If you eliminate the need for somebody to do a certain task, then that doesn't simply mean that eventually we'll run out of things to do. Now money that was once spent on a noodle cook can be spent on something else. Whether the restaurant spends it on something else, or whether they lower their price so their consumers can spend their money on something else, that money doesn't simply disappear.
The restaurant owner now has more income, so he maybe buys a nicer car.
Or
The customer now spends less on food, so now he buys some nicer shoes.
See "opportunity cost". Or, if you've ever heard of the "parable of the broken window", that is the alternative to this (e.g. forcing them to hire noodle cooks when they don't need them.) This isn't an emerging "job loss problem" that needs to be solved. Socialist types will never understand or accept this, but the market will reach equilibrium. It happens every time, and it has been doing so since time immemorial. Sadly Oregon hasn't learned this yet, and they still force you to pay somebody to pump your gas in order to keep unemployment down, meanwhile they are one of the most unemployed states in the US.
France is a perfect example of why this is a horrible idea because they tried exactly this. The idea being that if people were forced to work fewer hours, then you'd be able to have more of those "hours" to spread around, thus giving more people jobs and lowering unemployment. This actually made unemployment worse because the demand for labor isn't as inelastic as far too many people believe.
VMware does VLAN tagging. You can just put it in a DMZ VLAN and add a reflexive firewall. Make sure to never use internet explorer (destroy the executable to make sure nobody does) and never use java either.
Nothing I can think of would be able to break into that, and if it did then at least the remainder of your network would be safe.
It's not that you enjoy pain, it's that you have realizable consequences of losing. It takes away from your desire to be rambo and run out guns ablazing because you'll probably get lit up and it'll hurt.
The desire to avoid that turns paintball into a very tactical oriented game. If everybody ran out like rambo and just shot each other, it would be a bit mindless.
DOS is by definition an OS. Look up the acronym for the two. DOS even had its own kernel. The windows kernel ran OK top if the DOS kernel in all versions of the original windows, which went up to ME.
NT, which was (is) a whole other operating system built from the ground up, new kernel and all. The kernel that windows uses today is derived from the original NT kernel, and thus has no DOS ancestry.
Running a marathon is torture? Hmm...that thing in Boston they were doing must have been a group torture event then.
But you knew that the parent was joking. I'm thinking you just posted here just because you wanted to make sure that everybody knows that you are against torture, and that they should all know how evil the US is. Rest assured, we're all happy for you.
This is basically a slashvertisement for their political party, and they want to get more people involved, and "rally for the cause".
We're deeply entrenched into the two party system, and you're only kidding yourself if you think it will change any time soon. I think AC is simply pointing that out.
Thinking exactly that as I curiously clicked to go to their site, I noticed a sentence in there that is pushing for a direction I already don't care for, and what AC said came to mind. Without reading more into it, I am fairly certain at this point that this "party" they are forming is all about social justice. Social justice is based upon the idea that any time you succeed in favor of somebody else, that is a wrong that must be righted. What follows is a rant on social justice, and you might like my anecdote which favors the little guy:
Succeeding in favor of somebody else can range from being hired for a high paying job so the other guy needs to find somewhere else to work, or winning a race where you got the cash prize and the second place guy got nothing.
I like the idea that we are all equal by default and we should all have a fair chance, but the reality is that we aren't all equal. Last week I was on a team in a competition where we had to wire colored cables to a patch panel and some switches in a short amount of time, and the team that came in first won $1,000, whereas the other teams came out with nothing. I have keratoconus so it takes me a second to properly identify small numbers (though I can do it, eventually) and one of my other teammates is colorblind. All three of us wear glasses. These problems set us back, but we were offered no handicap favors.
We won, making us one out of 15 or so teams who competed. Statistically, we were probably the only team with debilitating eyesight issues, but we probably won because we did something smarter (I don't really know as I never met any of the competition.) Social justice says that what we did was inherently unfair because we became rich(er) at the expense of somebody else. Because we did something better, we have committed an injustice.
Social justice is bullshit. There, I said it. Like AC said, I'll go my way on this one. Though like you said, I also hope they go away. To me a society where everybody is exactly the same would be a dystopia. Maybe I'm biased because I have talents that people are willing to pay for (outside of that contest, too) but I still don't like the idea of it.
Occupy wall street went away because half of them realized it is better to search for jobs than to ask the media and politicians where they are. The other half are still there, with their neon dyed hair, peace signs drawn on their faces, stolen ipads, guy fawkes masks, and all. The people I described there wonder why they don't have a job, and they'll never stop wondering why to be quite honest.
