Corporations have no more rights than a rock or tree.
You mean corporations like:
CBS NBC ABC FOX CNN Comedy Partners, e.g. The Daily Show with John Stewart & The Colbert Report Teamsters Union UAW Democratic National Committee Republican Nation Committee SEIU ACORN DailyKos MoveOn Pretty much any newspaper in the country Pretty much any advocacy group in the country
There's also the little thing of white people, as a race, having no history of persecution in America.
So what you're saying, if I understand, is that having black pride isn't a matter of being proud of the achievements of blacks or being black, but rather being proud of having been a victim? That's just dumb.
Personally however, I see any kind of racial pride as racist. If people want less racism, they need to stop acting as if race matters.
Social Security is welfare. The amount you receive is generally much, much higher than what you pay in.
No, it's not welfare. Just because one gets out more than one puts in doesn't make it welfare. I'll draw more out of my 401k & IRA than I ever put in. By two to three times at least.
Meh. When I want to show people how bad perl is, I just open up a text editor. Mash my face against the keyboard a couple of times. Then point out that the resulting gibberish is valid perl.
So how much government help does someone have to accept before you reduce their rights?
How much of other people's money should you get to blow before they get to have a say in how you live your life? How much of their rights do other people have to give up so you can avoid having to take any responsibility for your choices?
Should old people who paid into and now collect Social Security be treated this way?
Social Security isn't welfare. The amount you receive is based upon how much you contribute. If you didn't contribute, then you don't receive anything.
So then my not on welfare self should be allowed to gamble?
I don't care what you do as long as you don't gamble yourself into poverty then come to me and expect me to make sure you're fed. That's the problem though. That's the problem though, dumbasses expect to use the social safety net just as much as people who are just really unfortunate.
Should a poor person be allowed to gamble with non-welfare money?
Well, are they on welfare or are they just poor? If they're on welfare, then no, they shouldn't be able to spend whatever money they do have in any fashion they choose. That money should first be used to reduce the amount of welfare they receive. If they're just poor and not receiving help from the the taxpayer, then they can do what they want. But again then, at least as much as people say individuals in society have an obligation to provide a social safety net, individuals also have an obligation to not need a social safety net.
I don't care if my neighbor plays poker. I do care if I have to pay money because my neighbor plays poker.
How about this:
Your Neighbor: hi, I make/made bad choices and can't afford to feed myself and my children. give me food stamps. Your Neighbor: hi, I make/made bad choices and can't afford to house myself and my children. give me section 8 housing. Your Neighbor: hi, I make/made bad choices and can't afford health care for myself and my children. give me universal coverage. Your Neighbor: hi, I want to play poker with real money.
Me: hi, if I have to pay for your health care, housing and food, you're a child. as a child you don't get to make grown up decisions. you don't get to play poker with real money. just be glad we don't make you come home at six p.m. and make you go to bed at eight p.m. now eat your vegetables.
Let me guess, you've never in your life made a tax deductible charitable donation have you? Here is why I think that:
Let's say you have an income of $10. And your tax rate is 30%. So if you just pay your taxes and make no charitable donations, you'll pay $3 in taxes leaving you with $7.
Now let's say that you have that same $10 income. The same 30% tax rate. Now say you donate $5 to charity, deduct that amount from your income and pay your taxes on the remaining amount. So $10 minus $5 leaves you with $5. In the US there is a cap on deductible donations, say $2 is the max you can deduct. So when it comes time to pay taxes, even though you donated $5, you only get to deduct $2 of that amount. You must take your remaining $5 and pay taxes on an income of $8, which leaves you with $2.6 in your pocket ($10 - $5 - $8 x.3 = $2.6).
The reality is that you always have less money in your pocket after making a deductible donation than if you'd just paid your full tax liability. You don't make charitable donations in order to keep more of your money for yourself, it just doesn't work that way.
As far as I am concerned, you do not have an absolute right to have a business.
The flippant response is who cares what you think. The more reasoned response is that of all the things one can do merely because one exists, trading something I have for something you have follows directly from the absolute basics of existence. Here's a paleolithic example, I have a rabbit that I managed to kill with a stone after hunting all day. You have a bunch of bananas in one hand and a turd in the other. If you want some of my rabbit you'll need to give me some of your bananas as I have no interest in your turd. You seem to think that you are entitled the benefit of my labor without contributing something I want. That's not how life works.
And on the topic of ageism, in general young people make poorer choices than older people. And because of the expense (and other factors) of conducting an exhaustive background check, using age as a proxy in certain situations is perfectly valid. It's a trade off, young people don't have to suffer the full consequences of their actions and sometimes their actions are constrained.
