Hate to say it, but this is the *only* thing Microsoft did right in Exchange/Outlook/Pocket Outlook- and took it to extremes.
Extreme Silliness perhaps- It's possible, for instance, in a properly set up Exchange/Outlook system, to view everybody's calendars, schedule a meeting, invite everybody to the meeting, and have them synchronize down to their PDAs, which remind them not only of that meeting, but also of the next one, which means that at the end of the meeting you have x # of people, all of whose PDAs are ringing to tell them it's time to move to the next room.
Seems to me it would be good to help schedule loades of people, and if you have a wifi network, automagically synchronize PDAs over the wifi network to inform people where to go next.
How does cheaper labor lessen the ability of the consumer to purchase goods?
Where do you think the consumer gets the money to purchase goods? It comes from having a job. Take away that job, ship it to another country, and the consumer is no longer able to buy goods.
In fact, it INCREASES it. Cheaper labor means cheaper goods.
Cheaper goods doesn't matter when your paycheck goes to 0.
It also means MORE labor, so it means MORE goods, which also means cheaper goods.
But if you don't have a job, cheaper goods doesn't matter- and besides, worldwide and as a species, human labor has been in surplus for the last 10 years.
Unless you're sugesting that opting for cheaper labor ensures that more skilled labor will remain unemployed, which is only possible in a society already on an irreversible economic decline.
Guess what, buckoo- the United States is a society already on an irreversible economic decline- and has been on that road for 40 years, which is the last time we exported more than we imported. Any society that chooses to basically live on credit cards as a nation (by importing more than it exports) is in the exact same position as the guy who took out more in student loans than his career is worth- shit up a creek without a paddle, destined to end up homeless.
There is no actual need for healthcare, you can survive without it.
That was true a hundred years ago- if you were VERY lucky anyway and avoided most of the major diseases. I would suggest that in today's environement, we don't have enough unpolluted environment left to survive without it- we'd all get cancer and die rather quickly.
If you take a look at the human body as a system, you'll find that it requires food, water, and oxygen to operate (ignoring the plethora of trace stuff).
It's that plethora of trace stuff that is good preventive (as opposed to reactive) medical care. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that without any medical care at all- you yourself would likely not have survived to see your first birthday- because in societies without medical care with our level of pollution, 90% of the children don't.
Nothing in that system requires healthcare. I challenge you to look somewhere in the functioning of a human body and point out the specific need for healthcare.
It's in what you call the plethora of trace stuff- vitamin & mineral supplements, vaccinations, all of those well baby visits I had to pay for in my son's first year of life because NASE is a bunch of con artists who won't pay for required stuff in Oregon (though they will happily take your premiums), and the occasional screening so some new virus doesn't wipe out whole cities before being stopped.
Yes, heathcare tends to make life nicer, and longer. It also keeps people alive that would have, otherwise, died. This is more the definition of a luxury than a need.
Hmm- something that the lack of kills people is a luxury to you?
Healthcare - A lot of people who can't survive without it would die off, the rest of the human race would go on about it's lives, probably a bit more carefully.
Depends on the night, of course. If it happened right before a major pollution spill or an outbreak of some new epidemic, not many would be allive to go on.
Humans existed before heathcare, and could make it without it, so it's not a need, no matter how many stuffed shirts you have saying otherwise.
Like I said, a hundred years ago maybe- since then we've messed with our environment to the point where I rather doubt it.
Rational self interest requires the recognition not only of one's own rights, but the rights of others. Unless you're a megalomaniac who believe themselves to be godlike compared to others, you must recognize all rights to apply universally, or not at all. Therefore, to violate the natural rights of others is to declare your own rights to be invalid and subject to violation.
There is no such thing as "Rational self interest" then- because human greed means that you only look out for your own rights, not the rights of others.
Also, as with all immoral acts, the victims have a right to seek retribution and damages, so violating the rights of others (the only type of action that can be considered "immoral") has negative reprecussions, and is therefore not self-interested (unless you're a masocist).
Under a truely free market- victims have no right to seek retribution or damages because Cavet Emptor applies. You REALLY need to read somebody other than Ayn Rand.
Since when? How can anybody survive in the United States without participating in Capitalism? Just to have a house, I have to participate in your greedy, corrupt system!
I'd also point out that education and healthcare are not rights, as excercising "rights" does not require coerced participation by a third party.
