What's your point? Are you trying to pretend that the data I supplied is inaccurate? If so, did you LOOK at the information I provided to back it up? The median price I provided is the price that houses are selling for in that city.
If your point is that the housing market sucks, and you got screwed - then yep - and yes, I'm sorry to hear it. That really does suck.
Well, there is a good argument FOR FBI+DEA domestic surveillance activities. That means they work! Still not okay with it, but thank you for easing my concern about them a bit.
So, what you are saying is that, while the people are still getting the drugs they need, due to grant money freely given to them, they have to spend it in the countries where the money is coming from, which makes the people giving the grants mass murderers?
Let me start out by saying that I agree with you. And it's a good argument - it gets the emotional parts of the issue right out in the open. However, I see some things here that are going to be used, effectively, as a counter argument:
1. How many books do you own that you can pass on to your children? How old are those books?
2. Have you ever had a book destroyed through wearing out, getting destroyed by dog, fire, water, etc.?
3. Have you ever lost a book, had it borrowed or stolen?
I'm sure you can all see how these questions erode the argument. And the counter argument, pushing the statistical likelihood of a book being lost or destroyed before passing it on, versus the DRM getting screwed up - it's not very powerful. No one knows the real answer to that question - but people think they do - and so the argument loses those who already have an opinion.
I'd have to track it down, but sure - we do know. We've revived frozen animals before - the process just doesn't work on larger mammals. It's not unexplored.
Not so much. We revive people "after they are dead" all the time - and they are significantly less healthy than a specimen frozen using cryogenics (theoretically, of course). The obstacles are that the cells must return to normal structure after being safely thawed. At that point, shocking the heart into action will return blood-flow to normal, along with helping the lungs to get started - thus getting oxygen circulating in the system and avoiding cells dying due to that cause. Once that's avoided, IF ALL CELLS ARE HEALTHY, the person is alive and in reasonably good shape.
I like where they are going with several of these things, but why go with paper and magic markers? Why not use the same exact concept, only put it on a computer, print out a receipt with the codes and serial number, and go from there? It seems like a no brainer. Not only does it reduce overhead in terms of manpower, but it also reduces the amount of paper wasted, the cost of these "special markers", etc.
Thank you! I had forgotten about this option, and now my newsfeed is filled with a lot less crap. I think it's ridiculous that I had to turn of an editor to do that, but hell - it's not like Slashdot owners are going to listen to the users and can the jackass.
I apologize if I came across sounding like I thought virtualization was for everyone. I was merely pointing out that its great for MANY small businesses, where the parent had said its not good for any business that isn't huge.
Spoken like someone who invested the technology five years ago, and hasn't updated their information since.
1. If a small business is running more than two servers, then it's likely it'll be cheaper, over the next five years, to virtualize those servers. 2. If a small business needs any sort of guaranteed uptime, it's cheaper to virtualize - two machines and high availability with VMWare, and you are good to go. 3. Setting up VMWare, for example, is relatively simple, and actually makes remote management easier, since I have CONSOLE access from remote sites to my machine. Need to change the network connection or segment for a machine remotely? You can't do it safely without virtualization.
There is more, but I recommend you check this out again, before continuing to spout this stuff. It's just not true anymore.
What took so long? I don't know about ya'all, but I've been waiting for this for quite some time. Does anyone know how long this has been kicked around as an idea? It seems a natural extension of the surveillance society, when you consider the problem of actually understanding what all those cameras are seeing. After all, how else are you supposed to pay for all that manpower? Until technology can do it for us, we've got to have someone checking out all that footage.
This would be more scary if people actually got in trouble for breaking the law in the U.K. - but it's still pretty craptishous.
Hmmm... their justice system and prison system can hardly be considered even related to ours. I can understand why you might find it laughable, but it cannot be compared to the U.S. - just contrasted, so your comments are rather odd.
If that's your argument, why didn't you make it in the first place? I'd like to actually see the data/facts on all that, but at the very least, it's not the usual crap, and I'll take a look to see how accurate it is. Curious, do you consider Britain to be one of these enlightened nations?
