I've worked in lots of places that claimed to do Agile, but few really did. Often it meant doing daily standups (or even sit-downs in one case!) and not having any good specs. Right now I'm working at my first contract that really is Agile, and it's fantastic. It is chaotic, but not because of us; it's the reality we're facing. We're doing several projects at once, the designs had to be sent back several times because they were wrong, business isn't really sure what they want, and we're being productive in spite of that.
We tell business what we need from them in order to do our work, instead of the other way around. We don't accept issues that don't meet our standards, and as a result, more and more issues do meet our standard. When we uncover a misunderstanding, we can change direction on a moment's notice, and because business, admin and others show up at our standups and our sprint demo, we discover these misunderstandings pretty quickly.
Not all is perfect. Not everybody around us really gets Agile, and particularly our tester would be much more at home in a Waterfall setting, but for me personally, it's working very, very well.
So, you're a contractor, and you're working, you appear to have productivity, and you are driving. Hmmm, that seriously smells on a number of levels.
From the sound of your description, what could happen is that what comes out the other end gets completely trashed because while the pieces looked good when they were presented, the whole sucked eggs and required a redesign with new wireframes that cannot be matched with what you produced. Additionally, this approach, especially given your description, will result in something like my current project, where there are 4 separate shopping carts, each for a different phase of the purchasing cycle, because no one with half a brain sat down and actually designed what the process would be. Nope, couldn't do that because it would take more than an iteration's time to properly get all requirements, design it, and then develop all required pieces.
I have other examples where projects failed under Agile. In fact, across the many years and projects, I have yet to see a successful project using Agile that was more than 2-3 developers. My successful projects, of which there are quite a few, were all project driven, not really waterfall, and had various processes in them that Agile now claims as their own, but have nothing to do with Agile. They all started with a known goal and requirements, which then generated planning sessions and components, which were then put into the development workflow. The results were always a cohesive design working across multiple nodes, including in some cases distributed services and workflows. This never lends itself to Agile, unless Agile looks an awful lot like waterfall, which the Agile elitists tell you never happens.
Interestingly enough, that I can't find a ready list of ages of senators and representatives back in 2001. That would have been more telling.
Yep, read that one quite a while ago. Then I consider Brevik. 77 dead. He'll be out in 21 years or less, most likely. It'll be interesting to see how long he lives when he is set free. That's the problem when there's a sense of lack of justice. Even Norwegians think his sentence is far too light. 77*21 years might be more fitting, served consecutively.
Your main flaw is that you assume that something must become public domain. I never said that. I stated that if you received a patent, you wind up paying for it if you wish to enforce it. For the first 5 years, you don't get taxed. After that, you do, by an assigned value. Too low, and you run the risk of someone buying it from you. Too high, you pay more tax. All of a sudden, that one-click patent doesn't look so hot. Nor do a lot of those patent trolls look all that promising, since they now must either pay lots of money for their 19 year old patents, or someone can buy them out from underneath them.
It has changed. That was my point - since the majority of folks I deal with still run old versions of Office, the new doc formats are largely irrelevant. MS tried to pull an Office95 with 2010, that didn't work out so well, the formats are backwards compatible even if there is a nag screen.
That a good idea - not only do you pay a yearly tax based on the assigned value, to keep the assessed value realistic, anyone can offer more than the assessed value - if you sell the patent, that's the new value, if you don't, then the value is set to the new value. If they offer 5 or 10 times the value, you either must sell it or it gets assessed at double what they offered.
The first five years, unless a patent is used in litigation, there will be no tax. This protects the small business folks. If you don't want to pay the tax, it becomes public domain.
