Use X, disable Y, only use Z, don't bring A everywhere, use B, and don't stay C
Oh right, that's freedom right there...
But maybe, you would prefer that privacy were actually dead, because that would allow you to rationalize that you made the right choices accepting these intrusive behaviours from private corporations, now that you have become dependent on the convenience they provide..
Makes no difference, we're all fucked. Technology is now reaching a point where humans cannot compete with machines.
Your cell phone provider already has enough info to know everywhere you are at any point in time, who your friends and family are, who you call and how often. Google knows all your web habits, and what you hobbies are, and you bank knows every cent you spend, where and on what. And this info is freely bought and sold to marketing companies and other bad actors. It only takes one slip to connect a name to this data and your life is captured on record forever.
We need to start preparing for a non-private reality, than try to hang onto any semblance of privacy we think we still have. Even as I type this some algorithm somewhere has already tied my writing style to all my other web aliases and is connecting me to my real identity.
Privacy is dead.
In fact, as I write all of this, I wonder if these companies are having trouble retaining people because the people that come to them are willing to sacrifice everything for a salary. It is no wonder that they leave at the drop of a hat.
Depends on your version of quality of life. I find travel the most rewarding of experiences. It probably stems from when I was a kid and travelled a lot as part of my military family. I learnt early that a lot of other kids, who might have been better at sports or whatever had a limited view of the world because that's all they knew.
So it's not just raw cash, it's the opportunity to earn money AND learn new skills AND meet different people with different opinions AND travel to new and interesting places. I also find that as an employer, people who travel and get out of their comfort zone make better employees, even if you only get 18 months out of them.
I seem to recall reading something years ago about designing a (mostly) DC powered house, and 48V was the number they landed on too.
Since most things in your house are DC anyway (I have gas cooking and heating), and with most only needing circuits in the region of 10 metres or less, I can't remember why this didn't become a thing?
Surely it would make it a lot easier to switch to off-grid battery storage solutions if everything is DC?
With 7+ Billion people and a large chunk of them in China and India in poor areas with little to no electricity, what happens when they start demanding access to the conveniences of the modern word?
Such as?
The advantage of living in a truly modern world (instead of a 1970's version of modern which most of the West is ensnared), is that new electrical devices are incredibly efficient. An average family with LED TVs, lights, phones, tablet etc could almost get by now on solar and a batteries. Unlike your average fat American who needs 10kwh/day to get by, your average human will get by on 3kwh/day or less. So there is a convergence between energy generation, storage and use which means this won't be an issue for the next generation of modern humans.
Lots of energy sources get subsidies, but only with renewables to individuals get the money directly.
Rather than Haliburton, KBR et al? I know which I prefer...
And for comparison's sake, renewables get many times the subsidy of conventional sources if you calculate it on a per MWH basis. Its not even close. No energy has ever gotten subsidized as heavily as renewables.
You don't get it, the whole existence of the article proves it isn't working.
So Slashdot articles are the written laws of nature now?
Amazon's record profits say otherwise.
By your logic, a person wouldn't try to avoid an obstacle in the road until after they hit it.
I'm pretty sure that Execs at Amazon don't create their business strategy based on what someone posted on Slashdot today...
Also, in general your whole way of analyzing this situation is hopelessly reductive.
Either that or I don't accept everything posted in Slashdot as the unquestionable truth.
As I said, the Amazon experts probably know the maths. If burning out resources every 18 months is working for them, there is no need for them to change.
I've worked in a similar environment because that strategy also worked. They had thousands of people lined up to work there, so had no reason dip into profits by keeping employees happy.
It's not the same for every business, everyone has their own recipe for success, but this model does actually work in some cases, and no amount of disappointment will change that fact.
So some people are willing to settle, and some aren't. Perhaps if more people were willing to fight for what was important to them, this world would be a bit better place.
Sitting on your arse waiting for jobs to come to you isn't way I call 'willing to fight'.
