The USPS doesn't really offer tracking, they offer delivery confirmation, which is what the service is called if you buy it (or if it's included on products like Priority Mail).
I would like to second this. I once inherited support of an OS X server that had previously been under the jurisdiction of one of our Solaris admins. Configurations on that system were... interesting. Especially user accounts (yes, you could hand-roll everything using the NetInfo command-line interface, but unless you actually used the GUI for at least one user and checked the details, you were going to miss something.
Ultimately, money goes to employ someone. The exceptions are the rare cases where someone socks it away under their mattress.
This is actually a common assumption that just isn't true for certain segments of the population. The "sock it away in a mattress" scenario is the exception for the comparatively poor, but for the comparatively wealthy, it's the rule. Take for example, $100 in the hands of a) someone who is paid $30,000/yr., vs. b) someone who is paid $300,000/yr. (Note I didn't say "earns" in either case; that's a different discussion).
Person a is likely to spend that $100, putting it back into circulation and as you say, eventually employing someone. Person b, however, is more likely than not going to put it either in that figurative mattress, or in some kind of market-based investment, fueling speculation in commodities and driving up the prices of basic goods, in the end making it harder to employ people because more money has to go to pay for the speculation.
If we had anything resembling a labor shortage, then my money would be better spent in the self-checkout line, freeing up someone to do something more productive. But in our current economy (and I mean in general, not just since 2008), if I want my dollar to do some real work, I'm better off if it goes to paying a cashier than an executive.
Real cell carriers discount your service if it's not subsidizing a phone purchase. Unfortunately, the US Cell Phone Syndicate hates that, and is trying to shut down the only well-behaved cell carrier that operates on a national scale.
The politicians won't give an answer either way. The evidence tells me that Social Security won't have the money to pay out benefits in another decade.
I am curious; who was it that finally fixed samba to respect/understand file streams(NTFS) and resource forks(HFS) so we could switch between them?
I also agree with your point on software patents being toxic; however, this is like the banning of smoking indoors. If one bar or poolhall on the street bans smoking, they'll loose their clientele and go under; if one town in an area bans smoking, their bars and poolhalls will loose their clientele and go under. No company can ditch software patents unilaterally, and remain in business; it must be a government action to be effective.
Your management runs a company, which has a core mission which isn't IT and software maintenance. They're used to paying for the peace of mind that support contracts provide, and RedHat, Sun/Oracle, IBM and their ilk sell software and services to businesses. However, Apple's bread and butter is the consumer market, and those are not the sort of folks that pay for a support contract.
Once upon a time, Seagate and WD both sold reliable disks in the consumer space. Then, Seagate bought Maxtor, and Seagate's consumer grade disks quickly fell to match the reliability of Maxtor's consumer disks. Seagate's "Enterprise" disks, at 2-3x the cost, are still decent, but why buy those when you WD's consumer-grade disks are still reliable? And now we won't be able to trust WD's lower-priced disks, and we'll have to buy REA3s or 4s (or 5s?) to be able to trust our spindles.
It looks like the price of hard disks just doubled. Impressive.
After 15 years of computer support, I'd have to say that the cursor is generally sitting at the desk looking at the screen or some other peripheral. You can usually gauge the level of difficulty the cursor is experiencing based on the volume of the cursing.
Sure they are. "Partly cloudy, with a chance of rain." That right there means it could do just about anything, and he's still right. The key to accurate weather prediction is to be just vague enough.
It's like parlor psychics and tarot readers; keep it vague enough, and it pretty much has to come true.
In the world of finance, accounting folks are required to take two consecutive weeks of vacation without access to systems per year, on the premise that any shenanigans will come to light during that time.
So, following that model, sysadmins should have to take two weeks of consecutive vacation without access to systems...
As a former student, I'd like to point out that having a notebook computer for taking notes helps a lot, and expecting me to close my notebook (paper or computer) while the professor is speaking is obviously (one would hope) absurd.
The problem is one of use. Block FaceBook, Twitter, and YouTube at the border of the classrooms' subnet and this problem goes away.