2nd reply- Health care is not a right. It's a NEED. As in food, clothing, shelter, water, medical care. One of the basics needed to survive as we pollute the planet beyond basic survival of our species and short circuit evolution to allow more people to survive. Fullfilling needs is NOT ENTITLEMENT- it's basic HUMAN RIGHTS as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Heck- you really need to look up what is a right- because a free-market capiatlistic society is NOT a right. It's a luxury.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. Note most of the so-called "rights" that idiots like you have been brainwashed to believe in are not- they're priviledges that must be paid for by sacrificing real human rights.
And you can't think of ANY possible environment that doesn't have oxygen or water? We're not talking about EARTH remember- life existing elsewhere in the universe was the question.
There are far more important things in life then money,
But for some reason, all of the basic physical necessities require it. Thus my suggestion to nationalize/socialize the basic neccessities, so that we can work for luxuries instead of merely to survive.
Nah, just taking your slot in a graduate school. As if getting a graduate degree EVER gets anybody anything other than lower income expectations. If you can't get a job at McDonald's with your bachelor's degree now- what makes you think that a Master's will make you LESS overqualified?
Actually, I'd prefer to live in a society where success and even survival is determined on individual merit.
Good luck ever finding THAT- far too many make money off of basic human needs to EVER allow a society where individual merit counts for anything at all. Greed means FAR more than merit- in either capitalism or socialism. Only distributism ever had individual merit as a method of survival- and that limited profits too much for you stupid free market capitalists, who decided to replace merit with greed.
Wouldn't other elements in the same column on the periodic table, also theoretically work? Silicon, Germanium, tin, lead, even (under a very high gravity, supposedly, to get this element to be naturally occuring) Ununquadium? True, any biology using these would be far denser than we are- but these elements can form the same types of structures that carbon does.
is the ONLY form of life- doesn't have enough imagination to be a useful scientist when it comes to NEW theories. Such a person should be regulated to testing what is already somewhat well known- and leave the theories to better men.
If you kick up enough of a stink, they simply won't sell to you- as the cost of restocking your groceries is less than the cost of paying a manager to mess with your tin-foil plated mind.
Who cares about fixing it? Far better is to find a way to live with it. The planet will heal itself, regardless of what we think of as "pollution" it's all been here, in some form, for a lot longer than we have and it will be here, in some other form, long after we're dead.
Kyoto was supposed to get to the heart of the matter with CO2 emissions.
Unfortuneately, that was a solution attacking a single potential cause (out of several potential causes) and does NOTHING about the fact that it may take a few years for the planet to heal.
Actually, the real problem is human overpopulation, but there is no way we'll globally regulate that without a dictatorship.
Most, if not all, human population problems are really resource and population distribution problems instead- you're still assuming global warming to be manmade instead of actually dealing with the problem of global warming, and working on the cause rather than the solution.
It really doesn't matter where we got our fuel if we were a fraction of our total population. It's just that at the current and future size of the human species, we stress the planet too much no matter what we do.
Sometime, seriously, you need to take the drive from Las Vegas to Reno. Especially in the winter.
Idiot. Positive feedback loops are almost always inherently unstable, that's why nearly every real control system uses negative feedback.
However- you can't go below zero, and on your way down you're going to hurt an awfull lot of people.
I won't argue with a paranoid, and I sure as hell won't argue with a paranoid who thinks that an unstable system would be better than a stable one that will eventually drive towards economic equality worldwide.
Fine with me if you want to work for $.24/hr- just leave me out of your brave new world, ok?
So, I'm gonna have send some poor schmuck from chicago to miami whenever I need to update my machines (for MySQL updates or something similar)?
KISS- why not just have the machine in CHICAGO to begin with?
Why don't we just unplug the damn things from the network?
You mean you're running MySQL without a firewall between it and the internet to begin with?
Perhaps that should read "...don't allow just anybody to have ssh..." When you have a systems admin, part of it is that you implicitly trust him/her to NOT run exploits on the machines - why would he/she anyway? They alreay have root. If you feel you can't trust them, they never should have been given that position.
Reasonable- as long as they choose a very strong password and you have MAC filtering in your SSH to prevent other computers from logging in.
