But you probably would want the bomb to go off in the event that the bomber is shot down.
Only if the bomber is deep over enemy territory, and in reasonably close proximity to a target.
If not, the ideal thing to do would be for the bomb to "self-destruct" without detonating; by injecting chemicals causing the nuclear material to be rendered useless to any adversary, and permanently locking out the detonator assembly.
or put it another way, a simple switch on a nuclear bomb failed as it fell to earth, rendering it inoperable. doesn't inspire much confidence for when it is used in war.
Regretably... this is when it becomes a crewmember's job to parachute down, with a little wireless remote, and prepare to trigger the switch manually
Probably more of a failure in our mental health system. Also, young men are last on the list when shelters are overcrowded.
Sounds like discrimination to me... how about you use some of those bitcoins to file a lawsuit over prejudicial witholding charity based on age, sex, and gender?
So far I've never had a problem with VM images, but now we're mitigating that by adding redundant but isolated storage servers. I'm sure you could manage this without ZFS snapshots and send/recv, but I wouldn't want to try.
A reasonable approach.
Ultimately I had to move away from ZFS for another reason.... lack of solid clustering, available for free or at a reasonable price. If a server running the Solaris OS crashes due to a hardware failure; all the storage is going to be down.
We wanted to have active/passive; with the ability to reboot or upgrade the pair of storage devices, with no downtime or loss of I/O for the various devices and servers relying on the storage: in other words, not just Disaster recovery, but High Availability.
Nexenta offers a commercial solution called HA cluster. To have 12TB of storage; you have to buy 2 Gold licenses at $5000 each, because the company made a policy that You must buy Gold edition, you have to pay for 24x7 support, and you must use Certified hardware, in order to buy the HA cluster plugin: Also You aren't allowed to just design it yourself --- HA cluster will not be sold without professional services (price tag, ~$3,000).
So for 12TB of storage, the 2 Gold licenses are $10,000, you need $2500 in extra capacity licenses, $3000 in professional installation/consultation services you are forced to buy, and then the HA cluster plugin is another $6000+.
That's $21,000 for the first year plus approximately $4k each successive year in software licenses, and the certified hardware choices are pretty limited ---- the cheapest price quote from a reseller was ~$60,000, once you added a reasonable amount of RAM or cache to the hardware.
Ultimately, NetApp turned out to be cheaper; approximately $20,000 cheaper, and guess what.... it came with support; we know there are thousands of enterprises using it, it has a certain track record.
If the ZFS based solution wasn't any cheaper in any sense; how could you possibly justify taking such a risky move?
Furthermore: NetApp filers have some significant useful features, that ZFS does not, which are hard to argue against. Of course ZFS has some nice unique features as well, such as compression suitable for use with almost all workloads; Better instrumentation (DTRACE), Open source base, More granular control of sizes, reservations, Support for larger number of snapshots, Ability to migrate storage system to larger disk drives later, Dynamic striping; arguably better read/write performance, with the ZFS ARC, and you can buy lots of RAM; instead of being stuck with a fixed 16GB..
But NetApp has
Asynchronous Deduplication --- In other words block-level Dedup, that is suitable for use in production
ZFS dedup is synchronous; which limits the possible places it could be used. ZFS dedup is also a disaster -- I tried testing it out once.... the results were catastrophic; 32GB of RAM turned out not to be enough, at least without a read-optimised SSD for L2ARC.
DataMotion -- Volumes/LUNs exported using FC or iSCSI can be moved between aggregates, or between "pools" if you will; without downtime, or the clients noticing.
FlexClone -- Can instantly create a point in time copy of an individual file (LUNs, or Volumes too); the copy is not bound to the original like it is in ZFS (you can delete the original without having to "zfs promote" something, or worry about dependant snapshots) --- in ZFS you can only clone a snapshot of an entire filesystem; this does not work out so well mass-cloning things like virtual machines, because you can only have a host attach a limited number of filesystems.
RAID-DP --- The important thing to know about it, is it's RAID6, without the traditional performance pe
Doesn't look like he had a ZIL from the description of the hardware. So it's totally understandable that he might have corruption.