With enough time and attention to detail, one can typically improve any menial skill. However, if my goal is to learn history or philosophy or economics, then focusing on my handwriting is a huge waste of time, considering that I have a machine that allows me to type notes at about eighty words per minute and still have them be clearly legible and even better, searchable.
There's an old joke about doctors having horrible handwriting such that only pharmacists can decipher it. This is because med-students have better things to learn than handwriting. Incidentally, so do engineering students, law students, and pretty much anyone else.
Just ask a Mac guy who had to ditch his software collection every time Apple released a new MacOS....
The only commercial (i.e., binary-only distribution) software I've ever had to "ditch" when changing processor architectures on a Macintosh was Finale, not because the software stopped working but because the copy-protection scheme did, and as such the software could not be activated (and would only run in a 30-day trial mode). I've never had to forego software just because of an OS upgrade.
I would also suggest you have a funny definition of "without problem." For a good example, try installing and running Microsoft Access 97 on Windows XP SP3, much less Vista or Windows 7. Will it work? Eventually. Will it work "without problem"? I'm not sure it qualifies.
The problem you cite here is principally the result of the Primary Election system we have in the US. Because the parties get together and pick their champions to duel on election day in a winner-take-all gladiator-style matchup, they pick the most extreme candidate they can. Then the country has to choose between two extremes, either one of whom is going to be loathed and detested by half the population. The moderate conservatives and moderate liberals are filtered out by the primaries; we never have a chance to vote for one of them in a general election.
There are gobs of alternatives to this sort of system, but I haven't had a chance to research them all well enough to pick my favorite.
In clarification of points 2&3 (which I agree are major hurdles):
The problem with home 3D is that it doesn't use the same equipment as theater 3D technology. In a theater, there's a shutter in front of the lens that polarizes the alternating frames, to fool your eyes, and all you need are the cheap plastic glasses to see the effect. For home use, they build the shutter into the glasses, which have to then synchronize with the player so that your shutter switches at the same time your player does; that's what costs $99/pair (a year or so ago, it was about $200/pair). I'm not sure why these glasses are still so expensive; SGI has been using them for 3D imaging with a CRT monitor since at least 1990. They do kind of make it impossible to have 3D movie night at home with more than two or three people.
When I visited Ireland in 1999, my uncle told me that it was very difficult to find a car with an engine displacement of more than 2.0L, on account of the way road taxes were levied. To call a 3L engine "small displacement" just highlights the disparity between the US and Europe in terms of fuel prices/usage. I recognize your point; a mid-90's Buick LeSabre (not even one of the biggest ones) had a 3.8L V6; displacements close to 2.5L are a lot smaller than they used to be here, but really, they're still bigger than they need to be.
That said, I saw a billboard yesterday advertising a new car model: apparently, Ford is bringing the Fiesta (back) to the US.
No. I'm arguing that codifying rules opens things up to be gamed because people know expressly what they can and can't do. It's great if you've got the smartest the universe has to offer making the rules and they get it right in the beginning. Otherwise, you end up with spaghetti law that has to constantly be patched to cover up oversights and changes in the world, which leads to system in which no one really knows what the rules are.
This seems to contradict your previous assertion that we'd see better results if no one knew exactly what the rules were, and had to be careful not to break any rules "just in case" to avoid social scorn. I would support an argument that the US/UK system(s) of common law lead to some messy legal landscapes, but the solution to that is civil law, not lack of law.
My real argument is that the government shouldn't even be involved in creating these artificial entities we call corporations. How many problems would be solved if the government just stayed out of it and there was no such thing as a corporation? Since that's where most of the pro-government rants seem to be targeted, it's amusing to me that there would be no corporations without the government being involved to begin with.
People have basic rights. If Walmart or whoever is violating those, someone needs to do some time. Otherwise, I don't really care. I don't even know what "livable wages" are. Seems to me, most of the people I see working at WM are your typical fat, lazy Americans. They're certainly making much more than enough to eat. And never mind what the other 95+% of the world seems to be able to live on.
