Imagine what terrorists could do with a knife! Hint - 9/11
Meanwhile, the government IS, admittedly, tracking of your phone calls and emails. Have you called your Congressman yet? Posted on their Facebook page?
That's a great solution, and one that actually answers the OP's question, assuming he can do a little shell scripting. I spent YEARS designing a great enterprise grade backup solution using LVM. I'm the maintainer of Linux::LVM, but I hadn't heard of lvmsync before. I'm sure I'll use it sometime.
The agency where I work is all Microsoft, all the time. They use Active Directory for everything. After I had been working there a year, security did a scan of the network and found out I was running Linux. I ran Linux for a year in that environment and had no trouble. My Linux desktop played just fine with their AD forest. LibreOffice had no trouble with any of the Microsoft Office documents I needed to handle. I've heard that some version of LibreOffice had some trouble with some feature as implemented by some version of MS Office. I saw no problems, though.
I did get in trouble for running an unauthorized OS. Now I'm still at a command line, but on a Mac when I need to be connected to the office network. Mac is certified Unix.
p.s remember that whatever power you allow Obama to have, the next president will also have. That may Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin. How much control do you want Palin or J Bush to have?
* I sure hope Palin never gets elected to anything else, but this country has already elected an actor as president, and Honey Boo Boo sure is popular. Honey Boo Boo for president?
>. . You're right, goverment control does result in government control. The key is to have a government that is responsive to the will of the people.
Let me know when that happens, when a government is responsive to the will of the people for more than ten years. Then, we can talk about putting that government in control details of our lives.
>The alternative you propose is one where the voice of the people is only as loud as the size of their wallet. That's more freedom if you have a big wallet, less freedom if you have a small wallet.
Not quite. You propose taking the freedom from the people and giving it to the government, then hoping that the government gives it back. THAT results in "only those who control the government have fredom". See communist Russia and China for examples. I propose NOT giving all the control to the government at all, but leaving people's choices to each of the people. Imagine if the Koch brothers controlled a government that was actually limited to the enumerated powers. The elite would control the post office and a few other things. Big deal.
That's a hell of a lot better than having them control what health care I'm allowed, based on my political beliefs. The single payer health care bill you wanted had the IRS running it - the same agency that systematically punished people who disagreed with the president. That doesn't look like freedom to me.
>. noting that the socialist regimes that have failed have been authoritarian
Indeed when the government controls people's money (socialism), eventually the government controls people's lives (authoritarian).
That fact is so obviously true it's almost a tautology. If you are itellectualy honest, you will recognize that obvious fact and work from there towards an alternate means of reaching your goal. If you're a fool, you'll stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that government control doesn't result in government control.
Junk mail it has almost able to stay afloat at 32 cents. The FedEx and UPS model has them charge more, not deliver junk mail, and not go broke. That also works. The proof is it FedEx is doing it.
one big difference is under the $0.32 model they're promising employees pay that they aren't able to pay (the pensions). Charging more, like FedEx, they would be able to fund the pensions and not be delivering junk mail.
>. How else do you determine whether you are right or wrong except by attempting refutation? If someone publishes a mathematical proof, doesn't everyone immediately search for mistakes? If I can't refute your argument, then I'll happily admit I'm wrong. If I can refute your argument, what reason do I have to believe that I'm wrong?
That works for math, some extent, because you can have objective, irrefutable proof. When someone says to me "you're being selfish", I can ALWAYS refute that and come up with some justification, no matter how right they are. The wise thing for me to do is to pause and ask "do they perhaps have a valid point?". "Am I indeed being selfish in some way?" Most of the time, they are at least half right, and my excuses don't change that fact.
The second half of your post is a great example. No matter how many times socialism fails, you can ignore the facts and "refute" the conclusion by reasoning abstractly within your own world of ideas, by mental masturbation. By the same token, no matter what success socialist regimes may have, I can refute your conclusion by pointing to their many failures. If I were wiser, I'd instead look to see what I can learn from your point of view. I might say "though your method of achieving the goal has always failed, perhaps the goal itself is worth pursuing". Indeed, that's often the case - leftists have lofty goals, worthy goals, but little to no knowledge of what actually works and what doesn't, what can actually be accomplished and how. Conservatives look at what actually works and end up with "let's stick with doing what has always worked". Better that they look at where each other have a good point they are making. Putting their viewpoints together, you get "let's dream big dreams, then figure out how to actually accomplish some of them".
