I think more important is the efficiency issue. You seem to be under the impression that for some reason, government does not suffer from the imperfections that regular people do, as you mentioned, short sightedness, selfishness, etc.
I said nothing of the kind. You are putting words in my mouth.
I'm fully aware that the system is broken in several ways. My point was that without SOME kind of organization to FORCE the otherwise unwilling to contribute to a system that is more cost-effective as a result of its scale, then nobody will act in anything other than what they think is their own self-interest, when really it's in their self-interest to contribute, voluntarily or not.
Is that the government? Maybe. Is it private industry? Maybe. Is it something else? Maybe.
People are unable to create organisations that provide them with certain services. Therefore, people create organisations that provide them with certain services.
I think you mean "Some people are UNWILLING to create organisations that provide people other than themselves with certain services. Therefore, people create organisations that REQUIRE the unwilling to fund organisations that provide everyone with certain services."
This is the fundamental problem with the most visible forms of libertarianism IMHO. You'll always have the folks who can't look past the "ZOMG THE GOVERNMENT STEALS MY MONEY" factor regarding taxation policy and don't consider the inevitable consequences of the abolition of compulsory taxation. You ask them who would provide services like police, firefighters, road repair, and universally available emergency medical coverage, and they tell you "if people want these services they will pay for them voluntarily." BULL. This implies that people give a shit about anybody except themselves. Their voluntarily contributing to services that they probably will never use is about as likely as Dick Cheney joining Greenpeace. There are economies of scale and innovations that can only be achieved through collective funding.
Short-sightedness is the biggest threat to libertarian progress. Of course, that isn't limited to just the Libertarians; most Americans don't care what happens past next month. Private industry doesn't do anything that won't show a concrete profit that can be seen in black ink on the next quarterly report. The knowledge we gather from the Hubble is far too non-specific and intangible for private industry to want anything to do with it.
You'll probably be surprised by this, but no, I don't think this is something the federal government should have weighed in on. This is something that should be left to the individual states, as what works in Rhode Island usually doesn't work in Arkansas, and vice-versa.
However, being practical, the situation is what it is right now, and the Feds currently have asserted that they have authority here. A federal case should be evaluated on a federal level, so write your congressman or sue if you don't like it. This is the 'claim' I was trying to make; that if you don't like the way the system does things, try to change the system through the methods available to you as a voter. Either 1) the issue makes it to the congressional level, and then the voters have the ability to vote someone out of office if they decide they don't like the congresscritter's stand on said issue, or 2) if the judicial branch refuses to correct what you see as a power grab, then work to get representatives elected that will work to get justices on the Court that better represent your views.
That's far too much work and far too slow for most people, and they'd rather spam Slashdot with their inflammatory anti-abortion rhetoric.
What it boils down to is this: The situation as it currently is represents the will of the majority of the people, however indirectly that representation might be. If you disagree with the majority, no matter how 'right' you think you are or how morally indignant you might be, or how sure you are that you know what's best for other people, well, that's tough crap, deal with it. If you don't think it does actually represent the will of the people, then we have a system.
If only your mother had had the foresight to abort YOU.
News flash: that isn't your body or your "kid". You don't like it, write your congressman. If a majority of the people want abortion outlawed, it will be. Until then, you're out of luck. Why don't you ask your imaginary friend Jesus to help you.
Posting under my real login because 1) my karma can take it 2) I'm not a coward.
You know, some of us read Slashdot before our second cup of coffee in the morning. Your posting of brain-spraining code in a comment should really take that into account.
Seems to me it will be better to overcome monetary expensiveness than an inherent lack of safety.
Trouble is, nobody gives a hot damn about the safety, all anyone can focus on is the monetary aspect. If a company can produce something that's either safe OR profitable, but can't be both, you can bet a week's pay that profitable will win out.
While I am fairly convinced that nuclear power can be clean, safe, and efficient if handled and managed properly, none of these things will happen in the USA.
Two main groups would be running these plants: either the government (which would have the small government people howling 'socialism') or private industry. (Even if the government ran the plants, more than likely they'd get contracted out to one of the Halliburtons of the world.) Private industry is not motivated by safety, concern for the environment, or good energy policy; it is motivated by profit. The lower your expenses, the greater your profit. This is great when you're, say, making cabinets or writing code, but it becomes a complicated situation when you're dealing with the risks involved in running a nuclear power plant. Safety costs money. Clean disposal costs money. Private industry will be motivated to spend as little money as possible in maintaining these plants, which will lead to unreasonable risks to the community.