Our definition of necessity is a bit warped here in the materialistic American culture. "Livable" is quite doable on those wages. The problem is we're a wanting culture and that requires money to satisfy. We'd probably be better off as a nation if that's all anyone made. Our priorities might actually get straight.
The concept of a "Livable wage" and the effects of poverty on dietary habits and obesity aside, how do you determine when someone's basic rights are being violated? How do you determine who's culpable, and who should "do time"?
You clearly point out the consequence of regulation. It is great for maintaining the status quo. You can't regulate progress, because you don't know where you're going. Without progress, problems don't get solved.
And, collapse is a good thing. If we'd stop jumping in and rescuing everyone, that would reduce volatility. By artificially removing risk for corporations and individuals, we're encouraging risky behavior.
Regulations are only good for solving problems we've already had. And, they always create new ones. The whole financial collapse was setup by the regulations that came out of the S&L failures in the early 90's. They always create more problems than they solve.
You may want to check your timeline. The financial collapse came about when the regulations that were put in place as a result of the S&L failures in the 80's and 90's were lifted. While the regulations were in place, we had a relatively smooth economic picture. Take the regulations off the financial sector, and we had an incredible surge, followed by a spectacular blowout.
You're correct that regulations tend to prevent the problems that we already know might happen, and don't protect against the new ones. You are incorrect in your assertion that regulations prevent all progress. Regulation is like the speed limits and weight limits on the highway. It dictates some restraint, so you can reach your destination (e.g., make progress) without being a menace to the other people around you. You may not be able to get as much stuff to your destination as fast as you'd like, but the chances that you'll lose control and kill everyone else on the road are significantly reduced. And while you might argue that "Hey, I'd be a responsible driver/citize
Slashdot Mirror
The USPS doesn't really offer tracking, they offer delivery confirmation, which is what the service is called if you buy it (or if it's included on products like Priority Mail).
I would like to second this. I once inherited support of an OS X server that had previously been under the jurisdiction of one of our Solaris admins. Configurations on that system were... interesting. Especially user accounts (yes, you could hand-roll everything using the NetInfo command-line interface, but unless you actually used the GUI for at least one user and checked the details, you were going to miss something.
eBay?
Out of curiosity, do you get much demand for restored Apple IIe's?
Ultimately, money goes to employ someone. The exceptions are the rare cases where someone socks it away under their mattress.
This is actually a common assumption that just isn't true for certain segments of the population. The "sock it away in a mattress" scenario is the exception for the comparatively poor, but for the comparatively wealthy, it's the rule. Take for example, $100 in the hands of a) someone who is paid $30,000/yr., vs. b) someone who is paid $300,000/yr. (Note I didn't say "earns" in either case; that's a different discussion).
Person a is likely to spend that $100, putting it back into circulation and as you say, eventually employing someone. Person b, however, is more likely than not going to put it either in that figurative mattress, or in some kind of market-based investment, fueling speculation in commodities and driving up the prices of basic goods, in the end making it harder to employ people because more money has to go to pay for the speculation.
If we had anything resembling a labor shortage, then my money would be better spent in the self-checkout line, freeing up someone to do something more productive. But in our current economy (and I mean in general, not just since 2008), if I want my dollar to do some real work, I'm better off if it goes to paying a cashier than an executive.
Yes. And subjecting yourself to wasted time and a drain on resources by doing so. So, exactly like a flu shot.
Real cell carriers discount your service if it's not subsidizing a phone purchase. Unfortunately, the US Cell Phone Syndicate hates that, and is trying to shut down the only well-behaved cell carrier that operates on a national scale.
The politicians won't give an answer either way. The evidence tells me that Social Security won't have the money to pay out benefits in another decade.
That doesn't seem unreasonable. I mean, how many of them do you have to squeeze to get a whole bottle of oil?
I am curious; who was it that finally fixed samba to respect/understand file streams(NTFS) and resource forks(HFS) so we could switch between them?
I also agree with your point on software patents being toxic; however, this is like the banning of smoking indoors. If one bar or poolhall on the street bans smoking, they'll loose their clientele and go under; if one town in an area bans smoking, their bars and poolhalls will loose their clientele and go under. No company can ditch software patents unilaterally, and remain in business; it must be a government action to be effective.
