1. The "perfectly good" public water system doesn't have pipes going to my bicycle.
2. Public water fountains, when you can find them, have water that tastes disgusting. EVERY TIME.
3. Some water bottlers still refrain from putting fluoride and chlorine in their water. Don't expect this to last long.
1 and 2 can be resolved with a drink bottle that you fill yourself, and it's more convenient since you don't have to find a shop.
3 is just bullshit. You're drinking fluoride anyway, so your morning bottle won't make a bit of difference no matter what you believe fluoride does.
But hey you're a perfect example of what I just said. You justify spending $1 per bottle where you could buy a refillable bottle for a dollar and get your refills for less than 1c. Irrational.
By the way I do buy bottled water but not to drink - it's distilled water for my CPAP. No additives at all so it doesn't turn the base of my humidifier into a rusted salt pit. Even that's cheaper at $5 for 4 litres than you're probably paying.
Trying to make money from something that isn't scarce is silly. Charge for the scarce goods not the stuff you can easily copy. The very first copy is scarce. Support is scarce. Commissioning people with talent is scarce.
I thought bottled water in places where clean water is plentiful for almost nothing would never take off. I was wrong. People aren't rational.
A high school football player just last week died during practice. MANY kids are hurt doing team sports in schools. There's a KNOWN, DEFINITE health threat, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt!
If they can ban stuff based on the vague possibility of a problem, why not ban what is PROVEN to be one!
No, we need to BAN EVERYTHING! It's the only way to be sure.
The trouble is if you ban bans, then you can't then ban anything else.
So you must ban everything, then ban bans.
If anything new comes up, you then refuse to acknowledge it exists. Shutting your eyes and covering your ears while yelling lalala at the top of your lungs is very helpful there....except that at that point, it's been banned.
The ban on breathing also places an upper limit to the effectiveness of the strategy, and the reign of any regime adopting it. For more information see Origin of Species (also banned unfortunately).
While you might be happy that your preferred liberal or conservative news hits you, you'll never get to see the converse. This is because Google, Facebook, newspaper sites and even Netflix filter what hits you before you get to see it. And since they give you what you want, you never see the opposing viewpoints or step outside your comfort zone. It amounts to a claim of censorship through personalization and now that every site does it, it's commingle a problem.
Especially considering the natural tendency to discard information that is in contradiction to ones personal views on the world. If the actual inputs are then skewed to support that view, then it just gets even more extreme as a person tends to discard the more moderate views in favor of more extreme ones.
You might be right, but I just don't want to hear it! lalalalala. See my filter bubble is more powerful than any Google could craft.
You realise that the article is rules of thumb, which themselves are summaries of accepted wisdom, right?
If anything, going by this article it should be RTFS not RTFA.
Or you could just actually take the effort to understand the tradeoffs you're making instead of following a set of vague general rules which aren't suited to each situation... If it's important, it's worth getting the detail right. Think brain surgery - do you want your brain surgeon ignoring the detail and applying a set of shortcut rules of thumb?
Leslie Lamport' s comment on distributed systems applies:
"A distributed system is one in which I cannot get something done because a machine I've never heard of is down."
This is even more so with the "Cloud". Think 99.99% uptime?
(In many cases) The question is not whether the cloud gets you 99.99% uptime. It is whether it gets you better up-time than what you can run in-house for the same price. It's easy to insult the amazon guys when they fuck up, but the availability they offer is certainly better than what a small company can get from their single part-time admin who does something else as a day job. And even if you are a small tech company, where in theory anybody has the knowledge to run a few services, in practice it is very easy to make mistakes, even for smart people.
So what you're arguing is that cloud computing makes sense not for large businesses which demand reliability but for small ma and pa operations too poor or too cheap to hire a sysadmin. Only trouble is cloud computing isn't targetted so much at small business, but more at the top end of town which may demand 5 9s or 6 9s.
And when you scale up, the cloud can scale up with you. Of course, by the time you're google you'll be running your own data centers...
But you just said it can't be expected to if you want high uptime.
Are you insane? What do you think you're going to achieve for yourself or your client? All you're doing is wasting your time and their money. Just fresh install the fucker already. This is one instance where GS or BB would have done a better job because clearly the computer is actually hosed and does need a new drive and a fresh install.
Seems like a dozen people lived in the compound, and porn was found on one of the PCs there. People are hoping it's Bin Laden's, since it fits with the idea he's a bad person, and a perv on top of it.
I must be strange. I don't give a fuck that bin laden watched porn. I do care that he arranged to have thousands murdered and succeeded in curbing western freedom. If he hadn't done that why would I care who he slept with or what got him off???
And? Can it not be assumed that it meant all speech? All it says is "freedom of speech" while listing no exceptions. Because of this, there are none.
