It's the last utility that still works in an emergency.
Not true. Copper is no less vulnerable than fiber to a backhoe.
It fails just as completely when the circuit has no juice. The days are long gone when all copper lived on a resilient infrastructure with batteries and generators. An awful lot of it leads back to a "hut" with minimal battery power and a fiber backhaul to the CO.
But to be fair, most of humanity simply isn't ready for the Internet. The Internet is still the Wild West, full of garbage, and most people are simply not smart or savvy enough to deal with it.
Don't tell me, let me guess...
You, personally, are, in fact, smart or savvy enough to deal with the internet?
Full of yourself much?
Not at all. I'm certainly realistic enough to admit that I am as susceptible as the next person to the heady seduction of a media stream of "things I want to hear". The one thing that sets me apart is that I had the good fortune to have teachers who taught me to question authority. If employing that lesson in the way I judge the veracity of things I read "on the Internet" is "full of myself" so be it, but that so many lack such discernment is beyond dispute.
Bizarrely people would rather have Symantec reading their mail than the Russians
First of all... [citation needed].
Second, and more to the point, this isn't about email. No one ever said it was. It is about trust and risk management. Even if it was demonstrated that U.S. intelligence agencies had compromised Symantec (or whomwever), there is just a little bit of a difference in that scenario than the now solidly attributed one where Russian intelligence (not to mention Israeli) had thoroughly compromised Kaspersky. How the fuck are those two scenarios equal in any way when it comes to judging which vendor to chose for an extremely critical role in your organization's security? My U.S.-centric point of view is noted. The rest of you may be excused.
A third party selling a product is splitting the development costs among multiple customers. You building it yourself means eating 100% of the cost yourself.
Unless, of course, you split the development costs among multiple customers!
*sigh*
Just in case there's somebody who didn't get the brilliantly subtle comment that parent made, FOSS software does exactly this (distributing the cost of development among multiple customers/contributors).
for real. to completely dismiss his well thought out, sourced, and reasonable essay just goes to show that diversity and integrity are not what they are after, but groupthink is what they want
Really? So you think that an unsubstantiated bullshit opinion piece is "well thought out"? OK, not that I think you'll have the guts to reply, but do tell. Where is this idiot's support the the following assertion...
"...conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness..."
No shit? Really? In my experience, just the opposite is true, but the difference between me and a conservative jagoff like that (and you, apparently) is that I am willing to admit that I'm just talking about my own experience, and that that experience inevitably colors my view to a certain extent. If I were actually writing a scholarly piece, I'd support my assertions with, you know, facts. This guy's screed reads like the whining of butt-hurt, immature asshole who has never learned the first thing about sexism.
It's also being viewed by a lot of women as a first-class ticket to unlimited media attention and a big fat legal payday.
Yep, this is the new way to make up for the perceived pay-gap women claim they experience.
It's not a good time to be a guy...especially a white guy. Anyone can hang an accusation of racist, mysoginist, xyz-ist....and it will stick and often cost you as that you are guilty till proven innocent.
Spoken like a typical, entitled, sexist, racist jagoff.
No. Those things don't happen if you aren't a racist, mysoginist, or xyz-ist asshole. If you treat your employees fairly, and in a manner that makes it clear that you value them, word gets around. People want to work for you. Hell, they'll even go to bat for you because they value being treated fairly.
Now what's that theory about all participants in capitalism requiring perfect information about the market?
That notion holds that the "invisible hand" only works where customers are adequately informed about the marketplace and the things of interest to them in that marketplace. It really does not apply here. Amazon is perfectly within their rights to say, "My WiFi. My rules. Go get informed on somebody else's network."
Yet another group is placing a bunch of motor/propellor units on an "airframe" and calling it a flying car. Bad design. Very bad. The loss of any one of those powerplant/propeller combinations means the thing now "flies" just slightly better than a grand piano. Jeezuz, even a helicopter gives it's pilot at least a shot at a good landing (defined as one you can walk away from) in an engine-out scenario. This design has been a horrible idea since Moller came up with it, what, fifty years ago?
...it's the product. You turn out unimaginative shit, and expect people to pay ever increasing amounts of money to sit in a theater where the management doesn't give a shit about "the experience" (Alamo Drafthouse and McMenamin's, you're off the hook for that part), and then you wonder why people stop paying? You might want to spend little more money on effective market research. And no, home theater isn't the cause either.
