Something very important to understand about assumptions and faith: they should be supported by available evidence, they do not oppose or withstand overwhelming evidence. It's good to have faith in your ability to achieve your goals. It is not good to have faith in your ability to sprout wings and fly.
BTW: You have a pretty serious mis-understanding about the big bang. The big bang is a theory based on an observation that all the matter & energy in the universe appears to be moving away from a centeral point. It explores the origin of the current state of our universe. You will not find a scientist who says: "First there was nothing, and then there was a big bang."
You can't have equal opportunity for actors with unequal resources. In an even playing field, actors use any advantage they can to eliminate competition. The most effective tool in that box being mergers and acquisitions. Equilibrium in an unregulated economy is to have a few large, powerful players controlling all resources.
By the same token, there are two types of communism - a pure type where all resources are shared by the people for the good of the people. The other is what we end up with, and is closer to fascism.
The dream market will never exist. It will always degrade into something else.
Personally, I think that the new vanity top level domains are more or less just a big money grab by ICANN. They don't solve the problem of domain exhaustion, and they simply create a larger number of domains that big companies need to aquire to protect their brand image.
IMO,.com,.org, and.net made a lot of sense back when we were validating that the company applying was actually registered as a business, a non profit org, or a network provider. These days, with no validation, it makes no sense at all. I'd throw them away, and replace them with a unified name..gov,.edu, etc still have that kind of enforcement. I'd keep em, but would probably put them under a cc tld, or open them up to global governments.
I'd also keep the.cc TLDs, but with the stipulation that companies registering those names had to have a business presence in each locality. This is difficult however, because the cc TLDs really should be delegated to their individual countries, and as we've seen, Samoa has absolutely no problem selling.ws vanity TLDs.
I'd probably open up a few domains for vanity use, with specific applications. A possible example might be.person, which could be registered by individuals for vanity domains in their name.
In short, I'd design DNS more like a well architected LDAP namespace.
There's lots of stuff connected to the internet that isn't HTTP. The www nomenclature makes sense in that respect. And there's absolutely nothing stopping a system admin from also making domain.com point to a web server - in fact, doing so is pretty common these days.
It was a nice life lesson; I know now that anybody advocating the extreme is pushing an ideal on you, not a true way to live your life. Hard work, living a happy life, and helping others when you are both able and willing to do so is the way to go; and if you get some sort of crazy good benefits offered to you along the way, pounce like a puma.
Extremes are easy... So people tend to like them. Toeing the objectivist line gives a really defined set of values, clear set of right and wrong. It doesn't take much intelligence to live up to, and doesn't leave a person with many stressful and unclear decision. It's great so long as you totally believe and are totally invested in the outcome.
In the real world, the word of the day is equilibrium. The world is made up of opposing ideals and forces butting heads against each other. Most of the ideal solutions have already been discovered, and what's left is attempting to find a point of least pain between multiple opposing ideals, each pushing their way to what will ultimately be a non-ideal outcome.
What he meant is that when a woman applies for, then gets a job, where almost her sole purpose is to be a sexual object and to dress sexually, in an effort to promote her body in some vague conjunction with a product, then she deserves to be treated as a sexual object.
In the same way someone who applies for, then gets a job, where her sole purpose is to defend the law, should be treated as an officer of the law. Likewise a woman who applies for, then gets a job, where her sole purpose is "dispensing the word of god" in a safe and conservative setting, should be treated as a nun.
You're applying your values to a profession, and then stating that people should expect to be treated according to the values you just applied.
I could just as easily say: "her purpose is to look sexy. She should expect to be treated like someone who is attractive" and "The officer's job is to bust heads, so he deserves to be treated like a brute."
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
If I'm wrong, I loose nothing. If I'm right, you lose everything.
Remember that being a good believer means making huge sacrafices in your life - the path to heaven isn't paved by attending church once or twice a year and professing belief in Jesus. If you are wrong, you have wasted your opportunity at life and happiness. You will have lost everything.
Very few tasks on modern systems are CPU limited. For highly virtualized enviornments, the major limiting factor tends to be memory, and/or disk IO.
Virtualization won't solve the disk IO problem, but it doesn't really hurt there either - you can still map a raw LUN from your san to the VM, without any real performance penalty.