You understand that the United States doesn't have one policy right? And that the majority of the prisons in the United States have some sort of programs setup to help inmates gain life skills, so they CAN be employable when they leave jail. Just like "other western countries".
So, you want to think again here? The facts are directly contradicting your scenario.
And that's where we start seeing the problems of the nanny state. If we are going to take care of the people, with our taxes and income, who have damaged themselves - those who consume too much food, resulting in extensive health care costs, etc. - then we have to manage those costs. Therefore, if we are providing health care for everyone, we need to make sure that people are taking care of themselves. We need mandatory exercise programs and diets - because that is the only known way to make sure people stay at a healthy weight. And we'll need to pay for oversight and enforcement of those programs. And while that'll be cheaper than paying for "obesity care" - the cost, in money and liberty, is going to get higher. Slippery slope arguments are usually ridiculous, but this one isn't so far fetched.
I did read the entire Wikipedia article. That's why I made the comments I did. Notice how they were very critical of all aspects of the article? You don't pull that shit out of the air - you actually have to check.
Can someone please explain what "known false" information was forced on these people? The Wikipedia article is so poorly sourced and written, I couldn't really tell, and I would have trouble believing it even if it HAD bothered to present any pertinent information. And sourcing the websites and articles WRITTEN BY THE FIRED EMPLOYEES? This is why Wikipedia is rarely taken seriously.
So, anyone? Was this a falsehood like reporting that there are scientists who don't believe that global warming is caused by man, or is this a falsehood like saying the sun does not give off any heat? And what WAS the falsehood?
This reminds me of the VR stuff that Gibson was talking about in Spook Country. Basically, combining GPS and VR, "artists" are able to create "channels" that "augment reality" so that you can see something interesting, depending on where you were. For example, one "artist" created a work that showed River Phoenix face down where he died that you could only see standing in front of the door to that club. It seems kind of cool to me, though obviously fraught with problems.
I have a suggestion - try rooting for the side that is RIGHT. Instead of who you "like better" or "hate a little less." Trust me - the world would be a better place if we could all pull that off.
I'm not modding anything. Hello? Where is that coming from? I honestly have no idea what you are freaking out about. All I've done is:
1. Tease you for being a fanboy
2. Respond and challenge you on your assertions
3. Mark you, personally, as a "foe" so I don't have to read your craptastic fanboy b.s. that I saw, time and time again, after reading through a sampling of your "comments" from various topics
And yes, I'm tagging you as a fanboy because of what you said and how you said it - and that is from just about every reply you've made in this thread. I'm sorry that you can't prove my disdain from you misplaced. You have yet to even bother admitting to the many mistaken assertions you have made in this very thread, that I took the time to point out. Have a great day - don't expect to hear from me again (I won't even know you are there!).
Of course I want to discuss this intelligently. I don't expect that from you, of course - which is why I've made sure to mod your comments to oblivion (that system works - it removes a lot of the FUD). I don't think the Linux kernel is less secure than its competitors. I'd even suggest it is likely MORE secure. However, your original comments were idiotic, and very fanboy. This isn't what you said at first. You called Windows users idiots, and praised Linux because it is just so awesome - ignoring the fact that this was a pretty shitty bug - and that it's been there for a long time. As for it not being exploited - well - that we know of. Hard to say anything solid about that, is there? I AM impressed it was patched so fast, and I will be patching my myriads of Linux servers at first opportunity. I am a little impressed that you've managed to mostly shutter the fanboy crap you've been spouting in this post, but my impression hasn't yet changed. Did you want to back up any of the other assertions you've made that I challenged you on? Or are you ready to let those go? I'd honestly love to have my impression of you be wrong - that this was just a shitty day for you or something. So please - do prove me wrong again.
Slashdot Mirror
What's your point? Are you trying to pretend that the data I supplied is inaccurate? If so, did you LOOK at the information I provided to back it up? The median price I provided is the price that houses are selling for in that city.