Rather than refuting each other all day, how about I look for the nuggets of gold in your ideas, and you look for where what I am saying makes sense. Then we can learn from each other and work together to implement your dreamy ideals in a way that actually works in the real world.
The estimates would be reasonable for a private datacenter of that size. This is the federal government. The NSA is evil, but it's an evil GOVERNMENT AGENCY.
On average, it takes 60 months, five years, from the time the govt orders a computer until it's installed. So this will be enterprise storage from 2008. Enterprise, not consumer. Figure SCSI drives of about 200 GB, not 3TB SATA.
Of course it'd government efficiency in all aspects, so figure 10% of the floor space is used for server racks, etc.
The NSA is absolutely violating the fourth amendment and what they all doing is inexcusable. How well are they doing it? Not well enough to notice when someone is taking their databases home, uploading them to several sites, and emailing all their confidential documents to journalists.
The claim of setting aside funds for pensions 75 years out isn't true. It's a rumor started for political purposes, by conflating two separate things.
USPS is required start investing money to be used to pay pensions for current employees. The main reason for that is that 25 years from now their revenue might be half of what it is today. So this year, they need to start investing to pay the pensions of people who are delivering mail this year. That's one mandate.
Here's the other. Suppose they have a current employee who is 20 years old. That employee will be colllecting a pension 60 years from now based on the work he does today. USPS is required to ESTIMATE, NOT PAY, how much they expect to owe todays's workers, for today's work, that they won't actually pay for up to 75 years. That's just common sense. If I make a promise today saying "when you're retired I'll pay your bills", I should estimate how much that promise is likely to cost me.
> I honestly wonder if I am witnessing the decline of a once might country.
50% of Americans think so. All of the things that made the country great are being thrown out by people who want to improve things, but don't understand "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".
Either they they don't understand about about throwing out the baby, or they think it's always sucked and it would be best to trade our ways of doing things for any random untried idea. "I've never been proud of my country" Obama doesn't think America ever was great, so he doesn't mind tossing out everything we think made America great.
That's true, up to a certain price. Above that price, it will be profitable. FedEx operates at that higher price point. At some point, the junk mail senders would stop using the post office. At that point, most people would get mail maybe twice a week. With 1/3rd as many stops to make, costs decrease dramatically.
That anonymous source guy is a nutcase. Imonths nonymous source the same guy who says Obama is a space alien?
On the other hand, in 2008 Mr. Source said "you think 2% growth for six monthd is a bad economy? Just wait and see how Obama trashes the economy for six years", so I guess he's right sometimes.
I very much care what it costs me, so TCO is one of the most important measurements of all.
> I have a used halfbrick here. It costs 99% less to buy (excluding shipping) and uses 0% of the power. The TCO is vastly better than either of the two options you present.
So the scorecard reads:
Item Effective Fast TCO
hw1 yes yes 6 hw2 yes yes 2 brick no na 0
It looks to me like "brick" loses because it can't do the job. The other two options are the same, except hw1 costs three times as much. They can both do the job, and both can do it fast. The only difference is that the TCO is a lot lower on hw2, so it's the best choice.
> TCO is a meaningless measure and it's sad that it persists.
What your brick example shows is that TCO is not the ONLY consideration. "Can it do the job?" is also a critical consideration. Amazingly, when making decisions you can actually consider more than one factor. You can look at both effectiveness AND cost.
If you're getting that from the textbook first sale case, read the opinion you think you're citing. The ruling was that selling a book you've bought is neither copyright infringement nor theft.
On the other hand:
In Metro-Goldwyn Mayer v. Grokster, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens and OConnor, said, "deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."
That's just the most recent time they said copyright infringement is stealing just as much as any other form of stealing. Seriously, the best way to convince yourself that you're not a thief is to stop stealing.
"If someone designs things and makes a living selling those designs..." Guess what. When you take away someone's livelihood, you're taking something from them.