You could argue that we already have these folks running our conventional, fossil fuel-burning power plants. The difference here is that if something goes catastrophically wrong (read: big ba-da-boom) at, say, a natural gas facility, you're dealing with an area of impact measured in the square-mile range. The same level of disaster at a nuclear plant would release radioactive steam into the environment which the wind can blow into the next state. People say that referring to Chernobyl is unfair, because of the nature of that particular reactor, but the risks IMHO remain the same if disaster strikes.
The only way to make nuclear power truly viable on a large scale in this country is to remove the profit motive. How we do that is the real problem with nuclear power.
It's not that they can't tell the difference, it's just that they don't CARE. All they know is that $500 is more than $200 (cheap HD-DVD or Blu-Ray versus average-to-good DVD player). The Wal-Mart effect strikes again.
Course, I got the doorbuster HD-DVD player from Worst Buy on black friday for $200, so I'm going to recuse myself from that discussion.. oh, too late.
Not exactly. You're confusing file sharing with backups. The problem occurs when you edit a file that is stored on the Windows Server file shares, the backup of the file on the file share may become corrupt. However, files backed up via the backup agent from your local computer are not corrupted when you edit them.
Right, the problem happens when you change a file that was previously backed up. Which is exactly what I said.
Who said anything about the ticketing system losing requests? I'm talking about getting EVERY request and resolution INTO the ticketing system, so it can do the job it was designed to do.
Using a well designed ticketing system improves efficiency and service levels, both of which lead to happy internal customers.
Or you might try remembering that you are there to serve the company, not the other way around.
Making best use of the assets and resources the company makes available isn't serving the company? Managing the environment to promote efficiency isn't serving the company?
If I understand the problem correctly, this happens when you change a file that had been previously backed up. When the new changes are backed up, it corrupts the backup of that file, making it useless.
Yeah, most NAS units don't corrupt your backups if you change the working versions. Clearly Microsoft is the leader in adding valuable features to its products.
This could potentially be the "my dog ate my homework" for the 21st century. "I did my homework, but the power went out before I could save it, and my backups were all corrupt!"
I'd argue that for health/safety reasons (mostly towards the user, but for the admin as well.. you never know when some idiot user will decide that the best option for resolving their issue is to beat the admin senseless) the lack of a window you can see through is an advantage.
Maybe you could compromise by having said window, but covered with a roll-up blind at all times except for emergencies.
Actually, I think you want the crappiest phone you can find. Once people figure out that they can't talk to you on the phone without repeating themselves three times, they'll stop calling you and open a ticket like they're bloody well supposed to.
Or you could just not answer the damn thing. Make sure it's got caller ID so that you can answer it if it's someone that matters (read: someone that either signs your paycheck or has hiring/firing authority over you.)
Also, a door with swipe-card access only into your office. Keeps people from holding you hostage while they drone on and on about how much they hate something you have no control over or a policy that you implemented/wrote/enforce that inconveniences them in the slightest possible way (eg, they can't use 'password' as their password, etc.) No window in the door either.
Yes, in fact I think it IS the right thing to do to be as inaccessible as possible other than the appropriate channels (help desk, ticketing system, so forth.) A system that nobody uses might as well not exist, and all this "offline" contact can't be used to track repeating problems/record solutions.
My SUV complies with federal emission rules, and my arthritis won't allow me to sit in one of you low-slung, much-too-small fuel efficient cars, so get over it.
There are a number of hybrid SUVs on the market that get something approaching not-as-obscenely-low mileage.
Oh, get a grip. These are fucking LIGHTBULBS, for fuck's sake. We're not talking about restricting your travel or tracking what library books you read. Do you really think that restricting the sale of inefficient products is the same? You must not have enough drama in your life.
If you want to fight fascism, I think your energy would be better spent on a different front.
That's just not true. Principally, a free market economy requires a government that doesn't make a light bulb or toilet illegal.
It requires that people realize that saving energy is in their own self-interest. People think about their own self-interest as far as their wallets, and everything else is irrelevant. Free market economics are great on paper, but so is communism.
Again - why isn't this great? Especially if you like pickles?