So you're on a 2.0 bus. And no, the 8 GB/s, full duplex still has nothing to do with "bottlenecking your GPU." Your GPU memory interface is completely separate from it's host interface. They have nothing to do with each other.
That 22.4 GB/s is the bandwidth between your GPU and your video card's RAM. It's not the bandwidth between your system and your video card. That bandwidth is a 16 lane PCIe bus. Which, and this might be a surprise to you, is 4 GB/s (250 MB/s per lane * 16 lanes.)
Nope, it's dumb to spend a couple grand on an in dash unit and then pay out the butt yearly for updates.
You know, when people are reaching back behind themselves whenever they need money... they're not digging around in their asses. They have this thing called a wallet and you put money in it. Then you put the wallet in your pocket. And thus you see people reaching back whenever they need some cash.
It's a lot easier than stuffing rolls of coins and wads of cash up your rectum. More hygienic too.
This is some seriously poor logic. Consider for a moment GM. In 2008 they were the 4th largest company in the United States. By your logic it would be ideal to attach your company's future well being to GM. Now consider how well that worked out for over 1000 GM dealers, hundreds of parts suppliers, etc. See how that turned out. For the record, Google was #117 in 2008.
You know, it's possible that a) someone pays taxes because it's not easily optional and b) they believe that the government provides services it shouldn't. Yet when the time comes they still use a service that they don't think the government should be providing, because the government has been preventing them from being self sufficient (via "excessive" taxation). And they've already paid for it, even thought they didn't necessarily want it.
BTW - the government doesn't reimburse hospitals for treatment of the uninsured. They hospitals just pass it along to those who do pay.
In the server space, the biggest limitation is motherboards supporting 4+ sata drives with an atom. I could see an atom running software raid for a 4-6 drive nas box. I think it's still under powered for anything that will serve DLNA/uPnP video. It's underpowered (even with ION) for media center chores, where ARM tends to run better and cost less. I can get a roku HD box for less than one of these would cost with a case, psu, memory etc.
1) Supermicro has two Atom based "server" motherboards. They have 1 PCI, 1 8xPCI-E, and 1 4xPCI-E in a 8xPCI-E form. Dual gigabit nics. 2) I've got a Zotac ION-F-E + Supermicro AOC-USAS-L8I with 8 Seagate Momentus laptop drives. The L8I is not being used as a raid controller. It's just an 8 drive jbod. Running OpenSolaris + ZFS, it easily provides 95 MB/s streaming throughput. From an IOPS perspective, 4k random synch writes it does 600. And draws an entire 60 watts when under load. If you didn't want to go with an ION/SAS solution, you can but the Intel Atom board for around $75 and buy the SATA controller of your choice. 3) The Zotac ION C right next to it is fanless. With VDPAU it plays 1080p video with zero stuttering and a CPU utilization of 10%.
An Atom isn't any kind of big time number cruncher. But it's more than capable of handling NAS duties on a smallish SOHO network (5-10 simultaneous users easily.) If you pair it with Nvidia's ION chipset, it'll serve HTPC duties just fine as well.
He did all that - the network ran like a dream and childs' only error was in following his contract and not telling his 'boss' the password (because he isn't allowed to) while in lockup on a speakerphone.
You are assuming facts not in evidence re. the quality of his work. Additionally, it's obvious that he didn't do "all that" since the simple fact is he was a single point of failure with respect to management access to the equipment. It doesn't matter if packets moved smoothly through the network or not. He fundamentally failed at his job since he had no plan in place to handle the situation where he was unavailable.
It's inflammatory and you know it.
Why is it inflammatory? You are the one who makes some kind of connection between bondage and being ashamed and stigmatized, not me.
No, fired and made to repay salary for not doing his job. Why should someone get to collect a paycheck without doing the work? The job of an administrator isn't to do all the little tasks the admins typically do, it's to ensure the stability and availability. Establishing some fiefdom over his employer's network doesn't even begin to address those responsibilities.
Also, how do you refute 'over enthusiastic bondage play with his gay lover'?
What is there to refute in that statement? If I had written "hit by a bus" would you feel a need to refute that? Perhaps you need to review your attitudes towards gays and others who choose to live alternative lifestyles. Bigot.
Currently it's overcast and rainy. I take it that you can't actually refute my points and thus you drug out some tired, worn out, passive-aggressive attempt at an insult?
No. From the instant he was the only person who knew the password he was a complete and total failure as an administrator. He not only should have been fired, but he should have been made to pay back all salary that he received from the moment he changed the passwords to something only he knew. Seriously, what would you suggest the city do if Mr. Childs had been accidentally killed in some over enthusiastic bondage play with his gay lover? Unless you are invulnerable and immortal you should never be the only person who has the credentials to administrate a network or system that isn't your own personal, private, single user environment.
and that is why they are giving free wi-fi in all airports over x-mass....