I tend to aim for the one star reviews and see what the major gripes are. So long as it is a major gripe that I don't anticipate running into, or at least I think that for the price it's worth the risk, then I'll go ahead and buy it.
For example I bought a cable recently, which had two single star reviews. Both were complaining that the cable was too short. The description said 4 feet. 4 feet is exactly what I wanted, so I bought it, and what do you know, I got a 4 foot cable.
The main concern for me is security. I don't trust anonymous entry into my private network. Perhaps if I had a proper DMZ I would do so, but that requires more equipment and features than my router and ISP permits.
(For those confused: No, that DMZ feature on your linksys router isn't a true DMZ, it's just a static NAT with PAT, and you really shouldn't be using it if you care anything about security. If it is using the same public IP and same subnet and vlan as everything else inside of your network, it is by definition not a DMZ, and is just needlessly enabling the chance of additional attack vectors.)
How would money laundering provide tax evasion? The point of money laundering is to convert dirty money (e.g. money gained from selling drugs, gambling, bankruptcy fraud) into clean money that you're "supposed" to have. Clean money by its nature is taxed.
It's often the case that you'll just need one, plus a support contract. The support contract will handle any issues that the IT guy might not be able to do on their own, such as speedy hardware replacement.
Flexpod is pretty neat in that regard; it has automatic monitoring that will notify the vendor in the event of a perceived imminent hardware failure. They'll begin the process of sending a technician out with the replacement part in hand often times before the admin is even aware that anything is wrong. Doesn't cost anything when it happens, and because of the HA features you have zero downtime while the hardware is being replaced.
Flexpod (or its competitor Vblock) aint cheap, but you do get what you pay for if you want an in-house HA cloud service.
Probem with Pi is that its network throughput is kinda bad. I have a 50mbit pipe, and pi seems to top out at 35. Kind of problematic for XBMC use for me as well in that playing blu-rays results in buffering for me for the high bitrate ones (add nfs/smb overhead and you dip down to 30mbit - some of my blu-rays peak at 39mbit.) Still trying to figure out of the problem is just me (I only got the pi a week ago) or if everybody with high bitrate ripped bd's has this problem. And no, I don't want to transcode them to a lower bitrate.
No he isn't doing that. You'll get the same security benefit of having a roll your own box if you loaded your own custom firmware that was better tested, like say tomato or openwrt (I'm not a fan of dd-wrt myself, but it seems secure enough.)
I like these embedded devices because they are low power (save you money on an ongoing basis) and do the job. Many even offer some nice things like switch management (e.g. creating vlans) if you use custom firmware. That said, if you do switch to a custom firmware, chances are good that you are immune to these vulnerabilities.
These security researchers don't really count on the later though. They advocate requiring these devices to require signed firmware. That means no custom firmwares, so if your manufacturer ever abandons the device, and security vulnerabilities are later found, you really can't do anything about it. I like custom firmware for not only that reason (e.g. it uses software that is generally better tested against threats) but because it ads features that most OEMs require you to pay a LOT extra for.
I hope none of these vendors take the signed firmware advice, or at least allow you to sign your own. But many here already know how that goes. I think Netgear is the only one that might set itself apart in that regard as they carry certain models that are explicitly advertised to the customer as being able to use your own firmware.
Well what forms of corporate control or censorship are you referring to?
Only two forms of "corporate" censorship come to mind, one being acceptable and one being half-acceptable.
The first one that I would call acceptable is, for example, in a private forum (such as slashdot, a corporate owned entity) being allowed to remove content that most of us consider to be disruptive from its own forum. This really is no different than a barkeep throwing a catholic doomsayer out of a bar because he's annoying the paying customers.
The second one I would say is half-acceptable, namely copyright takedowns. Hear me out on this one before downmodding me. I hate DRM more than anybody, but I do believe that when you produce any digital content, you should have the right to control the means of distribution. I myself wrote free software once, and when I found out somebody was selling it on ebay and elsewhere, and expecting me to support it, I was pretty well pissed off and went out of my way to make sure that it would only be distributed by the means I chose. However it isn't acceptable to stick DMCA takedown notices on anything you don't own the rights to, or that somebody is using under fair use. This is already illegal, but currently it is too easy to avoid that issue by simply having a lawyer issue the takedown, and then he himself can claim "under penalty of perjury", only he can't be found guilty of perjury because he can claim that either he was doing as instructed by his client, or that he had reason to (e.g. a false positive).
