"You basically say: I am this person, and here is the signed certificate that proves it. And if i'm not this person you can be sure that the person you're dealing with has my ID card (and it's probably stolen)."
This is rarely needed tho. I'd dare say 99% of things you do in every day life do NOT require this level of proof of who you are.
If I'm doing to be doing a transaction that requires THAT high level of id, I'll be doing it in person.
I prefer to be as anonymous as possible on the internet...sometimes more than other times.
I do not need the govt. to know when I'm doing anything online, much less if I'm using the internet at all. I don't quite think that is an enumerated power the Federal Govt. has granted to it by the Constitution...?
"Sigh . . . you use gov funded things everyday like mail, the roads you drive on, the approved medicine you take and the public schools you send your kids to or went to yourself, etc.
A lot of you tin hat loonies need to take a step back sometimes . . . =\"
I don't think anyone is saying the government (even the Romans) doesn't serve some purposeful services.
I'm guessing you aren't from the US, but, coming even from our founding fathers in the US, a perpetual distrust of the government is not only a healthy thing, but, is also a patriotic thing.
This type of wary eye on govt. is the major check in trying to keep the govt. from overstepping its enumerated powers, to keep it from infringing on the natural, given rights the individual is born with. Big govt. grows to become larger more intrusive govt. Unfortunately, much of the populace has given up on watching and constantly questioning all decisions the Federal govt in the US makes, and hence it has gotten a bit too powerful, and definitely too much in control of its citizens' lives. IMHO.
"Yes... But the question remains: can we avoid it? Can we reject it, say "Fck you!" and just keep using what we already have?"
Well, short of laws passed banning individual protocols (I shudder to think we'd have non-geek politicians doing this, but, I guess it could happen)...I don't see how they can force you NOT to use whatever you want to use on the internet. After all, it is ONLY a network of networks. So far, there aren't any laws (in the US so far at least) as to what you can run over them. Even if they do mandate Ivp6...there's nothing so far saying what you can run over it. Freenet and the likes can run over them...and still be virtually untraceable...?
"Odds are that the house you are in RIGHT NOW was taken by a cascade of force, torture, and broken promises from a native peoples that, largely, welcomed your forefathers with open arms. Not feeling any guilt at all about that really shows a deficiency in patriotism.
If your father stole the life savings from a dying nun and used it to give you a lavish lifestyle, wouldn't you feel guilty when you found out? (If not, I suggest psychological evaluation: you may be a sociopath.) Enjoying the fruits of bad behavior is tantamount to supporting bad behavior, ergo guilt."
Hmm...the house I live in is fairly old, but, not nearly old enough to have belonged to indians. There are some VERY old houses in New Orleans, but, at that, I dare say few of them were wrested from native Americans by force torture or broken promises. Hell, even if they were, it would be hard to say if it was the fault of the Spanish, the French or, eventually, the US.
As for the money from a dying nun? Well, I doubt a nun would have much of a life savings that would fund a lavish lifestyle, but, even if that were somehow a given in this scenario, I'd assume the nun was now dead and the money is even more of no use to her. I'd be happy to have the money and enjoy it. No, I'd feel no guilt. I might not think quite as highly of my Dad....but, I'd still have no problems enjoying my lifestyle and going on with my life.
I don't think I'm a sociopath...but, I do look out for #1 above and beyond all others. I like friends and family, and I am happy to help out....until it comes down to a choice between myself, and anyone else. I will ALWAYS choose myself. As far as I know, you're only given one life and one shot in this world, and to me, my life and path through life trumps anyone elses if it comes down to that. Until it hits that point, I'm live and let live.
"So long as I, in turn, get to see secured data on the porn they (government employees, health insurance clerks, HR reps from potential employers) consume... then I'm fine with that."
Yeah...I wouldn't hold my breathe on that one.
Hell, we can't even get our congress critters to agree to adhere to the rules they pass for us...nor participate in the programs they vote into place for the common citizenry.
Why they hell would you even fantasize about them having to obey the same rules of clarity on pr0n or any other aspect of connectivity that they would instill over the general public? I'm sure right off to bat, they can hide behind 'national security' reason to be exempt from such internet reporting regulations...if they even bother at all to explain why they are above the need to obey the very laws they pass.