Ssh is not a HUGE security risk, as you say. Allowing unfettered access to the machine is. However I do agree with the telnet issue. NEVER use anything that sends/authenticates in the clear on a mission crit system (really on ANY system - too many people use the same passwords on both pre-production and production systems). Telnet/FTP and others should NEVER be used. If you authenticate via a web server ALWAYS use SSL. Use TLS for SMTP. And son on. This is where a proper security dept comes into play - whether you call it TRM, InfoSec, Network Security,etc...
And any security group that is worth their salt- will indeed be very paranoid about just any joe logging in.
1. Does anybody still have an argument on the two degree increase in the last decade alone? I thought that data was VERY sound- and my averages from the weather that I've downloaded from my local automated weather machine at Hillsborough Airport certainly bear it out.
2. Who cares what's causing it, the question is finding a place to move too which will be more habitable.
3. Even if it's a worst case scenario, there's still plenty of land out there guys- just move the cities.
4. Cut off ALL their funding, they're asking the worng question completely. The question shouldn't be "what caused this" the question should be "how can we survive this".
Well, the controversy would be over what we can do, and how bad it will be. If one assumes that it is natural, it is unlikely to accelerate, and it is likely to be irreversible (like my raincoat!). Any "solution," then, would involve setting up dykes along probable flood-prone areas, for example.
And of course- creating new reservations in the North, just like this article suggests.
If it is manmade, then it will accelerate as China and India industrialize, and the solution is to cut pollution.
Unfortuneately cutting pollution is just as hard as setting up dykes and moving- plus there's the added problem that we may have already reached tipover and no ammount of pollution reduction will work.
Personally, I'm staying agnostic. I've been voting against the Republicans lately for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment, so it really doesn't matter what I think.
Same with me- but regardless of how I vote, I think Canada needs to prepare for an influx of about 200 million refugees from Mexico and the United States and Central America. Argentina should prepare for a similar influx.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean you actually run your webserver on the same box that you keep more important data on?
Hate to say it, but this is the *only* thing Microsoft did right in Exchange/Outlook/Pocket Outlook- and took it to extremes.
Extreme Silliness perhaps- It's possible, for instance, in a properly set up Exchange/Outlook system, to view everybody's calendars, schedule a meeting, invite everybody to the meeting, and have them synchronize down to their PDAs, which remind them not only of that meeting, but also of the next one, which means that at the end of the meeting you have x # of people, all of whose PDAs are ringing to tell them it's time to move to the next room.
Seems to me it would be good to help schedule loades of people, and if you have a wifi network, automagically synchronize PDAs over the wifi network to inform people where to go next.
How does cheaper labor lessen the ability of the consumer to purchase goods?
Where do you think the consumer gets the money to purchase goods? It comes from having a job. Take away that job, ship it to another country, and the consumer is no longer able to buy goods.
In fact, it INCREASES it. Cheaper labor means cheaper goods.
Cheaper goods doesn't matter when your paycheck goes to 0.
It also means MORE labor, so it means MORE goods, which also means cheaper goods.
But if you don't have a job, cheaper goods doesn't matter- and besides, worldwide and as a species, human labor has been in surplus for the last 10 years.
Unless you're sugesting that opting for cheaper labor ensures that more skilled labor will remain unemployed, which is only possible in a society already on an irreversible economic decline.
Guess what, buckoo- the United States is a society already on an irreversible economic decline- and has been on that road for 40 years, which is the last time we exported more than we imported. Any society that chooses to basically live on credit cards as a nation (by importing more than it exports) is in the exact same position as the guy who took out more in student loans than his career is worth- shit up a creek without a paddle, destined to end up homeless.
There is no actual need for healthcare, you can survive without it.
That was true a hundred years ago- if you were VERY lucky anyway and avoided most of the major diseases. I would suggest that in today's environement, we don't have enough unpolluted environment left to survive without it- we'd all get cancer and die rather quickly.
If you take a look at the human body as a system, you'll find that it requires food, water, and oxygen to operate (ignoring the plethora of trace stuff).
It's that plethora of trace stuff that is good preventive (as opposed to reactive) medical care. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that without any medical care at all- you yourself would likely not have survived to see your first birthday- because in societies without medical care with our level of pollution, 90% of the children don't.
Nothing in that system requires healthcare. I challenge you to look somewhere in the functioning of a human body and point out the specific need for healthcare.