Virtualization will almost always improve the memory situation - it permits the use of shared memory, where blocks of memory can be de-duplicated across multiple hosts, significantly reducing memory requirements.
I agree that there are some kinds of commute farms that really may not benefit from Virtualization... But the vast majority of apps, even DB servers, can.
This isn't really a problem. First, if you have a reasonable sized infrastructure, it makes sense to build a redundent vCenter instance... And IIRC, it may be clustered. Second, if you kill your vCenter instance, you can still connect directly to your ESXi hosts using the vSphere client. You'll still retain the ability to manage network connections, disks, access the console, etc.
I'm not a hiring manager, but I am involved in the interview process and hiring decisions. Biggest issue that I've experienced is related to employer expectations.
Most of the sites I work at have small IT teams; 5-10 people. These sites generally seem to be looking for a small group of fairly Sr. level people. The pool of Sr. level guys is fairly small, so demand is super high if you have 10+ years of solid IT experience. It's hard to fill positions. Most of the people we've hired have been in the industry since the late 90s. The talent pool really doesn't appear to have grown much in the last 10 years, and because companies aren't willing to hire Jr. level admins, it really doesn't seem to grow.
Benefits and pay are great if you qualify for positions. If you're mid level to Jr. level, it's hard to get hired, and pay isn't enough to support a family, in the bay area.
The situation appears to be even more difficult over-seas, based on my observation. On the plus side, it means that IT is a skill that can get you a job pretty much anywhere in the world.
I think the small team mentality is getting worse with the move to VMs. Less hardware and better tools means that less manpower is necessary to manage large networks.
The path forward, IMO... Is for Sr. Level people to move towards a role of designing and building systems that the Jr. and mid level guys can operate. If you have a team of Sr. level people making routine changes (building VMs, DNS changes, monitoring hosts, etc.) then you are wasting a lot of money.
The US legal system seperates civial law suits from criminal law.
Criminal law applies punishment based on what laws were broken. This usually includes fines, and may include punishment such as license suspension and jail time. If he had been drunk when he hit the motorcyclist, he'd probably be in jail now. But texting isn't treated the same way, so the punishment isn't severe. The fines here are probably along the lines of 'distracted driving, resulting in bodily injury.' The facts of this case are probably simple, and the driver probably plead 'no contest.'
Civil law comes into play when you've harmed someone. Civil law seeks to make the harmed party whole, and put a $$$ figure on both tangable losses (motorcycle is broken, and can't work) as well as intangable losses (the riders are emotionally traumatized.) This case is going to be a big battle, because they need to determine the level of liability, as well as what is just compensation. The end award will probably be hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars. Civil court cannot directly send someone to jail.
Criminal law is a crime against the people, and prosocuted by the DA. Civil law is about injury to the plaintiff, and is usually prosocuted by the plaintiff's lawyer.
When the US government bombs an enemy military structure, we issue a triumphant press release. When an anonymous US citizen bombs a US military structure we release the hounds.
Slashdot complains a lot that the US justice system doesn't seem to understand how to apply existing privacy and copyright law to the internet... And we can't seem to figure out how existing forign policy might apply to the internet. Nice.:)
Agreed and understood. But, most of the employees who have stock cannot sell it, and those that can sell probably won't. As it stands, it seems like FB really can't go lower than it is, right now.
I've seen a few comments suggesting that the failure for the stock to rise above the IPO price is a sign that the stock was right priced at the opening.
I don't understand this statement. Is it possibe for the stock to go significantly below the IPO price at this point? I'm sure that the employees with stock options are locked in, and unable to share. Not sure if similar agreements exist with the early investors, but I suspect they do.
How is this right pricing? Seems like the stock really can't go any lower.
I'm glad they are doing this. I'm currently paying ~$100 a month, and the only reason I keep Verizon is that I'm not on contract, and I have an unlimited plan that would be impossible to replace if I cancelled.
I've been with Verizon since owning a Motorola Startac. Killing the unlimited plan should make the switch to another provider painless.
Slashdot Mirror
Something very important to understand about assumptions and faith: they should be supported by available evidence, they do not oppose or withstand overwhelming evidence. It's good to have faith in your ability to achieve your goals. It is not good to have faith in your ability to sprout wings and fly.