"I think it's, "there will be no computing devices of any kind on this new Internet."
At least none that don't have full support for governmental control.
I'm afraid with this newly designed, improved internet...that a major side effect is that it will become less free, and more controlled. What makes the current internet great IS the freedom you have on there. If you work at it, you can still be anonymous. You can connect your computer and become a true peer with anyone else in the world. You can set up your own server (ok, these days you generally have to get a business account, but that's not THAT bad for $$) and you can publish to your hearts content.
These very things that make the current form of the internet so remarkable and useful...are the very things most governments (even the US government which should not be freedom suppressing, but, currently likes to be) absolutely hate....and I'm sure are very sorry they didn't see coming. They can't put the genie back in the bottle, but, I guarantee you that they WILL be working for more controls in the 'new' internet. Yep, along with all that 'security' will come traceability, even better storage of data on the individual, etc.
Frankly, I prefer to take my chances on the "Wild West" model of the internet rather than have more control placed on a better version. I keep wondering in the end who it will be better for? I don't think the answer to that is the common end user.
"The story was very generic.. I think it was aimed at the American market (possibly still guilty at killing all the indians or something) but it didn't engage me and like you the plot was obvious after about the first 10 minutes."
Why would anyone in the US feel "guilty" about the indians? That was hundreds of years ago...history that should be learned and is interesting, but, nothing to feel guilty about. Every modern country out there got there by years of war and conquest hundreds if not thousands of years ago. But I seriously doubt any of the instigators are still alive.
While I appreciate history, and hope to learn from it, I'm not one to feel guilt for the actions of others, especially when they are not even living anymore. I've no guilty thoughts of conquering the US indians, of US slavery...etc. I didn't do it, I don't know anyone around that does it. Not on my conscience at all.
I mean, does the current generation of German youths feel guilt over the holocaust? I don't know why they would, they had NOTHING to do with it. Sure, study history, learn from it so that you don't repeat the mistakes of the past....but you don't have to feel it is your fault if you had nothing to do with it.
I'm trying to figure out just what the fuck this movie IS about...or have the gist of it before I go see it.
The previews really give you no clue as to what it is about. I've had friends see it and like it...and reading generally good reviews here on it, so guess maybe I'll check it out. But frankly, if not for so many people raving about it, the previews sure didn't sell me on seeing this movie, from them, it looked kinda stupid really. Looked more like an ad for a video game than and movie.
And now that they ARE advertising a video game for it, I can't really usually tell the difference between the ads till the end of the ad..
Hmm...what are these DEV, TEST and PROD environments you speak of?
Hehee...honestly, and a LOT of this was govt work, so many (I'd dare say MOST) projects I got onto, you basically had one box they gave you, you developed on it...and when it got to a working state..voila!!
It then became the production box.
The lesson I learned from this? Make damned sure to order the most amount of hardware you can on a govt/DoD project, cause you likely won't get any other boxes anytime soon, even if they promise them to you when planning things out at the beginning of a project.
At least...that has been my experience in that world.
Too bad about Heathkit. They used to make some pretty good tube amplifiers. Heck, you can still find some good deals on decent ones already assembled on eBay...
I wish they still put those out, I'd like to put a few together...stereos the glow are cool.
"They hit often enough, and unless you live in a trailer park, leaving doesn't save your home or other possesions.
Your notion that it wasn't Katrina is laughable. Perhaps you should check out the damage from hurricanes in FL, which also include flooding BTW. The shoddy work held up for years, and without Katrina coming around, it likely would have held up for years to come.
And its more than a PITA for a few years; there are still lots of people who have nothing as a result."
Honestly...they don't. Katrina MISSED New Orleans, the direct hit was east of us, those people on the coast of MS where the ones that got wiped out by it.
The last real direct hit by a hurricane I think was either Camille or Betsy...those were a few decades ago.
We aren't right on the coast...and while our natural barrier protection has eroded away, we're still not as in bad of danger as people living directly on the coast.
Sure, with New Orleans being below sea level, we have more dangers than neighboring cities, but, with proper levees (if we had like what the Netherlands have) a direct hit would not wipe out homes and houses here...wind hurts, but, much of the city is pretty strongly built...Ic mean, much of it has been here up to 300 years.