Stealing my car would damage me much less than stealing my life's work, the things I've spent years authoring. I understand you want "free" stuff, so you try hard to convince yourself you're not really stealing. The thing is, at some level you not only know that what you're doing in theft, you know what that makes you - a thief. That may be why you're a sarcastic jackass - because knowing that you're a thief puts a man in a bad mood. When you stop being a thief, life is far more pleasant, because you know you really are who you wish to be.
I think 90% of what you said is right. The problem, I think, is the assertion that "lawyer & investor" is a nicer way of saying "patent troll". Sometimes that's a euphemism, sometimes it's not.
"Dancer" sometimes means "stripper" often means "hooker". But not always. I have a friend who is a professional dancer. She is not a stripper. She even dances with a pole, yet she doesn't take off her clothes.
I learned the other day that more than half of all patent suits are filed by just 16 NPEs. vThere are millions of investors. Hundreds of thousands of people and companies have patents. All of them put together don't file as many patent suits as those 16 trolls. So those trolls behave entirely differently from the other thousands of patent holders. Those few trolls are the problem.
By the way they don't only troll patents that can be represented in software. They troll hardware patents, business process patents, and design patents. One of them even trolled a patent on rectangles!:). Rounded corners teach us that the problem isn't "software" patents. The problems are a) bad patents and mainly b) patent trolls. take care of those 16 patent trolls and you're reduce patent suits by 64%. Not all investor lawyers are trolls. 16 of them are and those 16 need to be dealt with.
To take this one example suppose the ARM processor can do face recognition of a certain quality on a photo. Suppose it takes 1/4 of a second to process the image with some level reliability. Since this device can process 64 frames simultaneously, it can do the same recognition on video that the ARM could do on a photo.
It has about half the gigaflops of a Core i7, and costs 80% less to buy. It uses 5-10 watts, whereas the Core i7 uses 100 - 200 watts, with the chipset. So total cost of ownership is about 90% less than the Core i7. Ten of them would spank the heck out of a Core i7 and cost the same.
> and what can you run on it ?
16 or 64 cores is good for facial recognition, audio processing, video processing, some network stuff - things where you run the same function on many pixels / samples / rows. So for face recognition, for example, the image would be broken up into 64 blocks and all of the blocks analyzed simultaneously on the 64 cores. A database designed for the many cores could work well. For example, say you need to sort a table with 100,000 rows. On a system like this with 64 cores, each core could simultaneously sort a group of 1,500 rows, then you'd merge those 64 sorted groups together ala merge sort. As a firewall, it could handle a blacklist with a million entries, as each core would handle simultaneously apply 1/64 of that list.
> If I inherit a sculpture from my grandfather, can I sell it?
Yes, that's not commercial production of the sculpture. You know the difference between a garage sale and a factory. What makes you think judges don't? Note you can sell a book in your garage sale too, there's nothing new here.
> If someone gives me a sculpture, can I put it on the shelf behind the counter in my shop?
Again, of course, nothing new here. Unless of course you agree not to put it up for public display. Then your question becomes "can I make a contract agreeing to do something, then disregard my agreement?"
> It's ridiculous, and I don't think that a judge would uphold that a licence on a design could restrict use of the physical object that that design describes.
The binary code on a DVD describes pictures on a screen. "Licensed for private home exhibition only..."
> So what? the printer maker should apologize for not having understood the author of the design and make a deal. If they DID > understand the author and worked around his wish, they should apologize louder. Failure to comply with the above has repercussion > in MY opinion of such a company, I don't want to be their customer.
Indeed. Working out disagreements in a respectful, humble way is a sign of being what's called a "grown up". "I'm sorry I offended you" is a sentence we should all use often, right along with "how can I help?"
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine what terrorists could do with a knife!
Hint - 9/11
Meanwhile, the government IS, admittedly, tracking of your phone calls and emails. Have you called your Congressman yet? Posted on their Facebook page?
> I have idea what the decoding capability is like ...
... useless paper weight for everything but netflicks and youtube. This is just google pushing verticle integration.
> it could possibly be very limited
Okay, you know nothing about it. I'm with you so far.
