Why for the life of mine would we want a global filesystem?
I think you are like one of those people saying "let conquer the stars and travel to other planets" when they have not realized the enormity of the numbers involved.
SIt down and make some maths, what you are suggesting is completely ludicrous.
Bush puts his wacko beliefs on top of any real science.
If you think this will not benefit other countries (South Korea and the UK for example have done all the pioneering work in human cloning) you must be smoking some very fine herb.
Thank you for pointing the exceptions to the rule.
Obivously the IT world is so easy to grasp that any person can just start working in the field without any formal preparation (funny you talk about Gates, I don't think his man talent is realted to the IT field but to marketing, for which obviously he was also completetly unprepared:-) ).
Most US regulated companies (and in many other conutries) have many legal obligations that preclude the interests of the shareholders.
If your hypotetical CEO would brake those laws he would (theoretically of course) be legally liable and the defense "I did it for my shareholders" would mean squat.
Put trade barriers, your most important commercial partners are China and Mexico.
We will all hear the US economy collapsing, unfortunately the aftermath will affect the whole world (because that little world of yours in which each nation can decide to close its borders, which are not more than a social artifact, has ceased to exist in practical economic terms around 15 years ago with the collapse of the USSR).
For all practical purposes the economy is one and its size is global, any attempts to fight that reality will be met with the relentless mindlessnes of the market.
He could cut superflous expenditure like liberating other countries.
And it is not like you have no idea what is going to happen, you know that a certain amount of disasters are bound to occur, you can get some mathematicians to predict those and then budget accordingly.
If you go overbudget in the disater relief area, then you cut somewhere else, as you would do in any other situation in normal life.
People had always worked all their lifes, the idea of retiring for 10, 15 or 20 years without earning your living is a relatively modern one which has no base on realistic economics.
What is so wrong with working to earn your living as long as you can?
-The US is not in war with North Korea. -North Korea does not sponsor terrorism. -North Korea does not posses any trheat to the US.
The inclussion of North Korea in the now sadly remembered speech was the result of a derided mind that can't understand political realities because is intoxicated with pseud0-religious messainism.
This guy, Bush, is a dangerous man and it is horribly terryfying t see how many fall for his charms (which ones? I just can't understand).
-Nancy Reagan used to consult an astrologer regularly. Who know hom much of that influenced Mr Donald's policies.
-Michael Jackson sleeps in an oxygen camera in every hotel where he goes.
-Cherie Blair, the wife of the UK's prime minister has an astrologer friend n which she confides and from who she takes advice. She is one of the more influential lawyers in the country.
I could carry on, but I think the point of your parent poster remains valid.
In most productivity statistics one can find many Europeans come higher than USians.
Europeans in general slack less and produce more in their work hours. US people are quite productive but are a few notches below most European countries.
"Underutilized employees are in all likelihood unnecesssary- which means they're a waste of money, right?"
In many situations the systems run by themselves most of the time, so employees want an SA that knows the system and is available at the drop of hat in case there is a problem that requires immedite attention.
It seems like such a guy is doing nothing, but the peace of mind he provides to a business relying on technology more than justifies for his salary and apparent idleness.
Slashdot Mirror
Why for the life of mine would we want a global filesystem?
I think you are like one of those people saying "let conquer the stars and travel to other planets" when they have not realized the enormity of the numbers involved.
SIt down and make some maths, what you are suggesting is completely ludicrous.
North Korea says they have nuclear weapons.
No wonder after seeing what ahppened to countries that do not have them.
And in any case they may have one or two. How are they going to deliver them to US soil? By burro?
... is a very intelligent man, versed in literature, cinema, music and philosophy.
;-)
He also played baseball
Honestly people, the most those bozos have done is flying 3 planes. Their high tech? cutting blades.
As for China, yeah, that would be a great move: bomb your best consumer!
Unfonuded claims? Which ones?
Bush puts his wacko beliefs on top of any real science.
If you think this will not benefit other countries (South Korea and the UK for example have done all the pioneering work in human cloning) you must be smoking some very fine herb.