In most states (I'm wanting to say all, but there may be one or a few exceptions) driving a vehicle on public roadways is legally defined as a privilege, not a right. In my state, you are made to understand that very clearly before they give you a license.
The second amendment very clearly defines bearing arms as a right that shall not be infringed.
I haven't read wikipedia's take on the broken windows fallacy, but I am familiar with the premise. It's a great lesson, and one I so wish we would have applied to the CARS program that applied the "breaking windows to fix the economy idea", which overall had a net loss of 4 billion dollars on our economy, and many climatologists believe that there could have been far better uses for that money in terms of green goals.
If that was the case, then Keynesian thought wouldn't have been abandoned by most economists because its model says stagflation is impossible. But it happened in the 80's. Only very few actually hold on to Keynesian theory, and shockingly one of them is in the white house.
I don't know your political persuasion, but something tells me you are quite generous.......with other people's money, and never your own.
Anyways, some of the most well known (in terms of media spotlight) libertarians are very charitable, like Penn Jillette. I call him out in particular because he has some words of wisdom that somebody such as yourself probably will never understand:
It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
People try to argue that government isn't really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment -- suggesting on CNN.com that someone not pay his or her taxes is probably a federal offense, and I'm a nut, but I'm not crazy.). When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force -- literally, not figuratively.
I don't believe the majority always knows what's best for everyone. The fact that the majority thinks they have a way to get something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don't want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, I don't believe you really know jack. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It's just ganging up against the weird kid, and I'm always the weird kid.
Aside from your arguments amounting to nothing more than ad hom, straw men, and picking at my spelling error, the key thing to take from my post was unsurprisingly lost on you.
No smart person anywhere will ever argue that you should use borrowed money on what basically amount to luxuries.
That isn't what he's doing. He's asking that they share information, they just don't share irrelevant information. The EFF is in opposition by asking that no information be shared at all.
It's basically one group wants to stick a rebar up your ass, Obama says "no, a silicone dildo with lube will do", EFF says "don't stick anything up our asses."
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo.
If you eliminate the need for somebody to do a certain task, then that doesn't simply mean that eventually we'll run out of things to do. Now money that was once spent on a noodle cook can be spent on something else. Whether the restaurant spends it on something else, or whether they lower their price so their consumers can spend their money on something else, that money doesn't simply disappear.
The restaurant owner now has more income, so he maybe buys a nicer car.
Or
The customer now spends less on food, so now he buys some nicer shoes.
See "opportunity cost". Or, if you've ever heard of the "parable of the broken window", that is the alternative to this (e.g. forcing them to hire noodle cooks when they don't need them.) This isn't an emerging "job loss problem" that needs to be solved. Socialist types will never understand or accept this, but the market will reach equilibrium. It happens every time, and it has been doing so since time immemorial. Sadly Oregon hasn't learned this yet, and they still force you to pay somebody to pump your gas in order to keep unemployment down, meanwhile they are one of the most unemployed states in the US.
Not only no, but hell no.
France is a perfect example of why this is a horrible idea because they tried exactly this. The idea being that if people were forced to work fewer hours, then you'd be able to have more of those "hours" to spread around, thus giving more people jobs and lowering unemployment. This actually made unemployment worse because the demand for labor isn't as inelastic as far too many people believe.
VMware does VLAN tagging. You can just put it in a DMZ VLAN and add a reflexive firewall. Make sure to never use internet explorer (destroy the executable to make sure nobody does) and never use java either.
Nothing I can think of would be able to break into that, and if it did then at least the remainder of your network would be safe.
It's not that you enjoy pain, it's that you have realizable consequences of losing. It takes away from your desire to be rambo and run out guns ablazing because you'll probably get lit up and it'll hurt.
The desire to avoid that turns paintball into a very tactical oriented game. If everybody ran out like rambo and just shot each other, it would be a bit mindless.
DOS is by definition an OS. Look up the acronym for the two. DOS even had its own kernel. The windows kernel ran OK top if the DOS kernel in all versions of the original windows, which went up to ME.
NT, which was (is) a whole other operating system built from the ground up, new kernel and all. The kernel that windows uses today is derived from the original NT kernel, and thus has no DOS ancestry.
Well the first grade class might start a war with the top 1% of them, and you know how that turns out.
Running a marathon is torture? Hmm...that thing in Boston they were doing must have been a group torture event then.