Yeah. It's not about getting some nice demographic information about travelers at all. Sure, there's no value in that. Just like the whole point of the DNS server is to log lookups, the point of free wifi is to track users, both their physical location and their internet habits.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean corporations like:
CBS
NBC
ABC
FOX
CNN
Comedy Partners, e.g. The Daily Show with John Stewart & The Colbert Report
Teamsters Union
UAW
Democratic National Committee
Republican Nation Committee
SEIU
ACORN
DailyKos
MoveOn
Pretty much any newspaper in the country
Pretty much any advocacy group in the country
So what you're saying, if I understand, is that having black pride isn't a matter of being proud of the achievements of blacks or being black, but rather being proud of having been a victim? That's just dumb.
Personally however, I see any kind of racial pride as racist. If people want less racism, they need to stop acting as if race matters.
No, it's not welfare. Just because one gets out more than one puts in doesn't make it welfare. I'll draw more out of my 401k & IRA than I ever put in. By two to three times at least.
Meh. When I want to show people how bad perl is, I just open up a text editor. Mash my face against the keyboard a couple of times. Then point out that the resulting gibberish is valid perl.
How much of other people's money should you get to blow before they get to have a say in how you live your life? How much of their rights do other people have to give up so you can avoid having to take any responsibility for your choices?
Social Security isn't welfare. The amount you receive is based upon how much you contribute. If you didn't contribute, then you don't receive anything.
I don't care what you do as long as you don't gamble yourself into poverty then come to me and expect me to make sure you're fed. That's the problem though. That's the problem though, dumbasses expect to use the social safety net just as much as people who are just really unfortunate.
Well, are they on welfare or are they just poor? If they're on welfare, then no, they shouldn't be able to spend whatever money they do have in any fashion they choose. That money should first be used to reduce the amount of welfare they receive. If they're just poor and not receiving help from the the taxpayer, then they can do what they want. But again then, at least as much as people say individuals in society have an obligation to provide a social safety net, individuals also have an obligation to not need a social safety net.
How about this:
Your Neighbor: hi, I make/made bad choices and can't afford to feed myself and my children. give me food stamps.
Your Neighbor: hi, I make/made bad choices and can't afford to house myself and my children. give me section 8 housing.
Your Neighbor: hi, I make/made bad choices and can't afford health care for myself and my children. give me universal coverage.
Your Neighbor: hi, I want to play poker with real money.
Me: hi, if I have to pay for your health care, housing and food, you're a child. as a child you don't get to make grown up decisions. you don't get to play poker with real money. just be glad we don't make you come home at six p.m. and make you go to bed at eight p.m. now eat your vegetables.
Let me guess, you've never in your life made a tax deductible charitable donation have you? Here is why I think that:
Let's say you have an income of $10. And your tax rate is 30%. So if you just pay your taxes and make no charitable donations, you'll pay $3 in taxes leaving you with $7.
Now let's say that you have that same $10 income. The same 30% tax rate. Now say you donate $5 to charity, deduct that amount from your income and pay your taxes on the remaining amount. So $10 minus $5 leaves you with $5. In the US there is a cap on deductible donations, say $2 is the max you can deduct. So when it comes time to pay taxes, even though you donated $5, you only get to deduct $2 of that amount. You must take your remaining $5 and pay taxes on an income of $8, which leaves you with $2.6 in your pocket ($10 - $5 - $8 x .3 = $2.6).
The reality is that you always have less money in your pocket after making a deductible donation than if you'd just paid your full tax liability. You don't make charitable donations in order to keep more of your money for yourself, it just doesn't work that way.
The flippant response is who cares what you think. The more reasoned response is that of all the things one can do merely because one exists, trading something I have for something you have follows directly from the absolute basics of existence. Here's a paleolithic example, I have a rabbit that I managed to kill with a stone after hunting all day. You have a bunch of bananas in one hand and a turd in the other. If you want some of my rabbit you'll need to give me some of your bananas as I have no interest in your turd. You seem to think that you are entitled the benefit of my labor without contributing something I want. That's not how life works.
And on the topic of ageism, in general young people make poorer choices than older people. And because of the expense (and other factors) of conducting an exhaustive background check, using age as a proxy in certain situations is perfectly valid. It's a trade off, young people don't have to suffer the full consequences of their actions and sometimes their actions are constrained.
Perhaps you need to be introduced to ssh and the concept of an ssh tunnel. It has nothing to do with SSL.