They may have the money, but at some point the shareholders will do something. That "something" is undefined, but could effectively destroy MS in an instant, metaphorically speaking. Apple has double MS's bank account, Google is only a little behind MS. Both of them own huge shares of the high growth areas of devices. Apple also owns an increasing share of MS's core business, nearing 10% marketshare with PCs alone. Even with that pile of cash, MS has failed multiple times in attempting to gain a notable foothold in something other than software. Even the XBox hasn't been that successful, and I'm not sure it's actually all that profitable. Beating the PS3 is not all that noteworthy. In fact, Sony might be a forewarning for what can happen to MS in a few short years. They had a stockpile of cash and attempted to bash their way into a number of markets while making some major PR missteps (root kits on CDs, removing the alt OS on their PS3s, etc) and currently they're bleeding cash and are a shell of their former selves even 6 years ago. Time will tell.
You know - people say that about Office, and have been saying it for years. It doesn't make it any more true than saying it three times. I haven't used a MS Windows version of Office for at least 6 years, and yes, I do interact with Office for windows. You know the primary reason that Mac Office and OOO/LO are perfectly acceptable? Because the majority of MS Office users I deal with are still in the dark ages of Office 2003-2007. Even the minority who are somewhat current are only running 2010. Also, most of those users only use the basic functionality, which other office suites have little trouble with.
The rest has even less traction, approaching the irrelevant.
McCarthy was such a disastrously horrible chapter in history that, if anything, the people who remember it are your best defence against it happening again.
I'm not sure that's true. There's a group of people who apparently think such things are good. Witness the PATRIOT act:
Divisive rhetoric doesn't cause rights violations: unifying rhetoric does. The PATRIOT Act was passed 357 to 66 in the House and 98 to 1 in the Senate. That's when the nightmare started. These are politicians too young to remember or be affected by McCarthyism (average age around or below 60), but who grew up during the Cold War and were subject to plenty of the same paranoid propaganda—just without a cautionary tale about holding back.
There's a significant number of senators above the age of 70 today (22, and 41 representatives who should be old enough to remember McCarthyism, and I'm sure the number that were old enough 12 years ago would be significantly higher, much higher than those who voted against the act. Divisive rhetoric certainly can cause rights violations, especially if defying that rhetoric is seen as... unpatriotic. I would say McCarthyism certainly wasn't unifying, it was more a self-preservation mode, as to stand against the flow at that time immediately made you a target, quite literally.
About data retention: I think either corruption and abuses of power should be fought until collecting a complete database does not automatically entail a risk of privacy violation, or the data should be destroyed after the crime has been laid to rest, regardless of whether or not there was a conviction. It has been demonstrated that convicts who are treated more like people have a lower rate of continued law-breaking; (and to trot out this statistic yet again) the reoffending rate in Norway is only 30% (for violent crimes, I think.) The criminal justice system should (and could) produce people who can be given that benefit of the doubt.
I'd wholly disagree with this. Once convicted of a certain level of crime, a felony, you lose rights. Like the right to vote. You've been deemed something less than a full citizen due to your own actions, and those are bad enough to stick to you for life. Having these people's info on file only makes sense. There's a group of people that no matter what you do, short of forcibly changing their mental state, will continue to violate again. Norway in particular is a good example, as that is a relatively low stress low crime country with an entirely different attitude towards its people. Yet they still have roughly 57% of their violent crimes committed by released convicts. Recidivism appears to be too difficult a set of numbers to retrieve quickly this morning, and percentages do not equate to recidivism rates. Let's use your 30% rate - that means for every 3 murderers we release, 1 will kill again. It doesn't mean they'll only kill one person, but kill in general. Maybe that will be Brevik. After all - 21 years for 77 murders, maybe he'll get more in 21 years or less. But, Norway is an entirely different lifestyle and populace, which would be more comparable to say, Maine or Montana, than New York City or Los Angeles. That's not to say we don't have some challenges with regards to crime and what we label as such. We probably should also review exactly what it means to 'grade' an act to a certain level. A kid with a couple of potted plant certainly isn't in the same league of danger to society as a Ted Bundy, but is pretty much treated the same way legally.
There's something about beating someone to a pulp vs giving a suspect a command and then reacting to that suspect actively defying the officer that is a small, minor difference in scope. Kind of similar to raise your hands and the do - with a gun it it. On video, that would be 100% unquestionable. Even a toy gun, it looks like a gun with a hostile appearing intent, well, perhaps they should listen when an armed officer tells them what to do. I know I certainly don't fight back no matter how unhappy I am. File a complaint, provided it's valid, sure. Fight an officer, or even more dumb, a group of officers? Nope, not so much.