Now, if you want to reduce CO2 emissions at the same time, feel free. I just don't want to be sent back to the 18th Century to stop something that's going to happen no matter what we do.
This is the part the conservatives missed when they jumped on the hate train. Creating a new Carbon free energy doesn't send you back, it brings you forward, and with a huge bang.
What do Conservatives want? Make America Strong Again? To make a new American Century? You don't do that by clinging to the technology that boomed 100 years ago.
Even if AGW is complete bunk, it serves as a great stimulator for new innovation, new business and more jobs. Even the most hardened capitalist should jump on board since it's the best chance we have at creating new profitable industries.
Remember the Railroad? the Steel industry? Electricity? The Auto industry? Computers? All great stimulators to the American economy. Imagine if the 2016 Conservatives were in power when all those things were invented? America would never have gotten off the ground.
The server was in her home which is "an authorised location". Case closed.
There is nothing about "personal email servers" which is why she's off the hook. The law is too vague to withstand even a basic defence.
What? That they value other factors in life, such as proximity to family and overall quality of life, as highly if not higher than they value their corporate overlords? I fail to see how that is a problem.
Because we all value those things, but most of us realise we don't always have a choice.
As you can see, the original poster forgot about 1998 (which tied with 2009 at 6th place), thus blowing his entire argument out of the water.
Um, can you count? When you have a tie, you can have more than 15 things in a top 15 list (as the NOAA data shows).
"All 15 years this century are in the top 15 warmest years on record." is still true, even if you don't know how that works.
Also worth noting that the "Global" in Global Warming means more than just the US. Where I live, after a decade of hottest years on record, last year we never had a winter, and this month is the hottest March since records began. It is also predicted we'll skip winter again this year too.
So even if where you live feels the same as usual, I assure that's not the case elsewhere. This shit is real and noticable, and it won't be long before it has a real economic impact.
Who is saying that? The law is very clear, classified information is not allowed on personal email servers. Period.
If it's clear then perhaps you could quote the actual law here? Because I'm sure the wording doesn't actually say "classified information is not allowed on personal email servers. Period."
This is why we have lawyers, because regular folks seem to have no clue about how the law actually works.
Which is amusing when it comes to things like "Yes, your servers are in another nation, but you are American/do business in America, therefore we demand to see what's on your servers.'
Pretty much distills to: "whatever view favours us"
And you think this is a bad thing?
Your choice is whtever favours us, or whatever favours them. I know which I prefer.
They could retain, save all the money on hiring and training, and not have to pay 2x current salary to their employees if they just treated their employees better.
But could they?
It would be naive to assume someone upstairs hasn't done their sums. I mean do you think a market leader that has lots of smart people running the show for some reason would have stupid Finance and HR people? Or is it more likely that you probably don't understand how HR works?
I'll give you a tip, HR are not there for your benefit, they exist to reduce the liability of employees on the business. That is all.
After seeing "I can buy unlimited storage from the cloud" somehow I'm having a hard time taking the rest of the article seriously.
If Unlimited means "more than I can ever use" then it seems to make perfect sense.
I find it hard to believe that there'd be many people could use more storage than an AWS or a Backblaze can offer you.
Slashdot Mirror
The govt isn't a black box, and even if it were you can always vote it out.
Use X, disable Y, only use Z, don't bring A everywhere, use B, and don't stay C
Oh right, that's freedom right there...
But maybe, you would prefer that privacy were actually dead, because that would allow you to rationalize that you made the right choices accepting these intrusive behaviours from private corporations, now that you have become dependent on the convenience they provide..
Oh ok then. Ignore the facts, blame me instead...
Makes no difference, we're all fucked. Technology is now reaching a point where humans cannot compete with machines.
Your cell phone provider already has enough info to know everywhere you are at any point in time, who your friends and family are, who you call and how often. Google knows all your web habits, and what you hobbies are, and you bank knows every cent you spend, where and on what. And this info is freely bought and sold to marketing companies and other bad actors. It only takes one slip to connect a name to this data and your life is captured on record forever. We need to start preparing for a non-private reality, than try to hang onto any semblance of privacy we think we still have. Even as I type this some algorithm somewhere has already tied my writing style to all my other web aliases and is connecting me to my real identity.
