In a real sense this is true. In the sense of 'the numbers say the top 100....', they are using those numbers for the argument. Many people think if you move the gold or paper, the problem would be helped, when the control and power portion of the equation is left a big '???'
Is to not use 'appliances' in any remotely potentially secure application. Vendors have shown time and time again they are just as susceptible to screwing up as a common administrator. The difference being that a common administrator screwing up may be in a unique way not known by many, while a vendor cock up will be well known and land in some exploit kit.
As a rule, don't put any appliance or firmware internet facing if you care about the security.
I frequently find better bargains at my local brick and mortar stores - and I don't have to pay S&H
Also, even when you can find it cheaper online, a store will likely price match. I'm with you. I am however disappointed because more and more it's the case that retail doesn't even bother to stock the products I would want. They generally have low quality cheap versions, sometimes store branded to mask ability to compare and demand price match.
My problem was mostly limitations around non-admin people needing to nag me for a lot of stuff that under seafile they could do for themselves. Like creating their own groups and such (which I might have missed something, but seafile was more straightforward).
Of course, Seafile's LDAP support won't do paged queries, which is a pain. And the developers seem clueless or holding back for their commercial version...
True, but letting less thoughtful commentary go doesn't get the commentary ignored, it just let's that commentary echo to sometimes dangerous levels without critical thought.
My concern is that if you redistribute the 'wealth' that they'll never need, it will have zero real impact on the actual problems indicated by them managing to have so much in the first place. Like you say it can't be solved 'only' with money, but then say doing just the money would do something. I think it would border on utterly meaningless. After all, how many of these folks have gone bankrupt and never missed out on a second of living like a rich guy before the transient 'bankruptcy' state went away?
Note that I was replying to someone saying that all we need to do is sacrifice the top 100 to double wealth for everyone else. That was about wealth, not income. A slight bit offtopic from the article, but still.
Clearly if all our efforts pay off as we would hope, we need to figure out some way to reasonably deal with the fact that we don't *need* so many people doing so much to subsist, which our current economic strategies don't cope with.
We must also think about how to maximize the fairness of getting the work done that still needs manual labor. If the mindset continues to be mostly '40 hours or more, or nothing', but now with a guaranteed basic income, getting people to do full-time employment at thankless, but still needed jobs could be trickier. It *might* also end up working out better than I would guess, but it's hard to know. I ideally would like to see everyone working fewer hours before I'd want to see a lot of people not needing to work at all (over a sustained period of time).
I'm not saying the top 1% is not privileged beyond reason. I'm not saying there is no real problem.. I'm saying the situation is not so extreme that they could unilaterally meaningfully elevate the rest of the world's quality of life to the degree the numbers suggest. People who think we could just Robin Hood them and the world's quality of life problems would go away are too optimistically faithful in the numbers.
Economy is as much about psychology as anything else. The value of a 'dollar' is a matter of perception and context (in both time and what sort of good or whatever it is being used on, or the value being different for a dollar being spent versus a dollar hoarded into some account for some indefinite period of time). It's all a confusing mess.
While amazon screwed up here and enabled a social engineering attack:
Google services which seem significantly more robust at stopping these attacks
What is the evidence that he has to support this assertion? In his time at amazon, it seemed one party after some period of time started harassing amazon. Does he know that Google is more robust, or just that no one has gotten around to harassing him?
Assuming google is more robust, is it because they are 'just plain better' or because Amazon is so retail-heavy that it's much more difficult for them to block such attacks without royally pissing off their bread and butter retail customers?
It does surprise me that the support without logging in can do *anything* except help them reset their password. Resetting the password is more intrusive, though even this got notification sent to the legitimate account holder, so it wasn't a stealthy attack to begin with.
While I sympathize with the sentiment, the fantasy of being able to just redistribute the 'wealth' of the top 100 doubling the standard of living of everybody else is rooted in the mathematical fiction of 'wealth' (as we model it today).
Wealth is an assessed value of their assets and their money. Assets including cars, land, bulidings, stocks, etc. If Steve Balmer one day said 'I want to trade in my 15 billion dollars of microsoft stock for some cash', he wouldn't get 15 billion dollars of cash because the share price would tank. If you took the resources that go into building a 400,000 exotic car, you could not take those same and just build 20 family sedans, though the 'math' says you could.