Yes, some people lost a great deal, and for most of them, it is their own fault. That is what insurance is for my friend. And if you stay in a hurricane's path, again, you are an idiot, you leave and make sure your life is safe....if it is, it is easy to go back home and start to rebuild what you need, etc. If you can't afford to live in an area, and yes that includes paying for proper insurance (home and FLOOD), then you do not need to be living there.
Actually, Katrina has benefitted NOLA in many ways. It flushed out a great deal of embedded poverty that was a disproportionate drag on the city and its resources, and has allowed and encouraged an influx of people who actually want to work and become tax payers. I know a year or two ago, we had more young 20-25 year old professionals coming into the city, new blood which was direly needed.
Also, by moving some of the poor out of the project and the vicious cycle of poverty, crime and non-education..they got to see what the rest of the world does, and many chose to not come back so they could have access to better schools, homes and options other than generation after generation trapped in the housing projects.
In many ways, I think the long term effects of Katrina on NOLA will be beneficial.
"You gloss over Katrina as if it were nothing. Snow doesn't do anywhere near the amount of damage hurricanes and tornadoes do."
Hurricanes don't hit that often, and they give you PLENTY of warning to get out of the way (I left town), and even with Katrina, it wasn't the storm that did the town in, it actually veered and missed us, the problem was with the shoddy work of the Corps of Engineer's on the levees that collapsed. The New Orleans flood was a man-made disaster, not the storm.
Sure, it sucked, and was a PITA for a couple years after, but, things have been back to normal pretty much the past 3 years.
"I've worked in 2 international companies, one of them was a shining beacon of how to implement a global enterprise managed by a very small team (labor resources aside), every-single-detail was carefully planned out and the IT's rules were enforced thoroughly and actually taken seriously by the execs. There were no rushes (except critical security stuff), everything was fully planned out; all applications were compatibility tested against every single other application, etc. When a new system needed to be built, there were a few base images, then a fully automated system of deploying the apps that person needed, from the desk where the PC was installed, kicked off remotely and fully unattended. The core, corp, non-dev IT dept was about 10 people."
This works pretty good IF you are only working with stuff that is not cutting edge or development and under a schedule. This works for a mostly static IT environment.
I've been in situations where they locked down everything tight, and took forever to get software approved....and it was nearly impossible to get ANYTHING done of real value. They insisted on McShield scanning everything on access...this played hell and locked up our dev boxes (I think it was hitting the java directories for Eclipse)...a quick download of an open source tool, or even Oracle's new data modelling (free) application would have let us reverse engineer some databases quickly, but no....that was not approved, so we had to wait and negotiate with the customers (often DoD with enough red tape to really make it inefficient) to get outdated data models sent to us, etc.
I appreciate what you are saying here, but, sometimes a balance has to be struck between planning, common/manageable infrastructure and progress.
I mean, if you take an old windows computer, disconnect it from everything, and bury it in 20ft of concrete...it will be one of the most secure systems you'll ever have. It just won't be terribly useful.
"I don't ever recall seeing the word "terrifying" used in a sentence adjacent to "paperwork" but I know what you mean. If the US wants real health care reform, maybe we should ban or severely limit the amount of paper medical institutions can use."
Still, it is better than having a US Federal Govt. hosted, controlled, mined and (*cough*) protected database of everyone's medical records.
I'd rather trust my records carved in stone on some cave wall somewhere. Not that I had any trust in them, but, the last thing with the unencrypted drone feeds really made my eyes roll into the back of my head. If they can't get it right in a war related situation, what chance does my personal, private medical records stand?
"Actually, the "green" is a bluish color of green that makes it easier for people with color deficiency to tell from nearby white street lights (this is huge, being somewhat color blind myself - suppose it's raining at night and there are street lights near the stop light. For me, it's sometimes difficult to distinguish the green light from the nearby street light; only when it turns yellow and red can I tell which one belongs to the stop light. With the new ones, I have no problem at all.)"
Err....I'd that most color blind people would learn from an early age that the top light is red, middle is yellow and bottom is green. Just knowing the position is enough to know to stop, hit the gas before red or go.
:)
Actually down here in the south, New Orleans in this case, I'm quite happy to see the LED's come in down here. The ARE much easier to see, much brighter. I also am glad they are using them to replace those God-awful lights they used to have with lenses situated on them so that you could NOT see what light was on at all, until you were right up on them. I've often wondered why they did that...I mean right till you were in front of them you can not tell at all which light is lit.
