To expand on your idea, our business has 5 IPs that aren't likely to be taken from us (We had 32 at one time, voluntarily dropped to only what we really need). The shortage of IP addresses isn't going to affect the business directly, we won't need more, and everyone that can connect, can connect to us using those IPs. It doesn't make sense to try to switch to IPv6 until we HAVE to. As a matter of fact, there is MORE risk in switching than in not switching, since what we have works and is a known quantity. I'm assuming we can still run the intranet on IPv4 and only the outfacing servers need to be reconfigured to IPv6, but not sure as I haven't really seen anyone simplify what is needed. Oh, and our business provider doesn't offer IPv6.....
Now I would gladly setup on IPv6 at home (if they offered it...) because the cost of downtime and problems is relatively cheap, just reconfigure and try again. It has to START with ALL internet providers offering IPv6 NOW as an option. So as it stands, it is impossible for me to even experiment with IPv6 either at work or at home. Once I am actually able to switch, I have over 30 boxen to switch over. It would be helpful if I could at least test it now.
I'm not sure if running a Tor server or gathering via p2p would be "active" in the same sense I would normally consider "active". This is still on the back side, taking what has already been taken. This is different than doing the initial taking. To do that, you have to be on the inside.
I get what you are saying, but to be clear, when I say "active", I am referring to the initial step of getting the info. Going from "secure" to "no longer secure". After that point, it is mainly courier duty.
Just as on P2P, downloading isn't actively obtaining a movie, it is passively obtaining it. Someone else has already done the real dirty work, the heavy lifting.
It's a race they can't win. But it's cute to watch them scurry around and try.
As soon as it is implemented, they get their check, they have already won. What is sure to expire quicker than anything would be the usefulness of this software, but it only has to look useful for long enough to get some fool to pay you for it. Preferably a great big fool with big ass pockets, like Facebook. "Why, for only 25 cents per user, you can have this new feature." 3. Profit.
When if fails, blame "black hat hack0rz", or better yet, Wikileaks.
When, exactly, has Wikileaks actively gathered evidence? Oh, never. Wikileaks just waits for others to the gathering, they just do the publishing. Next, they will be blaming global warming on Wikileaks.
As someone pointed, out, Churches are non-profit and exempt from most taxes, including local and state taxes in some places, property taxes, sales taxes (again, those depend on the state) and Bush managed to include religious organizations into federal funding as non-profits. Also, when you give money to a church, it is tax deductible, making it a subsidy as well.
Honestly, many churches do great work, and use the money better than any government agency would. Most are legitimate and do at least some good work in the community. Others are a sham. Jim and Tammy Bakker are just the most obvious examples, but it happens much more often on a smaller scale.
But when should you invest extra in infrastructure? During a recession.
100% agree. The time you borrow to "overinvest" is when money is cheapest, labor is plentiful, the impact is the greatest, and you have the ability to stabilize the overall economy by increasing cash flow into the economy. That would be a recession, and if you are going to spend extra money, it should be to push forward projects already passed but not funded. Some of that happened in the "stimulus" but not enough was in long term investments like this.
The idea that government spending creates "growth" is, at best, arguable. It can be used to maybe prevent a further slide (ie: temporarily paying unemployment when there are mass layoff, so those people have money to eat on, so rent is paid, food is bought, etc.) Government spending is a patch, it isn't an investment plan. Notable exceptions would be in infrastructure and other items that the people can't themselves provide, but even then, too much is too much and the payback time for infrastructure is typically measured in years if not decades.
That is just stupid. Learning new things to do the same old thing is useless. If you want to spend time to learn something, try to learn something NEW, or something that adds value to what you do.
My wife found a deal on a laptop the other day, it has a version of office on it. I had to open the help files and dig around just to figure out how to pull up the "about" window, to see what version it is. I learned something alright, that who ever designed the newest office interface is a fucking idiot.
To be perfectly fair, almost no one is going to read the article for a topic like this, and the editors know it. They can just pick any study that MS had any financial input in, and that favors them (in any degree), publish a link, make sweeping claims, so they are simply feeding the fanboys and trolls. These types of articles are never insightful anyway, and most users here have better information about this topic than the authors of the articles. No one on the planet has ever switched platforms because of the contents of these types of articles.
Again, half the crowd on/. likes to intentionally misunderstand in order to karma whore.
To those that really misunderstand: It is a worst case comparison. If you can see why someone as offensive as a drug lord can be adored, then it explains why someone less offensive (yet offensive) like Bill Gates can be adored. You still look at the damage he has done over the years to smaller businesses, which is not trivial.
