...around the supposed benefits of server-side virtual machines.
You're running an operating system, so that you can run a software package, so that you can run another operating system, so that you can run another software package that is then interfaced-to by users or other stations on the network?
I guess that I can see it for boxes that serve multiple, different paying subscribers that each get their own "box", but wouldn't it just make more sense to size the applications to use the host OS on a single box as opposed to running multiple copies of operating systems and services that eat resources when the virtual hosts all belong to a single customer?
Why would I pay for an Apple TV device when I can load XBMC on an old computer and have the same kind of thing for free, or when I can turn on my Blu-Ray player and connect to a lot of other free streams?
Equal time to creationists on Cosmos, equal time for actual knowledge (read: science) on all televangelist broadcasts. That sounds like a fair compromise.
On broadcast TV in my market (I don't have cable) there are something like fifteen channels or subchannels of full-time religious programming, and two or three channels with off-prime-time religious programming.
So, does that mean that their demand for "fair time" means that we get this much more airtime for science education and discussion/debate? If fifteen channels' worth of programming can be centrally coordinated (to avoid massive duplication of effort) then it could be really, really effective if they can find enough charismatic hosts to keep the programs popular.
Heh. I'm reminded of The Big Bang Theory when Sheldon's MMO in-game crap was stolen by a hacker that happened to be local to them, and it finally took Penny to kick him in the balls while the four men looked on to get the stuff put back...
So a cute blonde girl will show up and break Mt Gox's nuts until they scream, "uncle!"
I have a way to mitigate it, at least to an extent. I have a car with a points-type distributor in my garage to drive around if the electronic ignition controls in the other cars are roasted...
Maybe I should put a couple of fresh '70s-era ECUs into the safe, just to electrically isolate them, so I'll have more than one functional car...
Sad thing is that they don't actually have to be lying, they simply can be ill-informed or misinformed.
Or consider it another way. The people at the very top of the organization most likely don't know what the people toward the bottom of the organization, aka those who actually work are doing. It's fairly likely that even lower-middle management doesn't truly know what the end worker does, let alone higher-level management.
It's the same with institutional change. Unless the workers at the bottom actually change things, the top can make all of the decisions and calls and statements that they want and the organization will still effectively function in the same capacity.
said the person volunteering to get up at 3 am to go to the office to reset the a/c system.
Sounds to me like you need a better A/C system.
Or you need to not consider an HVAC system to be so critical that it can't be on the network. Or, perhaps you need to design the HVAC system to take only the simplest of input from Internet-connected machines through interfaces like RS-422, and to otherwise use its not-connected, internal network for actual major connectivity. And design it to fail-safe, where it doesn't shut off and leave the data center roasting if there's an erroneous input.
And anything that is monitored three-shifts should not be Internet-connected if it's considered critical. After all, if it's monitored three shifts then it shouldn't have to notify anyone offsite.
You would be surprised by the number of Jeep products running around Paris. The Cherokee-of-old, the Grand Cherokee, and the Liberty (sold as the Cherokee there) are very, very popular, and the Chrysler PT Cruiser is popular as well, which only gets around 20mpg. There are also lots of Chrysler minivans and more than a few 300s.
The only reason that the banks "own" you is because you aren't willing to live the kind of life that one has to live without the goods and property that a bank helps you to purchase.
You could do without a car, or could pay cash for an expensive used car, or could save up your money to pay cash for a new car, but instead you choose to take out a loan.
You could move somewhere that you can afford to pay cash for, or could rent from a landlord that doesn't have a mortgage on the property that you're renting. I hear that Detroit has lots of houses available for less than $10,000, or less than $5000 if you're willing to live without copper wire and water pipe...
I know I will get moded down into oblivion, but whatever. Anyways we all know this exchange will rise and “collapse” running off with a lot of money just like the others. I think the supporters of Bitcoin are probably those who profit from this whole scheme.
No, I think we're seeing an honest, untainted demonstration of true Laissez-faire capitalism at work.
It shows you that what's yours, aka what your wealth is, truly is only what you can lay your hands on right now if there's nothing to support your claims to wealth. At this exact moment in time that's a laptop computer and an open, half-consumed can of Mountain Dew, and a physical wallet with a few dollars in it.
It's regulation that says that I own cars, a home, the contents of that home, and the contents of my bank accounts. If someone tries to take any of those things then I either get them back or I get compensation for their value, because there's regulation that supports me.
I think that the bitcoin crowd is slowly coming to realize that this massively libertarian construct doesn't work due to a lack of true oversight. I don't care that people can look at the block chain, people cannot affect the blockchain when it's used improperly.