On the flip side, a lot of homeless folk are technically more 'wealthy' than some pretty comfortable folks. In the early part of his vice presidency, Joe Biden had negative net worth. By the same standards that establish the top 100 as being able to elevate the rest of the world, Joe Biden was a more pitiable man than people in cardboard boxes (he had plenty of assets, but more debt than assets). Incidentally this scenario applies to most young families with a house and a car or two, but they wouldn't trade that in for a cardboard box to get wealthier.
In general don't look too hard at the ostensible numbers of wealth, because in aggregate it's a situation with many hacks to workaround this nonsense. A lot of the high-dollar things are more like 'high scores' than some indicator of meaningful value that is accurate relative to the experience of most. One would hope there's a better way than just increasingly playing make believe with numbers, but we haven't really come up with something that works in the way modern life goes (no, a return to gold standard or something in the same spirit wouldn't help, it would just limit the ability to do the 'workarounds' to fix things when the behavior of the participants in the economy goes nuts).
It's not WPS. WPS would be disruptive to all other connectors. It's probably some random generated password changed daily or something like that for a guest SSID.
It's a good way to get a story, though having a repurposed cell phone running dedicated app with 'touch to show password' would be more practical.
The thing is a fixed function device adds nothing compared to adding software to instrument the stuff already there. The LCD adds expense and can't really show nearly as much as a dedicated web page or application could relay.
But again, the cheap speakers they put in are nothing compared to contending with clients not understanding and having to maintain different models to cater to both (and the exchanges when someone realizes they got the lesser one and wanted the speakers and such)
They said 32-bit 'OS', not 32-bit 'windows'. And a hypothetical Windows 64 without WoW64 and dism to remove the crap would probably fit fine, though be useless (unable to run 32-bit apps).
A Pentium 4 1.5 ghz would be terribly slower than this thing. Pentium 4 was netburst architecture so performance per clock was terrible for its time, and this thing probably delivers twice as much performance per clock as the best processors of that era, and probably three times as much as a netburst.
All connectors are PCB mounted. The question is whether it is surface mount or through mount. One would hope they wouldn't surface mount the connectors, though I have seen that done. Considering the metal shroud around most computer connectors provide just EMC shielding and rarely ever structurally reinforces them (some blind mate connectors are sometimes a bit more reinforced), this has in practice worked.
So the biggest question that I would have is whether they could have made it fanless if it were a *smidge* larger. Of course, quality fans now have an incredibly long lifetime, so it's not that big a longevity concern if they picked the right one.
a pure 64 bit OS would work fine. Just Windows is a bit bloated of a footprint to begin with, and Windows 64 is essentially two installs of windows (WoW64) exacerbated by typically preinstalling even 'uninstalled' components, just in case.
The fan noise will be noticeable. The savings may be greater than 23 watts (rest of the system uses power, for example). Somewhere between 2 and 3 dollars a month of power savings is admittedly not much, though if you did something like that with a 25 dollar stick, it would pay for itself in less than a year while also being an upgrade.
I agree with the sentiment, but the incremental cost of the 10-15 dollar board to be 'smart' is next to nothing, the cost of maintaining multiple SKUs far outweighs the savings that would be had by skipping it. The mass market not being able to start 'netflix' out of the box can be a severe competitive disadvantage if a vendor actually skipped the concept entirely for a product.
I just ignore the existence of the DLNA/netflix app/etc my TV has (terrible experience anyway). It works as a 'dumb monitor' just fine. But a 'dumb monitor' would not be able to meet the needs of someone who wanted 'smart'.
The thing is just having the ports wouldn't have been enough anyway. At the time there was no strategy for cross-platform executables (no OSX-style multi-arch binaries, no java-like bytecode thing that was yet in a suitable shape to displace native applications of the day....
Slashdot Mirror
In a real sense this is true. In the sense of 'the numbers say the top 100....', they are using those numbers for the argument. Many people think if you move the gold or paper, the problem would be helped, when the control and power portion of the equation is left a big '???'