Note that the scenarios described, however, are where the officer has some reason to interfere with the person. Just stopping someone on the street - not so much in my opinion.
Genetic screening gets accusations of racism, fascism, and eugenics. It's absolutely reprehensible and an extremely easy target for their opponents. No one endorses that.
You might want to go back and visit the McCarthy era and a few other events (Tuskegeeonly being one instance) to see how recently those three actions were not only tolerated, but actively pursued. Then realize that some of those involved in those activities are still living, and that our current state of enlightenment is not as deep as you may think, especially given some of the divisive rhetoric currently surrounding topics like immigration, drugs, abortion, guns, etc and how that compares to the not so distant past.
Personally, I feel if they take your fingerprints during an arrest, and then don't charge you or you're found innocent, all records relating to that arrest must be expunged, such as photos, fingerprints, etc. Does it harm future police work? Yes. But so does not fingerprinting, photographing, and DNA sequencing everyone in the population. Just think how much easier police work would be if we could just feed a spec of dust or a photo to the computer and get the guilty party out the other end. After all, if you have nothing to hide....
The suspect goes down and turtles. Every time an officer gets close he lashes out with feet, elbows, knees, etc. While the officers are away he looks passive. When the officers get close he is aggressive. On the ground does not mean passive. And again, The reason he won't show his hands could be the knife he has concealed there.
any further beating is definitely a sign of excessive force
I agree with that statement but the beating is not definitive proof of excessive force as so many people would believe. One needs to take the whole incident into context and not just the last 30 seconds.
30s of beating is excessive. If they're on the ground and not responding to a hit, there should be none after that. Officers are supposed to be trained to be able to control a suspect once they are on the ground. If they cannot, continued beating still isn't the answer. Shooting them? Sure. And yes, I'm aware that shooting a leg is difficult in a running scenario, but we're talking on the ground here. Recall the zombie guy? No one criticized the officer for shooting the guy. Seemed like a reasonable decision. If the officer believes the suspect has a weapon, then the officer should probably not engage in hand to hand in the first place. Shooting to disable someone on the ground that's unresponsive and acting the way you describe above would be a prime argument in favor of cameras for police. It's very hard to argue against video footage.
The issue is that the video didn't show the previous couple minutes where the police had the suspect on the ground and the suspect broke away and started fighting again or had bitten, scratched, kneed, etc officers as they were trying to cuff him. Videos that show only the end of a confrontation are usually hiding something.
They show what they're meant to show, police are not allowed to use excessive force. If the suspect is on the ground, they are pretty much submissive, any further beating is definitely a sign of excessive force. If the suspect jumps up after that and does further resisting, police have several options including tasers and/or guns. No, I don't expect an officer to put themselves in harm's way for this type of suspect. I'm fully ok with a shot to the leg to stop the problem, all on film, of course.
You can do both you know. NAC is used for a "secure" network, which has a certain level of trust internally. BYOD is on a second, lower trust level network, and access to your "secure" network is gated and monitored. Note that neither case ever relieves you of the need to monitor and manage your "secure" network, nor the intended "secure" resources, which should still be gated and monitored separately.
I have one case where you're supposed to go through a proxy to hit resources in a "secure" network, but the incompetent network folks did not VLAN that network, nor did they firewall it, or sincerely do even the most basic of activities to actually secure that network other than proxying HTTP/HTTPS traffic. That is not a secure network by any stretch of the imagination. I can hit it directly from almost anywhere in their network and guest network, once I have access to any single system on it.
Then you have a reading comprehension problem. I summed up what your apparent statement of inflation appears to be from your previous posts. Feel free to add to it here or elsewhere to flesh it out.
You're discussing traveling, I think the OP is really discussing immersion, which is really only obtainable with extended stays / living and working with the populace of the place you're in. However, a hostel is pretty much the opposite of that, unless you're wanting solely to experience the hostel lifestyle, which is most likely unlike where ever you are.