Your question betrays either an inability to appreciate critical nuance, and/or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the practical truth - that too much CO2 in the atmosphere is bad. The list to which you assign CO2, pollutant or non-pollutant, does not matter. See if you can wrap your small brain around that.
Our "leaders" will tell you that the economy is in good shape. And they can do that, because they changed yardsticks during the Reagan years. All the economic conditions that virtually created a middle class that could reasonably expect to do things like graduate from college debt free, or work in a trade that paid a living wage, buy a home, put kids through college, etc., no longer exist.
Congratulations on such a disingenuous response and analysis. Your grasp of Constitutional law and the principles that underpin it is staggering in it's shallowness.
Let me bottom-line it for you, genius. Citizens United was a "valid ruling" because it was within the purview of the SCOTUS to do so. Period. It granted certain rights and privileges to a legal construct which no reasonable person would equate with a citizen of the U.S. Nor would a reasonable person miss the fact that those legal constructs are granted certain privileges that citizens do NOT enjoy and that they can and do often wield those privileges to the marked disadvantage of those citizens. But by all means, keep living in your Rand fan-boy world.
I must dissagree with you - and state categorically that whether the laws are good or not is not a relevant consideration,
The single greatest risk to peace, freedom, democracy and human life in the world today is corporations flagrantly ignoring the rule of law.
This. A thousand times, this! "Citizens United" notwithstanding, corporations are not people, and certainly not citizens. They should exist only as construct that is explicitly and implicitly subordinate to government and the citizens that the government exists to serve.
There is great potential for abuse with these things, and the Trump admin is not afraid to make the hard decisions on these types of things, optics be damned.
Your damned right. The ability to take actions and against citizens and their property, and to then be able to hide those actions from public scrutinty is a hugely dangerous thing. My gawd, the potential for abuse is...
Oh... wait.
You actually think that such assaults on our Constitutional rights are a good idea? You are an imbecile.
A while back, I drove a friend's 1968 Mustang GT (302 motor, 230 HP). It was exciting, but the suspension was crude, making it difficult to keep it between the ditches when you really stomped the gas. Frankly, I think the car tried to kill about three times in a half a block. Modern vehicles, even with twice the horsepower, are much better behaved. Hell, my six cylinder 2016 Chevrolet Colorado has just over 300 HP and it's a pussycat, even when you turn all of the ponies loose. Granted it's got more wheelbase than that classic Mustang, but it is a light-in-the-ass-end pickup. Traction control and 21st century shocks make a bit of a difference.
As for exhaust note at idle, for my money, nothing tops this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Granted, it takes a few tries to get 'em all lit, but when all 28 (yes, 28) cylinders are firing, there's nothing like it.
Yes, we're very much at the start of the new tech hype cycle
Keep in mind that most tech hype is actually correct, even if premature. People laughed in the 1980s when hypers predicted that home computers would be popular, and in the workplace there would be a computer on every desk. But that is what happened. Likewise, people rolled their eyes in the 1990s at the notion that online shopping would be popular, and many people predicted that smartphones and social media were passing fads.
Well, no. I didn't reject the notion of PCs, or ecommerce. I do reject the notion of "AI" becoming a thing in my lifetime. First of all, what's being hyped as AI is not AI, as AI has been defined. At most, we're talking about "machine learning", not the same thing at all.
I don't even think Cruz is legitimately religious. He knows what buttons to push to get his voters riled up and to the polls. Most of these kinds of politicians don't have a genuine bone in their bodies. For them, religion is always the big show. They're the ones at the front of the church singing the loudest, proclaiming their faith in God the loudest, and believing it all the least. He's a con man.
This has been the key page in the GOP's playbook for decades. Abortion and gay rights are a guaranteed dog whistle to the typical, so-called conservative voter. Now that the gay rights thing is all but settled (and to my LGBT friends, yes. I know that there are still many who think it's not and who bear watching), the new threat invented by the Right is the MtF transgendered using the women's restroom. That one will keep getting them elected for another ten years or so. Meanwhile, the interests of those fearful tools of the GOP, who voted "to protect the children", are going to be shat upon, again.
He's a manager - he needs to understand the 20,000 foot view. Unfortunately, these guys don't seem to even get that. This bill was probably written by lobbyists and given to the Senator with a nice big contribution check to his re-election campaign.
Jeez... Ya think?