It's in what you call the plethora of trace stuff- vitamin & mineral supplements, vaccinations, all of those well baby visits I had to pay for in my son's first year of life because NASE is a bunch of con artists who won't pay for required stuff in Oregon (though they will happily take your premiums), and the occasional screening so some new virus doesn't wipe out whole cities before being stopped.
Yes, heathcare tends to make life nicer, and longer. It also keeps people alive that would have, otherwise, died. This is more the definition of a luxury than a need.
Hmm- something that the lack of kills people is a luxury to you?
Healthcare - A lot of people who can't survive without it would die off, the rest of the human race would go on about it's lives, probably a bit more carefully.
Depends on the night, of course. If it happened right before a major pollution spill or an outbreak of some new epidemic, not many would be allive to go on.
Humans existed before heathcare, and could make it without it, so it's not a need, no matter how many stuffed shirts you have saying otherwise.
Like I said, a hundred years ago maybe- since then we've messed with our environment to the point where I rather doubt it.
Rational self interest requires the recognition not only of one's own rights, but the rights of others. Unless you're a megalomaniac who believe themselves to be godlike compared to others, you must recognize all rights to apply universally, or not at all. Therefore, to violate the natural rights of others is to declare your own rights to be invalid and subject to violation.
There is no such thing as "Rational self interest" then- because human greed means that you only look out for your own rights, not the rights of others.
Also, as with all immoral acts, the victims have a right to seek retribution and damages, so violating the rights of others (the only type of action that can be considered "immoral") has negative reprecussions, and is therefore not self-interested (unless you're a masocist).
Under a truely free market- victims have no right to seek retribution or damages because Cavet Emptor applies. You REALLY need to read somebody other than Ayn Rand.
capitalism rests on voluntary participation
Since when? How can anybody survive in the United States without participating in Capitalism? Just to have a house, I have to participate in your greedy, corrupt system!
I'd also point out that education and healthcare are not rights, as excercising "rights" does not require coerced participation by a third party.
2nd reply- Health care is not a right. It's a NEED. As in food, clothing, shelter, water, medical care. One of the basics needed to survive as we pollute the planet beyond basic survival of our species and short circuit evolution to allow more people to survive. Fullfilling needs is NOT ENTITLEMENT- it's basic HUMAN RIGHTS as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Heck- you really need to look up what is a right- because a free-market capiatlistic society is NOT a right. It's a luxury.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. Note most of the so-called "rights" that idiots like you have been brainwashed to believe in are not- they're priviledges that must be paid for by sacrificing real human rights.
And you can't think of ANY possible environment that doesn't have oxygen or water? We're not talking about EARTH remember- life existing elsewhere in the universe was the question.
There are far more important things in life then money,
But for some reason, all of the basic physical necessities require it. Thus my suggestion to nationalize/socialize the basic neccessities, so that we can work for luxuries instead of merely to survive.
Nah, just taking your slot in a graduate school. As if getting a graduate degree EVER gets anybody anything other than lower income expectations. If you can't get a job at McDonald's with your bachelor's degree now- what makes you think that a Master's will make you LESS overqualified?
Complain when companies do the rational thing and opt for cheaper labor.
Why is this the rational thing, when opting for cheaper labor lessens the ability of the consumer to buy, and thus in the long run, destroys profit?
Actually, I'd prefer to live in a society where success and even survival is determined on individual merit.
Good luck ever finding THAT- far too many make money off of basic human needs to EVER allow a society where individual merit counts for anything at all. Greed means FAR more than merit- in either capitalism or socialism. Only distributism ever had individual merit as a method of survival- and that limited profits too much for you stupid free market capitalists, who decided to replace merit with greed.
Wouldn't other elements in the same column on the periodic table, also theoretically work? Silicon, Germanium, tin, lead, even (under a very high gravity, supposedly, to get this element to be naturally occuring) Ununquadium? True, any biology using these would be far denser than we are- but these elements can form the same types of structures that carbon does.
is the ONLY form of life- doesn't have enough imagination to be a useful scientist when it comes to NEW theories. Such a person should be regulated to testing what is already somewhat well known- and leave the theories to better men.
I can't see a lot of those 4 and 5 year-old satellite photos being that useful to your typical dumb-enough-to-drive-a-truck-bomb terrorists.
And my question has always been- why the hell a truck bomb instead of a fleet of radio controlled hobby aircraft carrying incendiaries?