Is to not use 'appliances' in any remotely potentially secure application. Vendors have shown time and time again they are just as susceptible to screwing up as a common administrator. The difference being that a common administrator screwing up may be in a unique way not known by many, while a vendor cock up will be well known and land in some exploit kit.
As a rule, don't put any appliance or firmware internet facing if you care about the security.
I frequently find better bargains at my local brick and mortar stores - and I don't have to pay S&H
Also, even when you can find it cheaper online, a store will likely price match. I'm with you. I am however disappointed because more and more it's the case that retail doesn't even bother to stock the products I would want. They generally have low quality cheap versions, sometimes store branded to mask ability to compare and demand price match.
I'm also surprised that they kept just saying what the last order was, rather than asking what the item was.
My problem was mostly limitations around non-admin people needing to nag me for a lot of stuff that under seafile they could do for themselves. Like creating their own groups and such (which I might have missed something, but seafile was more straightforward).
Of course, Seafile's LDAP support won't do paged queries, which is a pain. And the developers seem clueless or holding back for their commercial version...
True, but letting less thoughtful commentary go doesn't get the commentary ignored, it just let's that commentary echo to sometimes dangerous levels without critical thought.
It's one of those scenarios where a virtual desktop infrastructure would serve the need most appropriately.
BTW, at last check I preferred seafile over owncloud, though I would wonder if owncloud has improved enough over the year to rethink that.
Actually your vote would count. If you said 'no', no amount of ISP, cloud, etc provider enthusiasm is going to enable you to get your work done.
I saw no reference to MongoDB, so it can't be web-scale.
My concern is that if you redistribute the 'wealth' that they'll never need, it will have zero real impact on the actual problems indicated by them managing to have so much in the first place. Like you say it can't be solved 'only' with money, but then say doing just the money would do something. I think it would border on utterly meaningless. After all, how many of these folks have gone bankrupt and never missed out on a second of living like a rich guy before the transient 'bankruptcy' state went away?
Note that I was replying to someone saying that all we need to do is sacrifice the top 100 to double wealth for everyone else. That was about wealth, not income. A slight bit offtopic from the article, but still.
Clearly if all our efforts pay off as we would hope, we need to figure out some way to reasonably deal with the fact that we don't *need* so many people doing so much to subsist, which our current economic strategies don't cope with.
We must also think about how to maximize the fairness of getting the work done that still needs manual labor. If the mindset continues to be mostly '40 hours or more, or nothing', but now with a guaranteed basic income, getting people to do full-time employment at thankless, but still needed jobs could be trickier. It *might* also end up working out better than I would guess, but it's hard to know. I ideally would like to see everyone working fewer hours before I'd want to see a lot of people not needing to work at all (over a sustained period of time).
I'm not saying the top 1% is not privileged beyond reason. I'm not saying there is no real problem.. I'm saying the situation is not so extreme that they could unilaterally meaningfully elevate the rest of the world's quality of life to the degree the numbers suggest. People who think we could just Robin Hood them and the world's quality of life problems would go away are too optimistically faithful in the numbers.
Economy is as much about psychology as anything else. The value of a 'dollar' is a matter of perception and context (in both time and what sort of good or whatever it is being used on, or the value being different for a dollar being spent versus a dollar hoarded into some account for some indefinite period of time). It's all a confusing mess.
While amazon screwed up here and enabled a social engineering attack:
Google services which seem significantly more robust at stopping these attacks
What is the evidence that he has to support this assertion? In his time at amazon, it seemed one party after some period of time started harassing amazon. Does he know that Google is more robust, or just that no one has gotten around to harassing him?
Assuming google is more robust, is it because they are 'just plain better' or because Amazon is so retail-heavy that it's much more difficult for them to block such attacks without royally pissing off their bread and butter retail customers?
It does surprise me that the support without logging in can do *anything* except help them reset their password. Resetting the password is more intrusive, though even this got notification sent to the legitimate account holder, so it wasn't a stealthy attack to begin with.
While I sympathize with the sentiment, the fantasy of being able to just redistribute the 'wealth' of the top 100 doubling the standard of living of everybody else is rooted in the mathematical fiction of 'wealth' (as we model it today).
