No, I think the issue was with the "starting to look" part. The start was long ago. We're well into this being run-of-the-mill behavior in government contracting.
Unsafe for everything no. Unsafe for some things, yes. At least, much more unsafe than other alternatives which are not cloud-based. All things are relative, and what is an acceptable risk for you is not an acceptable risk for others.
Highways are unsuitable and extremely unsafe for activities that are safe elsewhere. Nobody is saying it's "good" or "bad," only that it's good or bad for certain things. To use an extreme analogy that will probably be bogged down in irrelevant pedantry, Big Wheels don't belong on highways. You're stuck on the fact that saying cloud storage is potentially a really bad place to store thing X equates to it being somehow generally bad. Nobody here said the latter, at least as far as I've read. The former is completely true and eminently reasonable in many circumstances.
Asking for high standards is one thing. Expecting all organizations to adhere to the highest possible standards, for which there are good reasons for some to pay and others to not, is another entirely. The latter expectation is ludicrous beyond all belief. There are differing service levels and pricing for different applications and security concerns. One size does not fit all, and there are things that cloud storage does not fit. If that concept hasn't sunk in by now, there's not much more I can add to this. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Rutkowski runs the Founder Institute in Los Angeles which launches about 1000 companies year and prides himself as being the fist person to coin the term “Web 3.0” during a press conference with Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
Rutkowski asked Schmidt what Google was doing with “Web 3.0” and Schmidt replied Web 2.0 was just a marketing term and that he was “the inventor” of Web 3.0.
The fact that someone, sometime, would eventually use the term "Web 3.0" means that the person who "claims" it is nothing more than an opportunistic douchebag. He didn't invent shit.
If there is, its use will happen extraordinarily selectively. As soon as a high-profile target has the information on one of these drives used against them, it will become known to the public. Unless, of course, it's used in a secret trial where they aren't allowed to see the evidence being used against them.
That's not entirely true. I have gotten mod points 15 at a time a couple times a week when there have been no stories I've been interested in commenting on for a month or more.
Nowhere in that response is an objection to your description of what "cloud" means. In fact, it seems as though the post implicitly agrees with your definition.
What it does say is that your claim of "Your suggestion that you don't want to have anything in the cloud is moronic." is entirely incorrect. Which it is.
For all intents and purposes, AT&T has that monopoly now. It will only fail to have it if stopped. The default, and most likely, outcome is the merger will continue. Given the latest from Congress, if the merger fails there will be a bill targeting the FCC's ruling which disclaims their ability to regulate in this area. If there is a suit path available, or a barely reasonable facsimile thereof, expect it to be litigated to the Supreme Court, where the merger will be upheld.
"Better" (objectively at least, as subjectively "winning" is whoever sells well) doesn't usually win in the consumer space. Those who are among the first out the gate or have superior funding, marketing, and/or capacity to do evil win. Consumers, by-and-large, do not care about quality. They care about shiny and name recognition.
This is what I'm talking about. Remove the ability of any legal fiction collecting and contributing money to any political process. They should not have rights, ever, as they are not natural people. They should have privileges that can be revoked, and should be dissolved for violating the law, whether union or corporation.
If you want the immunities and privileges that come from a legal fiction, you should give something up, not get functional immortality and zero liability.
Most of them have come back again, but it most certainly has happened, and in all parts of the world. Iran, Germany, Brazil, most (all probably, but there may be an exception I'm not recalling) of Central America, many countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
It's cyclical though, which is something almost nobody is willing to admit.
When you take $100 from your right pocket and put it into your left pocket, take an IOU for $100 from your left pocket and put it into your right pocket, then spend the $100 in your left pocket, you're not insolvent either.
However, when it comes time to replace the IOU and your income is only $50, the IOU is no longer solvent.
If the company importing loses their ability to sell stock they've paid for, taking their business to another manufacturing firm isn't going to help cover their loss. They're already stuck not being able to sell, and having to shoulder civil payments in the States.
