How old are you? Under the Clinton administration there was actually a surplus at the end which Bush used to deliver his tax cuts which meant there wasn't any money for things like wars. The budget was balanced and if we had stuck to the plan we'd be debt free by 2015, or at least that's how it was touted. Of course we didn't stick to the plan but the budget was on course. I think you have to be pretty pedantic to say that the budget wasn't balanced in 1999.
Actually they specifically stated the Bush tax cuts which are corporate taxes as well as taxes for the rich. You can feel free to do the research into specifically which taxes but stating Bush tax cuts is pretty darned precise, the CBO also stated what those numbers would be. In the history of taxes we are currently paying less than we ever have so I'm having difficulty figuring out why there is such resistance to restoring taxes to the point at which the budget was balanced previously.
How does lifting the Bush era tax cuts raise the deficit? Combined with cutting subsidies and actually adopting the Republican proposals for spending cuts and I think you have to be pretty disingenuous to say what you are saying.
Maybe you should look at their proposals? There have been many, they say raise taxes as you need to increase revenue which will reduce the need to cut spending so dramatically all at once. The Republican side wants to keep taxes lower than they've ever been while severely cutting programs affecting millions of Americans. I'll grant none of those cuts will really affect me but I also care about those around me including those who are successful and those that aren't so successful.
You are quite mistaken if you think every major player does it. Qwest got in trouble two years ago for NOT doing it. Cox here in the southwest at least is the same way. Few other carriers are as large as ATT so its quite impractical for most other players to do it. Verizon and ATT probably do it but anyone else I doubt it. Time Warner might be in on it but it's mostly the old telcos that are working with the government rather than the old cable companies.
What do you plan on doing with those cast away kids? I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.
Private schools traditionally do better because the parents have a financial incentive to ensure their children are getting the most out of their education. If you pay to have your kid educated you are more likely to care if the kid is skipping class.
The other side of the coin with public schools is again, parents have to be part of the process or it is doomed to failure again and again. There will always be kids that rise above the fray despite parents but until parents are responsible there will always be a problem. This does not mean that restrictions on teachers should be lifted and does mean all parties should be accountable in some way. Then of course unfunded mandates like no child left behind further exacerbate the problems of the public sector. At some point you have to except that there is no system in place that will teach 100% of kids to be productive members of society. So you should focus helping the most people you can while figuring out how to deal with large portions of the population that neither value nor want education.
I wasn't aware our cruise missiles or ICBMs had such a poor navigation capabilities.
Even if Hawaii had been wiped off the map from a nuke 95% of our forces would not have been lost as they are spread out strategically for a reason. We don't keep large swaths of our ships close together, the worst you get is a battle group close together. Pearl Harbor taught us a lesson about that as well of course. Either way, there is no scenario where 95% of our forces would be wiped off the map in one strike. That is just fear mongering, there is no nation on this earth capable of accomplishing that in the next decade. China is the only nation with the economic strength to deploy such a program and it wouldn't be in their interests to use nuclear weapons much like it's not in Russia's interests.
Why do you have to assume only half reach their targets? Actually, why do you make all of those assumptions? 95% of our forces in one hit? Even Pearl Harbor wasn't that bad.
People who live in rural areas do pay more for services. They just pay less in rent/mortgage. They pay more for gas, less for food. You really should realize that all that food you get in the cities came from people willing to live in rural areas so it's in your interests to support them.
Furthermore, we got phone service to these rural communities, I have no idea why Internet can't be done other than the fact that telecoms are too lazy and aren't being forced to act appropriately. How can we give billions in subsidies and provide funding for reporting on how that money was spent? That is the problem with having private entities doing public work. Unless you have a very specific scope of what you want the private entity to do you will be ripped off big time.
As a fellow driver of a fun and fast car I can say that private track and road courses will always be available. I have way more fun on the private courses here in AZ. It's also nice because you don't have to worry about cops thinking that you're going too fast.
It will be a long time before cars driving themselves will become the status quo, you've got nothing to worry about.
No offence, but you clearly haven't thought your cunning plan all the way through.
First off, there are many conditions that can cause an accident, not paying attention is one of them but is certainly not the only one. Where I grew up black ice in the winter was a huge issue and is beyond your control because you can't see it all the time and when it comes to a car and a biker even 15 mph is enough to seriously injure or kill someone. I've even had birds dive bomb right into my windshield making me swerve unintentionally. Animals entering the roadways often cause cars to swerve as well and heaven help the cyclist in that situation. It would most certainly be an accident.
In addition to that there is also the fact that cars can and do break down sometimes in unpredictable ways such as tire blow-outs or loss of power brakes or any number of scenarios. Being thrown in jail because the mechanic failed to put enough brake fluid in your car would definitely suck, nevermind if you happened to sneeze at the wrong time.