BTW: You have a pretty serious mis-understanding about the big bang. The big bang is a theory based on an observation that all the matter & energy in the universe appears to be moving away from a centeral point. It explores the origin of the current state of our universe. You will not find a scientist who says: "First there was nothing, and then there was a big bang."
I assume, same species, living/breathing, and not same gender are typically on that list.
It's impossible to steal something that is being freely offered.
You can't have equal opportunity for actors with unequal resources. In an even playing field, actors use any advantage they can to eliminate competition. The most effective tool in that box being mergers and acquisitions. Equilibrium in an unregulated economy is to have a few large, powerful players controlling all resources.
And you sir, are simply a resource.
By the same token, there are two types of communism - a pure type where all resources are shared by the people for the good of the people. The other is what we end up with, and is closer to fascism.
The dream market will never exist. It will always degrade into something else.
Personally, I think that the new vanity top level domains are more or less just a big money grab by ICANN. They don't solve the problem of domain exhaustion, and they simply create a larger number of domains that big companies need to aquire to protect their brand image.
IMO, .com, .org, and .net made a lot of sense back when we were validating that the company applying was actually registered as a business, a non profit org, or a network provider. These days, with no validation, it makes no sense at all. I'd throw them away, and replace them with a unified name. .gov, .edu, etc still have that kind of enforcement. I'd keep em, but would probably put them under a cc tld, or open them up to global governments.
I'd also keep the .cc TLDs, but with the stipulation that companies registering those names had to have a business presence in each locality. This is difficult however, because the cc TLDs really should be delegated to their individual countries, and as we've seen, Samoa has absolutely no problem selling .ws vanity TLDs.
I'd probably open up a few domains for vanity use, with specific applications. A possible example might be .person, which could be registered by individuals for vanity domains in their name.
In short, I'd design DNS more like a well architected LDAP namespace.
There's lots of stuff connected to the internet that isn't HTTP. The www nomenclature makes sense in that respect. And there's absolutely nothing stopping a system admin from also making domain.com point to a web server - in fact, doing so is pretty common these days.
Extremes are easy... So people tend to like them. Toeing the objectivist line gives a really defined set of values, clear set of right and wrong. It doesn't take much intelligence to live up to, and doesn't leave a person with many stressful and unclear decision. It's great so long as you totally believe and are totally invested in the outcome.
In the real world, the word of the day is equilibrium. The world is made up of opposing ideals and forces butting heads against each other. Most of the ideal solutions have already been discovered, and what's left is attempting to find a point of least pain between multiple opposing ideals, each pushing their way to what will ultimately be a non-ideal outcome.
You're applying your values to a profession, and then stating that people should expect to be treated according to the values you just applied.
I could just as easily say: "her purpose is to look sexy. She should expect to be treated like someone who is attractive" and "The officer's job is to bust heads, so he deserves to be treated like a brute."
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
Remember that being a good believer means making huge sacrafices in your life - the path to heaven isn't paved by attending church once or twice a year and professing belief in Jesus. If you are wrong, you have wasted your opportunity at life and happiness. You will have lost everything.
Very few tasks on modern systems are CPU limited. For highly virtualized enviornments, the major limiting factor tends to be memory, and/or disk IO.
Virtualization won't solve the disk IO problem, but it doesn't really hurt there either - you can still map a raw LUN from your san to the VM, without any real performance penalty.
Virtualization will almost always improve the memory situation - it permits the use of shared memory, where blocks of memory can be de-duplicated across multiple hosts, significantly reducing memory requirements.
I agree that there are some kinds of commute farms that really may not benefit from Virtualization... But the vast majority of apps, even DB servers, can.
This isn't really a problem. First, if you have a reasonable sized infrastructure, it makes sense to build a redundent vCenter instance... And IIRC, it may be clustered. Second, if you kill your vCenter instance, you can still connect directly to your ESXi hosts using the vSphere client. You'll still retain the ability to manage network connections, disks, access the console, etc.
I'm not a hiring manager, but I am involved in the interview process and hiring decisions. Biggest issue that I've experienced is related to employer expectations.