Some things work better in some environments than in others. It doesn't sound to me like this change is that great for an environment like they have up north....more fashionable (green) than functional.
Personally, I'm just waiting for them to finally come clean, and publish the studies that show that smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods and unprotected sex are exactly what IS good for you, and will lead to a long and satisfying life!!
Hell, they're already starting to show that protein and fats ARE good for you here in the past few years.
They're saying that alcohol (in moderation) also is good for you.
I'm just hoping they'll find the remining behaviors I listed are just as beneficial to humans. At that point, it will be a man's world again...doing what we naturally like to do will finally once again be accepted!!
"And that completely negates the cost savings of the LED lamps. LEDs are "touted" as green, but the real savings to the towns comes from not having to replace burned out light bulbs every year. Figure it costs about $100 to send a maintenance truck to an intersection and do an hour's worth of work. It doesn't matter if you're replacing lightbulbs or spraying cooking oil, it still costs you $100 to put that truck out there. If incandescent bulbs need to be replaced every year, and LEDs need to be replaced only every 10 years, you've saved $900 over the cost of incandescents. It's only an extra benefit to the city if they save $100 on electricity by going LED, but it's not the primary driver."
How does the cost of potential lost human lives figure into this equation? I mean, due to them not working, the wrecks increase...possibly risking life and limb of taxpayers.
"Not me. More people die in SUVs per passenger mile than any other vehicle, and when it's slick out is when it's the most dangerous. SUVs don't have the crumple zones of other vehicles, and handle like drunken cows. Their weight makes them harder to stop, especially when it's slick. If you're out in the country you may need four wheel drive, but a four wheel drive sedan is more effective than a four wheel drive SUV, and far more effective than a two wheel drive SUV. A four wheel drive minivan would be the best bet, as it can hold as many (or often more) passengers as an SUV, but is the safest vehicle on the road."
Aren't pretty much all SUV's 4-wheel drives??
I mean, granted, I don't know much about them...I've only owned 2-seat sports cars all my life, but, I thought that the SUV's I'd been in all were 4-wheel drive units, I know we took them off road for camping, hauling boats, etc...when I went with friends that had them.
"First, if you think that you're safer in an SUV in the snow, you're part of the problem. I am not scared of driving in the snow, but I'm terrified of people driving SUVs in the snow."
Not sure where you're coming from on this one. I've always been more afraid of little, light two wheel drive cars (ok, some front wheel drives are ok) sliding around out of control vs a nice, heavier truck/SUB with bigger tires and 4-wheel drive. I know which one "I" would rather be in and it ain't the little car with no traction.
"Second, the point of 'going green' isn't to save money. It's to save resources and have a lighter footprint on the environment. Saving money is a side effect and a decent motivator to get selfish people to go along with what is ultimately an altruistic decision. Most of the little decisions I make in my life to eat organic, recycle and be more energy efficient cost me money. In return I receive very little in terms of tangible reward, but I'm content with my grandchildren collecting on my behalf."
Well, to each his own. While I think it isn't a bad thing to be green in some respects, it is ok with me ONLY to the point to where it causes me inconvenience, or effort or costs me money. Life is too short not to be enjoyed and lived to the fullest. I don't really believe the end of the world is nye. While I think it would be great to be less dependant on foreign oil, I don't think it is going to lead to the end of the earth. And if it does, what do I care? I'll be long gone and dead in the ground before that happens. In light of that, I might as well worrying about the sun going supernova as I am of so called man-made global warming.
"I live in the midwest. Snow isn't just snow 99% of the time. If the snow starts to melt on the way down, you get a very wet snow that packs tighter than light powder does. Sometimes you get tiny frozen flakes that don't stick to each other, and others, they clump together into giant snowflakes. Freezing rain doesn't have flakes. So it's pretty easy to tell the difference."
Wow.
I honestly don't know how ya'll live up there with such cold/bad weather for so long a part of the year?!?!