But you knew that the parent was joking. I'm thinking you just posted here just because you wanted to make sure that everybody knows that you are against torture, and that they should all know how evil the US is. Rest assured, we're all happy for you.
This is basically a slashvertisement for their political party, and they want to get more people involved, and "rally for the cause".
We're deeply entrenched into the two party system, and you're only kidding yourself if you think it will change any time soon. I think AC is simply pointing that out.
Thinking exactly that as I curiously clicked to go to their site, I noticed a sentence in there that is pushing for a direction I already don't care for, and what AC said came to mind. Without reading more into it, I am fairly certain at this point that this "party" they are forming is all about social justice. Social justice is based upon the idea that any time you succeed in favor of somebody else, that is a wrong that must be righted. What follows is a rant on social justice, and you might like my anecdote which favors the little guy:
Succeeding in favor of somebody else can range from being hired for a high paying job so the other guy needs to find somewhere else to work, or winning a race where you got the cash prize and the second place guy got nothing.
I like the idea that we are all equal by default and we should all have a fair chance, but the reality is that we aren't all equal. Last week I was on a team in a competition where we had to wire colored cables to a patch panel and some switches in a short amount of time, and the team that came in first won $1,000, whereas the other teams came out with nothing. I have keratoconus so it takes me a second to properly identify small numbers (though I can do it, eventually) and one of my other teammates is colorblind. All three of us wear glasses. These problems set us back, but we were offered no handicap favors.
We won, making us one out of 15 or so teams who competed. Statistically, we were probably the only team with debilitating eyesight issues, but we probably won because we did something smarter (I don't really know as I never met any of the competition.) Social justice says that what we did was inherently unfair because we became rich(er) at the expense of somebody else. Because we did something better, we have committed an injustice.
Social justice is bullshit. There, I said it. Like AC said, I'll go my way on this one. Though like you said, I also hope they go away. To me a society where everybody is exactly the same would be a dystopia. Maybe I'm biased because I have talents that people are willing to pay for (outside of that contest, too) but I still don't like the idea of it.
Occupy wall street went away because half of them realized it is better to search for jobs than to ask the media and politicians where they are. The other half are still there, with their neon dyed hair, peace signs drawn on their faces, stolen ipads, guy fawkes masks, and all. The people I described there wonder why they don't have a job, and they'll never stop wondering why to be quite honest.
I tend to aim for the one star reviews and see what the major gripes are. So long as it is a major gripe that I don't anticipate running into, or at least I think that for the price it's worth the risk, then I'll go ahead and buy it.
For example I bought a cable recently, which had two single star reviews. Both were complaining that the cable was too short. The description said 4 feet. 4 feet is exactly what I wanted, so I bought it, and what do you know, I got a 4 foot cable.
The main concern for me is security. I don't trust anonymous entry into my private network. Perhaps if I had a proper DMZ I would do so, but that requires more equipment and features than my router and ISP permits.
(For those confused: No, that DMZ feature on your linksys router isn't a true DMZ, it's just a static NAT with PAT, and you really shouldn't be using it if you care anything about security. If it is using the same public IP and same subnet and vlan as everything else inside of your network, it is by definition not a DMZ, and is just needlessly enabling the chance of additional attack vectors.)
How would money laundering provide tax evasion? The point of money laundering is to convert dirty money (e.g. money gained from selling drugs, gambling, bankruptcy fraud) into clean money that you're "supposed" to have. Clean money by its nature is taxed.
It's often the case that you'll just need one, plus a support contract. The support contract will handle any issues that the IT guy might not be able to do on their own, such as speedy hardware replacement.
Flexpod is pretty neat in that regard; it has automatic monitoring that will notify the vendor in the event of a perceived imminent hardware failure. They'll begin the process of sending a technician out with the replacement part in hand often times before the admin is even aware that anything is wrong. Doesn't cost anything when it happens, and because of the HA features you have zero downtime while the hardware is being replaced.
Flexpod (or its competitor Vblock) aint cheap, but you do get what you pay for if you want an in-house HA cloud service.
Probem with Pi is that its network throughput is kinda bad. I have a 50mbit pipe, and pi seems to top out at 35. Kind of problematic for XBMC use for me as well in that playing blu-rays results in buffering for me for the high bitrate ones (add nfs/smb overhead and you dip down to 30mbit - some of my blu-rays peak at 39mbit.) Still trying to figure out of the problem is just me (I only got the pi a week ago) or if everybody with high bitrate ripped bd's has this problem. And no, I don't want to transcode them to a lower bitrate.