One word: Geocacheing.
If you kick up enough of a stink, they simply won't sell to you- as the cost of restocking your groceries is less than the cost of paying a manager to mess with your tin-foil plated mind.
It's certainly an option- plenty of land down there. It's just all wet is all.
Who cares about fixing it? Far better is to find a way to live with it. The planet will heal itself, regardless of what we think of as "pollution" it's all been here, in some form, for a lot longer than we have and it will be here, in some other form, long after we're dead.
Kyoto was supposed to get to the heart of the matter with CO2 emissions.
Unfortuneately, that was a solution attacking a single potential cause (out of several potential causes) and does NOTHING about the fact that it may take a few years for the planet to heal.
Actually, the real problem is human overpopulation, but there is no way we'll globally regulate that without a dictatorship.
Most, if not all, human population problems are really resource and population distribution problems instead- you're still assuming global warming to be manmade instead of actually dealing with the problem of global warming, and working on the cause rather than the solution.
It really doesn't matter where we got our fuel if we were a fraction of our total population. It's just that at the current and future size of the human species, we stress the planet too much no matter what we do.
Sometime, seriously, you need to take the drive from Las Vegas to Reno. Especially in the winter.
Then what did they plant the flag on?
Idiot. Positive feedback loops are almost always inherently unstable, that's why nearly every real control system uses negative feedback.
However- you can't go below zero, and on your way down you're going to hurt an awfull lot of people.
I won't argue with a paranoid, and I sure as hell won't argue with a paranoid who thinks that an unstable system would be better than a stable one that will eventually drive towards economic equality worldwide.
Fine with me if you want to work for $.24/hr- just leave me out of your brave new world, ok?
So, I'm gonna have send some poor schmuck from chicago to miami whenever I need to update my machines (for MySQL updates or something similar)?
KISS- why not just have the machine in CHICAGO to begin with?
Why don't we just unplug the damn things from the network?
You mean you're running MySQL without a firewall between it and the internet to begin with?
Perhaps that should read "...don't allow just anybody to have ssh..." When you have a systems admin, part of it is that you implicitly trust him/her to NOT run exploits on the machines - why would he/she anyway? They alreay have root. If you feel you can't trust them, they never should have been given that position.
Reasonable- as long as they choose a very strong password and you have MAC filtering in your SSH to prevent other computers from logging in.
Ssh is not a HUGE security risk, as you say. Allowing unfettered access to the machine is. However I do agree with the telnet issue. NEVER use anything that sends/authenticates in the clear on a mission crit system (really on ANY system - too many people use the same passwords on both pre-production and production systems). Telnet/FTP and others should NEVER be used. If you authenticate via a web server ALWAYS use SSL. Use TLS for SMTP. And son on. This is where a proper security dept comes into play - whether you call it TRM, InfoSec, Network Security,etc...
And any security group that is worth their salt- will indeed be very paranoid about just any joe logging in.
On the 4 data points:
1. Does anybody still have an argument on the two degree increase in the last decade alone? I thought that data was VERY sound- and my averages from the weather that I've downloaded from my local automated weather machine at Hillsborough Airport certainly bear it out.
2. Who cares what's causing it, the question is finding a place to move too which will be more habitable.
3. Even if it's a worst case scenario, there's still plenty of land out there guys- just move the cities.
4. Cut off ALL their funding, they're asking the worng question completely. The question shouldn't be "what caused this" the question should be "how can we survive this".
Well, the controversy would be over what we can do, and how bad it will be. If one assumes that it is natural, it is unlikely to accelerate, and it is likely to be irreversible (like my raincoat!). Any "solution," then, would involve setting up dykes along probable flood-prone areas, for example.
And of course- creating new reservations in the North, just like this article suggests.
If it is manmade, then it will accelerate as China and India industrialize, and the solution is to cut pollution.
Unfortuneately cutting pollution is just as hard as setting up dykes and moving- plus there's the added problem that we may have already reached tipover and no ammount of pollution reduction will work.
Personally, I'm staying agnostic. I've been voting against the Republicans lately for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment, so it really doesn't matter what I think.
Same with me- but regardless of how I vote, I think Canada needs to prepare for an influx of about 200 million refugees from Mexico and the United States and Central America. Argentina should prepare for a similar influx.