Fortunately for us, the brain is fairly adaptable, so losing the capacity to remember phone numbers might mean gaining in other capacities--capacities that can't be replicated by technology yet.
If the user's home directories are kept on a share, then it's relatively easy to back up their stuff on a daily basis, but it costs money to build the SAN and network infrastructure. Even easier, put scripts on their systems to rsync their home directories to a repository at night; there are several commercial programs that will do this, but again you do have to spend money (on Macs, Retrospect was pretty good for this).
Assuming this works (as some have replied to you suggesting it won't), congratulations, you've successfully answered my point and the point of the grandparent post--the responsibility is taken off the user's shoulders so they won't be blamed, and we've routed around the behavior of the user that exists regardless of any "blame" or other personal judgment we apply after the fact.
If a company wants to protect data that it has on company-provided smartphones, "trust everyone to back it up to their PC, and back up their PC on a regular basis as well", is not going to work because most people don't back up their PC's. Pointing that out isn't "blame the user", it's "point out how user behavior constrains how IT can solve the problem". Solutions could include backing it up by other means, or it could include automatically backing up work PC's somehow, but if trusting the employees to voluntarily back up their work PC's, ipso facto, does not work, then it's not a reliable system and we shouldn't avoid saying so just to avoid hurting people's feelings.
That's because one "invisible hand" is a poorly-constructed 18th-century metaphor for emergent systems, and the other "invisible hand" is a God who's evidently too stupid to think of creating evolution.
Also, the Speaker is not an integral part of your administration. If the President gets assassinated, more often than not that's an indication it's not the right time to change administrations entirely, which is what happens if the Speaker of the House becomes President. Also, by making it less feasible to totally change the administration by means of political assassination, you reduce the likelihood of such an assassination even happening. (In other words, if it was feasible to assassinate both the President and the Vice-President at the same time and get a completely different administration, that's more of an incentive for assassins.) The strategy is simple: make it so you can only track down either the President or the Vice President at any given time, not both, and you're rather protected from the possibility of someone assassinating both. Now, since the President is the one interacting more with the public, the Vice-President is the logical one to hide.
That has to be the worst false dichotomy I've seen this week. There's no need to choose between privacy and socialization. Just because I like playing video games with friends and arguing with people on Slashdot doesn't mean I want strangers to watch me masturbate or examine my bank statement.
Sure, furries might end up being a minority, but the number of people who are in various minorities (although not the same one) would be a cumulative majority, and this may lead to acceptance of minority behaviors--a "I'll defend your right to be a furry if you defend my right to enjoy tentacle hentai" type of thing.
That may be true for restrained competition, but in competitive markets prices fall--look at the price of PC parts. With enough competition, inevitably there's someone willing to undercut the price of the cartel and steal all their business.
There was a day when a post like yours would have gotten an AC response in the style of the old "story of the homosexual gang rape of CmdrTaco" trolls.
Socialism is, at its foundation, public ownership and control of both the State and the means of production. Socialism tends to also mean redistribution of wealth, destruction of the elite, and raising the minimum standard of living (including working conditions, etc). What in Dog's name does any of that have to do with S+S?
It's an analogy. In this analogy, we focus on how socialism involves the state's ownership and control of property (as opposed to private ownership and control), and the state's provision of this property as a service to others, as opposed to others having the capacity to purchase and operate their own services. (Think state-provided food, housing, and medical care to all vs. a market system.) If you consider Microsoft as analagous to the state, it's a decent analogy. It's no worse than, for instance, the commonly-understood analogy of the NFL's revenue-sharing system to socialism (the NFL redistributes profits from successful teams to less successful teams).
If someone assassinates Cheney, there's no continuity if Bush suddenly dies before he can appoint and confirm a successor. Now, for this administration, that may be a good thing, but as a general rule, protecting the Vice-President is not a bad idea. He's not essential for actually doing anything. It's basic risk management. Now, you might wonder why you protect the veep while leaving the President himself more vulnerable, and the answer is that the President actually has to do things that get in the way of protecting him.
I thought "interplanetary", but I evidently stopped thinking it halfway through "inter" and wrote the first word that came to mind. I'm strange that way.
No, they really can't. We're going to have to gain real human experience in these matters, and that's something you can't replicate by gathering data with robots.
And then suffer a historically 50/50 chance of losing it somewhere between launch and landing. Everyone seems to forget that Mars is a space probe graveyard.
Meanwhile robots can operate on the surface for years. The projected manned surface duration is 11 days.
That's pretty much bullshit then. The Mars Direct plan calls for a 1 year manned surface mission, waiting for the Earth and Mars to move into prime position until they return. Although maybe an initial manned mission would last for 11 days, that would be, at best, practice for the real manned missions.
There's really no reason whatsoever to send humans to Mars until we're ready to plop down a permanent colony.
Except to gain experience making piloted landings on Mars, to gain experience sending crews through the radioactivity-laden wastelands of interstellar space, to gain experience walking on Mars, to gain experience sustaining human life on Mars, to gain experience working with the Martian environment...there's a lot of complex shit involved with putting human beings on Mars, and you don't want to be doing it all the first time when you land the first colony ship. Sending a permanent colony without any experience sending human life to Mars is an incredibly reckless endangerment of human life. There are risks involved with sending people to Mars, such that the first humans to die in space will undoubtedly die, either en route to, on, or on the way back from Mars. The purpose of sending manned missions prior to permanent settlement is so that those risks can be better known and mitigated, providing greater safety to the eventual colonists. Better to risk it on a volunteer group of four than on a colony ship of 12-50 (or more).
