I am a Libertarian, so guess where I stand on the whole NSA thing. And to go further, they put Boston and surrounds under martial law, for one guy, who was caught by a guy violating martial law and noticed something out of sorts in his backyard. Most of the military police were not even looking in the right place. If he hadn't been shot, they would likely never caught him.
I get the point. I agree that we tend to freak out about loud noises (guns) and horrific acts (9/11, Boston) and over state their over all significance. More people are killed by clubs and bats than rifles, yet we are more scared of rifles, because they are "scary, loud", and not because people die. If people were concerned with people dying, we'd ban "assault bats".
But saying "only 4 people died" minimizes the tragedy. It flat out ignores the impact on other people, as if they don't matter at all. And equating the impact of terrorism with kids and guns, without considering all the people affected is ignoring facts to suit an agenda. AND that is just sick.
" I am anti-capitalist because I am against people owning property far beyond what they can use"
According to whom? Who Decides how much one person can use? A committee?
No thank you.
You end up with people like Al Gore with his HUGE mansion lecturing me on how green I am. People flying around in private jets telling me not to drive my car because it gets less than a certain mileage.
No thank you.
And be careful, the very thing you are advocating will have you lose everything you have, because I can assure you, the committee from some third world country will tell you, you have too much stuff, and don't need it all.
So, you equate government with tyranny. Interesting.
The fact that a government tends towards tyranny is one of the reasons for the US Constitution being framed the way it was, including the 2nd Amendment. The fact that the government is not abiding by the law that defines it is no surprise. We the people must like tyrannies;)
Well, in my experience, the Universe is at my fingertips. I can learn a great deal about ANY topic, and have, from the copious amount of information available online. THIS is what has changed education in my life. However, I don't have a piece of paper saying I know anything, which makes it hard to quantify what I actually know (or don't know).
Guns are a false hope in defending against any tyrannical government.
Name one tyranny that allows for the people to be armed. Just one.
And why are we arming Syrian Rebels if guns are a false hope against Tyranny?
Do you realize that tyrannies form only when the people are disarmed. And do not forget, Hitler was elected to office, so I do not trust the Soap, or Ballot boxes for obvious reasons (GWB, BHO) . I don't trust the Jury box for the similar reasons. Guns are the last but necessary resort.
Do you have a coherent thought or just rambling on because I don't follow your prescribed version of reality? And they are cowering, otherwise they wouldn't care what I believed (or didn't believe). I threaten them because I can make fun of them. And there is nothing funnier than evangelical Atheists.
we've lost a huge point of academic inquiry -- which is in part about individuality and creativity.
If you want that as an outcome, then the University is not going to help most people. The degree program offered by most universities is one that says that a person has progressed through a series of steps and followed a prescription (recipe) and is good for being a cog in a bigger machine. Outside of the hard sciences (research universities).
At my personal experience at University was that anyone with "different" ideas was sent to the sidelines and marginalized.
I am not an Atheist. Libertarian Atheists don't care what I believe. And I don't care what Atheists believe. Leftwing Atheists would rather I not exist, as my belief somehow threatens them. They end up doing things like Jewish Purge of Soviet Union (killing Jews because they are religious), or persecution of the Falun Gong and Christians in China, if they had their way. Atheistic Socialistic States and those of faith don't mix.
The state should be agnostic towards religion (or lack thereof). First Amendment Style.
How is that? How does a "Left wing" enforce their social economic government structure without a strong powerful government behind it?
You're probably not anti-capitalist, you're probably anti-corporatist, which is different, but looks remarkably similar. Do you believe a committee should tell you how much you should be paid, and how hard you should work and what job you should do? If you say no to each of those, you're a capitalist.
I just spec'ed out a 2U Dual 8 Core server with 386 GB RAM. The thing could hold 768 GB total If I didn't put in the GPU. The cost for doubling the RAM doubled the cost of the server. And at that point, having more CPU is more useful than RAM.
As for SSD vs HD, you should really start looking at something like Nimble Storage, which tiers storage between onboard RAM, SDD and regular HDs, to provide huge IOPS advantages over regular SAN storage, with the same kind of drive type/counts. In the datacenter, its IOPS for your storage, followed by Size. Long term slow, and big storage is less useful than having high speed access to data you actually need at that moment. IOPS is key to getting data on the wire and to the processors that need it.
Actually, I forsee a change in courses over the next few years, where the teaching material is a collaboration of those instructors creating the classes. This will mean that course design will become more favorable than being "Dr Joe Schmoe". And open source courses will invariably be more complete than closed courses offered from a singular professor.
Any teacher that can be replaced by a computer, should be.
In the USA, anyone can make a gun, perfectly legal gun. You can make them all you want, you just can't sell them. THAT takes a firearm license. But when everyone can make a gun, the idea of gun registration (for the purposes of selling them) becomes useless. Guess what, gun laws are going to change, and they are going to effectively repeal the 2nd Amendment, without the formality of doing so, because people are scared of things that make loud noises.