By default; if you have no dedicated ZIL hardware log device, the ZIL log lives on the data pool, so the function is there .
Unless you mess with some low-level parameters not intended to be set by users; as in 'set zfs:zil_disable = 1' in/etc/system or do a echo zil_disable/W0t1 | mdb -kw;
then there always has to be a ZIL; and those options are only available for special circumstances (primarily to facilitate performance troubleshooting by a kernel expert -- or to help the storage admin determine if the storage system would benefit from adding a dedicated ZIL device).
You can't expect much better than what it did considering an entire vddv (both drives in the mirror) went off line as data was being written to them.
I do expect better, because ZFS is supposed to handle this situation, where a volume goes down with in-flight operations; the filesystem by design is supposed to be able to re-Import the pool after system restart and recover cleanly....
That shouldn't of happened; it sounds like either the hard drive acknowledged a cache FLUSH, before data had been written to disk, the ZIL was broken (or disabled), or indeed a ZFS bug was found.
But in the absence of evidence that the disk hardware properly obeys the cache flush command semantics; great suspicion should be pointed at it.
The whole point of the zfs ZIL is to log in-flight writes, before the writes get added to the pool data, so if there is a halt; the in-flight writes are either completed or aborted in an crash-consistent way --- ala filesystem journaling.
The pool showing 'corrupt' data indicates ZPOOL was remounted but the state wasn't crash consistent....
[Or perhaps the hard drive data signal line did not have a clean break, and part of a write command's content was damaged in flight]
until such time humans become extinct and are replaced by a more evolved species that lacks the pretense of understanding a system as complex as the earth's macro climate.
Why wait?
I already understand earth's macro climate... it's very simple: When God cranks up the thermostat, the temperature increases. When God thinks it's too hot, he lowers the thermostat, and the temperature decreases. If he feels particularly sneaky one day; he lowers it a little more than usual, thus creating an ice age.
It sounds like he disabled/reduced ZFS's default to keep extra copies of meta-data.
That would seem to require altering the source code. At least in the Solaris X86 ZFS implementation;
there is no zpool or zfs dataset option to turn off metadata redundancy.... of course it would be a bad idea.
The one negative to ZFS (if you can call it that) is that it makes you aware of inevitable failures (scrubs catch them). I'll lose about 1 or 2 files per year (out of many many terrabytes) just due to lousy luck
What? Interesting.... I never lost a file on ZFS... ever; and I was doing 12TB arrays, for VMDK storage;
these were generally RAIDZ2 with 5 SATA disks, running ~50 VMs. Then in ~2011, concatenated mirrored sets of drives; large number of Ultra320 SCSI spindles in a direct attach SCSI Chasis --- which is the hardware I got, when requesting SAS direct-attach JBOD and SAS HBAs; the SAS hardware wasn't available for less than $1000 on eBay, so management had a "better" idea, even after being persuaded (with great difficulty) that moving forward with 3 Exchange server VMs >1000 users, 10 web servers, spam filters, countless other stuff, on a RAID5/RAIDZ2 array with 6x 2TB SATA drives was not a great idea --- thankfully all that parallel SCSI junk has since been scrapped.
Which was done on NFS and also on iSCSI. The average virtual disk is approximately 100gb.
No matter how you put it "losing 1 or 2 files" of 100gb, 200gb, or 1TB in size is a big deal.
Choosing the storage solution that loses a VMDK file or VMX file;
if the wrong VMDK/VMX file..... equates to an entire server disappearing into oblivion:
if a mission-critical VM.
Can be very harmful to continued employment.....
I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but does it offer any advantage over BTRFS? I'm not trying to start a flame war; I'm honestly asking.
BTRFS is still highly experimental. I had production ZFS systems back in 2008.
A mature ZFS implementation is a lot less likely to lose your data with filesystem code at fault (assuming you choose appropriate hardware and appropriate RAIDZ levels with redundancy).
There's no reason your pseudonym needs to look like an IRC handle. Just start using a new name.... something like "Mark Twain".
It's perfectly legal to take an assumed name, and use for any legal purpose.
Obviously, you cannot use a false name with intent to pass as another person/to further a criminal act -- as that would be wire fraud...