I live in New Orleans...I've lived as far north as eastern TN, and I couldn't really stand THAT much snow/ice for as long as it was. But at least up there, if it snowed, usually it was an excuse to stay home from work, make chili and have some beer and go play in it, and within a few days it is melted and you go back to normal life. I don't see how you deal with it up there for half the year of more.
NOLA, well, sure...we have some problems with rain, but, at least it isn't cold...although I will admit is was a bit disconcerting the first Thanksgiving down here, and I found myself outside deep frying a whole turkey...in shorts and a tshirt.
"Sure, you are using more N-R-G by creating the heat to do it with so the technology is less green...Besides, what is the "green" cost of a car accident where oil, gas, battery acid, etc. may be spilled..."
Geez, where is all this 'green' stuff coming from? I was hoping this fad would have faded somewhat by now. I mean, sure, it is 'nice' to use a bit less energy, and be a little cleaner, but, c'mon...things aren't that bad to rate the often draconian regulations, and over reaction in so many areas to replace everything that currently works well with something that is 'green' but often is is less superior to previous tech that worked exceedingly well at its primary purpose.
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Old traffic signals, they worked, through all the elements, they could be seen in even icy weather. Now? Well, we use a bit less power (has anyone seen what exactly the $$ savings in power is? is it significant?), but, cars can't see the lights during winter conditions, and we now have to send out manned crews to manually clear the snow off the signals. Is this a good trade off? Sounds a bit like going backwards to me...having a once automated system, that now requires sending human crews out to remedy snow accumulation problems.
It is one thing to update tech if it gives significant improvement in functionality, but, just doing it to be fashionably 'green' is not the way to do IMHO.
"In my mind, it provides a logical disconnect once 5pm hits and they can leave and take off the uniform. No more loyalty, no dedication to the company, no doing whatever it takes to get the job done..."
With the exception to the last part, about doing whatever it takes to get the job done, doesn't most everyone in this day in age feel that way about where they work?
I mean, the days of having a job for life (or over 5 years really) are long gone. The companies certainly don't feel any sense of loyalty to the workers, why should they expect it in return? I go there for pay...nothing more, nothing less, plain and simple. Every worker should know they are dispensable by now, and that the company bottom line is the only thing that matters in business anymore. Why would anyone think otherwise as an employee?
This precise things is the reason I prefer contracting...you might as well get the bigger pay if you have to put up with the work environment, and are dispensable.
Slashdot Mirror
This is rarely needed tho. I'd dare say 99% of things you do in every day life do NOT require this level of proof of who you are.
If I'm doing to be doing a transaction that requires THAT high level of id, I'll be doing it in person.
I prefer to be as anonymous as possible on the internet...sometimes more than other times.
I do not need the govt. to know when I'm doing anything online, much less if I'm using the internet at all. I don't quite think that is an enumerated power the Federal Govt. has granted to it by the Constitution...?
A lot of you tin hat loonies need to take a step back sometimes . . . =\"
I don't think anyone is saying the government (even the Romans) doesn't serve some purposeful services.
I'm guessing you aren't from the US, but, coming even from our founding fathers in the US, a perpetual distrust of the government is not only a healthy thing, but, is also a patriotic thing.
This type of wary eye on govt. is the major check in trying to keep the govt. from overstepping its enumerated powers, to keep it from infringing on the natural, given rights the individual is born with. Big govt. grows to become larger more intrusive govt. Unfortunately, much of the populace has given up on watching and constantly questioning all decisions the Federal govt in the US makes, and hence it has gotten a bit too powerful, and definitely too much in control of its citizens' lives. IMHO.
Well, short of laws passed banning individual protocols (I shudder to think we'd have non-geek politicians doing this, but, I guess it could happen)...I don't see how they can force you NOT to use whatever you want to use on the internet. After all, it is ONLY a network of networks. So far, there aren't any laws (in the US so far at least) as to what you can run over them. Even if they do mandate Ivp6...there's nothing so far saying what you can run over it. Freenet and the likes can run over them...and still be virtually untraceable...?
Wait...you think there is a difference between big corporations and government these days?
I think they're almost one in the same these days....or at least, govt only exists now to promote corporate interests.
If your father stole the life savings from a dying nun and used it to give you a lavish lifestyle, wouldn't you feel guilty when you found out? (If not, I suggest psychological evaluation: you may be a sociopath.) Enjoying the fruits of bad behavior is tantamount to supporting bad behavior, ergo guilt."