Lots of drug lords donate enormous amounts of money to their cities neighborhoods. Go look in Columbia. It is one of the reasons they are adored in their own hometowns. Doesn't change the fact that they are drug lords and will kill people to make a profit.
So, perhaps we should look at the TOTALITY of Bill Gates career, rather than just what he did with the money after he got more than he could ever spend.
Another thing, Catholicism never got out of beta. They are still working on the same code base as 2000 years ago. Can't keep people's attentions if you don't add new features.
Respect is one thing, even thieves have mutual respect for each other, but ADMIRED? If true, that would make me want to move to another country, as there is no intelligent life in this one.
G-S didn't get money from the federal reserve, they got it from a bail out fund. So no, in this case, the federal government is NOT a bank. They didn't get a standard loan, they got a bailout loan that had to be authorized by Congress, not the Fed Reserve.
Oh, I believe that. I'm a big fan of letting public businesses do pretty much whatever they want (that is legal...) as long as everything is 100% disclosed in an honest and transparent way. The SEC needs to be the good guys, at least that is the whole reason they are supposed to exist, to make sure there is a level playing field. I'm still doubtful that Facebook is now showing a profit, no matter what the media is reporting. Regardless of what their value is next month or year, it is in the eye of the beholder (stockholder/sucker). As far as a long term investment, you couldn't get me to touch it with a 10 foot pole.
Not confused at all. They owe more than MONEY. You don't get that.
The fed isn't a fucking bank, we had to bail them out because of their own actions, and actions of like banks. What they owe is to move forward in a responsible way so we don't have to bail them out again. They owe the citizens a debt of gratitude. They operate in a free country, they owe it to us to operate ethically. Money isn't the only method for measuring the "quality" of a business. It is also not the only way to measure debt.
Yeah, I get that. I was being sarcastic. Thus the "screwing" of the rest of the world. Seems like everyone on Slashdot has lost the ability to detect sarcasm lately.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if you read the subject line as part of his/her complete sentence.
To expand on your idea, our business has 5 IPs that aren't likely to be taken from us (We had 32 at one time, voluntarily dropped to only what we really need). The shortage of IP addresses isn't going to affect the business directly, we won't need more, and everyone that can connect, can connect to us using those IPs. It doesn't make sense to try to switch to IPv6 until we HAVE to. As a matter of fact, there is MORE risk in switching than in not switching, since what we have works and is a known quantity. I'm assuming we can still run the intranet on IPv4 and only the outfacing servers need to be reconfigured to IPv6, but not sure as I haven't really seen anyone simplify what is needed. Oh, and our business provider doesn't offer IPv6.....
Now I would gladly setup on IPv6 at home (if they offered it...) because the cost of downtime and problems is relatively cheap, just reconfigure and try again. It has to START with ALL internet providers offering IPv6 NOW as an option. So as it stands, it is impossible for me to even experiment with IPv6 either at work or at home. Once I am actually able to switch, I have over 30 boxen to switch over. It would be helpful if I could at least test it now.
Yeah, but they won't say which YEAR...
Personally, I can't wait for Duke Nukem Forever 2 to get released. By then, it will be available as a holonovel, and we will finally have flying cars.
Well, you have Microsoft, and you have "Everyone else". In this instance, only "Everyone else" supports it.
I'm not sure if running a Tor server or gathering via p2p would be "active" in the same sense I would normally consider "active". This is still on the back side, taking what has already been taken. This is different than doing the initial taking. To do that, you have to be on the inside.
I get what you are saying, but to be clear, when I say "active", I am referring to the initial step of getting the info. Going from "secure" to "no longer secure". After that point, it is mainly courier duty.
Just as on P2P, downloading isn't actively obtaining a movie, it is passively obtaining it. Someone else has already done the real dirty work, the heavy lifting.
It's a race they can't win. But it's cute to watch them scurry around and try.
As soon as it is implemented, they get their check, they have already won. What is sure to expire quicker than anything would be the usefulness of this software, but it only has to look useful for long enough to get some fool to pay you for it. Preferably a great big fool with big ass pockets, like Facebook. "Why, for only 25 cents per user, you can have this new feature." 3. Profit.
When if fails, blame "black hat hack0rz", or better yet, Wikileaks.
When, exactly, has Wikileaks actively gathered evidence? Oh, never. Wikileaks just waits for others to the gathering, they just do the publishing. Next, they will be blaming global warming on Wikileaks.
When does government spend on religion?
As someone pointed, out, Churches are non-profit and exempt from most taxes, including local and state taxes in some places, property taxes, sales taxes (again, those depend on the state) and Bush managed to include religious organizations into federal funding as non-profits. Also, when you give money to a church, it is tax deductible, making it a subsidy as well.