Because that 50 cents you're saving costs the economy in general far more in lost wages and the resulting lack of buying power. Not to mention the billions of dollars Wal*Mart costs the taxpayers by not providing health care coverage its employees can afford. Providing health care costs money, and that's incompatible with their business model of cutting costs anywhere and everywhere they can. (True story: A representative from a well-known patio furniture manufacturer went to Wal*Mart's HQ to meet with a vice president regarding getting their products into Wal*Marts. Said vice president's office was furnished with returned plastic lawn chairs and a defective kitchen table. No lie.)
The assertion that people are too dumb to understand the difference between incandescents and CFLs is simple elitism.
Simple observation. I've seen it with my own eyes.
If I choose to pay for the kilowatt hours, why is that anybody else's business?
Because the fuel used to generate those extra kilowatt hours generates pollution, which makes it EVERYBODY else's business.
Would it be OK for the government to set efficiency requirements for your processor and graphics card too?
Sure, I don't have a problem with that. The technology moves so fast that the government could never keep up anyway.
In fact, if you'll just fill out this electricity use survey, form 84 stroke Z, and please keep in mind that you are under oath, we'll make sure that your use of electricity is consistent with our homeland security goals.
They're around, but you might have to order them online or go to a specialty store. It's not a huge market and they're difficult to sell sometimes (as the manufacturers are very bad about telling retailers what dimmers they're compatible with.) I'm not going to plug the site I work on, but a google search should help you out.
Slashdot Mirror
I said nothing of the kind. You are putting words in my mouth.
I'm fully aware that the system is broken in several ways. My point was that without SOME kind of organization to FORCE the otherwise unwilling to contribute to a system that is more cost-effective as a result of its scale, then nobody will act in anything other than what they think is their own self-interest, when really it's in their self-interest to contribute, voluntarily or not.
Is that the government? Maybe. Is it private industry? Maybe. Is it something else? Maybe.
Don't assume.
This is the fundamental problem with the most visible forms of libertarianism IMHO. You'll always have the folks who can't look past the "ZOMG THE GOVERNMENT STEALS MY MONEY" factor regarding taxation policy and don't consider the inevitable consequences of the abolition of compulsory taxation. You ask them who would provide services like police, firefighters, road repair, and universally available emergency medical coverage, and they tell you "if people want these services they will pay for them voluntarily." BULL. This implies that people give a shit about anybody except themselves. Their voluntarily contributing to services that they probably will never use is about as likely as Dick Cheney joining Greenpeace. There are economies of scale and innovations that can only be achieved through collective funding.
Short-sightedness is the biggest threat to libertarian progress. Of course, that isn't limited to just the Libertarians; most Americans don't care what happens past next month. Private industry doesn't do anything that won't show a concrete profit that can be seen in black ink on the next quarterly report. The knowledge we gather from the Hubble is far too non-specific and intangible for private industry to want anything to do with it.
You'll probably be surprised by this, but no, I don't think this is something the federal government should have weighed in on. This is something that should be left to the individual states, as what works in Rhode Island usually doesn't work in Arkansas, and vice-versa.
However, being practical, the situation is what it is right now, and the Feds currently have asserted that they have authority here. A federal case should be evaluated on a federal level, so write your congressman or sue if you don't like it. This is the 'claim' I was trying to make; that if you don't like the way the system does things, try to change the system through the methods available to you as a voter. Either 1) the issue makes it to the congressional level, and then the voters have the ability to vote someone out of office if they decide they don't like the congresscritter's stand on said issue, or 2) if the judicial branch refuses to correct what you see as a power grab, then work to get representatives elected that will work to get justices on the Court that better represent your views.
That's far too much work and far too slow for most people, and they'd rather spam Slashdot with their inflammatory anti-abortion rhetoric.
What it boils down to is this: The situation as it currently is represents the will of the majority of the people, however indirectly that representation might be. If you disagree with the majority, no matter how 'right' you think you are or how morally indignant you might be, or how sure you are that you know what's best for other people, well, that's tough crap, deal with it. If you don't think it does actually represent the will of the people, then we have a system.
If only your mother had had the foresight to abort YOU.
News flash: that isn't your body or your "kid". You don't like it, write your congressman. If a majority of the people want abortion outlawed, it will be. Until then, you're out of luck. Why don't you ask your imaginary friend Jesus to help you.
Posting under my real login because 1) my karma can take it 2) I'm not a coward.
You know, some of us read Slashdot before our second cup of coffee in the morning. Your posting of brain-spraining code in a comment should really take that into account.
Ow, my brain.