But for legal uses, you can take an assumed name as a legal alias.
I would use a tool such as notwhoami to help generate this name.
Just because we, here, can't see it, does not mean that it is not there. The scientists just aren't interested in it if they can't do observations of it.
Perhaps you could point to where exactly I said not seeing something makes it not exist?
Not being able to see something and also not being able to see an affect of something; makes the argument that it exists cease to be scientific, and shifts the question back into the broader realm of philosophy.
As in: Closing yoiur eyes does not mean that others can't see you! 8-)
No.... but if you were born with your brain in a glass jar; with no ability to move out of the jar, no sight, smell, hearing, touch, pain, or other physical sensations outside the jar --- then arguably, as far as you are concerned, nothing exists outside your jar.
If you cannot observe it or its effects in any way, you cannot prove its existence, then you cannot reason about it.
Arguing that there's a race of intelligent outside the jar is religion, not science.
The arguments about what you can know in that case are epistemology, not science.
The representations are not comparable between companies and sometime models from the same company.
As long as you know what the representation is; a fingerprint enrollment contains details sufficient to construct an approximate model of a person's fingerprint, and the datapoints you get are rather precise. That is entirely the whole point of the readings.
Different models of reader gather similar data; although the binary representation selected may be different, they may be converted as well.
The argument that it's not a privacy violation is bogus.
As a thinking human being I can make judgement calls. In my judgement up to ten minutes a day is no hardship. I have shown up early and stayed late at most of my jobs and it hasn't killed me yet.
10 extra minutes a day, equates to an hour a week. Working an extra hour and still getting payed for the smaller amount of time -- of course is a drop in earning power; it equates to a decrease in average compensation.
There's a difference between you making a choice to show up early or leave late Versus your employer instituting a system that (1) requires you to do so, (2) makes the extra time you have to be there wasted time, involving a tedious process, (3) dehumanizes/objectifies you, (4) reduces work flexibility, and (5) creates an annoyance.
The reality here is someone with some authority was an idiot.
And we'll never know who, unless he put it in writing, and it becomes a documented fact
that person X made this decision --- instead; whoever the actor is, has FEMA to hide behind.
We'll probably never know who. BUT if FEMA gets a sufficiently bad rap, and this comes back at
the US administration; there's a slim chance that it could result in an investigation, with possible negative
consequences for the person.
had taken over operations and our request to fly drones was not only denied but more specifically we were told by FEMA that anyone flying drones would be arrested.
Diabolical Reply: We have state national guard standing by, authorized to utilize deadly force, against anyone attempting to arrest any drone operators or otherwise disrupt our drone operations.
Small children don't "read books" on smart devices. They may be forced to use "edutainment" apps, but nevertheless:
People with actual skills in the field of IT tinker/has tinkered.
You might be surprised.... especially if you let the child use the smart device, but they're not allowed (not able due to password) to install any apps or put any games on it; and social networking sites especially are banned by web filter ---- "The only kind of computer game you are allowed to play for more than 1 hour a day, is one you make, or on a game server that you setup".
I understand the argument that smart devices don't encourage children to tinker, BUT it's an invalid argument to justify witholding tech, just because that tech doesn't encourage tinkering with the tech itself.
You used to have to be a mechanic to drive the first cars that were made, too. This doesn't mean it's good parenting to deny kids of sufficient age to operate them responsibly, an opportunity to learn to drive: it certainly doesn't make it valid to ban cars from the household, and declare --- the wife has to give up her car too: based on this arbitrary disdain for tech.
The fact of the matter is IT is not the only field that relies on technology.
In fact, arguably IT does not even count as a high-tech field. IT folks are practitioners and tinkerers, yes, but by and large not builders.
You have to walk before you can fly.
The fact of the matter is.... experience with smartdevices can teach kids a lot. There is really no way to learn how e-mail works, except on the internet. There's no dead tree book to read about that: go to the source, read the RFCs.
To function in our society, one has to learn to conduct research, AND most current research material has moved to the web
The web is certainly the most useful source for school projects. Many schools at the elementary level have assignments that may require browsing the web to complete; many schools are providing tablets to students!
When I think of a student who was denied early access to the medium; to learn things on it... and ask... Which student is going to have a disadvantage later in life?