So yes, recovering payment then becomes a matter of suing the supplier. It is clearly an attempt to shift the burden for Microsoft. They don't have to go after Chinese companies on Chinese turf. Let manufacturers do it.
Now, I'm all for getting manufacturing out of China, but this is a sleazy way to do it.
Copyrights were created so that authors could profit from their works for a time, under a protected monopoly, in exchange for releasing their works into the public domain after the period of their profit.
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
Once dead, this no longer applies. Nowhere in there is mentioned estates, and the original application of copyright specifically ceased at death.
From Copyright Act of 1790: to secure to the said authors, if they shall survive the term first mentioned
All completely true. Unfortunately, it seems that any time firearms are mentioned anywhere as a useful tool, the hordes descend to focus on all the multitude of ways a person is not able to do anything useful with them, ever. So the conversation gets bogged down in semantic arguments, and can't move on to discussion of all the other important aspects of disaster preparedness. The "You can't do that" or "That won't work" statements usually rely on assuming specific conditions, which is absurd when talking about general disaster preparedness. However, those who feel they must focus on why others are crazy for owning and learning how to use one specific tool are not going to go away, so we'll have to live with the derailments they cause.
Nobody was saying, or even implying, it would. It would save a small number: those who were prepared. The rest would rely on looting, the government, hunters, gardeners, or starve. In a large enough, sustained disaster, it would mostly be the latter, because large cities are unsustainable without a massive support network.
Actually, such a thing would be good, as the current growth rate of the human population is unsustainable. At some point, some such thing will happen, and those who have the skills and tools to survive (hunting and firearms being only a single example) will have much better chances than those who have to rely on others to provide part or all of their basic survival needs.
Since you have admitted to possessing firearms, a good percentage of the population has written you off as a dangerous kook who should be watched for signs of gearing up to snap and go on a homicidal rampage. It's like they can't believe a sane, well-adjusted person can actually pragmatically look at a firearm and decide there are many situations a private citizen could potentially find themselves in where such a tool would be useful or essential.
What's really astounding is that many of these people are otherwise highly intelligent and pragmatic themselves, yet are incapable of surmounting this psychological hurdle.
Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with culture, could it?
Sadly, saying this is like shouting into a hurricane. Even more so, because it's the real root of the issue and most people are incapable of analyzing people and cultures to find the real cause to problems; they'd rather just demonize those they disagree with.
Owning firearms makes one more likely to be a criminal in exactly the same way being black makes one more likely to be a criminal. It's too bad the real meaning of the preceding sentence will be lost on so many, a great deal of whom will decide it means I think blacks are criminals because they're black. It's that old/. maxim "correlation does not equal causation," but let's not apply it to everything, just the things we like, but which have bad things that correlate to them. Anything else might as well be "correlation equals causation" for the average person trying to defend a strongly-held opinion.
It has nothing to do with perception of a good deal. -snip-
Exactly. I am the same way. There are simply no games I will spend $60 on. I would spend $20 on them, so I wait until there are used copies available at my price point. That means the company has lost out on my sale at $20 in order to gain sales at $60. Whether that makes for a net loss or not I can't say. I suspect, though, that there are more people like me than there are who will buy games at $60.
If the rest of the market were to follow suite, after a while we'd be back to the pre-existing market state.
If it were a zero-sum game, you'd be correct. It's not.
Yes, it's stupid to think giving it away would maximize profit. It won't. Then again, the poster you're replying to never made that claim. You inferred it incorrectly. The point is that the price point where maximum revenue generation occurs appears to be well below the typical price point being set. Anything above or below that is inefficient. It might have seemed to the poster to be absurd to need to point out that there is a floor on how low prices can go before profit is lost. This is/. though, so s/he took that as a given in error.
Slashdot Mirror
Deflation has been a symptom of economic disaster, but has not itself ever been a cause of it.
No, I think the issue was with the "starting to look" part. The start was long ago. We're well into this being run-of-the-mill behavior in government contracting.
Unsafe for everything no. Unsafe for some things, yes. At least, much more unsafe than other alternatives which are not cloud-based. All things are relative, and what is an acceptable risk for you is not an acceptable risk for others.