No he isn't doing that. You'll get the same security benefit of having a roll your own box if you loaded your own custom firmware that was better tested, like say tomato or openwrt (I'm not a fan of dd-wrt myself, but it seems secure enough.)
I like these embedded devices because they are low power (save you money on an ongoing basis) and do the job. Many even offer some nice things like switch management (e.g. creating vlans) if you use custom firmware. That said, if you do switch to a custom firmware, chances are good that you are immune to these vulnerabilities.
These security researchers don't really count on the later though. They advocate requiring these devices to require signed firmware. That means no custom firmwares, so if your manufacturer ever abandons the device, and security vulnerabilities are later found, you really can't do anything about it. I like custom firmware for not only that reason (e.g. it uses software that is generally better tested against threats) but because it ads features that most OEMs require you to pay a LOT extra for.
I hope none of these vendors take the signed firmware advice, or at least allow you to sign your own. But many here already know how that goes. I think Netgear is the only one that might set itself apart in that regard as they carry certain models that are explicitly advertised to the customer as being able to use your own firmware.
Well what forms of corporate control or censorship are you referring to?
Only two forms of "corporate" censorship come to mind, one being acceptable and one being half-acceptable.
The first one that I would call acceptable is, for example, in a private forum (such as slashdot, a corporate owned entity) being allowed to remove content that most of us consider to be disruptive from its own forum. This really is no different than a barkeep throwing a catholic doomsayer out of a bar because he's annoying the paying customers.
The second one I would say is half-acceptable, namely copyright takedowns. Hear me out on this one before downmodding me. I hate DRM more than anybody, but I do believe that when you produce any digital content, you should have the right to control the means of distribution. I myself wrote free software once, and when I found out somebody was selling it on ebay and elsewhere, and expecting me to support it, I was pretty well pissed off and went out of my way to make sure that it would only be distributed by the means I chose. However it isn't acceptable to stick DMCA takedown notices on anything you don't own the rights to, or that somebody is using under fair use. This is already illegal, but currently it is too easy to avoid that issue by simply having a lawyer issue the takedown, and then he himself can claim "under penalty of perjury", only he can't be found guilty of perjury because he can claim that either he was doing as instructed by his client, or that he had reason to (e.g. a false positive).
Nobody anywhere blindly trusts everything they read. However they don't blindly distrust everything they read.
The ones who cry false flag all the time are the later.
In most states (I'm wanting to say all, but there may be one or a few exceptions) driving a vehicle on public roadways is legally defined as a privilege, not a right. In my state, you are made to understand that very clearly before they give you a license.
The second amendment very clearly defines bearing arms as a right that shall not be infringed.
I already gave one, smart guy: The national endowment of the arts.
I haven't read wikipedia's take on the broken windows fallacy, but I am familiar with the premise. It's a great lesson, and one I so wish we would have applied to the CARS program that applied the "breaking windows to fix the economy idea", which overall had a net loss of 4 billion dollars on our economy, and many climatologists believe that there could have been far better uses for that money in terms of green goals.
If that was the case, then Keynesian thought wouldn't have been abandoned by most economists because its model says stagflation is impossible. But it happened in the 80's. Only very few actually hold on to Keynesian theory, and shockingly one of them is in the white house.
I don't know your political persuasion, but something tells me you are quite generous.... ...with other people's money, and never your own.
Anyways, some of the most well known (in terms of media spotlight) libertarians are very charitable, like Penn Jillette. I call him out in particular because he has some words of wisdom that somebody such as yourself probably will never understand:
It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
People try to argue that government isn't really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment -- suggesting on CNN.com that someone not pay his or her taxes is probably a federal offense, and I'm a nut, but I'm not crazy.). When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force -- literally, not figuratively.
I don't believe the majority always knows what's best for everyone. The fact that the majority thinks they have a way to get something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don't want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, I don't believe you really know jack. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It's just ganging up against the weird kid, and I'm always the weird kid.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/16/jillette.atheist.libertarian/index.html
Aside from your arguments amounting to nothing more than ad hom, straw men, and picking at my spelling error, the key thing to take from my post was unsurprisingly lost on you.
No smart person anywhere will ever argue that you should use borrowed money on what basically amount to luxuries.
That isn't what he's doing. He's asking that they share information, they just don't share irrelevant information. The EFF is in opposition by asking that no information be shared at all.
It's basically one group wants to stick a rebar up your ass, Obama says "no, a silicone dildo with lube will do", EFF says "don't stick anything up our asses."