Money supply and inflation are but 2 parts of the puzzle. I'd agree with 1 point of the GP, you have not expressed anything that would indicate that you understand inflation in the larger sense. Merely stating that bread cost $1 last year and $2 this year therefore we have 100% inflation is not sufficient in this context.
I don't think companies should be free to beat puppies in order to convince employees to join their company. I mean, that's like extortion, "If you don't scrum with us, we'll beat these puppies senseless!"
So the question becomes "Are you willing to sacrifice yourself in place of the puppies?"
I'm typing this on an Intel 980x running ML, used to run SL, and briefly Lion. I also have several macs, across a range of hardware. The thing I can say is that ML appears to be less stable overall than the rock-solid SL on every system I own except the latest i7 mini that came with ML installed. My 17 inch MBP will do a hard crash occasionally, although, to be fair, this system has been upgraded 3 times for OS version, at least, and the account has been migrated across every OSX release since 10.3 (Panther) on a PPC PowerBook, across 3 machines and 2 architectures, so perhaps ML is choking on some legacy code from another system that didn't get wiped. I plan on doing a full fresh install soon, if it still crashes, it may be a return to SL for that machine, or just a removal of Skype. That last step certainly cured my hack's ills.
Apparently you have only looked at the PR and corporate statements. I'm running ML on a 980x currently, with all the BD support I want or need. iTunes will play my HD content just fine. All my Music is lossless. You need to look beyond the wrapper. Oh, I've bought exactly $0 worth of content, but I have bought applications. I don't pirate software, nor anything for that matter, I just feel that once I bought a disk, much like a magazine, I can do what I wish with it as long as I do not create new copies and distribute.
Slashdot Mirror
I've worked in lots of places that claimed to do Agile, but few really did. Often it meant doing daily standups (or even sit-downs in one case!) and not having any good specs. Right now I'm working at my first contract that really is Agile, and it's fantastic. It is chaotic, but not because of us; it's the reality we're facing. We're doing several projects at once, the designs had to be sent back several times because they were wrong, business isn't really sure what they want, and we're being productive in spite of that.
We tell business what we need from them in order to do our work, instead of the other way around. We don't accept issues that don't meet our standards, and as a result, more and more issues do meet our standard. When we uncover a misunderstanding, we can change direction on a moment's notice, and because business, admin and others show up at our standups and our sprint demo, we discover these misunderstandings pretty quickly.
Not all is perfect. Not everybody around us really gets Agile, and particularly our tester would be much more at home in a Waterfall setting, but for me personally, it's working very, very well.
So, you're a contractor, and you're working, you appear to have productivity, and you are driving. Hmmm, that seriously smells on a number of levels.
From the sound of your description, what could happen is that what comes out the other end gets completely trashed because while the pieces looked good when they were presented, the whole sucked eggs and required a redesign with new wireframes that cannot be matched with what you produced. Additionally, this approach, especially given your description, will result in something like my current project, where there are 4 separate shopping carts, each for a different phase of the purchasing cycle, because no one with half a brain sat down and actually designed what the process would be. Nope, couldn't do that because it would take more than an iteration's time to properly get all requirements, design it, and then develop all required pieces.
I have other examples where projects failed under Agile. In fact, across the many years and projects, I have yet to see a successful project using Agile that was more than 2-3 developers. My successful projects, of which there are quite a few, were all project driven, not really waterfall, and had various processes in them that Agile now claims as their own, but have nothing to do with Agile. They all started with a known goal and requirements, which then generated planning sessions and components, which were then put into the development workflow. The results were always a cohesive design working across multiple nodes, including in some cases distributed services and workflows. This never lends itself to Agile, unless Agile looks an awful lot like waterfall, which the Agile elitists tell you never happens.
Interestingly enough, that I can't find a ready list of ages of senators and representatives back in 2001. That would have been more telling.