I'm all for drivers paying better attention to the road but draconian laws aren't going to make it happen. Better driver education goes a much longer way and doesn't crowd our prison system even further.
I think the argument is that the rules of the road regarding motor vehicles is pretty much the same from place to place but biking laws are very different from state to state.
In addition, you pretty stated the real problem. People who drive cars or motorcycles know the rules of the road, they do not know about cycling laws because they don't bike through the streets and they don't have to subscribe to the same rules that cars or motorbikes do. Can you blame people for getting frustrated when a cyclist can do things to cause major congestion while the same actions with a motor would get you ticketed?
Personally I think this idea that biking on a sidewalk is dangerous is utterly stupid compared to the danger of biking in the road. That was one major overreaction to what I'm sure was a tragic event for someone.
Sounds like you're in the same boat as me, I have 100TB of back-end storage. All of that doesn't even necessarily matter as this business is driven by the need for fast access to that content which includes HD video from our shows, having to download all of that to start editing would suck majorly.
I agree with putting "cloud" in quotes as it depends on context to what you mean. I was asked by the CEO about moving services to the cloud, I mentioned to him that our Xen setup with Citrix provisioning services among many other tools means we already have a private cloud so we would not gain a whole lot by moving our stuff. The only time I see it as potentially worth while is when you know you'll have huge traffic spikes and you can preprovision inside Amazon or whatever provider you like. Even then I'm finding Limelight, Akamai, and even Microsoft have better options available from a CDN perspective which scales far better for web services especially if you're doing a cost comparison between Limelight and Amazon EC2. Management and total costs are significantly lower going the Limelight route.
As always, it just depends on your situation, for some people it'll work just fine, for others it won't.
Way cheaper for a single server perhaps, I haven't found it to be any cheaper when you're talking 5-10 servers or more. The cloud is a decent option for the ultra small and the ultra large companies out there. Anyone in between and it's still very much up in the air as to whether it is cheaper or not.
I've found the key is to have enough local infrastructure to function on your own and use cloud services to scale out. So I have a redundant database environment locally which replicates to the cloud when I need additional traffic for our website. Same story for web servers, for any other type of server I haven't found a need to throw it into the cloud.
All the while I fight the urge to call it all bullshit as the added work and security risks involved with integrating a third party into your environment adds to the costs. A few terabytes of space in the cloud will also cost a pretty penny.
You are correct about bad arguments but the specifics are wrong. People who say humans are impacting climate change actually predicted that some areas would be colder and some areas would get more snow, the problem is when you look at global temperatures you realize that Europe and Asia were warmer while people were claiming a cold winter in Maryland as proof that there is no climate change.
Additionally, crazy weather is also predicted in the same models so in reality, all of these events are lining up with predictions made about climate change. As others have pointed out, the question isn't whether climate is changing but whether humans can do anything to slow it down or if they should which to me makes a lot of sense. Encouraging people to use resources more efficiently doesn't sound like a bad idea anyway, so the interests of human driven climate change advocates generally line up with good policy anyways.
Additionally when it comes to this specific case, prior to 1970, the region had almost 400 years without precipitation, the climate change models show tremendous change in the makeup of our atmosphere starting in the 50s and peaking in the late 70s as the clean air act and other international efforts started to take effect reversing the trends for a while until the new millenium when Bush's administration repealed many of the environmental regulations that Clinton's administration put in place.
I find it difficult to believe anyone thinks that humans don't impact our environment tremendously. I come from Vermont with family in upstate New York which was plagued with acid rain because of polluted Ohio. At the same time, about 20 years ago you also had huge problems with smog in California among many other places. Lots of small impacts add up, there are even more egregious environment threatening events happening internationally all at the same time and somehow we're not changing any of the Earth's natural cycles?
I think we should change the focus of the conversation to using our resources more efficiently which makes us less dependent on third parties and reduces our impact on the world around us. There's no reason we need to kill an economy, but there's also no reason we have to lay waste to every place we live.
That's funny, because I know a lot of super rich that only got that way because their family had money to begin with. They will do everything they can to drive the cost down of any project usually at the price of making the project cost more than it would have originally.
There's also the fact that continued success is always a team effort, a CEO cannot make the company lots of money by him or herself and without intelligent people steering information none of it is possible. Through automation and optimization of processes I have helped the company expand to almost four times the size of when I started. I didn't do this alone either, I got great programmers, a great web development team, brought our infrastructure into this millennium, and made deals with outside parties to expand our presence further while reducing costs. Again, I would not have been successful in my goals had it not been for the great work of the programmers and designers. This idea that the super rich are somehow better, or at least smarter is a huge fallacy that I see again and again as I make more business connections.