What complete and utter nonsense. Those who drafted were concerned with freedom and liberty. You aren't free if you've got someone constantly yelling abuse at you day and night. READ the full fucking document and do so with some knowledge of history so you can understand the context a little. The context was not to allow people to be abusive and obnoxious. People like you think you're upholding or defending the constitution but don't have a fucking clue what the document was about. Not that I'm saying it was perfect either - they couldn't agree on slavery at the start.
The only thing the computer has done, the way we use it, is to make it quicker to come to the wrong conclusions.
There's negativity for you. You lost me right there. I've done lots of very positive things with computers that did not involve incorrect conclusions. Take planetarium software for a night of amateur observing. I can tell where to look for something well ahead of time. Or take spreadsheets. Saved me countless hours of error prone BS with a calculator. If you choose to use the computer blindly like a monkey trying to type out Shakespeare the problem is behind the keyboard.
Anyone remember those choose your own adventure books we had growing up? Kinda reminds me of that. I don't know how innovative it's going to be. Lots of games have a working plot and lots of cutscenes. Mirror's Edge comes to mind. Still might be a great game but it makes me cringe that every time a studio brings out a game they want to try to make it sound like it's nothing like anything before it, when in reality innovation is quite rare and usually comes in small chunks, especially in gaming.
Verbal assault is recognised as a criminal act in most countries that protect free speech.
And? If they claim to have free speech in something as "final" as a constitution, then they are the ones who are wrong, are they not? The number of countries that do this is irrelevant.
No. Freedom is not an absolute, and it is not possible for you and everyone else to be completely free to do whatever you like. Some rights are mutually exclusive. For example either everyone is granted the right to do whatever you please including rape, pillage and murder OR everyone is granted the right to be free from harm and harassment by others. You can't have both. When your freedom of speech impinges on the liberties of others, that is crossing beyond your own freedom to express yourself without harassment (which I condone) and to your freedom to harass others (which I do not condone).
Isn't that a circular definition? "Free speech is the speech protected in countries that protect free speech."
No, it isn't. I am saying that even in countries that protect free speech, slander, abuse, libel etc are not protected. That is true in the U.S. and it is true elsewhere.
The definition by the American Heritage Dictionary is: "The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government."
Clearly racist or sexist slurs are an opinion, and therefore countries that criminalize it don't protect free speech.
(By the way, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing - limiting verbal abuse can be perfectly justifiable.)
Don't selectively quote a dictionary and then act like you've won an argument just because the definition is poor, incomplete or you've purposely misinterpreted it.
Clearly even when you are publicly allowed to speak your opinion without the government knocking down your door there are limits. Incitement to violence and criminal acts, abuse and assault are not covered, nor does any sane rational person wish them to be. You're the sort of permissive and extreme fool who'd argue society isn't truly free unless you're free to rape, pillage and murder. Freedom also includes the right of others to be free from you doing them harm!!!
I think the point is, but may be wrong, is that now it is ubiquitous, whereas before it was something a person wanted or was drawn to do. Computing today is kinda lame really, because it isn't exclusive at all. It gets old, invasive, and yes all over the place. But has it solved any of the worlds problems? *looks around*... we still have plenty. *goes back into cave*
Well all I know is that growing up I couldn't talk to people from around the world for free, and if I wanted information I was limited to my local library if and when I could get there. If I was sick I relied on the rubbish doctors in my neighborhood to diagnose and treat me. If I wanted to do real science I had to make it my career, where now I can run all manner of science and math apps. If I wanted music I had to go and physically purchase it. If I wanted to compare prices it would take hours. Nothing was searchable without great effort!
We'll always have lots of problems, but computers sure have solved SOME of mine. Computing is only lame if you use it for lame things.
As for it not being exclusive, that's only a problem if you're an elitist. And besides there are plenty of non-mainstream geeky computer endevours that are very exclusive. Have you hacked a LInux kernel?
Slashdot Mirror
Bottled water exists because:
1. The "perfectly good" public water system doesn't have pipes going to my bicycle.
2. Public water fountains, when you can find them, have water that tastes disgusting. EVERY TIME.
3. Some water bottlers still refrain from putting fluoride and chlorine in their water. Don't expect this to last long.
1 and 2 can be resolved with a drink bottle that you fill yourself, and it's more convenient since you don't have to find a shop.
3 is just bullshit. You're drinking fluoride anyway, so your morning bottle won't make a bit of difference no matter what you believe fluoride does.
But hey you're a perfect example of what I just said. You justify spending $1 per bottle where you could buy a refillable bottle for a dollar and get your refills for less than 1c. Irrational.
By the way I do buy bottled water but not to drink - it's distilled water for my CPAP. No additives at all so it doesn't turn the base of my humidifier into a rusted salt pit. Even that's cheaper at $5 for 4 litres than you're probably paying.