Yep, read that one quite a while ago. Then I consider Brevik. 77 dead. He'll be out in 21 years or less, most likely. It'll be interesting to see how long he lives when he is set free. That's the problem when there's a sense of lack of justice. Even Norwegians think his sentence is far too light. 77*21 years might be more fitting, served consecutively.
Your main flaw is that you assume that something must become public domain. I never said that. I stated that if you received a patent, you wind up paying for it if you wish to enforce it. For the first 5 years, you don't get taxed. After that, you do, by an assigned value. Too low, and you run the risk of someone buying it from you. Too high, you pay more tax. All of a sudden, that one-click patent doesn't look so hot. Nor do a lot of those patent trolls look all that promising, since they now must either pay lots of money for their 19 year old patents, or someone can buy them out from underneath them.
It has changed. That was my point - since the majority of folks I deal with still run old versions of Office, the new doc formats are largely irrelevant. MS tried to pull an Office95 with 2010, that didn't work out so well, the formats are backwards compatible even if there is a nag screen.
That a good idea - not only do you pay a yearly tax based on the assigned value, to keep the assessed value realistic, anyone can offer more than the assessed value - if you sell the patent, that's the new value, if you don't, then the value is set to the new value. If they offer 5 or 10 times the value, you either must sell it or it gets assessed at double what they offered.
The first five years, unless a patent is used in litigation, there will be no tax. This protects the small business folks. If you don't want to pay the tax, it becomes public domain.
A properly configured XP system stripped of a bunch of crap will run circles around a W7 system.
They may have the money, but at some point the shareholders will do something. That "something" is undefined, but could effectively destroy MS in an instant, metaphorically speaking. Apple has double MS's bank account, Google is only a little behind MS. Both of them own huge shares of the high growth areas of devices. Apple also owns an increasing share of MS's core business, nearing 10% marketshare with PCs alone. Even with that pile of cash, MS has failed multiple times in attempting to gain a notable foothold in something other than software. Even the XBox hasn't been that successful, and I'm not sure it's actually all that profitable. Beating the PS3 is not all that noteworthy. In fact, Sony might be a forewarning for what can happen to MS in a few short years. They had a stockpile of cash and attempted to bash their way into a number of markets while making some major PR missteps (root kits on CDs, removing the alt OS on their PS3s, etc) and currently they're bleeding cash and are a shell of their former selves even 6 years ago. Time will tell.
Heck, they're not even the MS of 2010, or 2007, or 2003 for that matter....
I predict they'll react the same way they did to MS's last Surface ad campaign: what? oh look at the shiny iPad / Android device.
You know - people say that about Office, and have been saying it for years. It doesn't make it any more true than saying it three times. I haven't used a MS Windows version of Office for at least 6 years, and yes, I do interact with Office for windows. You know the primary reason that Mac Office and OOO/LO are perfectly acceptable? Because the majority of MS Office users I deal with are still in the dark ages of Office 2003-2007. Even the minority who are somewhat current are only running 2010. Also, most of those users only use the basic functionality, which other office suites have little trouble with.
The rest has even less traction, approaching the irrelevant.
McCarthy was such a disastrously horrible chapter in history that, if anything, the people who remember it are your best defence against it happening again.
I'm not sure that's true. There's a group of people who apparently think such things are good. Witness the PATRIOT act:
Divisive rhetoric doesn't cause rights violations: unifying rhetoric does. The PATRIOT Act was passed 357 to 66 in the House and 98 to 1 in the Senate. That's when the nightmare started. These are politicians too young to remember or be affected by McCarthyism (average age around or below 60), but who grew up during the Cold War and were subject to plenty of the same paranoid propaganda—just without a cautionary tale about holding back.
There's a significant number of senators above the age of 70 today (22, and 41 representatives who should be old enough to remember McCarthyism, and I'm sure the number that were old enough 12 years ago would be significantly higher, much higher than those who voted against the act. Divisive rhetoric certainly can cause rights violations, especially if defying that rhetoric is seen as... unpatriotic. I would say McCarthyism certainly wasn't unifying, it was more a self-preservation mode, as to stand against the flow at that time immediately made you a target, quite literally.