Seriously, campers. This is how it works. In the U.S. Senate, campaign contributors are the constituents, not the voters. You can fix this, but you have to start getting involved and supporting candidates who will support a Constitutional amendment that will remove corporate money from U.S. politics. https://movetoamend.org/
Slashdot Mirror
...are, this morning, still curled up in a fetal position and whimpering.
It's the last utility that still works in an emergency.
Not true. Copper is no less vulnerable than fiber to a backhoe. It fails just as completely when the circuit has no juice. The days are long gone when all copper lived on a resilient infrastructure with batteries and generators. An awful lot of it leads back to a "hut" with minimal battery power and a fiber backhaul to the CO.
Don't tell me, let me guess...
You, personally, are, in fact, smart or savvy enough to deal with the internet?
Full of yourself much?
Not at all. I'm certainly realistic enough to admit that I am as susceptible as the next person to the heady seduction of a media stream of "things I want to hear". The one thing that sets me apart is that I had the good fortune to have teachers who taught me to question authority. If employing that lesson in the way I judge the veracity of things I read "on the Internet" is "full of myself" so be it, but that so many lack such discernment is beyond dispute.
Bizarrely people would rather have Symantec reading their mail than the Russians
First of all... [citation needed].
Second, and more to the point, this isn't about email. No one ever said it was. It is about trust and risk management. Even if it was demonstrated that U.S. intelligence agencies had compromised Symantec (or whomwever), there is just a little bit of a difference in that scenario than the now solidly attributed one where Russian intelligence (not to mention Israeli) had thoroughly compromised Kaspersky. How the fuck are those two scenarios equal in any way when it comes to judging which vendor to chose for an extremely critical role in your organization's security? My U.S.-centric point of view is noted. The rest of you may be excused.
Unless, of course, you split the development costs among multiple customers!
*sigh*
Just in case there's somebody who didn't get the brilliantly subtle comment that parent made, FOSS software does exactly this (distributing the cost of development among multiple customers/contributors).
for real. to completely dismiss his well thought out, sourced, and reasonable essay just goes to show that diversity and integrity are not what they are after, but groupthink is what they want
Really? So you think that an unsubstantiated bullshit opinion piece is "well thought out"? OK, not that I think you'll have the guts to reply, but do tell. Where is this idiot's support the the following assertion...
"...conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness..."
No shit? Really? In my experience, just the opposite is true, but the difference between me and a conservative jagoff like that (and you, apparently) is that I am willing to admit that I'm just talking about my own experience, and that that experience inevitably colors my view to a certain extent. If I were actually writing a scholarly piece, I'd support my assertions with, you know, facts. This guy's screed reads like the whining of butt-hurt, immature asshole who has never learned the first thing about sexism.
How many people died because of Three Mile Island?
None.
[citation needed]
Yep, this is the new way to make up for the perceived pay-gap women claim they experience.
It's not a good time to be a guy...especially a white guy. Anyone can hang an accusation of racist, mysoginist, xyz-ist....and it will stick and often cost you as that you are guilty till proven innocent.
Spoken like a typical, entitled, sexist, racist jagoff.
No. Those things don't happen if you aren't a racist, mysoginist, or xyz-ist asshole. If you treat your employees fairly, and in a manner that makes it clear that you value them, word gets around. People want to work for you. Hell, they'll even go to bat for you because they value being treated fairly.
Huge wast of space. Stop letting "designers" do UI.
This. It is neither exploding nor AI. What's widely being called AI is nothing more than "machine learning". Not the same thing. At. All.
Now what's that theory about all participants in capitalism requiring perfect information about the market?
That notion holds that the "invisible hand" only works where customers are adequately informed about the marketplace and the things of interest to them in that marketplace. It really does not apply here. Amazon is perfectly within their rights to say, "My WiFi. My rules. Go get informed on somebody else's network."
Yet another group is placing a bunch of motor/propellor units on an "airframe" and calling it a flying car. Bad design. Very bad. The loss of any one of those powerplant/propeller combinations means the thing now "flies" just slightly better than a grand piano. Jeezuz, even a helicopter gives it's pilot at least a shot at a good landing (defined as one you can walk away from) in an engine-out scenario. This design has been a horrible idea since Moller came up with it, what, fifty years ago?
...it's the product. You turn out unimaginative shit, and expect people to pay ever increasing amounts of money to sit in a theater where the management doesn't give a shit about "the experience" (Alamo Drafthouse and McMenamin's, you're off the hook for that part), and then you wonder why people stop paying? You might want to spend little more money on effective market research. And no, home theater isn't the cause either.