So you're on a 2.0 bus. And no, the 8 GB/s, full duplex still has nothing to do with "bottlenecking your GPU." Your GPU memory interface is completely separate from it's host interface. They have nothing to do with each other.
That 22.4 GB/s is the bandwidth between your GPU and your video card's RAM. It's not the bandwidth between your system and your video card. That bandwidth is a 16 lane PCIe bus. Which, and this might be a surprise to you, is 4 GB/s (250 MB/s per lane * 16 lanes.)
You know, when people are reaching back behind themselves whenever they need money... they're not digging around in their asses. They have this thing called a wallet and you put money in it. Then you put the wallet in your pocket. And thus you see people reaching back whenever they need some cash.
It's a lot easier than stuffing rolls of coins and wads of cash up your rectum. More hygienic too.
This is some seriously poor logic. Consider for a moment GM. In 2008 they were the 4th largest company in the United States. By your logic it would be ideal to attach your company's future well being to GM. Now consider how well that worked out for over 1000 GM dealers, hundreds of parts suppliers, etc. See how that turned out. For the record, Google was #117 in 2008.
No, the summary is correct: The $1.92 fine is in 2008 dollars. The $54,000 is in 2010 dollars.
Hard to say, but it must be easy since there are lots of mods that are, at the very least, a bit challenged. If you know what I mean.
You know, it's possible that a) someone pays taxes because it's not easily optional and b) they believe that the government provides services it shouldn't. Yet when the time comes they still use a service that they don't think the government should be providing, because the government has been preventing them from being self sufficient (via "excessive" taxation). And they've already paid for it, even thought they didn't necessarily want it.
BTW - the government doesn't reimburse hospitals for treatment of the uninsured. They hospitals just pass it along to those who do pay.
1) Supermicro has two Atom based "server" motherboards. They have 1 PCI, 1 8xPCI-E, and 1 4xPCI-E in a 8xPCI-E form. Dual gigabit nics.
2) I've got a Zotac ION-F-E + Supermicro AOC-USAS-L8I with 8 Seagate Momentus laptop drives. The L8I is not being used as a raid controller. It's just an 8 drive jbod. Running OpenSolaris + ZFS, it easily provides 95 MB/s streaming throughput. From an IOPS perspective, 4k random synch writes it does 600. And draws an entire 60 watts when under load. If you didn't want to go with an ION/SAS solution, you can but the Intel Atom board for around $75 and buy the SATA controller of your choice.
3) The Zotac ION C right next to it is fanless. With VDPAU it plays 1080p video with zero stuttering and a CPU utilization of 10%.
An Atom isn't any kind of big time number cruncher. But it's more than capable of handling NAS duties on a smallish SOHO network (5-10 simultaneous users easily.) If you pair it with Nvidia's ION chipset, it'll serve HTPC duties just fine as well.
Yeah. Walk away pretending you've "won", don't let facts get in the way of your self esteem.
You are assuming facts not in evidence re. the quality of his work. Additionally, it's obvious that he didn't do "all that" since the simple fact is he was a single point of failure with respect to management access to the equipment. It doesn't matter if packets moved smoothly through the network or not. He fundamentally failed at his job since he had no plan in place to handle the situation where he was unavailable.
Why is it inflammatory? You are the one who makes some kind of connection between bondage and being ashamed and stigmatized, not me.
No, fired and made to repay salary for not doing his job. Why should someone get to collect a paycheck without doing the work? The job of an administrator isn't to do all the little tasks the admins typically do, it's to ensure the stability and availability. Establishing some fiefdom over his employer's network doesn't even begin to address those responsibilities.
What is there to refute in that statement? If I had written "hit by a bus" would you feel a need to refute that? Perhaps you need to review your attitudes towards gays and others who choose to live alternative lifestyles. Bigot.
Currently it's overcast and rainy. I take it that you can't actually refute my points and thus you drug out some tired, worn out, passive-aggressive attempt at an insult?
No. From the instant he was the only person who knew the password he was a complete and total failure as an administrator. He not only should have been fired, but he should have been made to pay back all salary that he received from the moment he changed the passwords to something only he knew. Seriously, what would you suggest the city do if Mr. Childs had been accidentally killed in some over enthusiastic bondage play with his gay lover? Unless you are invulnerable and immortal you should never be the only person who has the credentials to administrate a network or system that isn't your own personal, private, single user environment.
Ask Cnet about Eric's belief in privacy:
Yeah. It's not about getting some nice demographic information about travelers at all. Sure, there's no value in that. Just like the whole point of the DNS server is to log lookups, the point of free wifi is to track users, both their physical location and their internet habits.