The fact that more people died at the hands of hammers and clubs than rifles, proves it isn't about killing people. It is about killing people with things that make loud noises that scare people. Make people afraid, tell them only the Government can protect them, and the people become pawns in the struggle for power among the elite. Who can scare the people the most. "Republicans want to kill grandma and eat kittens" or "Brown People are invading from Mexico". It doesn't matter what it is.
Everything is a parody when you start looking through things with clear eyes.
As a Libertarian, I find Libertarians defy most stereotypes. I do say, the Libertarian version of Atheism is much better than the leftist Atheists. Leftist Atheists have replaced GOD with Government as the all powerful being, and that is pretty scary concept. Libertarian Atheists tend towards not giving a shit what others believe and want to be left alone.
"going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special"
Logical Fallacy. It gives you more protection than having NOTHING, except the broken promises of the government protecting you. And we are seeing exactly how much the government protects you, even as it invades every aspect of your life. But being a good leftist, you must not protest government intrusions into your everyday life, for that is exactly what you're asking for.
Government regulation is government power, more regulation means government has more power. Don't complain when wake up and have no power to stop the government. That is the whole reason for the 2nd Amendment. Power corrupts and all that.
Indoctrination is not education. They often call it that though. Being told you have to submit to the state authority on all things is exactly what is wrong with our current system. IRS, NSA, DOJ scandals all presuppose power to the state.
The F Bomb is utterly meaningless when used for every other word. It makes little people seem bigger, but only in their own eyes and the eyes of small people. To artfully use vocabulary to disrespect others is actually not easy, which is why simple people resort to using F-Bomb. It is right up there with calling people "Racist" (or similar) because they are losing a political argument.
Wants cost a lot more money than needs do. I WANT a Ferrari, but what I need is a car to get me to and from work. Which one cost more? When the Ferrari becomes inexpensive as a Ford, let me know, I'll buy two.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a Libertarian, so guess where I stand on the whole NSA thing. And to go further, they put Boston and surrounds under martial law, for one guy, who was caught by a guy violating martial law and noticed something out of sorts in his backyard. Most of the military police were not even looking in the right place. If he hadn't been shot, they would likely never caught him.
I get the point. I agree that we tend to freak out about loud noises (guns) and horrific acts (9/11, Boston) and over state their over all significance. More people are killed by clubs and bats than rifles, yet we are more scared of rifles, because they are "scary, loud", and not because people die. If people were concerned with people dying, we'd ban "assault bats".
But saying "only 4 people died" minimizes the tragedy. It flat out ignores the impact on other people, as if they don't matter at all. And equating the impact of terrorism with kids and guns, without considering all the people affected is ignoring facts to suit an agenda. AND that is just sick.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/ss-130415-boston-bombing-tease.photoblog600.jpg
Yeah, that guy didn't die, because people saved his life (and many others) it wasn't because of lack of trying by the terrorists.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/specials/boston_marathon_bombing_victim_list/
There is nothing like trying to minimalize tragedy to make a political point. You make me sick.
" I am anti-capitalist because I am against people owning property far beyond what they can use"
According to whom? Who Decides how much one person can use? A committee?
No thank you.
You end up with people like Al Gore with his HUGE mansion lecturing me on how green I am. People flying around in private jets telling me not to drive my car because it gets less than a certain mileage.
No thank you.
And be careful, the very thing you are advocating will have you lose everything you have, because I can assure you, the committee from some third world country will tell you, you have too much stuff, and don't need it all.
No Thank you.
Well, it makes about as much sense as the Liberal "Bush's War for Oil". just sayin
Let me axe you a question.
So, you equate government with tyranny. Interesting.
The fact that a government tends towards tyranny is one of the reasons for the US Constitution being framed the way it was, including the 2nd Amendment. The fact that the government is not abiding by the law that defines it is no surprise. We the people must like tyrannies ;)
Well, in my experience, the Universe is at my fingertips. I can learn a great deal about ANY topic, and have, from the copious amount of information available online. THIS is what has changed education in my life. However, I don't have a piece of paper saying I know anything, which makes it hard to quantify what I actually know (or don't know).
Guns are a false hope in defending against any tyrannical government.
Name one tyranny that allows for the people to be armed. Just one.
And why are we arming Syrian Rebels if guns are a false hope against Tyranny?
Do you realize that tyrannies form only when the people are disarmed. And do not forget, Hitler was elected to office, so I do not trust the Soap, or Ballot boxes for obvious reasons (GWB, BHO) . I don't trust the Jury box for the similar reasons. Guns are the last but necessary resort.
Do you have a coherent thought or just rambling on because I don't follow your prescribed version of reality? And they are cowering, otherwise they wouldn't care what I believed (or didn't believe). I threaten them because I can make fun of them. And there is nothing funnier than evangelical Atheists.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/2010/03/atheist-billboard.jpg
Evangelical (adj) - marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.