It's probably more comparable to the telephone's introduction and subsequent ubiquity than it is to existing Internet services. And like the phone system and its eventual finding-of-monopoly and breakup, plus the introduction of new technology (cell phones) that fragmented it, I expect that some day Facebook will be ruled a monopoly and either broken up or forced to turn itself, to an extent, into a backend that allows other services to integrate into it seamlessly, like how MCI and later cell phone companies integrate into the legacy of Ma Bell.
People were doing those things before there was a consumer Internet.
Remember BBSes and Fidonet?
Believe me, it was a HUGE deal when one of the local BBSes got an ISDN frame-relay to the Internet. We could do IRC instead of just teleconferencing. Ironically they were hastening their own demise through giving us access to global content.
Politicians don't even come close to corporate officers in their ability to line their own pockets and to set up a self-sustaining reaction to keep the money flowing in. If corporations are like a professional football league, politicians are like those youth leagues organized by the YMCA...
Why do they think this is a matter for governments to decide?
Uh, because shareholder-owned corporations have proven unable to come to terms with something this simple and sane, and thus require it imposed on them since they won't self-regulate?
Except that we're not in a single-payer system now, and even if we were, failure to follow preventative care guidelines could lead to a rationing of healthcare options for those that don't want to participate.
So, if Johnny's parents don't want to get him vaccinated, as long as he's unvaccinated he receives treatment at the back of the line for ailments related to his lack of vaccination, and if priority cases come along they bypass him. Given the nature of diagnosing illness, that could mean that an unvaccinated child or person "getting sick" doesn't get to see a doctor for illness because the illness could be related to the lack of vaccine.
That's assuming that the single-payer system doesn't simply to deny the claim, leaving the doctor to send the full bill for service to the patient or to the patient's legal guardian.
How about denying medical insurance coverage to those that fail to get vaccinated, unless they can demonstrate that they are a member of a recognized religious congregation that specifically is against vaccination as a part of church dogma?
Think of it along the lines of a warranty on an expensive machine being void if the owner fails to follow the maintenance schedule.
And for those that want to argue religious freedom, please bear in mind that even Christian Science, as against intrusive medical care as they are, still has room for its adherents to follow vaccination laws where applicable.
Slashdot Mirror
...around the supposed benefits of server-side virtual machines.
You're running an operating system, so that you can run a software package, so that you can run another operating system, so that you can run another software package that is then interfaced-to by users or other stations on the network?
I guess that I can see it for boxes that serve multiple, different paying subscribers that each get their own "box", but wouldn't it just make more sense to size the applications to use the host OS on a single box as opposed to running multiple copies of operating systems and services that eat resources when the virtual hosts all belong to a single customer?
Why would I pay for an Apple TV device when I can load XBMC on an old computer and have the same kind of thing for free, or when I can turn on my Blu-Ray player and connect to a lot of other free streams?
Maybe Commander Koenig will have to save us...
On broadcast TV in my market (I don't have cable) there are something like fifteen channels or subchannels of full-time religious programming, and two or three channels with off-prime-time religious programming.
So, does that mean that their demand for "fair time" means that we get this much more airtime for science education and discussion/debate? If fifteen channels' worth of programming can be centrally coordinated (to avoid massive duplication of effort) then it could be really, really effective if they can find enough charismatic hosts to keep the programs popular.
Heh. I'm reminded of The Big Bang Theory when Sheldon's MMO in-game crap was stolen by a hacker that happened to be local to them, and it finally took Penny to kick him in the balls while the four men looked on to get the stuff put back...
So a cute blonde girl will show up and break Mt Gox's nuts until they scream, "uncle!"
Uh, just because something is prolific or widespread, doesn't mean that it's popular...
And can I get an "Eeeeeew"?!
you gotta sleep/eat/defecate/bathe sometime...
I have a way to mitigate it, at least to an extent. I have a car with a points-type distributor in my garage to drive around if the electronic ignition controls in the other cars are roasted...
Maybe I should put a couple of fresh '70s-era ECUs into the safe, just to electrically isolate them, so I'll have more than one functional car...
Sad thing is that they don't actually have to be lying, they simply can be ill-informed or misinformed.
Or consider it another way. The people at the very top of the organization most likely don't know what the people toward the bottom of the organization, aka those who actually work are doing. It's fairly likely that even lower-middle management doesn't truly know what the end worker does, let alone higher-level management.
It's the same with institutional change. Unless the workers at the bottom actually change things, the top can make all of the decisions and calls and statements that they want and the organization will still effectively function in the same capacity.
Sounds to me like you need a better A/C system.