The student with access to the smart devices, the student without access to the smart devices, or Neither....
I have to conclude the student without access to the smart devices is most likely to be at an academic disadvantage.
wouldn't look up from their parents' iPhones and iPads long enough to kick a ball around the backyard. 'That's kind of when it hit me because I'm like, wow, when I was a kid, I lived outside,' says Blair
Attempting to force your kid to have a childhood that matches yours is what self-centered egotism is.
There's absolutely no reason that a child should be so farsically denied the privilege of having access to technology.
If you want a 5 year old and a 2 year old to kick a ball around some more; then arrange some outings, take them
to a park, or lock them in the backyard for a few hours a week, with no toys except the ones you want them to play with.
The fact is, the kids will be best equipped to function in the world if they learn technology at an early age.
Imagine if Einstein couldn't be a scientist, because his parents were insistent that books were evil, banned them
in their house, and he should spend his time as a kid frolicking about doing the exact same sorts of things they did?
Actually, no. And please do stop relying on wikipedia for scientific information, there are much better sources.
The information in the WP article is accurate, and i'm not going to start posting citations on Slashdot that are behind a paywall or require a journal, database subscription, or visit to a university library to access.
The errors are all due to anti-business anti-employer politicis: officials rewriting research reports to make "climate change" more dramatic than it seemed, to justify irrationally extreme measures.
This was all insired by the Nazis' programs, and perpetuated by the fraudulent voting on the last two presidential elections facilitated by advocates for various parties; encouraging various non-eligible people to get votes in and counted, and in and counted again, and a third time, and a fourth time ---- four votes per person: as long as their vote was the right one.
In the absence of overzealous gun control regulation; the fully armed well-regulated militia would have clearly put a stop to all this craziness.
If you look at all their possible sources of revenue (and avenues for growth) and back out a conservative amount of expense, you're looking at a company with about $35 million in earnings.
Their potential sources of future revenue include a portion marketing budgets of 10+ million small businesses in the united states; amounting to a potential of approximately $100 a month per company.
Slashdot Mirror
But you probably would want the bomb to go off in the event that the bomber is shot down.
Only if the bomber is deep over enemy territory, and in reasonably close proximity to a target.
If not, the ideal thing to do would be for the bomb to "self-destruct" without detonating; by injecting chemicals causing the nuclear material to be rendered useless to any adversary, and permanently locking out the detonator assembly.
or put it another way, a simple switch on a nuclear bomb failed as it fell to earth, rendering it inoperable. doesn't inspire much confidence for when it is used in war.
Regretably... this is when it becomes a crewmember's job to parachute down, with a little wireless remote, and prepare to trigger the switch manually
Probably more of a failure in our mental health system. Also, young men are last on the list when shelters are overcrowded.
Sounds like discrimination to me... how about you use some of those bitcoins to file a lawsuit over prejudicial witholding charity based on age, sex, and gender?
So far I've never had a problem with VM images, but now we're mitigating that by adding redundant but isolated storage servers. I'm sure you could manage this without ZFS snapshots and send/recv, but I wouldn't want to try.
A reasonable approach.
Ultimately I had to move away from ZFS for another reason.... lack of solid clustering, available for free or at a reasonable price. If a server running the Solaris OS crashes due to a hardware failure; all the storage is going to be down.
We wanted to have active/passive; with the ability to reboot or upgrade the pair of storage devices, with no downtime or loss of I/O for the various devices and servers relying on the storage: in other words, not just Disaster recovery, but High Availability.
Nexenta offers a commercial solution called HA cluster. To have 12TB of storage; you have to buy 2 Gold licenses at $5000 each, because the company made a policy that You must buy Gold edition, you have to pay for 24x7 support, and you must use Certified hardware, in order to buy the HA cluster plugin: Also You aren't allowed to just design it yourself --- HA cluster will not be sold without professional services (price tag, ~$3,000) .
So for 12TB of storage, the 2 Gold licenses are $10,000, you need $2500 in extra capacity licenses, $3000 in professional installation/consultation services you are forced to buy, and then the HA cluster plugin is another $6000+.