Wealth is an assessed value of their assets and their money. Assets including cars, land, bulidings, stocks, etc. If Steve Balmer one day said 'I want to trade in my 15 billion dollars of microsoft stock for some cash', he wouldn't get 15 billion dollars of cash because the share price would tank. If you took the resources that go into building a 400,000 exotic car, you could not take those same and just build 20 family sedans, though the 'math' says you could.
On the flip side, a lot of homeless folk are technically more 'wealthy' than some pretty comfortable folks. In the early part of his vice presidency, Joe Biden had negative net worth. By the same standards that establish the top 100 as being able to elevate the rest of the world, Joe Biden was a more pitiable man than people in cardboard boxes (he had plenty of assets, but more debt than assets). Incidentally this scenario applies to most young families with a house and a car or two, but they wouldn't trade that in for a cardboard box to get wealthier.
In general don't look too hard at the ostensible numbers of wealth, because in aggregate it's a situation with many hacks to workaround this nonsense. A lot of the high-dollar things are more like 'high scores' than some indicator of meaningful value that is accurate relative to the experience of most. One would hope there's a better way than just increasingly playing make believe with numbers, but we haven't really come up with something that works in the way modern life goes (no, a return to gold standard or something in the same spirit wouldn't help, it would just limit the ability to do the 'workarounds' to fix things when the behavior of the participants in the economy goes nuts).
It's not WPS. WPS would be disruptive to all other connectors. It's probably some random generated password changed daily or something like that for a guest SSID.
It's a good way to get a story, though having a repurposed cell phone running dedicated app with 'touch to show password' would be more practical.
The thing is a fixed function device adds nothing compared to adding software to instrument the stuff already there. The LCD adds expense and can't really show nearly as much as a dedicated web page or application could relay.
But again, the cheap speakers they put in are nothing compared to contending with clients not understanding and having to maintain different models to cater to both (and the exchanges when someone realizes they got the lesser one and wanted the speakers and such)
They said 32-bit 'OS', not 32-bit 'windows'. And a hypothetical Windows 64 without WoW64 and dism to remove the crap would probably fit fine, though be useless (unable to run 32-bit apps).
A Pentium 4 1.5 ghz would be terribly slower than this thing. Pentium 4 was netburst architecture so performance per clock was terrible for its time, and this thing probably delivers twice as much performance per clock as the best processors of that era, and probably three times as much as a netburst.
It's a cheap throw-away device.
All connectors are PCB mounted. The question is whether it is surface mount or through mount. One would hope they wouldn't surface mount the connectors, though I have seen that done. Considering the metal shroud around most computer connectors provide just EMC shielding and rarely ever structurally reinforces them (some blind mate connectors are sometimes a bit more reinforced), this has in practice worked.
So the biggest question that I would have is whether they could have made it fanless if it were a *smidge* larger. Of course, quality fans now have an incredibly long lifetime, so it's not that big a longevity concern if they picked the right one.
a pure 64 bit OS would work fine. Just Windows is a bit bloated of a footprint to begin with, and Windows 64 is essentially two installs of windows (WoW64) exacerbated by typically preinstalling even 'uninstalled' components, just in case.
The fan noise will be noticeable. The savings may be greater than 23 watts (rest of the system uses power, for example). Somewhere between 2 and 3 dollars a month of power savings is admittedly not much, though if you did something like that with a 25 dollar stick, it would pay for itself in less than a year while also being an upgrade.
I agree with the sentiment, but the incremental cost of the 10-15 dollar board to be 'smart' is next to nothing, the cost of maintaining multiple SKUs far outweighs the savings that would be had by skipping it. The mass market not being able to start 'netflix' out of the box can be a severe competitive disadvantage if a vendor actually skipped the concept entirely for a product.
I just ignore the existence of the DLNA/netflix app/etc my TV has (terrible experience anyway). It works as a 'dumb monitor' just fine. But a 'dumb monitor' would not be able to meet the needs of someone who wanted 'smart'.
The thing is just having the ports wouldn't have been enough anyway. At the time there was no strategy for cross-platform executables (no OSX-style multi-arch binaries, no java-like bytecode thing that was yet in a suitable shape to displace native applications of the day....
The market for such a thing would be probably just you.
Almost no one cares, and those that do care are better served by using a more general use device to connect to a router and get that data.