Or you need to not consider an HVAC system to be so critical that it can't be on the network. Or, perhaps you need to design the HVAC system to take only the simplest of input from Internet-connected machines through interfaces like RS-422, and to otherwise use its not-connected, internal network for actual major connectivity. And design it to fail-safe, where it doesn't shut off and leave the data center roasting if there's an erroneous input.
And anything that is monitored three-shifts should not be Internet-connected if it's considered critical. After all, if it's monitored three shifts then it shouldn't have to notify anyone offsite.
You would be surprised by the number of Jeep products running around Paris. The Cherokee-of-old, the Grand Cherokee, and the Liberty (sold as the Cherokee there) are very, very popular, and the Chrysler PT Cruiser is popular as well, which only gets around 20mpg. There are also lots of Chrysler minivans and more than a few 300s.
You're hilarious...
The only reason that the banks "own" you is because you aren't willing to live the kind of life that one has to live without the goods and property that a bank helps you to purchase.
You could do without a car, or could pay cash for an expensive used car, or could save up your money to pay cash for a new car, but instead you choose to take out a loan.
You could move somewhere that you can afford to pay cash for, or could rent from a landlord that doesn't have a mortgage on the property that you're renting. I hear that Detroit has lots of houses available for less than $10,000, or less than $5000 if you're willing to live without copper wire and water pipe...
Unfortunately, the nerve-endings at your fingernails would prove otherwise if it came down to it.
...will it again reclaim the title?
No, I think we're seeing an honest, untainted demonstration of true Laissez-faire capitalism at work.
It shows you that what's yours, aka what your wealth is, truly is only what you can lay your hands on right now if there's nothing to support your claims to wealth. At this exact moment in time that's a laptop computer and an open, half-consumed can of Mountain Dew, and a physical wallet with a few dollars in it.
It's regulation that says that I own cars, a home, the contents of that home, and the contents of my bank accounts. If someone tries to take any of those things then I either get them back or I get compensation for their value, because there's regulation that supports me.
I think that the bitcoin crowd is slowly coming to realize that this massively libertarian construct doesn't work due to a lack of true oversight. I don't care that people can look at the block chain, people cannot affect the blockchain when it's used improperly.
Apparently it's to allow a third-party access to your private key, so that they can steal all of your bitcoins.
It's probably more comparable to the telephone's introduction and subsequent ubiquity than it is to existing Internet services. And like the phone system and its eventual finding-of-monopoly and breakup, plus the introduction of new technology (cell phones) that fragmented it, I expect that some day Facebook will be ruled a monopoly and either broken up or forced to turn itself, to an extent, into a backend that allows other services to integrate into it seamlessly, like how MCI and later cell phone companies integrate into the legacy of Ma Bell.
People were doing those things before there was a consumer Internet.
Remember BBSes and Fidonet?
Believe me, it was a HUGE deal when one of the local BBSes got an ISDN frame-relay to the Internet. We could do IRC instead of just teleconferencing. Ironically they were hastening their own demise through giving us access to global content.
Make the system detect something as it descends, and then hit it with the light/heat?
Just don't mis-aim or focus up too high...
Politicians don't even come close to corporate officers in their ability to line their own pockets and to set up a self-sustaining reaction to keep the money flowing in. If corporations are like a professional football league, politicians are like those youth leagues organized by the YMCA...
So you're saying that it won't be able to connect to my legacy 62.5um OM1 FDDI fiber then?
Uh, because shareholder-owned corporations have proven unable to come to terms with something this simple and sane, and thus require it imposed on them since they won't self-regulate?
This is just a guess, mind you...
Yep. Apple has been the most significant holdout.
At this point every other phone I've worked with that's newly produced has either had mini-USB or micro-USB connections.
Except that we're not in a single-payer system now, and even if we were, failure to follow preventative care guidelines could lead to a rationing of healthcare options for those that don't want to participate.
So, if Johnny's parents don't want to get him vaccinated, as long as he's unvaccinated he receives treatment at the back of the line for ailments related to his lack of vaccination, and if priority cases come along they bypass him. Given the nature of diagnosing illness, that could mean that an unvaccinated child or person "getting sick" doesn't get to see a doctor for illness because the illness could be related to the lack of vaccine.
That's assuming that the single-payer system doesn't simply to deny the claim, leaving the doctor to send the full bill for service to the patient or to the patient's legal guardian.
How about denying medical insurance coverage to those that fail to get vaccinated, unless they can demonstrate that they are a member of a recognized religious congregation that specifically is against vaccination as a part of church dogma?
Think of it along the lines of a warranty on an expensive machine being void if the owner fails to follow the maintenance schedule.
And for those that want to argue religious freedom, please bear in mind that even Christian Science, as against intrusive medical care as they are, still has room for its adherents to follow vaccination laws where applicable.