While I am fairly convinced that nuclear power can be clean, safe, and efficient if handled and managed properly, none of these things will happen in the USA.
Two main groups would be running these plants: either the government (which would have the small government people howling 'socialism') or private industry. (Even if the government ran the plants, more than likely they'd get contracted out to one of the Halliburtons of the world.) Private industry is not motivated by safety, concern for the environment, or good energy policy; it is motivated by profit. The lower your expenses, the greater your profit. This is great when you're, say, making cabinets or writing code, but it becomes a complicated situation when you're dealing with the risks involved in running a nuclear power plant. Safety costs money. Clean disposal costs money. Private industry will be motivated to spend as little money as possible in maintaining these plants, which will lead to unreasonable risks to the community.
You could argue that we already have these folks running our conventional, fossil fuel-burning power plants. The difference here is that if something goes catastrophically wrong (read: big ba-da-boom) at, say, a natural gas facility, you're dealing with an area of impact measured in the square-mile range. The same level of disaster at a nuclear plant would release radioactive steam into the environment which the wind can blow into the next state. People say that referring to Chernobyl is unfair, because of the nature of that particular reactor, but the risks IMHO remain the same if disaster strikes.
The only way to make nuclear power truly viable on a large scale in this country is to remove the profit motive. How we do that is the real problem with nuclear power.
It's not that they can't tell the difference, it's just that they don't CARE. All they know is that $500 is more than $200 (cheap HD-DVD or Blu-Ray versus average-to-good DVD player). The Wal-Mart effect strikes again.
Course, I got the doorbuster HD-DVD player from Worst Buy on black friday for $200, so I'm going to recuse myself from that discussion.. oh, too late.
Using a well designed ticketing system improves efficiency and service levels, both of which lead to happy internal customers.Making best use of the assets and resources the company makes available isn't serving the company? Managing the environment to promote efficiency isn't serving the company?
If I understand the problem correctly, this happens when you change a file that had been previously backed up. When the new changes are backed up, it corrupts the backup of that file, making it useless.
Well, do you want something that requires no higher brain function to set up and loses data, or do you want something that works?
Step 1: Install VNC. ...
Step 2: SSH tunnel.
Step 3:
Step 4: Profit!
Yeah, most NAS units don't corrupt your backups if you change the working versions. Clearly Microsoft is the leader in adding valuable features to its products.
This could potentially be the "my dog ate my homework" for the 21st century. "I did my homework, but the power went out before I could save it, and my backups were all corrupt!"
I'd argue that for health/safety reasons (mostly towards the user, but for the admin as well.. you never know when some idiot user will decide that the best option for resolving their issue is to beat the admin senseless) the lack of a window you can see through is an advantage.
Maybe you could compromise by having said window, but covered with a roll-up blind at all times except for emergencies.
Actually, I think you want the crappiest phone you can find. Once people figure out that they can't talk to you on the phone without repeating themselves three times, they'll stop calling you and open a ticket like they're bloody well supposed to.
Or you could just not answer the damn thing. Make sure it's got caller ID so that you can answer it if it's someone that matters (read: someone that either signs your paycheck or has hiring/firing authority over you.)
Also, a door with swipe-card access only into your office. Keeps people from holding you hostage while they drone on and on about how much they hate something you have no control over or a policy that you implemented/wrote/enforce that inconveniences them in the slightest possible way (eg, they can't use 'password' as their password, etc.) No window in the door either.
Yes, in fact I think it IS the right thing to do to be as inaccessible as possible other than the appropriate channels (help desk, ticketing system, so forth.) A system that nobody uses might as well not exist, and all this "offline" contact can't be used to track repeating problems/record solutions.
No, but they DO have the power to regulate interstate commerce. Seriously, it's right there in black and white.
There's two feet of snow in my yard as I type this. I drive a Golf. I get by.
This is common practice in big business. Why shouldn't it be used to promote energy conservation?
No, it doesn't give you a right to break the law.
Oh, get a grip. These are fucking LIGHTBULBS, for fuck's sake. We're not talking about restricting your travel or tracking what library books you read. Do you really think that restricting the sale of inefficient products is the same? You must not have enough drama in your life.
If you want to fight fascism, I think your energy would be better spent on a different front.
They're around, but you might have to order them online or go to a specialty store. It's not a huge market and they're difficult to sell sometimes (as the manufacturers are very bad about telling retailers what dimmers they're compatible with.) I'm not going to plug the site I work on, but a google search should help you out.