Your question betrays either an inability to appreciate critical nuance, and/or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the practical truth - that too much CO2 in the atmosphere is bad. The list to which you assign CO2, pollutant or non-pollutant, does not matter. See if you can wrap your small brain around that.
Our "leaders" will tell you that the economy is in good shape. And they can do that, because they changed yardsticks during the Reagan years. All the economic conditions that virtually created a middle class that could reasonably expect to do things like graduate from college debt free, or work in a trade that paid a living wage, buy a home, put kids through college, etc., no longer exist.
Congratulations on such a disingenuous response and analysis. Your grasp of Constitutional law and the principles that underpin it is staggering in it's shallowness. Let me bottom-line it for you, genius. Citizens United was a "valid ruling" because it was within the purview of the SCOTUS to do so. Period. It granted certain rights and privileges to a legal construct which no reasonable person would equate with a citizen of the U.S. Nor would a reasonable person miss the fact that those legal constructs are granted certain privileges that citizens do NOT enjoy and that they can and do often wield those privileges to the marked disadvantage of those citizens. But by all means, keep living in your Rand fan-boy world.
I must dissagree with you - and state categorically that whether the laws are good or not is not a relevant consideration, The single greatest risk to peace, freedom, democracy and human life in the world today is corporations flagrantly ignoring the rule of law.
This. A thousand times, this! "Citizens United" notwithstanding, corporations are not people, and certainly not citizens. They should exist only as construct that is explicitly and implicitly subordinate to government and the citizens that the government exists to serve.
There is great potential for abuse with these things, and the Trump admin is not afraid to make the hard decisions on these types of things, optics be damned.
Your damned right. The ability to take actions and against citizens and their property, and to then be able to hide those actions from public scrutinty is a hugely dangerous thing. My gawd, the potential for abuse is...
Oh... wait.
You actually think that such assaults on our Constitutional rights are a good idea? You are an imbecile.
As for exhaust note at idle, for my money, nothing tops this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Granted, it takes a few tries to get 'em all lit, but when all 28 (yes, 28) cylinders are firing, there's nothing like it.
Yes, we're very much at the start of the new tech hype cycle
Keep in mind that most tech hype is actually correct, even if premature. People laughed in the 1980s when hypers predicted that home computers would be popular, and in the workplace there would be a computer on every desk. But that is what happened. Likewise, people rolled their eyes in the 1990s at the notion that online shopping would be popular, and many people predicted that smartphones and social media were passing fads.
Well, no. I didn't reject the notion of PCs, or ecommerce. I do reject the notion of "AI" becoming a thing in my lifetime. First of all, what's being hyped as AI is not AI, as AI has been defined. At most, we're talking about "machine learning", not the same thing at all.
Didn't trump just make America great again? How can we still have homeless people?
If they live at Amazon, they aren't homeless. You see? American is great again, thanks to be big business.
I don't even think Cruz is legitimately religious. He knows what buttons to push to get his voters riled up and to the polls. Most of these kinds of politicians don't have a genuine bone in their bodies. For them, religion is always the big show. They're the ones at the front of the church singing the loudest, proclaiming their faith in God the loudest, and believing it all the least. He's a con man.
This has been the key page in the GOP's playbook for decades. Abortion and gay rights are a guaranteed dog whistle to the typical, so-called conservative voter. Now that the gay rights thing is all but settled (and to my LGBT friends, yes. I know that there are still many who think it's not and who bear watching), the new threat invented by the Right is the MtF transgendered using the women's restroom. That one will keep getting them elected for another ten years or so. Meanwhile, the interests of those fearful tools of the GOP, who voted "to protect the children", are going to be shat upon, again.
He's a manager - he needs to understand the 20,000 foot view. Unfortunately, these guys don't seem to even get that. This bill was probably written by lobbyists and given to the Senator with a nice big contribution check to his re-election campaign.
Jeez... Ya think?
Seriously, campers. This is how it works. In the U.S. Senate, campaign contributors are the constituents, not the voters. You can fix this, but you have to start getting involved and supporting candidates who will support a Constitutional amendment that will remove corporate money from U.S. politics. https://movetoamend.org/
And people still think we need more government intervention...
Well, yes, but not in this area. What's your point?
Trump is president AND a billionaire, and you're just some loser who whines on the internet.
And there isn't anything else to say.
Your conclusion does not follow the premises provided. You fail Logic 101. And that would explain why you're a Trump apologist.