Most of the sites I work at have small IT teams; 5-10 people. These sites generally seem to be looking for a small group of fairly Sr. level people. The pool of Sr. level guys is fairly small, so demand is super high if you have 10+ years of solid IT experience. It's hard to fill positions. Most of the people we've hired have been in the industry since the late 90s. The talent pool really doesn't appear to have grown much in the last 10 years, and because companies aren't willing to hire Jr. level admins, it really doesn't seem to grow.
Benefits and pay are great if you qualify for positions. If you're mid level to Jr. level, it's hard to get hired, and pay isn't enough to support a family, in the bay area.
The situation appears to be even more difficult over-seas, based on my observation. On the plus side, it means that IT is a skill that can get you a job pretty much anywhere in the world.
I think the small team mentality is getting worse with the move to VMs. Less hardware and better tools means that less manpower is necessary to manage large networks.
The path forward, IMO... Is for Sr. Level people to move towards a role of designing and building systems that the Jr. and mid level guys can operate. If you have a team of Sr. level people making routine changes (building VMs, DNS changes, monitoring hosts, etc.) then you are wasting a lot of money.
The US legal system seperates civial law suits from criminal law.
Criminal law applies punishment based on what laws were broken. This usually includes fines, and may include punishment such as license suspension and jail time. If he had been drunk when he hit the motorcyclist, he'd probably be in jail now. But texting isn't treated the same way, so the punishment isn't severe. The fines here are probably along the lines of 'distracted driving, resulting in bodily injury.' The facts of this case are probably simple, and the driver probably plead 'no contest.'
Civil law comes into play when you've harmed someone. Civil law seeks to make the harmed party whole, and put a $$$ figure on both tangable losses (motorcycle is broken, and can't work) as well as intangable losses (the riders are emotionally traumatized.) This case is going to be a big battle, because they need to determine the level of liability, as well as what is just compensation. The end award will probably be hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars. Civil court cannot directly send someone to jail.
Criminal law is a crime against the people, and prosocuted by the DA. Civil law is about injury to the plaintiff, and is usually prosocuted by the plaintiff's lawyer.
When the US government bombs an enemy military structure, we issue a triumphant press release. When an anonymous US citizen bombs a US military structure we release the hounds.
Slashdot complains a lot that the US justice system doesn't seem to understand how to apply existing privacy and copyright law to the internet... And we can't seem to figure out how existing forign policy might apply to the internet. Nice. :)
If someone gets beat to shit because they are an asshole, I can avoid the same fate by not being an asshole.
If someone is beat to shit because of their skin color, I cannot change my skin color to avoid the same fate.
Agreed and understood. But, most of the employees who have stock cannot sell it, and those that can sell probably won't. As it stands, it seems like FB really can't go lower than it is, right now.
I've seen a few comments suggesting that the failure for the stock to rise above the IPO price is a sign that the stock was right priced at the opening.
I don't understand this statement. Is it possibe for the stock to go significantly below the IPO price at this point? I'm sure that the employees with stock options are locked in, and unable to share. Not sure if similar agreements exist with the early investors, but I suspect they do.
How is this right pricing? Seems like the stock really can't go any lower.
A lot of variants of the '96 StarTAC were produced, and it continued to sell through the early 2000s, if I recall correctly.
I'm glad they are doing this. I'm currently paying ~$100 a month, and the only reason I keep Verizon is that I'm not on contract, and I have an unlimited plan that would be impossible to replace if I cancelled.
I've been with Verizon since owning a Motorola Startac. Killing the unlimited plan should make the switch to another provider painless.
I'm not convinced that there are significantly more theaters now than there were 10 years ago. If anything, they seem to be closing.
As I recall, we faught the king because we were being taxed without political representation...
A slightly better indicator is to compare opening weekends against the inflation of ticket prices.
http://boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm
By these measures. Titanic's inflation adjusted opening was only ~$50,000,000, inflation adjusted.
I also looked at Lord of the Rings, Avatar, and Gone with the Wind. Adjusting for inflation, none of them even came close to the Avengers.
I highly suspect that these are the same people who will end up watching the movie at 60fps on their 1080p TV, when it finally hits blue-ray.
Honestly, this is a pretty standard pavlovian response.
If you are allowed to skip the crap at the beginning of the game, it'll make the game less cinimatic.