Trying to make money from something that isn't scarce is silly. Charge for the scarce goods not the stuff you can easily copy. The very first copy is scarce. Support is scarce. Commissioning people with talent is scarce.
I thought bottled water in places where clean water is plentiful for almost nothing would never take off. I was wrong. People aren't rational.
You need a 2x2 grid to work out that people with things in common congregate? Especially when it comes to food and drink at lunch time???
Yeah, and French Fries are from France. FRANCE I SAY!
And Salisbury steak is from England! And pizza is from Pisa!
That explains why this "fast food" taste days old and is over priced.
that lack clear scientific and clinical proof.
Fruit and vegetables, they might cause cancer.
Reading and writing, who knows what damage they might be doing to people's eyes and wrists.
Wearing clothing, who knows what such an unnatural activity does to our skin.
12 year old boys everywhere would rejoice!!!!
A high school football player just last week died during practice. MANY kids are hurt doing team sports in schools. There's a KNOWN, DEFINITE health threat, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt!
If they can ban stuff based on the vague possibility of a problem, why not ban what is PROVEN to be one!
No, we need to BAN EVERYTHING!
It's the only way to be sure.
The trouble is if you ban bans, then you can't then ban anything else.
So you must ban everything, then ban bans.
If anything new comes up, you then refuse to acknowledge it exists. Shutting your eyes and covering your ears while yelling lalala at the top of your lungs is very helpful there....except that at that point, it's been banned.
The ban on breathing also places an upper limit to the effectiveness of the strategy, and the reign of any regime adopting it. For more information see Origin of Species (also banned unfortunately).
I'm completely dumbfounded I can't even think of anything rude to say.
AAAahhhh your Australian Mother's Certficate's been compromised, and you can't implement RSA worth a damn!
This would be a pretty avant-garde line of thinking if there hadn't been an entire book written about it nine years ago ...
And it's just as big a crock now as it was back then. Don't like what I'm saying? Well then, I rest my case.
I wish I could view Slashdot via a filter bubble that would omit or correct dupes, slashvertisements, blogspam and obvious spelling mistakes.
You can!!! Just replace slashdot.org with about:blank in your address bar.
Especially considering the natural tendency to discard information that is in contradiction to ones personal views on the world. If the actual inputs are then skewed to support that view, then it just gets even more extreme as a person tends to discard the more moderate views in favor of more extreme ones.
You might be right, but I just don't want to hear it! lalalalala. See my filter bubble is more powerful than any Google could craft.
FUCK
I've not tried, but I'm pretty sure you can pay for that too...
Um pay for the condom, not to prevent your dick turning green and falling off, or you dying.
Read TFA, not TFS.
You realise that the article is rules of thumb, which themselves are summaries of accepted wisdom, right?
If anything, going by this article it should be RTFS not RTFA.
Or you could just actually take the effort to understand the tradeoffs you're making instead of following a set of vague general rules which aren't suited to each situation... If it's important, it's worth getting the detail right. Think brain surgery - do you want your brain surgeon ignoring the detail and applying a set of shortcut rules of thumb?
They removed the ability to play PS2 games, and the ability to boot OtherOS.
What this time?
The ability to plug in controllers?
The ability to play sounds?
The ability to do hi-def?
Each update seems to be a slow descent into brickdom.
Fuck!!! It's a Sony!!!
Leslie Lamport' s comment on distributed systems applies:
"A distributed system is one in which I cannot get something done because a machine I've never heard of is down."
This is even more so with the "Cloud". Think 99.99% uptime?
(In many cases) The question is not whether the cloud gets you 99.99% uptime. It is whether it gets you better up-time than what you can run in-house for the same price. It's easy to insult the amazon guys when they fuck up, but the availability they offer is certainly better than what a small company can get from their single part-time admin who does something else as a day job. And even if you are a small tech company, where in theory anybody has the knowledge to run a few services, in practice it is very easy to make mistakes, even for smart people.
So what you're arguing is that cloud computing makes sense not for large businesses which demand reliability but for small ma and pa operations too poor or too cheap to hire a sysadmin. Only trouble is cloud computing isn't targetted so much at small business, but more at the top end of town which may demand 5 9s or 6 9s.
And when you scale up, the cloud can scale up with you. Of course, by the time you're google you'll be running your own data centers...
But you just said it can't be expected to if you want high uptime.
Are you insane? What do you think you're going to achieve for yourself or your client? All you're doing is wasting your time and their money. Just fresh install the fucker already. This is one instance where GS or BB would have done a better job because clearly the computer is actually hosed and does need a new drive and a fresh install.
Seems like a dozen people lived in the compound, and porn was found on one of the PCs there. People are hoping it's Bin Laden's, since it fits with the idea he's a bad person, and a perv on top of it.