Hmm...the house I live in is fairly old, but, not nearly old enough to have belonged to indians. There are some VERY old houses in New Orleans, but, at that, I dare say few of them were wrested from native Americans by force torture or broken promises. Hell, even if they were, it would be hard to say if it was the fault of the Spanish, the French or, eventually, the US.
As for the money from a dying nun? Well, I doubt a nun would have much of a life savings that would fund a lavish lifestyle, but, even if that were somehow a given in this scenario, I'd assume the nun was now dead and the money is even more of no use to her. I'd be happy to have the money and enjoy it. No, I'd feel no guilt. I might not think quite as highly of my Dad....but, I'd still have no problems enjoying my lifestyle and going on with my life.
I don't think I'm a sociopath...but, I do look out for #1 above and beyond all others. I like friends and family, and I am happy to help out....until it comes down to a choice between myself, and anyone else. I will ALWAYS choose myself. As far as I know, you're only given one life and one shot in this world, and to me, my life and path through life trumps anyone elses if it comes down to that. Until it hits that point, I'm live and let live.
Yeah...I wouldn't hold my breathe on that one.
Hell, we can't even get our congress critters to agree to adhere to the rules they pass for us...nor participate in the programs they vote into place for the common citizenry.
Why they hell would you even fantasize about them having to obey the same rules of clarity on pr0n or any other aspect of connectivity that they would instill over the general public? I'm sure right off to bat, they can hide behind 'national security' reason to be exempt from such internet reporting regulations...if they even bother at all to explain why they are above the need to obey the very laws they pass.
At least none that don't have full support for governmental control.
I'm afraid with this newly designed, improved internet...that a major side effect is that it will become less free, and more controlled. What makes the current internet great IS the freedom you have on there. If you work at it, you can still be anonymous. You can connect your computer and become a true peer with anyone else in the world. You can set up your own server (ok, these days you generally have to get a business account, but that's not THAT bad for $$) and you can publish to your hearts content.
These very things that make the current form of the internet so remarkable and useful...are the very things most governments (even the US government which should not be freedom suppressing, but, currently likes to be) absolutely hate....and I'm sure are very sorry they didn't see coming. They can't put the genie back in the bottle, but, I guarantee you that they WILL be working for more controls in the 'new' internet. Yep, along with all that 'security' will come traceability, even better storage of data on the individual, etc.
Frankly, I prefer to take my chances on the "Wild West" model of the internet rather than have more control placed on a better version. I keep wondering in the end who it will be better for? I don't think the answer to that is the common end user.
Who said that first? Keith Richards, or Jimmy Page?
Why would anyone in the US feel "guilty" about the indians? That was hundreds of years ago...history that should be learned and is interesting, but, nothing to feel guilty about. Every modern country out there got there by years of war and conquest hundreds if not thousands of years ago. But I seriously doubt any of the instigators are still alive.
While I appreciate history, and hope to learn from it, I'm not one to feel guilt for the actions of others, especially when they are not even living anymore. I've no guilty thoughts of conquering the US indians, of US slavery...etc. I didn't do it, I don't know anyone around that does it. Not on my conscience at all.
I mean, does the current generation of German youths feel guilt over the holocaust? I don't know why they would, they had NOTHING to do with it. Sure, study history, learn from it so that you don't repeat the mistakes of the past....but you don't have to feel it is your fault if you had nothing to do with it.
The previews really give you no clue as to what it is about. I've had friends see it and like it...and reading generally good reviews here on it, so guess maybe I'll check it out. But frankly, if not for so many people raving about it, the previews sure didn't sell me on seeing this movie, from them, it looked kinda stupid really. Looked more like an ad for a video game than and movie.
And now that they ARE advertising a video game for it, I can't really usually tell the difference between the ads till the end of the ad..
Hehee...honestly, and a LOT of this was govt work, so many (I'd dare say MOST) projects I got onto, you basically had one box they gave you, you developed on it...and when it got to a working state..voila!!
It then became the production box.
The lesson I learned from this? Make damned sure to order the most amount of hardware you can on a govt/DoD project, cause you likely won't get any other boxes anytime soon, even if they promise them to you when planning things out at the beginning of a project.
At least...that has been my experience in that world.