Privacy is dead.
In fact, as I write all of this, I wonder if these companies are having trouble retaining people because the people that come to them are willing to sacrifice everything for a salary. It is no wonder that they leave at the drop of a hat.
Depends on your version of quality of life. I find travel the most rewarding of experiences. It probably stems from when I was a kid and travelled a lot as part of my military family. I learnt early that a lot of other kids, who might have been better at sports or whatever had a limited view of the world because that's all they knew.
So it's not just raw cash, it's the opportunity to earn money AND learn new skills AND meet different people with different opinions AND travel to new and interesting places. I also find that as an employer, people who travel and get out of their comfort zone make better employees, even if you only get 18 months out of them.
I seem to recall reading something years ago about designing a (mostly) DC powered house, and 48V was the number they landed on too.
Since most things in your house are DC anyway (I have gas cooking and heating), and with most only needing circuits in the region of 10 metres or less, I can't remember why this didn't become a thing?
Surely it would make it a lot easier to switch to off-grid battery storage solutions if everything is DC?
With 7+ Billion people and a large chunk of them in China and India in poor areas with little to no electricity, what happens when they start demanding access to the conveniences of the modern word?
Such as?
The advantage of living in a truly modern world (instead of a 1970's version of modern which most of the West is ensnared), is that new electrical devices are incredibly efficient. An average family with LED TVs, lights, phones, tablet etc could almost get by now on solar and a batteries. Unlike your average fat American who needs 10kwh/day to get by, your average human will get by on 3kwh/day or less. So there is a convergence between energy generation, storage and use which means this won't be an issue for the next generation of modern humans.
Lots of energy sources get subsidies, but only with renewables to individuals get the money directly.
Rather than Haliburton, KBR et al? I know which I prefer...
And for comparison's sake, renewables get many times the subsidy of conventional sources if you calculate it on a per MWH basis. Its not even close. No energy has ever gotten subsidized as heavily as renewables.
What about when you include the body count?
Did you include taxpayer funded portion in that? How much help are we giving you?
Probably less than I'm giving you. If you want to play that game, how much tax did you pay last year?
Are you the spokesperson for the Koch Brothers?
You don't get it, the whole existence of the article proves it isn't working.
So Slashdot articles are the written laws of nature now?
Amazon's record profits say otherwise.
By your logic, a person wouldn't try to avoid an obstacle in the road until after they hit it.
I'm pretty sure that Execs at Amazon don't create their business strategy based on what someone posted on Slashdot today...
Also, in general your whole way of analyzing this situation is hopelessly reductive.
Either that or I don't accept everything posted in Slashdot as the unquestionable truth.
As I said, the Amazon experts probably know the maths. If burning out resources every 18 months is working for them, there is no need for them to change.
I've worked in a similar environment because that strategy also worked. They had thousands of people lined up to work there, so had no reason dip into profits by keeping employees happy.
It's not the same for every business, everyone has their own recipe for success, but this model does actually work in some cases, and no amount of disappointment will change that fact.
Where are you getting your data from? If it's not from the UAH satellite temperature record, it's not accurate.
If you say so....
So some people are willing to settle, and some aren't. Perhaps if more people were willing to fight for what was important to them, this world would be a bit better place.
Sitting on your arse waiting for jobs to come to you isn't way I call 'willing to fight'.
Now, if you want to reduce CO2 emissions at the same time, feel free. I just don't want to be sent back to the 18th Century to stop something that's going to happen no matter what we do.
This is the part the conservatives missed when they jumped on the hate train. Creating a new Carbon free energy doesn't send you back, it brings you forward, and with a huge bang.
What do Conservatives want? Make America Strong Again? To make a new American Century? You don't do that by clinging to the technology that boomed 100 years ago.