About data retention: I think either corruption and abuses of power should be fought until collecting a complete database does not automatically entail a risk of privacy violation, or the data should be destroyed after the crime has been laid to rest, regardless of whether or not there was a conviction. It has been demonstrated that convicts who are treated more like people have a lower rate of continued law-breaking; (and to trot out this statistic yet again) the reoffending rate in Norway is only 30% (for violent crimes, I think.) The criminal justice system should (and could) produce people who can be given that benefit of the doubt.
I'd wholly disagree with this. Once convicted of a certain level of crime, a felony, you lose rights. Like the right to vote. You've been deemed something less than a full citizen due to your own actions, and those are bad enough to stick to you for life. Having these people's info on file only makes sense. There's a group of people that no matter what you do, short of forcibly changing their mental state, will continue to violate again. Norway in particular is a good example, as that is a relatively low stress low crime country with an entirely different attitude towards its people. Yet they still have roughly 57% of their violent crimes committed by released convicts. Recidivism appears to be too difficult a set of numbers to retrieve quickly this morning, and percentages do not equate to recidivism rates. Let's use your 30% rate - that means for every 3 murderers we release, 1 will kill again. It doesn't mean they'll only kill one person, but kill in general. Maybe that will be Brevik. After all - 21 years for 77 murders, maybe he'll get more in 21 years or less. But, Norway is an entirely different lifestyle and populace, which would be more comparable to say, Maine or Montana, than New York City or Los Angeles. That's not to say we don't have some challenges with regards to crime and what we label as such. We probably should also review exactly what it means to 'grade' an act to a certain level. A kid with a couple of potted plant certainly isn't in the same league of danger to society as a Ted Bundy, but is pretty much treated the same way legally.
There's something about beating someone to a pulp vs giving a suspect a command and then reacting to that suspect actively defying the officer that is a small, minor difference in scope. Kind of similar to raise your hands and the do - with a gun it it. On video, that would be 100% unquestionable. Even a toy gun, it looks like a gun with a hostile appearing intent, well, perhaps they should listen when an armed officer tells them what to do. I know I certainly don't fight back no matter how unhappy I am. File a complaint, provided it's valid, sure. Fight an officer, or even more dumb, a group of officers? Nope, not so much.
Note that the scenarios described, however, are where the officer has some reason to interfere with the person. Just stopping someone on the street - not so much in my opinion.
Genetic screening gets accusations of racism, fascism, and eugenics. It's absolutely reprehensible and an extremely easy target for their opponents. No one endorses that.
You might want to go back and visit the McCarthy era and a few other events (Tuskegeeonly being one instance) to see how recently those three actions were not only tolerated, but actively pursued. Then realize that some of those involved in those activities are still living, and that our current state of enlightenment is not as deep as you may think, especially given some of the divisive rhetoric currently surrounding topics like immigration, drugs, abortion, guns, etc and how that compares to the not so distant past.
Personally, I feel if they take your fingerprints during an arrest, and then don't charge you or you're found innocent, all records relating to that arrest must be expunged, such as photos, fingerprints, etc. Does it harm future police work? Yes. But so does not fingerprinting, photographing, and DNA sequencing everyone in the population. Just think how much easier police work would be if we could just feed a spec of dust or a photo to the computer and get the guilty party out the other end. After all, if you have nothing to hide....
The suspect goes down and turtles. Every time an officer gets close he lashes out with feet, elbows, knees, etc. While the officers are away he looks passive. When the officers get close he is aggressive. On the ground does not mean passive. And again, The reason he won't show his hands could be the knife he has concealed there.
any further beating is definitely a sign of excessive force
I agree with that statement but the beating is not definitive proof of excessive force as so many people would believe. One needs to take the whole incident into context and not just the last 30 seconds.