If your point is that the housing market sucks, and you got screwed - then yep - and yes, I'm sorry to hear it. That really does suck.
Bullshit. $54,000 is one THIRD of the median home price. Where do you get your information, and why did you bother posting that?
Here's where you can get the MEDIAN home price of Brainerd, Minnesota:
http://realestate.yahoo.com/Minnesota/Brainerd
Bad information & lies makes people doubt the truth - and your side of the argument.
Well, there is a good argument FOR FBI+DEA domestic surveillance activities. That means they work! Still not okay with it, but thank you for easing my concern about them a bit.
How that myopic, one color fits all vision working for ya?
So, what you are saying is that, while the people are still getting the drugs they need, due to grant money freely given to them, they have to spend it in the countries where the money is coming from, which makes the people giving the grants mass murderers?
Let me start out by saying that I agree with you. And it's a good argument - it gets the emotional parts of the issue right out in the open. However, I see some things here that are going to be used, effectively, as a counter argument:
1. How many books do you own that you can pass on to your children? How old are those books?
2. Have you ever had a book destroyed through wearing out, getting destroyed by dog, fire, water, etc.?
3. Have you ever lost a book, had it borrowed or stolen?
I'm sure you can all see how these questions erode the argument. And the counter argument, pushing the statistical likelihood of a book being lost or destroyed before passing it on, versus the DRM getting screwed up - it's not very powerful. No one knows the real answer to that question - but people think they do - and so the argument loses those who already have an opinion.
Just some thoughts.
I'd have to track it down, but sure - we do know. We've revived frozen animals before - the process just doesn't work on larger mammals. It's not unexplored.
Not so much. We revive people "after they are dead" all the time - and they are significantly less healthy than a specimen frozen using cryogenics (theoretically, of course). The obstacles are that the cells must return to normal structure after being safely thawed. At that point, shocking the heart into action will return blood-flow to normal, along with helping the lungs to get started - thus getting oxygen circulating in the system and avoiding cells dying due to that cause. Once that's avoided, IF ALL CELLS ARE HEALTHY, the person is alive and in reasonably good shape.
I like where they are going with several of these things, but why go with paper and magic markers? Why not use the same exact concept, only put it on a computer, print out a receipt with the codes and serial number, and go from there? It seems like a no brainer. Not only does it reduce overhead in terms of manpower, but it also reduces the amount of paper wasted, the cost of these "special markers", etc.
Thank you! I had forgotten about this option, and now my newsfeed is filled with a lot less crap. I think it's ridiculous that I had to turn of an editor to do that, but hell - it's not like Slashdot owners are going to listen to the users and can the jackass.
I apologize if I came across sounding like I thought virtualization was for everyone. I was merely pointing out that its great for MANY small businesses, where the parent had said its not good for any business that isn't huge.
Spoken like someone who invested the technology five years ago, and hasn't updated their information since.
1. If a small business is running more than two servers, then it's likely it'll be cheaper, over the next five years, to virtualize those servers.
2. If a small business needs any sort of guaranteed uptime, it's cheaper to virtualize - two machines and high availability with VMWare, and you are good to go.
3. Setting up VMWare, for example, is relatively simple, and actually makes remote management easier, since I have CONSOLE access from remote sites to my machine. Need to change the network connection or segment for a machine remotely? You can't do it safely without virtualization.
There is more, but I recommend you check this out again, before continuing to spout this stuff. It's just not true anymore.
What took so long? I don't know about ya'all, but I've been waiting for this for quite some time. Does anyone know how long this has been kicked around as an idea? It seems a natural extension of the surveillance society, when you consider the problem of actually understanding what all those cameras are seeing. After all, how else are you supposed to pay for all that manpower? Until technology can do it for us, we've got to have someone checking out all that footage.
This would be more scary if people actually got in trouble for breaking the law in the U.K. - but it's still pretty craptishous.
Hmmm... their justice system and prison system can hardly be considered even related to ours. I can understand why you might find it laughable, but it cannot be compared to the U.S. - just contrasted, so your comments are rather odd.