Your management runs a company, which has a core mission which isn't IT and software maintenance. They're used to paying for the peace of mind that support contracts provide, and RedHat, Sun/Oracle, IBM and their ilk sell software and services to businesses. However, Apple's bread and butter is the consumer market, and those are not the sort of folks that pay for a support contract.
Unions are an artificial attempt to prop up wages that the market will not support.
Unions aren't just, or even mostly, about wages. Unions negotiate a lot of other things, such as working conditions.
Once upon a time, Seagate and WD both sold reliable disks in the consumer space. Then, Seagate bought Maxtor, and Seagate's consumer grade disks quickly fell to match the reliability of Maxtor's consumer disks. Seagate's "Enterprise" disks, at 2-3x the cost, are still decent, but why buy those when you WD's consumer-grade disks are still reliable? And now we won't be able to trust WD's lower-priced disks, and we'll have to buy REA3s or 4s (or 5s?) to be able to trust our spindles.
It looks like the price of hard disks just doubled. Impressive.
After 15 years of computer support, I'd have to say that the cursor is generally sitting at the desk looking at the screen or some other peripheral. You can usually gauge the level of difficulty the cursor is experiencing based on the volume of the cursing.
Sure they are. "Partly cloudy, with a chance of rain." That right there means it could do just about anything, and he's still right. The key to accurate weather prediction is to be just vague enough.
It's like parlor psychics and tarot readers; keep it vague enough, and it pretty much has to come true.
The difference, as explained to me (admittedly,by a pothead):
A drunk driver will drive through a stop sign as though it isn't even there.
A stoned driver will stop at the stop sign and wait for it to turn green.
In the world of finance, accounting folks are required to take two consecutive weeks of vacation without access to systems per year, on the premise that any shenanigans will come to light during that time.
So, following that model, sysadmins should have to take two weeks of consecutive vacation without access to systems...
Thanks. I'll be here all night...
As a former student, I'd like to point out that having a notebook computer for taking notes helps a lot, and expecting me to close my notebook (paper or computer) while the professor is speaking is obviously (one would hope) absurd.
The problem is one of use. Block FaceBook, Twitter, and YouTube at the border of the classrooms' subnet and this problem goes away.
With enough time and attention to detail, one can typically improve any menial skill. However, if my goal is to learn history or philosophy or economics, then focusing on my handwriting is a huge waste of time, considering that I have a machine that allows me to type notes at about eighty words per minute and still have them be clearly legible and even better, searchable.
There's an old joke about doctors having horrible handwriting such that only pharmacists can decipher it. This is because med-students have better things to learn than handwriting. Incidentally, so do engineering students, law students, and pretty much anyone else.
Just ask a Mac guy who had to ditch his software collection every time Apple released a new MacOS....
The only commercial (i.e., binary-only distribution) software I've ever had to "ditch" when changing processor architectures on a Macintosh was Finale, not because the software stopped working but because the copy-protection scheme did, and as such the software could not be activated (and would only run in a 30-day trial mode). I've never had to forego software just because of an OS upgrade.
I would also suggest you have a funny definition of "without problem." For a good example, try installing and running Microsoft Access 97 on Windows XP SP3, much less Vista or Windows 7. Will it work? Eventually. Will it work "without problem"? I'm not sure it qualifies.
The problem you cite here is principally the result of the Primary Election system we have in the US. Because the parties get together and pick their champions to duel on election day in a winner-take-all gladiator-style matchup, they pick the most extreme candidate they can. Then the country has to choose between two extremes, either one of whom is going to be loathed and detested by half the population. The moderate conservatives and moderate liberals are filtered out by the primaries; we never have a chance to vote for one of them in a general election.
There are gobs of alternatives to this sort of system, but I haven't had a chance to research them all well enough to pick my favorite.