Highways are unsuitable and extremely unsafe for activities that are safe elsewhere. Nobody is saying it's "good" or "bad," only that it's good or bad for certain things. To use an extreme analogy that will probably be bogged down in irrelevant pedantry, Big Wheels don't belong on highways. You're stuck on the fact that saying cloud storage is potentially a really bad place to store thing X equates to it being somehow generally bad. Nobody here said the latter, at least as far as I've read. The former is completely true and eminently reasonable in many circumstances.
Asking for high standards is one thing. Expecting all organizations to adhere to the highest possible standards, for which there are good reasons for some to pay and others to not, is another entirely. The latter expectation is ludicrous beyond all belief. There are differing service levels and pricing for different applications and security concerns. One size does not fit all, and there are things that cloud storage does not fit. If that concept hasn't sunk in by now, there's not much more I can add to this. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Rutkowski runs the Founder Institute in Los Angeles which launches about 1000 companies year and prides himself as being the fist person to coin the term “Web 3.0” during a press conference with Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
Rutkowski asked Schmidt what Google was doing with “Web 3.0” and Schmidt replied Web 2.0 was just a marketing term and that he was “the inventor” of Web 3.0.
The fact that someone, sometime, would eventually use the term "Web 3.0" means that the person who "claims" it is nothing more than an opportunistic douchebag. He didn't invent shit.
If there is, its use will happen extraordinarily selectively. As soon as a high-profile target has the information on one of these drives used against them, it will become known to the public. Unless, of course, it's used in a secret trial where they aren't allowed to see the evidence being used against them.
That's not entirely true. I have gotten mod points 15 at a time a couple times a week when there have been no stories I've been interested in commenting on for a month or more.
Nowhere in that response is an objection to your description of what "cloud" means. In fact, it seems as though the post implicitly agrees with your definition.
What it does say is that your claim of "Your suggestion that you don't want to have anything in the cloud is moronic." is entirely incorrect. Which it is.
For all intents and purposes, AT&T has that monopoly now. It will only fail to have it if stopped. The default, and most likely, outcome is the merger will continue. Given the latest from Congress, if the merger fails there will be a bill targeting the FCC's ruling which disclaims their ability to regulate in this area. If there is a suit path available, or a barely reasonable facsimile thereof, expect it to be litigated to the Supreme Court, where the merger will be upheld.
As far as I can tell, the truth is not an affirmative defense in Italian courts. Quite the opposite, actually.
"Better" (objectively at least, as subjectively "winning" is whoever sells well) doesn't usually win in the consumer space. Those who are among the first out the gate or have superior funding, marketing, and/or capacity to do evil win. Consumers, by-and-large, do not care about quality. They care about shiny and name recognition.
Fire alarms contain a small amount of radiactive material. Didn't someone manage to build a working reactor from those a while ago?
Americium 242, and yes: http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html
This is what I'm talking about. Remove the ability of any legal fiction collecting and contributing money to any political process. They should not have rights, ever, as they are not natural people. They should have privileges that can be revoked, and should be dissolved for violating the law, whether union or corporation.
If you want the immunities and privileges that come from a legal fiction, you should give something up, not get functional immortality and zero liability.
That's only because there are many more corporations to hold corrupt positions. It's probably not much different on a per-entity basis.
Most of them have come back again, but it most certainly has happened, and in all parts of the world. Iran, Germany, Brazil, most (all probably, but there may be an exception I'm not recalling) of Central America, many countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
It's cyclical though, which is something almost nobody is willing to admit.
When you take $100 from your right pocket and put it into your left pocket, take an IOU for $100 from your left pocket and put it into your right pocket, then spend the $100 in your left pocket, you're not insolvent either.
However, when it comes time to replace the IOU and your income is only $50, the IOU is no longer solvent.
If the company importing loses their ability to sell stock they've paid for, taking their business to another manufacturing firm isn't going to help cover their loss. They're already stuck not being able to sell, and having to shoulder civil payments in the States.