If that's your argument, why didn't you make it in the first place? I'd like to actually see the data/facts on all that, but at the very least, it's not the usual crap, and I'll take a look to see how accurate it is. Curious, do you consider Britain to be one of these enlightened nations?
You understand that the United States doesn't have one policy right? And that the majority of the prisons in the United States have some sort of programs setup to help inmates gain life skills, so they CAN be employable when they leave jail. Just like "other western countries".
So, you want to think again here? The facts are directly contradicting your scenario.
And that's where we start seeing the problems of the nanny state. If we are going to take care of the people, with our taxes and income, who have damaged themselves - those who consume too much food, resulting in extensive health care costs, etc. - then we have to manage those costs. Therefore, if we are providing health care for everyone, we need to make sure that people are taking care of themselves. We need mandatory exercise programs and diets - because that is the only known way to make sure people stay at a healthy weight. And we'll need to pay for oversight and enforcement of those programs. And while that'll be cheaper than paying for "obesity care" - the cost, in money and liberty, is going to get higher. Slippery slope arguments are usually ridiculous, but this one isn't so far fetched.
I did read the entire Wikipedia article. That's why I made the comments I did. Notice how they were very critical of all aspects of the article? You don't pull that shit out of the air - you actually have to check.
Can someone please explain what "known false" information was forced on these people? The Wikipedia article is so poorly sourced and written, I couldn't really tell, and I would have trouble believing it even if it HAD bothered to present any pertinent information. And sourcing the websites and articles WRITTEN BY THE FIRED EMPLOYEES? This is why Wikipedia is rarely taken seriously.
So, anyone? Was this a falsehood like reporting that there are scientists who don't believe that global warming is caused by man, or is this a falsehood like saying the sun does not give off any heat? And what WAS the falsehood?
This reminds me of the VR stuff that Gibson was talking about in Spook Country. Basically, combining GPS and VR, "artists" are able to create "channels" that "augment reality" so that you can see something interesting, depending on where you were. For example, one "artist" created a work that showed River Phoenix face down where he died that you could only see standing in front of the door to that club. It seems kind of cool to me, though obviously fraught with problems.
Netscape tech support huh? I remember those days...
I have a suggestion - try rooting for the side that is RIGHT. Instead of who you "like better" or "hate a little less." Trust me - the world would be a better place if we could all pull that off.
I'm not modding anything. Hello? Where is that coming from? I honestly have no idea what you are freaking out about. All I've done is:
1. Tease you for being a fanboy
2. Respond and challenge you on your assertions
3. Mark you, personally, as a "foe" so I don't have to read your craptastic fanboy b.s. that I saw, time and time again, after reading through a sampling of your "comments" from various topics
And yes, I'm tagging you as a fanboy because of what you said and how you said it - and that is from just about every reply you've made in this thread. I'm sorry that you can't prove my disdain from you misplaced. You have yet to even bother admitting to the many mistaken assertions you have made in this very thread, that I took the time to point out. Have a great day - don't expect to hear from me again (I won't even know you are there!).
Of course I want to discuss this intelligently. I don't expect that from you, of course - which is why I've made sure to mod your comments to oblivion (that system works - it removes a lot of the FUD). I don't think the Linux kernel is less secure than its competitors. I'd even suggest it is likely MORE secure. However, your original comments were idiotic, and very fanboy. This isn't what you said at first. You called Windows users idiots, and praised Linux because it is just so awesome - ignoring the fact that this was a pretty shitty bug - and that it's been there for a long time. As for it not being exploited - well - that we know of. Hard to say anything solid about that, is there? I AM impressed it was patched so fast, and I will be patching my myriads of Linux servers at first opportunity. I am a little impressed that you've managed to mostly shutter the fanboy crap you've been spouting in this post, but my impression hasn't yet changed. Did you want to back up any of the other assertions you've made that I challenged you on? Or are you ready to let those go? I'd honestly love to have my impression of you be wrong - that this was just a shitty day for you or something. So please - do prove me wrong again.