That's $21,000 for the first year plus approximately $4k each successive year in software licenses, and the certified hardware choices are pretty limited ---- the cheapest price quote from a reseller was ~$60,000, once you added a reasonable amount of RAM or cache to the hardware.
Ultimately, NetApp turned out to be cheaper; approximately $20,000 cheaper, and guess what.... it came with support; we know there are thousands of enterprises using it, it has a certain track record.
If the ZFS based solution wasn't any cheaper in any sense; how could you possibly justify taking such a risky move?
Furthermore: NetApp filers have some significant useful features, that ZFS does not, which are hard to argue against. Of course ZFS has some nice unique features as well, such as compression suitable for use with almost all workloads; Better instrumentation (DTRACE), Open source base, More granular control of sizes, reservations, Support for larger number of snapshots, Ability to migrate storage system to larger disk drives later, Dynamic striping; arguably better read/write performance, with the ZFS ARC, and you can buy lots of RAM; instead of being stuck with a fixed 16GB..
But NetApp has
Doesn't look like he had a ZIL from the description of the hardware. So it's totally understandable that he might have corruption.
By default; if you have no dedicated ZIL hardware log device, the ZIL log lives on the data pool, so the function is there .
Unless you mess with some low-level parameters not intended to be set by users; as in 'set zfs:zil_disable = 1' in /etc/system or do a echo zil_disable/W0t1 | mdb -kw;
then there always has to be a ZIL; and those options are only available for special circumstances (primarily to facilitate performance troubleshooting by a kernel expert -- or to help the storage admin determine if the storage system would benefit from adding a dedicated ZIL device).
You can't expect much better than what it did considering an entire vddv (both drives in the mirror) went off line as data was being written to them.
I do expect better, because ZFS is supposed to handle this situation, where a volume goes down with in-flight operations; the filesystem by design is supposed to be able to re-Import the pool after system restart and recover cleanly....
That shouldn't of happened; it sounds like either the hard drive acknowledged a cache FLUSH, before data had been written to disk, the ZIL was broken (or disabled), or indeed a ZFS bug was found.
But in the absence of evidence that the disk hardware properly obeys the cache flush command semantics; great suspicion should be pointed at it.
The whole point of the zfs ZIL is to log in-flight writes, before the writes get added to the pool data, so if there is a halt; the in-flight writes are either completed or aborted in an crash-consistent way --- ala filesystem journaling.
The pool showing 'corrupt' data indicates ZPOOL was remounted but the state wasn't crash consistent....
[Or perhaps the hard drive data signal line did not have a clean break, and part of a write command's content was damaged in flight]
until such time humans become extinct and are replaced by a more evolved species that lacks the pretense of understanding a system as complex as the earth's macro climate.
Why wait?
I already understand earth's macro climate... it's very simple: When God cranks up the thermostat, the temperature increases. When God thinks it's too hot, he lowers the thermostat, and the temperature decreases. If he feels particularly sneaky one day; he lowers it a little more than usual, thus creating an ice age.
It sounds like he disabled/reduced ZFS's default to keep extra copies of meta-data.
That would seem to require altering the source code. At least in the Solaris X86 ZFS implementation; there is no zpool or zfs dataset option to turn off metadata redundancy.... of course it would be a bad idea.
Apparently "never lost data" must mean never lost an entire filesystem -- that's not my definition. Usually file loss is user error.
ZFS does support snapshots, and Nexenta / FreeNAS / etc have snapshot options, and replication options (zfs send | zfs recv) available, for sure.
It's a highly resilient filesystem, but owning and using a highly resilient filesystem is not a replacement for having the proper backups.
The one negative to ZFS (if you can call it that) is that it makes you aware of inevitable failures (scrubs catch them). I'll lose about 1 or 2 files per year (out of many many terrabytes) just due to lousy luck
What? Interesting.... I never lost a file on ZFS... ever; and I was doing 12TB arrays, for VMDK storage; these were generally RAIDZ2 with 5 SATA disks, running ~50 VMs. Then in ~2011, concatenated mirrored sets of drives; large number of Ultra320 SCSI spindles in a direct attach SCSI Chasis --- which is the hardware I got, when requesting SAS direct-attach JBOD and SAS HBAs; the SAS hardware wasn't available for less than $1000 on eBay, so management had a "better" idea, even after being persuaded (with great difficulty) that moving forward with 3 Exchange server VMs >1000 users, 10 web servers, spam filters, countless other stuff, on a RAID5/RAIDZ2 array with 6x 2TB SATA drives was not a great idea --- thankfully all that parallel SCSI junk has since been scrapped.