I must be strange. I don't give a fuck that bin laden watched porn. I do care that he arranged to have thousands murdered and succeeded in curbing western freedom. If he hadn't done that why would I care who he slept with or what got him off???
The constitution doesn't define free speech
And? Can it not be assumed that it meant all speech? All it says is "freedom of speech" while listing no exceptions. Because of this, there are none.
What complete and utter nonsense. Those who drafted were concerned with freedom and liberty. You aren't free if you've got someone constantly yelling abuse at you day and night. READ the full fucking document and do so with some knowledge of history so you can understand the context a little. The context was not to allow people to be abusive and obnoxious. People like you think you're upholding or defending the constitution but don't have a fucking clue what the document was about. Not that I'm saying it was perfect either - they couldn't agree on slavery at the start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#International_law
And yet, sadly, you're still alive.
Actually, I take back the "sadly" part. It is not my place to question the will of Allah (PBUH)
You're a very strange little troll...and superstitious too.
The only thing the computer has done, the way we use it, is to make it quicker to come to the wrong conclusions.
There's negativity for you. You lost me right there. I've done lots of very positive things with computers that did not involve incorrect conclusions. Take planetarium software for a night of amateur observing. I can tell where to look for something well ahead of time. Or take spreadsheets. Saved me countless hours of error prone BS with a calculator. If you choose to use the computer blindly like a monkey trying to type out Shakespeare the problem is behind the keyboard.
Anyone remember those choose your own adventure books we had growing up? Kinda reminds me of that. I don't know how innovative it's going to be. Lots of games have a working plot and lots of cutscenes. Mirror's Edge comes to mind. Still might be a great game but it makes me cringe that every time a studio brings out a game they want to try to make it sound like it's nothing like anything before it, when in reality innovation is quite rare and usually comes in small chunks, especially in gaming.
In the 80s my parents were making overseas calls via operator. Certainly international video conferencing wasn't accessible.
I hope you're wrong about things regressing to the Fidonet days. That would be a real shame. Microsoft buying Skype is a worry actually.
Verbal assault is recognised as a criminal act in most countries that protect free speech.
And? If they claim to have free speech in something as "final" as a constitution, then they are the ones who are wrong, are they not? The number of countries that do this is irrelevant.
No. Freedom is not an absolute, and it is not possible for you and everyone else to be completely free to do whatever you like. Some rights are mutually exclusive. For example either everyone is granted the right to do whatever you please including rape, pillage and murder OR everyone is granted the right to be free from harm and harassment by others. You can't have both. When your freedom of speech impinges on the liberties of others, that is crossing beyond your own freedom to express yourself without harassment (which I condone) and to your freedom to harass others (which I do not condone).
Isn't that a circular definition? "Free speech is the speech protected in countries that protect free speech."
No, it isn't. I am saying that even in countries that protect free speech, slander, abuse, libel etc are not protected. That is true in the U.S. and it is true elsewhere.
The definition by the American Heritage Dictionary is: "The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government."
Clearly racist or sexist slurs are an opinion, and therefore countries that criminalize it don't protect free speech.
(By the way, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing - limiting verbal abuse can be perfectly justifiable.)
Don't selectively quote a dictionary and then act like you've won an argument just because the definition is poor, incomplete or you've purposely misinterpreted it.
Clearly even when you are publicly allowed to speak your opinion without the government knocking down your door there are limits. Incitement to violence and criminal acts, abuse and assault are not covered, nor does any sane rational person wish them to be. You're the sort of permissive and extreme fool who'd argue society isn't truly free unless you're free to rape, pillage and murder. Freedom also includes the right of others to be free from you doing them harm!!!
Well, back in the early 80's, you could talk to people around the world for free. Fidonet was your friend.
I was in primary school in Australia. I didn't know a thing about Fidonet, and if I did I couldn't afford it anyway.
I think the point is, but may be wrong, is that now it is ubiquitous, whereas before it was something a person wanted or was drawn to do. Computing today is kinda lame really, because it isn't exclusive at all. It gets old, invasive, and yes all over the place. But has it solved any of the worlds problems? *looks around*... we still have plenty. *goes back into cave*
Well all I know is that growing up I couldn't talk to people from around the world for free, and if I wanted information I was limited to my local library if and when I could get there. If I was sick I relied on the rubbish doctors in my neighborhood to diagnose and treat me. If I wanted to do real science I had to make it my career, where now I can run all manner of science and math apps. If I wanted music I had to go and physically purchase it. If I wanted to compare prices it would take hours. Nothing was searchable without great effort!
We'll always have lots of problems, but computers sure have solved SOME of mine. Computing is only lame if you use it for lame things.
As for it not being exclusive, that's only a problem if you're an elitist. And besides there are plenty of non-mainstream geeky computer endevours that are very exclusive. Have you hacked a LInux kernel?