> misleading
And you go ahead and call it crap, and accuse them of false advertising (fraud).
Let me guess - you vote democrat.
That's a great solution, and one that actually answers the OP's question, assuming he can do a little shell scripting. I spent YEARS designing a great enterprise grade backup solution using LVM. I'm the maintainer of Linux::LVM, but I hadn't heard of lvmsync before. I'm sure I'll use it sometime.
The agency where I work is all Microsoft, all the time. They use Active Directory for everything. After I had been working there a year, security did a scan of the network and found out I was running Linux. I ran Linux for a year in that environment and had no trouble. My Linux desktop played just fine with their AD forest. LibreOffice had no trouble with any of the Microsoft Office documents I needed to handle. I've heard that some version of LibreOffice had some trouble with some feature as implemented by some version of MS Office. I saw no problems, though.
I did get in trouble for running an unauthorized OS. Now I'm still at a command line, but on a Mac when I need to be connected to the office network. Mac is certified Unix.
p.s remember that whatever power you allow Obama to have, the next president will also have. That may Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin. How much control do you want Palin or J Bush to have?
* I sure hope Palin never gets elected to anything else, but this country has already elected an actor as president, and Honey Boo Boo sure is popular. Honey Boo Boo for president?
>. . You're right, goverment control does result in government control. The key is to have a government that is responsive to the will of the people.
Let me know when that happens, when a government is responsive to the will of the people for more than ten years. Then, we can talk about putting that government in control details of our lives.
>The alternative you propose is one where the voice of the people is only as loud as the size of their wallet. That's more freedom if you have a big wallet, less freedom if you have a small wallet.
Not quite. You propose taking the freedom from the people and giving it to the government, then hoping that the government gives it back. THAT results in "only those who control the government have fredom". See communist Russia and China for examples. I propose NOT giving all the control to the government at all, but leaving people's choices to each of the people. Imagine if the Koch brothers controlled a government that was actually limited to the enumerated powers. The elite would control the post office and a few other things. Big deal.
That's a hell of a lot better than having them control what health care I'm allowed, based on my political beliefs. The single payer health care bill you wanted had the IRS running it - the same agency that systematically punished people who disagreed with the president. That doesn't look like freedom to me.
>. noting that the socialist regimes that have failed have been authoritarian
Indeed when the government controls people's money (socialism), eventually the government controls people's lives (authoritarian).
That fact is so obviously true it's almost a tautology. If you are itellectualy honest, you will recognize that obvious fact and work from there towards an alternate means of reaching your goal.
If you're a fool, you'll stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that government control doesn't result in government control.
Junk mail it has almost able to stay afloat at 32 cents. The FedEx and UPS model has them charge more, not deliver junk mail, and not go broke. That also works. The proof is it FedEx is doing it.
one big difference is under the $0.32 model they're promising employees pay that they aren't able to pay (the pensions). Charging more, like FedEx, they would be able to fund the pensions and not be delivering junk mail.
>. How else do you determine whether you are right or wrong except by attempting refutation? If someone publishes a mathematical proof, doesn't everyone immediately search for mistakes? If I can't refute your argument, then I'll happily admit I'm wrong. If I can refute your argument, what reason do I have to believe that I'm wrong?
That works for math, some extent, because you can have objective, irrefutable proof. When someone says to me "you're being selfish", I can ALWAYS refute that and come up with some justification, no matter how right they are. The wise thing for me to do is to pause and ask "do they perhaps have a valid point?". "Am I indeed being selfish in some way?" Most of the time, they are at least half right, and my excuses don't change that fact.
The second half of your post is a great example. No matter how many times socialism fails, you can ignore the facts and "refute" the conclusion by reasoning abstractly within your own world of ideas, by mental masturbation. By the same token, no matter what success socialist regimes may have, I can refute your conclusion by pointing to their many failures. If I were wiser, I'd instead look to see what I can learn from your point of view. I might say "though your method of achieving the goal has always failed, perhaps the goal itself is worth pursuing". Indeed, that's often the case - leftists have lofty goals, worthy goals, but little to no knowledge of what actually works and what doesn't, what can actually be accomplished and how. Conservatives look at what actually works and end up with "let's stick with doing what has always worked". Better that they look at where each other have a good point they are making. Putting their viewpoints together, you get "let's dream big dreams, then figure out how to actually accomplish some of them".