Except it was to prove that the blender will fucking tear through everything you put in it. That's more than good reason for a series of "Will It Blend" videos.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately for us, the brain is fairly adaptable, so losing the capacity to remember phone numbers might mean gaining in other capacities--capacities that can't be replicated by technology yet.
Actually, I don't think you spared any of our space probes.
You probably want to try Ubuntu Raging Rooster when it comes out.
Wow, Japan sounds like a less annoying version of the United States, right down to the failing national pension system.
Constraint isn't always necessary, and I agree the SAN solution bypasses the user's poor backup behaviors more than it constrains them.
Assuming this works (as some have replied to you suggesting it won't), congratulations, you've successfully answered my point and the point of the grandparent post--the responsibility is taken off the user's shoulders so they won't be blamed, and we've routed around the behavior of the user that exists regardless of any "blame" or other personal judgment we apply after the fact.
If a company wants to protect data that it has on company-provided smartphones, "trust everyone to back it up to their PC, and back up their PC on a regular basis as well", is not going to work because most people don't back up their PC's. Pointing that out isn't "blame the user", it's "point out how user behavior constrains how IT can solve the problem". Solutions could include backing it up by other means, or it could include automatically backing up work PC's somehow, but if trusting the employees to voluntarily back up their work PC's, ipso facto, does not work, then it's not a reliable system and we shouldn't avoid saying so just to avoid hurting people's feelings.
That's because one "invisible hand" is a poorly-constructed 18th-century metaphor for emergent systems, and the other "invisible hand" is a God who's evidently too stupid to think of creating evolution.
Also, the Speaker is not an integral part of your administration. If the President gets assassinated, more often than not that's an indication it's not the right time to change administrations entirely, which is what happens if the Speaker of the House becomes President. Also, by making it less feasible to totally change the administration by means of political assassination, you reduce the likelihood of such an assassination even happening. (In other words, if it was feasible to assassinate both the President and the Vice-President at the same time and get a completely different administration, that's more of an incentive for assassins.) The strategy is simple: make it so you can only track down either the President or the Vice President at any given time, not both, and you're rather protected from the possibility of someone assassinating both. Now, since the President is the one interacting more with the public, the Vice-President is the logical one to hide.
That has to be the worst false dichotomy I've seen this week. There's no need to choose between privacy and socialization. Just because I like playing video games with friends and arguing with people on Slashdot doesn't mean I want strangers to watch me masturbate or examine my bank statement.
Sure, furries might end up being a minority, but the number of people who are in various minorities (although not the same one) would be a cumulative majority, and this may lead to acceptance of minority behaviors--a "I'll defend your right to be a furry if you defend my right to enjoy tentacle hentai" type of thing.
DARPA may have brought itself the internet, but it sure as hell didn't bring the internet to me.
That may be true for restrained competition, but in competitive markets prices fall--look at the price of PC parts. With enough competition, inevitably there's someone willing to undercut the price of the cartel and steal all their business.
There was a day when a post like yours would have gotten an AC response in the style of the old "story of the homosexual gang rape of CmdrTaco" trolls.
It's an analogy. In this analogy, we focus on how socialism involves the state's ownership and control of property (as opposed to private ownership and control), and the state's provision of this property as a service to others, as opposed to others having the capacity to purchase and operate their own services. (Think state-provided food, housing, and medical care to all vs. a market system.) If you consider Microsoft as analagous to the state, it's a decent analogy. It's no worse than, for instance, the commonly-understood analogy of the NFL's revenue-sharing system to socialism (the NFL redistributes profits from successful teams to less successful teams).
If someone assassinates Cheney, there's no continuity if Bush suddenly dies before he can appoint and confirm a successor. Now, for this administration, that may be a good thing, but as a general rule, protecting the Vice-President is not a bad idea. He's not essential for actually doing anything. It's basic risk management. Now, you might wonder why you protect the veep while leaving the President himself more vulnerable, and the answer is that the President actually has to do things that get in the way of protecting him.
I thought "interplanetary", but I evidently stopped thinking it halfway through "inter" and wrote the first word that came to mind. I'm strange that way.
Because yesterday, Slashdot had an article about whether or not iPhone will blend.
No, they really can't. We're going to have to gain real human experience in these matters, and that's something you can't replicate by gathering data with robots.
And then suffer a historically 50/50 chance of losing it somewhere between launch and landing. Everyone seems to forget that Mars is a space probe graveyard.
That's pretty much bullshit then. The Mars Direct plan calls for a 1 year manned surface mission, waiting for the Earth and Mars to move into prime position until they return. Although maybe an initial manned mission would last for 11 days, that would be, at best, practice for the real manned missions.
Except to gain experience making piloted landings on Mars, to gain experience sending crews through the radioactivity-laden wastelands of interstellar space, to gain experience walking on Mars, to gain experience sustaining human life on Mars, to gain experience working with the Martian environment...there's a lot of complex shit involved with putting human beings on Mars, and you don't want to be doing it all the first time when you land the first colony ship. Sending a permanent colony without any experience sending human life to Mars is an incredibly reckless endangerment of human life. There are risks involved with sending people to Mars, such that the first humans to die in space will undoubtedly die, either en route to, on, or on the way back from Mars. The purpose of sending manned missions prior to permanent settlement is so that those risks can be better known and mitigated, providing greater safety to the eventual colonists. Better to risk it on a volunteer group of four than on a colony ship of 12-50 (or more).
Except it was to prove that the blender will fucking tear through everything you put in it. That's more than good reason for a series of "Will It Blend" videos.
And if you DO get them packed in metal, just use a Blendtec blender. Yes, It Blends!
Is being Catholic better than shitting in the woods?