "Special needs" (one on one time). The rest of the class can suck it, as there are only 5.5 hours of instruction time. What does the teacher do? Not teach other kids? or break the law by not spending the required amount of time with each kid that "needs it".
In my view, each kid should have equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Each kid deserves the teacher's best, not just those that "need it more". Each kid should be allowed to excel to their own capabilities. We have the technology and ability to do so. So, why aren't we?
Capitalism is neither good or bad. It is inanimate "thing". People are good or bad. Most people act good most of the time. Some people don't. Some people act "legal" but are bad, some people act "illegal" but are otherwise good.
The problem is, we have legal system being built on "emotion" rather than on facts. Gay Marriage is a great example. Can anyone tell me where in the constitution the Federal Government has a right to force people to accept contracts between two unrelated people? This has noting to do with homosexuality at all, it has to do with the government defining who can and cannot enter into a contract. And unless I can marry my Mom or Daughter or Brother, or two wives or .... then by definition, the government STILL is defining marriage. And if the government can define marriage, then it has every right to define it any way it wants. Period.
However, since EMOTION is ruling here, and Homosexuals are all emotional about re-defining marriage, our legal system has started to collapse under such silly emotional arguments.
BTW, "hate" is an emotion, so if you label me a hater, then you're making my case for me.
I want to know which party he'd run under. Or if he would be independent.
Nothing like nostalgia of tape media to make one feel old.
You get Vitamin D when you're in the sun, same as getting a tan. To get one, you have to get the other. They are linked. But yes, you're right, a dark tan (darker skin) lowers the Vitamin D production.
Yes, there is a benefit to tans, it is called Vitamin D, which has substantial benefits. Not enough sun, and you start having other health issues. So much so, that they give people in the far northern climates UV light to counteract winter. And dark skinned people actually fair much worse the further north one lives.
Oh, but I am willing to kill off corporations. Since corporations are the creation of the state, and are sanctioned by said state, the state has every right to dissolve the corporation for gross violation of public trust, trust the corporation is entrusted with by the state upon creation.
We do allow them too much authority over government, which is why I oppose corporations (and unions) from contributing to political causes, either directly or indirectly. We call these subversions of public servants "lobbyists".
I am not your envisioned version of Libertarian. I believe that corporations can and should be killed off. It is the only way to hold them accountable for their actions.
Your view, there are no rights except by convention (legal or otherwise), which are thereby granted by government, which can then take those rights it grants away by any arbitrary reason it can come up with. Which is exactly what Tyranny looks like. You're nothing but a slave to the tyranny you believe in.
We have great consumer protections on US made goods. Everything else imported not so much. China doesn't care if there is malware on phones, or poison in the pet food or anything else. The only fix for this is to hold the IMPORTERS and DISTRIBUTORS here in the US fully responsible, and put them out of business. The problem is, there is too much money involved in the politics of killing off corporations.
I beg to differ. Rights as I see them are outlined in gross form here:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted ...
Rights exist apart from governance. Governance is supposed to "secure" (protect) these rights. The fact that you don't understand how any of this works makes me sad for our society in the future.
But I understand, you remove "creator" from this, and there is nothing to base "rights" upon, and that leads us to tyranny. If there is no higher power than government, and mobs (power by force) then we are doomed to tyranny and mob rule.
A right isn't protection. I have the right to keep and bear arms. IT requires NOTHING from anyone to practice. It doesn't require government. It doesn't require anyone else to do anything. It exists on its own, apart from anyone or anything else. I have that right if I am alone on an island.
The point of government is supposed to be to secure(protect) the rights of individuals, NOT rule over men. The moment government compels someone to do something against his conscience, it is necessarily harming him.
Relating this back to the original topic, the "harm" caused by the boy sending dick pic to a girl was miniscule. It may have been unwanted and may have been a threat (implied or directed) or just clumsy flirting (bad taste), but that requires judgment, not rules of absolutes (zero tolerance). I oppose zero tolerance laws simply because the are an over reaction to bad judgements and end up worse position.
Considering many (most) homes where I live already have a water treatment system (aka Water Softener) in place, considering that a few more also have reverse osmosis to make chlorinated water actually taste good ... Yeah.
Chlorine produces cancer causing chemicals. Water treatment at the plant is nice, but contamination along the way is worse. Use Ozone at the delivery endpoint, and eschew Chlorine altogether.
A right is something each individual has against the mob. Government is classified as a Mob.
This kind of thing is what happens when you don't understand what is, and what isn't a right. Rights exist and require nothing. You don't have a "right" to healthcare, because to give you "healthcare" denies the rights of someone else (Dr, Nurses ....) But hey, I'm a big fat mean libertarian who sees the tyranny as it encroaches.
Get away from her you bitch!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Better than Chlorine.
mom-and-pop does code up an LDAP, who's to say the customer has it together on its end?
You see problem, I see opportunity. I see an excellent opportunity to expand your companies services, and earn additional revenue.
"We've coded our application so that you put your authorized LDAP query user name here, password here, the sever address here, the LDAP scope here ... Fairly simple process. If you don't know how to do that, we can send one of our consultants over and help implement LDAP in your organization, please see our Technical Sales group to define the scope of that project and get a quote together for you"
My take, is that all encryption is suspect. Maybe not that variation of that method right at the moment, but at some point, sometime in the future, it will have issues. When we get to quantum computers, many, if not all of the encryption techniques we have will fail.
That being said, we can agree, using informed consensus, what works for today. No, I don't listen to government only, or private sector only, or white hat only, or theoretical math guys only. I listen to all of them, and I apply the system that makes the most sense. I don't need the highest grade crypto service for my forum website. On the other hand, having the Secretary of State have a private email server being run out of a bathroom of a communal flat (apartment complex) with little or no crypto on it is problematic.
It is all about relative security with regard to the information that is being encrypted. Some shit is worth a lot more than other shit, take appropriate steps to protect the data. Whatever is "appropriate"
It isn't insane. I don't expect different results. In fact, after 30 years, the moment I think I have seen everything, some user does something completely unexpected.