Which was done on NFS and also on iSCSI. The average virtual disk is approximately 100gb.
No matter how you put it "losing 1 or 2 files" of 100gb, 200gb, or 1TB in size is a big deal.
Choosing the storage solution that loses a VMDK file or VMX file; if the wrong VMDK/VMX file..... equates to an entire server disappearing into oblivion: if a mission-critical VM. Can be very harmful to continued employment.....
I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but does it offer any advantage over BTRFS? I'm not trying to start a flame war; I'm honestly asking.
BTRFS is still highly experimental. I had production ZFS systems back in 2008. A mature ZFS implementation is a lot less likely to lose your data with filesystem code at fault (assuming you choose appropriate hardware and appropriate RAIDZ levels with redundancy).
I love ZFS too, but I'd fucking kill for and open ReiserFS...
I heard that the act of using ReiserFS might be a criminal offense.
Something about making oneself an accomplice after the fact... I don't know; it's a bit murky
There's no reason your pseudonym needs to look like an IRC handle. Just start using a new name.... something like "Mark Twain". It's perfectly legal to take an assumed name, and use for any legal purpose.
Obviously, you cannot use a false name with intent to pass as another person/to further a criminal act -- as that would be wire fraud...
But for legal uses, you can take an assumed name as a legal alias. I would use a tool such as notwhoami to help generate this name.
Just because we, here, can't see it, does not mean that it is not there. The scientists just aren't interested in it if they can't do observations of it.
Perhaps you could point to where exactly I said not seeing something makes it not exist?
Not being able to see something and also not being able to see an affect of something; makes the argument that it exists cease to be scientific, and shifts the question back into the broader realm of philosophy.
As in: Closing yoiur eyes does not mean that others can't see you! 8-)
No.... but if you were born with your brain in a glass jar; with no ability to move out of the jar, no sight, smell, hearing, touch, pain, or other physical sensations outside the jar --- then arguably, as far as you are concerned, nothing exists outside your jar. If you cannot observe it or its effects in any way, you cannot prove its existence, then you cannot reason about it. Arguing that there's a race of intelligent outside the jar is religion, not science.
The arguments about what you can know in that case are epistemology, not science.
The representations are not comparable between companies and sometime models from the same company.
As long as you know what the representation is; a fingerprint enrollment contains details sufficient to construct an approximate model of a person's fingerprint, and the datapoints you get are rather precise. That is entirely the whole point of the readings.
Different models of reader gather similar data; although the binary representation selected may be different, they may be converted as well.
The argument that it's not a privacy violation is bogus.
As a thinking human being I can make judgement calls. In my judgement up to ten minutes a day is no hardship. I have shown up early and stayed late at most of my jobs and it hasn't killed me yet.
10 extra minutes a day, equates to an hour a week. Working an extra hour and still getting payed for the smaller amount of time -- of course is a drop in earning power; it equates to a decrease in average compensation.
There's a difference between you making a choice to show up early or leave late Versus your employer instituting a system that (1) requires you to do so, (2) makes the extra time you have to be there wasted time, involving a tedious process, (3) dehumanizes/objectifies you, (4) reduces work flexibility, and (5) creates an annoyance.
The reality here is someone with some authority was an idiot.
And we'll never know who, unless he put it in writing, and it becomes a documented fact that person X made this decision --- instead; whoever the actor is, has FEMA to hide behind.
We'll probably never know who. BUT if FEMA gets a sufficiently bad rap, and this comes back at the US administration; there's a slim chance that it could result in an investigation, with possible negative consequences for the person.
had taken over operations and our request to fly drones was not only denied but more specifically we were told by FEMA that anyone flying drones would be arrested.