In clarification of points 2&3 (which I agree are major hurdles):
The problem with home 3D is that it doesn't use the same equipment as theater 3D technology. In a theater, there's a shutter in front of the lens that polarizes the alternating frames, to fool your eyes, and all you need are the cheap plastic glasses to see the effect. For home use, they build the shutter into the glasses, which have to then synchronize with the player so that your shutter switches at the same time your player does; that's what costs $99/pair (a year or so ago, it was about $200/pair). I'm not sure why these glasses are still so expensive; SGI has been using them for 3D imaging with a CRT monitor since at least 1990. They do kind of make it impossible to have 3D movie night at home with more than two or three people.
When I visited Ireland in 1999, my uncle told me that it was very difficult to find a car with an engine displacement of more than 2.0L, on account of the way road taxes were levied. To call a 3L engine "small displacement" just highlights the disparity between the US and Europe in terms of fuel prices/usage. I recognize your point; a mid-90's Buick LeSabre (not even one of the biggest ones) had a 3.8L V6; displacements close to 2.5L are a lot smaller than they used to be here, but really, they're still bigger than they need to be.
That said, I saw a billboard yesterday advertising a new car model: apparently, Ford is bringing the Fiesta (back) to the US.
I suspect that the "giant vacuum cleaner" business model is the intended goal, though they'd prefer to operate it on your wallet than in space.
No. I'm arguing that codifying rules opens things up to be gamed because people know expressly what they can and can't do. It's great if you've got the smartest the universe has to offer making the rules and they get it right in the beginning. Otherwise, you end up with spaghetti law that has to constantly be patched to cover up oversights and changes in the world, which leads to system in which no one really knows what the rules are.
This seems to contradict your previous assertion that we'd see better results if no one knew exactly what the rules were, and had to be careful not to break any rules "just in case" to avoid social scorn. I would support an argument that the US/UK system(s) of common law lead to some messy legal landscapes, but the solution to that is civil law, not lack of law.
My real argument is that the government shouldn't even be involved in creating these artificial entities we call corporations. How many problems would be solved if the government just stayed out of it and there was no such thing as a corporation? Since that's where most of the pro-government rants seem to be targeted, it's amusing to me that there would be no corporations without the government being involved to begin with.
People have basic rights. If Walmart or whoever is violating those, someone needs to do some time. Otherwise, I don't really care. I don't even know what "livable wages" are. Seems to me, most of the people I see working at WM are your typical fat, lazy Americans. They're certainly making much more than enough to eat. And never mind what the other 95+% of the world seems to be able to live on.
Our definition of necessity is a bit warped here in the materialistic American culture. "Livable" is quite doable on those wages. The problem is we're a wanting culture and that requires money to satisfy. We'd probably be better off as a nation if that's all anyone made. Our priorities might actually get straight.
The concept of a "Livable wage" and the effects of poverty on dietary habits and obesity aside, how do you determine when someone's basic rights are being violated? How do you determine who's culpable, and who should "do time"?
You clearly point out the consequence of regulation. It is great for maintaining the status quo. You can't regulate progress, because you don't know where you're going. Without progress, problems don't get solved.
And, collapse is a good thing. If we'd stop jumping in and rescuing everyone, that would reduce volatility. By artificially removing risk for corporations and individuals, we're encouraging risky behavior.
Regulations are only good for solving problems we've already had. And, they always create new ones. The whole financial collapse was setup by the regulations that came out of the S&L failures in the early 90's. They always create more problems than they solve.
You may want to check your timeline. The financial collapse came about when the regulations that were put in place as a result of the S&L failures in the 80's and 90's were lifted. While the regulations were in place, we had a relatively smooth economic picture. Take the regulations off the financial sector, and we had an incredible surge, followed by a spectacular blowout.
You're correct that regulations tend to prevent the problems that we already know might happen, and don't protect against the new ones. You are incorrect in your assertion that regulations prevent all progress. Regulation is like the speed limits and weight limits on the highway. It dictates some restraint, so you can reach your destination (e.g., make progress) without being a menace to the other people around you. You may not be able to get as much stuff to your destination as fast as you'd like, but the chances that you'll lose control and kill everyone else on the road are significantly reduced. And while you might argue that "Hey, I'd be a responsible driver/citize