Like not wasting tax payer's money invading countries that have done nothing to yours?
Just suggesting.
How much is that going to cost you? 70 billion?
I know, trade barriers, the last hideout of the statist, isolationist, populist.
Thank you for pointing the exceptions to the rule.
Obivously the IT world is so easy to grasp that any person can just start working in the field without any formal preparation (funny you talk about Gates, I don't think his man talent is realted to the IT field but to marketing, for which obviously he was also completetly unprepared:-) ).
... based in your anecdotal evidence we should generilize?
:-P
Did you also study statistics in your free time?
In your scale:
Country: % of state control
North Korea 100 Communism
Vietnam 80
China 70
Europe 60
US 50
??? 50
What about if being in the middle is absolutely the most one country could do.
Then the expression used by the original poster ("relatively" is the key word) would be preety valid IMHO.
.... you prefer that your taxes are heavily raised in order to pay for the old timers' social benefits?
And you will do anything?
Man, start an outsourcing company with all that people and undercut your Indian and Chinese competitors.
Most US regulated companies (and in many other conutries) have many legal obligations that preclude the interests of the shareholders.
If your hypotetical CEO would brake those laws he would (theoretically of course) be legally liable and the defense "I did it for my shareholders" would mean squat.
Put trade barriers, your most important commercial partners are China and Mexico.
We will all hear the US economy collapsing, unfortunately the aftermath will affect the whole world (because that little world of yours in which each nation can decide to close its borders, which are not more than a social artifact, has ceased to exist in practical economic terms around 15 years ago with the collapse of the USSR).
For all practical purposes the economy is one and its size is global, any attempts to fight that reality will be met with the relentless mindlessnes of the market.
Because the original poster may be not telling he truth?
If somebody comes bragging here one is entitled to ask more to see if the bragging is justified or just a childish attempt to make others feel stupid.
... in 50 years when you have overpopulation?
The solution is equilibrium: understand how big your population can be and then managing exactly that say and no more.
He could cut superflous expenditure like liberating other countries.
And it is not like you have no idea what is going to happen, you know that a certain amount of disasters are bound to occur, you can get some mathematicians to predict those and then budget accordingly.
If you go overbudget in the disater relief area, then you cut somewhere else, as you would do in any other situation in normal life.
People had always worked all their lifes, the idea of retiring for 10, 15 or 20 years without earning your living is a relatively modern one which has no base on realistic economics.
What is so wrong with working to earn your living as long as you can?
-The US is not in war with North Korea.
-North Korea does not sponsor terrorism.
-North Korea does not posses any trheat to the US.
The inclussion of North Korea in the now sadly remembered speech was the result of a derided mind that can't understand political realities because is intoxicated with pseud0-religious messainism.
This guy, Bush, is a dangerous man and it is horribly terryfying t see how many fall for his charms (which ones? I just can't understand).
-Nancy Reagan used to consult an astrologer regularly. Who know hom much of that influenced Mr Donald's policies.
-Michael Jackson sleeps in an oxygen camera in every hotel where he goes.
-Cherie Blair, the wife of the UK's prime minister has an astrologer friend n which she confides and from who she takes advice. She is one of the more influential lawyers in the country.
I could carry on, but I think the point of your parent poster remains valid.
Please tell us you are a comedian! Otherwise your talents are being sadly squandered.
In most productivity statistics one can find many Europeans come higher than USians.
Europeans in general slack less and produce more in their work hours. US people are quite productive but are a few notches below most European countries.
My dad was like you.
He died of a heart attack at 49.
He exercised regularly, did not smoke and had no pat history of hert problem on his family.
The doctors pretty much put it down to stress in the levels you are mentioning.
"In my law school classes,... " etc.
Those are not lawyers buddy, they are law students.
"Underutilized employees are in all likelihood unnecesssary- which means they're a waste of money, right?"
In many situations the systems run by themselves most of the time, so employees want an SA that knows the system and is available at the drop of hat in case there is a problem that requires immedite attention.
It seems like such a guy is doing nothing, but the peace of mind he provides to a business relying on technology more than justifies for his salary and apparent idleness.