So yes, recovering payment then becomes a matter of suing the supplier. It is clearly an attempt to shift the burden for Microsoft. They don't have to go after Chinese companies on Chinese turf. Let manufacturers do it.
Now, I'm all for getting manufacturing out of China, but this is a sleazy way to do it.
As long as you don't represent a company, no.
If you own a company though, you can face a $50,000 fine or 5 years in prison for refusing to do business with an Israeli company.
The law doesn't care what your reasons are. Refuse a business request from Israel, go to prison.
Copyrights were created so that authors could profit from their works for a time, under a protected monopoly, in exchange for releasing their works into the public domain after the period of their profit.
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
Once dead, this no longer applies. Nowhere in there is mentioned estates, and the original application of copyright specifically ceased at death.
From Copyright Act of 1790:
to secure to the said authors, if they shall survive the term first mentioned
All completely true. Unfortunately, it seems that any time firearms are mentioned anywhere as a useful tool, the hordes descend to focus on all the multitude of ways a person is not able to do anything useful with them, ever. So the conversation gets bogged down in semantic arguments, and can't move on to discussion of all the other important aspects of disaster preparedness. The "You can't do that" or "That won't work" statements usually rely on assuming specific conditions, which is absurd when talking about general disaster preparedness. However, those who feel they must focus on why others are crazy for owning and learning how to use one specific tool are not going to go away, so we'll have to live with the derailments they cause.
Nobody was saying, or even implying, it would. It would save a small number: those who were prepared. The rest would rely on looting, the government, hunters, gardeners, or starve. In a large enough, sustained disaster, it would mostly be the latter, because large cities are unsustainable without a massive support network.
Actually, such a thing would be good, as the current growth rate of the human population is unsustainable. At some point, some such thing will happen, and those who have the skills and tools to survive (hunting and firearms being only a single example) will have much better chances than those who have to rely on others to provide part or all of their basic survival needs.
It's sad that there's so much hate on /.
Since you have admitted to possessing firearms, a good percentage of the population has written you off as a dangerous kook who should be watched for signs of gearing up to snap and go on a homicidal rampage. It's like they can't believe a sane, well-adjusted person can actually pragmatically look at a firearm and decide there are many situations a private citizen could potentially find themselves in where such a tool would be useful or essential.
What's really astounding is that many of these people are otherwise highly intelligent and pragmatic themselves, yet are incapable of surmounting this psychological hurdle.
Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with culture, could it?
Sadly, saying this is like shouting into a hurricane. Even more so, because it's the real root of the issue and most people are incapable of analyzing people and cultures to find the real cause to problems; they'd rather just demonize those they disagree with.
Owning firearms makes one more likely to be a criminal in exactly the same way being black makes one more likely to be a criminal. It's too bad the real meaning of the preceding sentence will be lost on so many, a great deal of whom will decide it means I think blacks are criminals because they're black. It's that old /. maxim "correlation does not equal causation," but let's not apply it to everything, just the things we like, but which have bad things that correlate to them. Anything else might as well be "correlation equals causation" for the average person trying to defend a strongly-held opinion.
It has nothing to do with perception of a good deal. -snip-
Exactly. I am the same way. There are simply no games I will spend $60 on. I would spend $20 on them, so I wait until there are used copies available at my price point. That means the company has lost out on my sale at $20 in order to gain sales at $60. Whether that makes for a net loss or not I can't say. I suspect, though, that there are more people like me than there are who will buy games at $60.
If the rest of the market were to follow suite, after a while we'd be back to the pre-existing market state.
If it were a zero-sum game, you'd be correct. It's not.
Yes, it's stupid to think giving it away would maximize profit. It won't. Then again, the poster you're replying to never made that claim. You inferred it incorrectly. The point is that the price point where maximum revenue generation occurs appears to be well below the typical price point being set. Anything above or below that is inefficient. It might have seemed to the poster to be absurd to need to point out that there is a floor on how low prices can go before profit is lost. This is /. though, so s/he took that as a given in error.
If it adds to someone's incentive to donate, fantastic.