I wish they still put those out, I'd like to put a few together...stereos the glow are cool.
Your notion that it wasn't Katrina is laughable. Perhaps you should check out the damage from hurricanes in FL, which also include flooding BTW. The shoddy work held up for years, and without Katrina coming around, it likely would have held up for years to come.
And its more than a PITA for a few years; there are still lots of people who have nothing as a result."
Honestly...they don't. Katrina MISSED New Orleans, the direct hit was east of us, those people on the coast of MS where the ones that got wiped out by it.
The last real direct hit by a hurricane I think was either Camille or Betsy...those were a few decades ago.
We aren't right on the coast...and while our natural barrier protection has eroded away, we're still not as in bad of danger as people living directly on the coast.
Sure, with New Orleans being below sea level, we have more dangers than neighboring cities, but, with proper levees (if we had like what the Netherlands have) a direct hit would not wipe out homes and houses here...wind hurts, but, much of the city is pretty strongly built...Ic mean, much of it has been here up to 300 years.
Yes, some people lost a great deal, and for most of them, it is their own fault. That is what insurance is for my friend. And if you stay in a hurricane's path, again, you are an idiot, you leave and make sure your life is safe....if it is, it is easy to go back home and start to rebuild what you need, etc. If you can't afford to live in an area, and yes that includes paying for proper insurance (home and FLOOD), then you do not need to be living there.
Actually, Katrina has benefitted NOLA in many ways. It flushed out a great deal of embedded poverty that was a disproportionate drag on the city and its resources, and has allowed and encouraged an influx of people who actually want to work and become tax payers. I know a year or two ago, we had more young 20-25 year old professionals coming into the city, new blood which was direly needed.
Also, by moving some of the poor out of the project and the vicious cycle of poverty, crime and non-education..they got to see what the rest of the world does, and many chose to not come back so they could have access to better schools, homes and options other than generation after generation trapped in the housing projects.
In many ways, I think the long term effects of Katrina on NOLA will be beneficial.
Hurricanes don't hit that often, and they give you PLENTY of warning to get out of the way (I left town), and even with Katrina, it wasn't the storm that did the town in, it actually veered and missed us, the problem was with the shoddy work of the Corps of Engineer's on the levees that collapsed. The New Orleans flood was a man-made disaster, not the storm.
Sure, it sucked, and was a PITA for a couple years after, but, things have been back to normal pretty much the past 3 years.
Katrina's don't happen to us annually.
This works pretty good IF you are only working with stuff that is not cutting edge or development and under a schedule. This works for a mostly static IT environment.
I've been in situations where they locked down everything tight, and took forever to get software approved....and it was nearly impossible to get ANYTHING done of real value. They insisted on McShield scanning everything on access...this played hell and locked up our dev boxes (I think it was hitting the java directories for Eclipse)...a quick download of an open source tool, or even Oracle's new data modelling (free) application would have let us reverse engineer some databases quickly, but no....that was not approved, so we had to wait and negotiate with the customers (often DoD with enough red tape to really make it inefficient) to get outdated data models sent to us, etc.
I appreciate what you are saying here, but, sometimes a balance has to be struck between planning, common/manageable infrastructure and progress.
I mean, if you take an old windows computer, disconnect it from everything, and bury it in 20ft of concrete...it will be one of the most secure systems you'll ever have. It just won't be terribly useful.
Still, it is better than having a US Federal Govt. hosted, controlled, mined and (*cough*) protected database of everyone's medical records.
I'd rather trust my records carved in stone on some cave wall somewhere. Not that I had any trust in them, but, the last thing with the unencrypted drone feeds really made my eyes roll into the back of my head. If they can't get it right in a war related situation, what chance does my personal, private medical records stand?
Err....I'd that most color blind people would learn from an early age that the top light is red, middle is yellow and bottom is green. Just knowing the position is enough to know to stop, hit the gas before red or go.
Actually down here in the south, New Orleans in this case, I'm quite happy to see the LED's come in down here. The ARE much easier to see, much brighter. I also am glad they are using them to replace those God-awful lights they used to have with lenses situated on them so that you could NOT see what light was on at all, until you were right up on them. I've often wondered why they did that...I mean right till you were in front of them you can not tell at all which light is lit.