Diabolical Reply: We have state national guard standing by, authorized to utilize deadly force, against anyone attempting to arrest any drone operators or otherwise disrupt our drone operations.
Small children don't "read books" on smart devices. They may be forced to use "edutainment" apps, but nevertheless: People with actual skills in the field of IT tinker/has tinkered.
You might be surprised.... especially if you let the child use the smart device, but they're not allowed (not able due to password) to install any apps or put any games on it; and social networking sites especially are banned by web filter ---- "The only kind of computer game you are allowed to play for more than 1 hour a day, is one you make, or on a game server that you setup".
I understand the argument that smart devices don't encourage children to tinker, BUT it's an invalid argument to justify witholding tech, just because that tech doesn't encourage tinkering with the tech itself.
You used to have to be a mechanic to drive the first cars that were made, too. This doesn't mean it's good parenting to deny kids of sufficient age to operate them responsibly, an opportunity to learn to drive: it certainly doesn't make it valid to ban cars from the household, and declare --- the wife has to give up her car too: based on this arbitrary disdain for tech.
The fact of the matter is IT is not the only field that relies on technology.
In fact, arguably IT does not even count as a high-tech field. IT folks are practitioners and tinkerers, yes, but by and large not builders.
You have to walk before you can fly.
The fact of the matter is.... experience with smartdevices can teach kids a lot. There is really no way to learn how e-mail works, except on the internet. There's no dead tree book to read about that: go to the source, read the RFCs.
To function in our society, one has to learn to conduct research, AND most current research material has moved to the web
The web is certainly the most useful source for school projects. Many schools at the elementary level have assignments that may require browsing the web to complete; many schools are providing tablets to students!
When I think of a student who was denied early access to the medium; to learn things on it... and ask... Which student is going to have a disadvantage later in life?
The student with access to the smart devices, the student without access to the smart devices, or Neither.... I have to conclude the student without access to the smart devices is most likely to be at an academic disadvantage.
wouldn't look up from their parents' iPhones and iPads long enough to kick a ball around the backyard. 'That's kind of when it hit me because I'm like, wow, when I was a kid, I lived outside,' says Blair
Attempting to force your kid to have a childhood that matches yours is what self-centered egotism is. There's absolutely no reason that a child should be so farsically denied the privilege of having access to technology.
If you want a 5 year old and a 2 year old to kick a ball around some more; then arrange some outings, take them to a park, or lock them in the backyard for a few hours a week, with no toys except the ones you want them to play with.
The fact is, the kids will be best equipped to function in the world if they learn technology at an early age.
Imagine if Einstein couldn't be a scientist, because his parents were insistent that books were evil, banned them in their house, and he should spend his time as a kid frolicking about doing the exact same sorts of things they did?
Actually, no. And please do stop relying on wikipedia for scientific information, there are much better sources.
The information in the WP article is accurate, and i'm not going to start posting citations on Slashdot that are behind a paywall or require a journal, database subscription, or visit to a university library to access.
What are the bad things? You should know already.
I hear that intentionally jumping into the event horizon of a black hole is a pretty bad thing.... as are other seppuku-like acts :)
Translation: I'm a whiny little bitch boy who doesn't want to face up to what we're all doing to the planet [...]
I think you missed the point which was just to go item by item and flaunt everything the post above had stated.
You look like a raging lunatic, with your reply.
The errors are all due to anti-business anti-employer politicis: officials rewriting research reports to make "climate change" more dramatic than it seemed, to justify irrationally extreme measures.
This was all insired by the Nazis' programs, and perpetuated by the fraudulent voting on the last two presidential elections facilitated by advocates for various parties; encouraging various non-eligible people to get votes in and counted, and in and counted again, and a third time, and a fourth time ---- four votes per person: as long as their vote was the right one.
In the absence of overzealous gun control regulation; the fully armed well-regulated militia would have clearly put a stop to all this craziness.
If you look at all their possible sources of revenue (and avenues for growth) and back out a conservative amount of expense, you're looking at a company with about $35 million in earnings.
Their potential sources of future revenue include a portion marketing budgets of 10+ million small businesses in the united states; amounting to a potential of approximately $100 a month per company.
Or perhaps $5 to 10 billion or so a year.