30s of beating is excessive. If they're on the ground and not responding to a hit, there should be none after that. Officers are supposed to be trained to be able to control a suspect once they are on the ground. If they cannot, continued beating still isn't the answer. Shooting them? Sure. And yes, I'm aware that shooting a leg is difficult in a running scenario, but we're talking on the ground here. Recall the zombie guy? No one criticized the officer for shooting the guy. Seemed like a reasonable decision. If the officer believes the suspect has a weapon, then the officer should probably not engage in hand to hand in the first place. Shooting to disable someone on the ground that's unresponsive and acting the way you describe above would be a prime argument in favor of cameras for police. It's very hard to argue against video footage.
So exactly what are you arguing here?
The issue is that the video didn't show the previous couple minutes where the police had the suspect on the ground and the suspect broke away and started fighting again or had bitten, scratched, kneed, etc officers as they were trying to cuff him. Videos that show only the end of a confrontation are usually hiding something.
They show what they're meant to show, police are not allowed to use excessive force. If the suspect is on the ground, they are pretty much submissive, any further beating is definitely a sign of excessive force. If the suspect jumps up after that and does further resisting, police have several options including tasers and/or guns. No, I don't expect an officer to put themselves in harm's way for this type of suspect. I'm fully ok with a shot to the leg to stop the problem, all on film, of course.
No kidding - I love my 2560X1600 monitor. 1080? seriously?
welcome to the 1970s, or maybe earlier.
You can do both you know. NAC is used for a "secure" network, which has a certain level of trust internally. BYOD is on a second, lower trust level network, and access to your "secure" network is gated and monitored. Note that neither case ever relieves you of the need to monitor and manage your "secure" network, nor the intended "secure" resources, which should still be gated and monitored separately.
I have one case where you're supposed to go through a proxy to hit resources in a "secure" network, but the incompetent network folks did not VLAN that network, nor did they firewall it, or sincerely do even the most basic of activities to actually secure that network other than proxying HTTP/HTTPS traffic. That is not a secure network by any stretch of the imagination. I can hit it directly from almost anywhere in their network and guest network, once I have access to any single system on it.
Then you have a reading comprehension problem. I summed up what your apparent statement of inflation appears to be from your previous posts. Feel free to add to it here or elsewhere to flesh it out.
You're discussing traveling, I think the OP is really discussing immersion, which is really only obtainable with extended stays / living and working with the populace of the place you're in. However, a hostel is pretty much the opposite of that, unless you're wanting solely to experience the hostel lifestyle, which is most likely unlike where ever you are.
Money supply and inflation are but 2 parts of the puzzle. I'd agree with 1 point of the GP, you have not expressed anything that would indicate that you understand inflation in the larger sense. Merely stating that bread cost $1 last year and $2 this year therefore we have 100% inflation is not sufficient in this context.
which you'd expect from a game that was envisioned in the 1950s with 1940s gameplay today.
I don't think companies should be free to beat puppies in order to convince employees to join their company. I mean, that's like extortion, "If you don't scrum with us, we'll beat these puppies senseless!"
So the question becomes "Are you willing to sacrifice yourself in place of the puppies?"
I'm typing this on an Intel 980x running ML, used to run SL, and briefly Lion. I also have several macs, across a range of hardware. The thing I can say is that ML appears to be less stable overall than the rock-solid SL on every system I own except the latest i7 mini that came with ML installed. My 17 inch MBP will do a hard crash occasionally, although, to be fair, this system has been upgraded 3 times for OS version, at least, and the account has been migrated across every OSX release since 10.3 (Panther) on a PPC PowerBook, across 3 machines and 2 architectures, so perhaps ML is choking on some legacy code from another system that didn't get wiped. I plan on doing a full fresh install soon, if it still crashes, it may be a return to SL for that machine, or just a removal of Skype. That last step certainly cured my hack's ills.
Apparently you have only looked at the PR and corporate statements. I'm running ML on a 980x currently, with all the BD support I want or need. iTunes will play my HD content just fine. All my Music is lossless. You need to look beyond the wrapper. Oh, I've bought exactly $0 worth of content, but I have bought applications. I don't pirate software, nor anything for that matter, I just feel that once I bought a disk, much like a magazine, I can do what I wish with it as long as I do not create new copies and distribute.