Some things work better in some environments than in others. It doesn't sound to me like this change is that great for an environment like they have up north....more fashionable (green) than functional.
Hey, don't knock what works!!
Hell, they're already starting to show that protein and fats ARE good for you here in the past few years.
They're saying that alcohol (in moderation) also is good for you.
I'm just hoping they'll find the remining behaviors I listed are just as beneficial to humans. At that point, it will be a man's world again...doing what we naturally like to do will finally once again be accepted!!
How does the cost of potential lost human lives figure into this equation? I mean, due to them not working, the wrecks increase...possibly risking life and limb of taxpayers.
Aren't pretty much all SUV's 4-wheel drives??
I mean, granted, I don't know much about them...I've only owned 2-seat sports cars all my life, but, I thought that the SUV's I'd been in all were 4-wheel drive units, I know we took them off road for camping, hauling boats, etc...when I went with friends that had them.
Not sure where you're coming from on this one. I've always been more afraid of little, light two wheel drive cars (ok, some front wheel drives are ok) sliding around out of control vs a nice, heavier truck/SUB with bigger tires and 4-wheel drive. I know which one "I" would rather be in and it ain't the little car with no traction.
"Second, the point of 'going green' isn't to save money. It's to save resources and have a lighter footprint on the environment. Saving money is a side effect and a decent motivator to get selfish people to go along with what is ultimately an altruistic decision. Most of the little decisions I make in my life to eat organic, recycle and be more energy efficient cost me money. In return I receive very little in terms of tangible reward, but I'm content with my grandchildren collecting on my behalf."
Well, to each his own. While I think it isn't a bad thing to be green in some respects, it is ok with me ONLY to the point to where it causes me inconvenience, or effort or costs me money. Life is too short not to be enjoyed and lived to the fullest. I don't really believe the end of the world is nye. While I think it would be great to be less dependant on foreign oil, I don't think it is going to lead to the end of the earth. And if it does, what do I care? I'll be long gone and dead in the ground before that happens. In light of that, I might as well worrying about the sun going supernova as I am of so called man-made global warming.
Either way it happens, it won't affect me.
Wow.
I honestly don't know how ya'll live up there with such cold/bad weather for so long a part of the year?!?!
I live in New Orleans...I've lived as far north as eastern TN, and I couldn't really stand THAT much snow/ice for as long as it was. But at least up there, if it snowed, usually it was an excuse to stay home from work, make chili and have some beer and go play in it, and within a few days it is melted and you go back to normal life. I don't see how you deal with it up there for half the year of more.
NOLA, well, sure...we have some problems with rain, but, at least it isn't cold...although I will admit is was a bit disconcerting the first Thanksgiving down here, and I found myself outside deep frying a whole turkey...in shorts and a tshirt.
Geez, where is all this 'green' stuff coming from? I was hoping this fad would have faded somewhat by now. I mean, sure, it is 'nice' to use a bit less energy, and be a little cleaner, but, c'mon...things aren't that bad to rate the often draconian regulations, and over reaction in so many areas to replace everything that currently works well with something that is 'green' but often is is less superior to previous tech that worked exceedingly well at its primary purpose.
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Old traffic signals, they worked, through all the elements, they could be seen in even icy weather. Now? Well, we use a bit less power (has anyone seen what exactly the $$ savings in power is? is it significant?), but, cars can't see the lights during winter conditions, and we now have to send out manned crews to manually clear the snow off the signals. Is this a good trade off? Sounds a bit like going backwards to me...having a once automated system, that now requires sending human crews out to remedy snow accumulation problems.
It is one thing to update tech if it gives significant improvement in functionality, but, just doing it to be fashionably 'green' is not the way to do IMHO.
With the exception to the last part, about doing whatever it takes to get the job done, doesn't most everyone in this day in age feel that way about where they work?
I mean, the days of having a job for life (or over 5 years really) are long gone. The companies certainly don't feel any sense of loyalty to the workers, why should they expect it in return? I go there for pay...nothing more, nothing less, plain and simple. Every worker should know they are dispensable by now, and that the company bottom line is the only thing that matters in business anymore. Why would anyone think otherwise as an employee?
This precise things is the reason I prefer contracting...you might as well get the bigger pay if you have to put up with the work environment, and are dispensable.