Even if AGW is complete bunk, it serves as a great stimulator for new innovation, new business and more jobs. Even the most hardened capitalist should jump on board since it's the best chance we have at creating new profitable industries.
Remember the Railroad? the Steel industry? Electricity? The Auto industry? Computers? All great stimulators to the American economy. Imagine if the 2016 Conservatives were in power when all those things were invented? America would never have gotten off the ground.
at an unauthorized location
The server was in her home which is "an authorised location". Case closed.
There is nothing about "personal email servers" which is why she's off the hook. The law is too vague to withstand even a basic defence.
You don't get it. Whatever the culture, it is working for them.
What? That they value other factors in life, such as proximity to family and overall quality of life, as highly if not higher than they value their corporate overlords? I fail to see how that is a problem.
Because we all value those things, but most of us realise we don't always have a choice.
As you can see, the original poster forgot about 1998 (which tied with 2009 at 6th place), thus blowing his entire argument out of the water.
Um, can you count? When you have a tie, you can have more than 15 things in a top 15 list (as the NOAA data shows). "All 15 years this century are in the top 15 warmest years on record." is still true, even if you don't know how that works.
Not even all the lower 48.
Also worth noting that the "Global" in Global Warming means more than just the US. Where I live, after a decade of hottest years on record, last year we never had a winter, and this month is the hottest March since records began. It is also predicted we'll skip winter again this year too.
So even if where you live feels the same as usual, I assure that's not the case elsewhere. This shit is real and noticable, and it won't be long before it has a real economic impact.
But to imply that the last 15 years have all been the 15 hottest on record is ridiculous.
Well unless you have data that says otherwise I'll stick with the NOAA data than your gut feel. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc...
As though we never had a single warm year in the 1990s or earlier, or a single cold year in the last 15
This is the part where you'll need to produce real data, otherwise you sound like you're just making stuff up.
This is exactly the kind if alarmist bullshit that deniers can clamp on to. This screams bad science.
You know science isn't based on what feels right? If that's what the data says, then that's what it says.
Don't fall into that trap. Don't present obviously skewed data when the real data will show a clear enough pattern.
I'm not presenting anything, I'll leave that to the experts. And the experts says this is so.
Who is saying that? The law is very clear, classified information is not allowed on personal email servers. Period.
If it's clear then perhaps you could quote the actual law here? Because I'm sure the wording doesn't actually say "classified information is not allowed on personal email servers. Period."
This is why we have lawyers, because regular folks seem to have no clue about how the law actually works.
This is fucking idiotic logic....
Unfortunately this is Slashdot these days...
Which is amusing when it comes to things like "Yes, your servers are in another nation, but you are American/do business in America, therefore we demand to see what's on your servers.' Pretty much distills to: "whatever view favours us"
And you think this is a bad thing?
Your choice is whtever favours us, or whatever favours them. I know which I prefer.
I have a problem with them prosecuting a person in another country. Does that mean I am subject to foreign laws? This is all bullshit.
If you have a server then it's up to you to secure it. Your failure; then arrest yourself. Otherwise don't connect the server to the outside world.
Oh right, I'll remember that next time any crime is committed. You should have not allowed me to rape you, it's all your fault....
They could retain, save all the money on hiring and training, and not have to pay 2x current salary to their employees if they just treated their employees better.
But could they?
It would be naive to assume someone upstairs hasn't done their sums. I mean do you think a market leader that has lots of smart people running the show for some reason would have stupid Finance and HR people? Or is it more likely that you probably don't understand how HR works?
I'll give you a tip, HR are not there for your benefit, they exist to reduce the liability of employees on the business. That is all.
After seeing "I can buy unlimited storage from the cloud" somehow I'm having a hard time taking the rest of the article seriously.
If Unlimited means "more than I can ever use" then it seems to make perfect sense.
I find it hard to believe that there'd be many people could use more storage than an AWS or a Backblaze can offer you.