Rather than refuting each other all day, how about I look for the nuggets of gold in your ideas, and you look for where what I am saying makes sense. Then we can learn from each other and work together to implement your dreamy ideals in a way that actually works in the real world.
The estimates would be reasonable for a private datacenter of that size. This is the federal government. The NSA is evil, but it's an evil GOVERNMENT AGENCY.
On average, it takes 60 months, five years, from the time the govt orders a computer until it's installed. So this will be enterprise storage from 2008. Enterprise, not consumer. Figure SCSI drives of about 200 GB, not 3TB SATA.
Of course it'd government efficiency in all aspects, so figure 10% of the floor space is used for server racks, etc.
The NSA is absolutely violating the fourth amendment and what they all doing is inexcusable. How well are they doing it? Not well enough to notice when someone is taking their databases home, uploading them to several sites, and emailing all their confidential documents to journalists.
For more details. http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432
The claim of setting aside funds for pensions 75 years out isn't true. It's a rumor started for political purposes, by conflating two separate things.
USPS is required start investing money to be used to pay pensions for current employees. The main reason for that is that 25 years from now their revenue might be half of what it is today. So this year, they need to start investing to pay the pensions of people who are delivering mail this year. That's one mandate.
Here's the other. Suppose they have a current employee who is 20 years old. That employee will be colllecting a pension 60 years from now based on the work he does today. USPS is required to ESTIMATE, NOT PAY, how much they expect to owe todays's workers, for today's work, that they won't actually pay for up to 75 years. That's just common sense. If I make a promise today saying "when you're retired I'll pay your bills", I should estimate how much that promise is likely to cost me.
> I honestly wonder if I am witnessing the decline of a once might country.
50% of Americans think so. All of the things that made the country great are being thrown out by people who want to improve things, but don't understand "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".
Either they they don't understand about about throwing out the baby, or they think it's always sucked and it would be best to trade our ways of doing things for any random untried idea. "I've never been proud of my country" Obama doesn't think America ever was great, so he doesn't mind tossing out everything we think made America great.
That's true, up to a certain price. Above that price, it will be profitable. FedEx operates at that higher price point. At some point, the junk mail senders would stop using the post office. At that point, most people would get mail maybe twice a week. With 1/3rd as many stops to make, costs decrease dramatically.
"Anonymous source claims" ...
That anonymous source guy is a nutcase. Imonths nonymous source the same guy who says Obama is a space alien?
On the other hand, in 2008 Mr. Source said "you think 2% growth for six monthd is a bad economy? Just wait and see how Obama trashes the economy for six years", so I guess he's right sometimes.
I very much care what it costs me, so TCO is one of the most important measurements of all.
> I have a used halfbrick here. It costs 99% less to buy (excluding shipping) and uses 0% of the power. The TCO is vastly better than either of the two options you present.
So the scorecard reads:
Item Effective Fast TCO
hw1 yes yes 6
hw2 yes yes 2
brick no na 0
It looks to me like "brick" loses because it can't do the job. The other two options are the same, except hw1 costs three times as much.
They can both do the job, and both can do it fast. The only difference is that the TCO is a lot lower on hw2, so it's the best choice.
> TCO is a meaningless measure and it's sad that it persists.
What your brick example shows is that TCO is not the ONLY consideration. "Can it do the job?" is also a critical consideration.
Amazingly, when making decisions you can actually consider more than one factor. You can look at both effectiveness AND cost.
> We've had all of that in software since fucking Windows 98 on an Evergreen overdrive (180 MHz) chip.
So every processor since then is useless?
> "A database designed for the many cores could work well."
> As we've had for the past 30+ years I've been alive?
So noone will ever use another database, and there is no longer any use for hardware to run databases on?
If you're getting that from the textbook first sale case, read the opinion you think you're citing. The ruling was that selling a book you've bought is neither copyright infringement nor theft.
On the other hand:
In Metro-Goldwyn Mayer v. Grokster, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens and OConnor, said, "deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."