What other "non-beliefs" can we put billboards up for?
"Don't Believe in Pink Unicorns? You're not alone"
"Don't Believe in UFOs? You're not alone"
"Don't Believe in Leprechauns? You're not alone"
we've lost a huge point of academic inquiry -- which is in part about individuality and creativity.
If you want that as an outcome, then the University is not going to help most people. The degree program offered by most universities is one that says that a person has progressed through a series of steps and followed a prescription (recipe) and is good for being a cog in a bigger machine. Outside of the hard sciences (research universities).
At my personal experience at University was that anyone with "different" ideas was sent to the sidelines and marginalized.
Wow, a car analogy, I am impressed!!! ;) :-D
I am not an Atheist. Libertarian Atheists don't care what I believe. And I don't care what Atheists believe. Leftwing Atheists would rather I not exist, as my belief somehow threatens them. They end up doing things like Jewish Purge of Soviet Union (killing Jews because they are religious), or persecution of the Falun Gong and Christians in China, if they had their way. Atheistic Socialistic States and those of faith don't mix.
The state should be agnostic towards religion (or lack thereof). First Amendment Style.
How is that? How does a "Left wing" enforce their social economic government structure without a strong powerful government behind it?
You're probably not anti-capitalist, you're probably anti-corporatist, which is different, but looks remarkably similar. Do you believe a committee should tell you how much you should be paid, and how hard you should work and what job you should do? If you say no to each of those, you're a capitalist.
Do you want to hear the joke about a piece of string?
I'm a frayed knot.
I just spec'ed out a 2U Dual 8 Core server with 386 GB RAM. The thing could hold 768 GB total If I didn't put in the GPU. The cost for doubling the RAM doubled the cost of the server. And at that point, having more CPU is more useful than RAM.
As for SSD vs HD, you should really start looking at something like Nimble Storage, which tiers storage between onboard RAM, SDD and regular HDs, to provide huge IOPS advantages over regular SAN storage, with the same kind of drive type/counts. In the datacenter, its IOPS for your storage, followed by Size. Long term slow, and big storage is less useful than having high speed access to data you actually need at that moment. IOPS is key to getting data on the wire and to the processors that need it.
Actually, I forsee a change in courses over the next few years, where the teaching material is a collaboration of those instructors creating the classes. This will mean that course design will become more favorable than being "Dr Joe Schmoe". And open source courses will invariably be more complete than closed courses offered from a singular professor.
Any teacher that can be replaced by a computer, should be.
In the USA, anyone can make a gun, perfectly legal gun. You can make them all you want, you just can't sell them. THAT takes a firearm license. But when everyone can make a gun, the idea of gun registration (for the purposes of selling them) becomes useless. Guess what, gun laws are going to change, and they are going to effectively repeal the 2nd Amendment, without the formality of doing so, because people are scared of things that make loud noises.
The fact that more people died at the hands of hammers and clubs than rifles, proves it isn't about killing people. It is about killing people with things that make loud noises that scare people. Make people afraid, tell them only the Government can protect them, and the people become pawns in the struggle for power among the elite. Who can scare the people the most. "Republicans want to kill grandma and eat kittens" or "Brown People are invading from Mexico". It doesn't matter what it is.
Everything is a parody when you start looking through things with clear eyes.
As a Libertarian, I find Libertarians defy most stereotypes. I do say, the Libertarian version of Atheism is much better than the leftist Atheists. Leftist Atheists have replaced GOD with Government as the all powerful being, and that is pretty scary concept. Libertarian Atheists tend towards not giving a shit what others believe and want to be left alone.
"going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special"
Logical Fallacy. It gives you more protection than having NOTHING, except the broken promises of the government protecting you. And we are seeing exactly how much the government protects you, even as it invades every aspect of your life. But being a good leftist, you must not protest government intrusions into your everyday life, for that is exactly what you're asking for.
Government regulation is government power, more regulation means government has more power. Don't complain when wake up and have no power to stop the government. That is the whole reason for the 2nd Amendment. Power corrupts and all that.
"Trust us, we're from the Government"
I am INVINCIBLE!
Or at least find a Hammer
Indoctrination is not education. They often call it that though. Being told you have to submit to the state authority on all things is exactly what is wrong with our current system. IRS, NSA, DOJ scandals all presuppose power to the state.
The F Bomb is utterly meaningless when used for every other word. It makes little people seem bigger, but only in their own eyes and the eyes of small people. To artfully use vocabulary to disrespect others is actually not easy, which is why simple people resort to using F-Bomb. It is right up there with calling people "Racist" (or similar) because they are losing a political argument.
Wants cost a lot more money than needs do. I WANT a Ferrari, but what I need is a car to get me to and from work. Which one cost more? When the Ferrari becomes inexpensive as a Ford, let me know, I'll buy two.