Honestly, many churches do great work, and use the money better than any government agency would. Most are legitimate and do at least some good work in the community. Others are a sham. Jim and Tammy Bakker are just the most obvious examples, but it happens much more often on a smaller scale.
But when should you invest extra in infrastructure? During a recession.
100% agree. The time you borrow to "overinvest" is when money is cheapest, labor is plentiful, the impact is the greatest, and you have the ability to stabilize the overall economy by increasing cash flow into the economy. That would be a recession, and if you are going to spend extra money, it should be to push forward projects already passed but not funded. Some of that happened in the "stimulus" but not enough was in long term investments like this.
Congratulations! You've won $38MM in carbon credits!
Sorry, guess he didn't after all. The Czech bounced.
The idea that government spending creates "growth" is, at best, arguable. It can be used to maybe prevent a further slide (ie: temporarily paying unemployment when there are mass layoff, so those people have money to eat on, so rent is paid, food is bought, etc.) Government spending is a patch, it isn't an investment plan. Notable exceptions would be in infrastructure and other items that the people can't themselves provide, but even then, too much is too much and the payback time for infrastructure is typically measured in years if not decades.
That is just stupid. Learning new things to do the same old thing is useless. If you want to spend time to learn something, try to learn something NEW, or something that adds value to what you do.
My wife found a deal on a laptop the other day, it has a version of office on it. I had to open the help files and dig around just to figure out how to pull up the "about" window, to see what version it is. I learned something alright, that who ever designed the newest office interface is a fucking idiot.
To be perfectly fair, almost no one is going to read the article for a topic like this, and the editors know it. They can just pick any study that MS had any financial input in, and that favors them (in any degree), publish a link, make sweeping claims, so they are simply feeding the fanboys and trolls. These types of articles are never insightful anyway, and most users here have better information about this topic than the authors of the articles. No one on the planet has ever switched platforms because of the contents of these types of articles.
You know how sometimes you get a song stuck in your head all day? If you aren't paying royalties for each time it plays, you are a pirate as well.
Again, half the crowd on /. likes to intentionally misunderstand in order to karma whore.
To those that really misunderstand: It is a worst case comparison. If you can see why someone as offensive as a drug lord can be adored, then it explains why someone less offensive (yet offensive) like Bill Gates can be adored. You still look at the damage he has done over the years to smaller businesses, which is not trivial.
Well, those are new-ish features, granted, just not earth shaking. Kind of like Buddy Christ. More of a repackaging of old than creation of new.
Islam was more of a "Patch Tuesday" thing that ended up breaking a lot of things. Unfortunately, it didn't come with an uninstall feature.
Lots of drug lords donate enormous amounts of money to their cities neighborhoods. Go look in Columbia. It is one of the reasons they are adored in their own hometowns. Doesn't change the fact that they are drug lords and will kill people to make a profit.
So, perhaps we should look at the TOTALITY of Bill Gates career, rather than just what he did with the money after he got more than he could ever spend.
Another thing, Catholicism never got out of beta. They are still working on the same code base as 2000 years ago. Can't keep people's attentions if you don't add new features.
I was raised devout Catholic. I got over it.
Respect is one thing, even thieves have mutual respect for each other, but ADMIRED? If true, that would make me want to move to another country, as there is no intelligent life in this one.
G-S didn't get money from the federal reserve, they got it from a bail out fund. So no, in this case, the federal government is NOT a bank. They didn't get a standard loan, they got a bailout loan that had to be authorized by Congress, not the Fed Reserve.
Oh, I believe that. I'm a big fan of letting public businesses do pretty much whatever they want (that is legal...) as long as everything is 100% disclosed in an honest and transparent way. The SEC needs to be the good guys, at least that is the whole reason they are supposed to exist, to make sure there is a level playing field. I'm still doubtful that Facebook is now showing a profit, no matter what the media is reporting. Regardless of what their value is next month or year, it is in the eye of the beholder (stockholder/sucker). As far as a long term investment, you couldn't get me to touch it with a 10 foot pole.
Not confused at all. They owe more than MONEY. You don't get that.
The fed isn't a fucking bank, we had to bail them out because of their own actions, and actions of like banks. What they owe is to move forward in a responsible way so we don't have to bail them out again. They owe the citizens a debt of gratitude. They operate in a free country, they owe it to us to operate ethically. Money isn't the only method for measuring the "quality" of a business. It is also not the only way to measure debt.
Yeah, I get that. I was being sarcastic. Thus the "screwing" of the rest of the world. Seems like everyone on Slashdot has lost the ability to detect sarcasm lately.