That's just the most recent time they said copyright
infringement is stealing just as much as any other form of stealing. Seriously, the best way to convince yourself that you're not a thief is to stop stealing.
"If someone designs things and makes a living selling those designs ..."
Guess what. When you take away someone's livelihood, you're taking something from them.
Stealing my car would damage me much less than stealing my life's work, the things I've spent years authoring. I understand you want "free" stuff, so you try hard to convince yourself you're not really stealing. The thing is, at some level you not only know that what you're doing in theft, you know what that makes you - a thief. That may be why you're a sarcastic jackass - because knowing that you're a thief puts a man in a bad mood. When you stop being a thief, life is far more pleasant, because you know you really are who you wish to be.
I think 90% of what you said is right. The problem, I think, is the assertion that "lawyer & investor" is a nicer way of saying "patent troll". Sometimes that's a euphemism, sometimes it's not.
:). Rounded corners teach us that the problem isn't "software" patents. The problems are a) bad patents and mainly b) patent trolls. take care of those 16 patent trolls and you're reduce patent suits by 64%. Not all investor lawyers are trolls. 16 of them are and those 16 need to be dealt with.
"Dancer" sometimes means "stripper" often means "hooker". But not always. I have a friend who is a professional dancer. She is not a stripper. She even dances with a pole, yet she doesn't take off her clothes.
I learned the other day that more than half of all patent suits are filed by just 16 NPEs. vThere are millions of investors. Hundreds of thousands of people and companies have patents. All of them put together don't file as many patent suits as those 16 trolls. So those trolls behave entirely differently from the other thousands of patent holders. Those few trolls are the problem.
By the way they don't only troll patents that can be represented in software. They troll hardware patents, business process patents, and design patents. One of them even trolled a patent on rectangles!
To take this one example suppose the ARM processor can do face recognition of a certain quality on a photo. Suppose it takes 1/4 of a second to process the image with some level reliability. Since this device can process 64 frames simultaneously, it can do the same recognition on video that the ARM could do on a photo.
With 64 cores, I'd say it's already a cluster. A dozen of these ($1200) would have 768 cores and fit in a microatx case. :)
It has about half the gigaflops of a Core i7, and costs 80% less to buy.
It uses 5-10 watts, whereas the Core i7 uses 100 - 200 watts, with the chipset.
So total cost of ownership is about 90% less than the Core i7. Ten of them would spank the heck out of a Core i7 and cost the same.
> and what can you run on it ?
16 or 64 cores is good for facial recognition, audio processing, video processing, some network stuff - things where you run the same function on many pixels / samples / rows. So for face recognition, for example, the image would be broken up into 64 blocks and all of the blocks analyzed simultaneously on the 64 cores.
A database designed for the many cores could work well. For example, say you need to sort a table with 100,000 rows. On a system like this with 64 cores,
each core could simultaneously sort a group of 1,500 rows, then you'd merge those 64 sorted groups together ala merge sort. As a firewall, it could handle a blacklist with a million entries, as each core would handle simultaneously apply 1/64 of that list.
> If I inherit a sculpture from my grandfather, can I sell it?
..."
Yes, that's not commercial production of the sculpture. You know the difference between a garage sale and a factory.
What makes you think judges don't? Note you can sell a book in your garage sale too, there's nothing new here.
> If someone gives me a sculpture, can I put it on the shelf behind the counter in my shop?
Again, of course, nothing new here. Unless of course you agree not to put it up for public display.
Then your question becomes "can I make a contract agreeing to do something, then disregard my agreement?"
> It's ridiculous, and I don't think that a judge would uphold that a licence on a design could restrict use of the physical object that that design describes.
The binary code on a DVD describes pictures on a screen. "Licensed for private home exhibition only
> So what? the printer maker should apologize for not having understood the author of the design and make a deal. If they DID
> understand the author and worked around his wish, they should apologize louder. Failure to comply with the above has repercussion
> in MY opinion of such a company, I don't want to be their customer.
Indeed. Working out disagreements in a respectful, humble way is a sign of being what's called a "grown up".
"I'm sorry I offended you" is a sentence we should all use often, right along with "how can I help?"