The old expression that it takes money to make money is very much a reality and is getting harder. There are certainly poor people who are that way out of laziness but they are outnumbered by people who are simply underemployed. There's also a large number of people that don't know how to handle money. When you come from a poor family you tend to spend new found money on things you don't need rather than investing it and putting it to work for you. They usually go bankrupt and the whole cycle starts over. The fact that they can says that the poor certainly can still make better lives for themselves but its definitely getting harder with newer laws and the mentality that the poor are stupid when the reality is that most aren't given an opportunity to prove themselves.
I know I can attribute a lot of my early success to a few people in the right positions believing in my abilities and giving me a chance to prove it. I have almost met many people with the entrepreneurial spirit that didn't have the resources to make it happen getting back to the fact that it takes money to make money.
As a recently promoted IT Manager from Sysadmin I can say that IT should have fought back. Spying is a dangerous game for anyone to play. Given the nature of trust granted to IT professionals privacy should always be a concern. Sometimes managers want to spy on their employees; to that I respond by asking them if they are happy with the work their employees are doing. If they are not happy then I suggest they talk to that employee about their performance, this usually happens with HR involved. I consulted with legal and it is now company policy. The only way we'll spy on you is if we think you're doing something illegal and luckily so far that hasn't come up.
It is our duty to safeguard all users of the network, not just the executives. The case would only be more true in a public setting like a school and especially when kids are involved.
As someone that worked for a non-profit record label I beg to differ. People are in it for the wrong reasons if their intention is to make a lot of money. That's what is wrong with big media today. With us, we had no problem as the community supported our efforts, each album that was release benefited a charity or two stating quite plainly how much of the money spent on the cd was given to artists as well as the charities. Those were the days. Crazy for me to think that was more than a decade ago but I'm happy in that the label is still alive and well and producing great music!
The USAF would like to have a word with you, many many many people used OtherOS and do miss it to this day. It was a grab by Sony for more revenue since people using otherOS weren't usually game players so they didn't want to sell the PS3 as a loss leader to people who wouldn't buy games.
Where are you getting your numbers from? They make no sense, corporations have killed people many times whether is was a coal mine, tobacco, or some medication, and that's on top of vehicle manufacturers and any number of other circumstances that are not inconsequential. Strong regulation is indeed necessary, the debate currently seems to be whether regulation is good or bad rather than the more obvious and useful question of how to do regulation well versus poorly as was the case leading up to the BP oil spill.
I'll also state DeBeers has been responsible for many millions of deaths as well. Definitely not essentially zero million. If you want to go all the way back to 1910 in the discussion then we can talk about textile camps and railroad expansion as well.
Both sides have plenty of blood on their hands. The Oil industry is full examples as well with lax regulation leading to unsafe working conditions which then lead to deaths.
The reason people find it so hard to believe is because it so rarely happens. The execs where I work have iPads and its really just a novelty, they will do presentations with it, view spreadsheets, basically all of the same things they used to do on their laptop except in most cases the iPad does it poorly.
Now I've seen it used in home automation scenarios and its kinda cool there. The owner was psyched when I installed the Citrix receiver on his iPad giving him the ability to use full Outlook, Java, Flash, and oh yeah, he could then print too! So we're kludging all these technologies together just to make the iPad useful.
The device is better off as a piece of consumer electronics rather than anything that people work on. I've seen some intriguing software that would be good in hospitals so I won't dispute that on a fundamental level it is quite possible but the vast majority of iPad use is probably better spent on a real computer where productivity is dramatically improved. I'm of course speaking from a business use perspective, on the consumer electronics side there are a great many entertainment related uses.
I'd be curious what whitebox product can match or beat the speed of a midrange range or even high end ProCurve. Most companies out their overprovision capacity while a 48 port ProCurve will actually offer 48gigabits of throughput. Even on the low-end HP provisions like this but you lose a lot of what makes a managed switch great. It was one of the original selling points against Cisco since they never liked you filling up their switches with actual connections.
That's funny, I ripped out all the Cisco switches and replaced them with HP ProCurves and we've never looked back. Much easier to use and free software upgrades for life plus lifetime warranty. Still use Cisco for advanced routing scenarios but for switching HP has been doing well, I'm not sure if 3Com will derail them though.
Something is fishy about the benchmark, why are they using Corsair DDR3 ram in the AMD machine while they use Kingston DDR3 ram in everything else. They don't even use the same video cards and for some reason are trying to measure total system power consumption?
Slashdot Mirror
How old are you? Under the Clinton administration there was actually a surplus at the end which Bush used to deliver his tax cuts which meant there wasn't any money for things like wars. The budget was balanced and if we had stuck to the plan we'd be debt free by 2015, or at least that's how it was touted. Of course we didn't stick to the plan but the budget was on course. I think you have to be pretty pedantic to say that the budget wasn't balanced in 1999.
Actually they specifically stated the Bush tax cuts which are corporate taxes as well as taxes for the rich. You can feel free to do the research into specifically which taxes but stating Bush tax cuts is pretty darned precise, the CBO also stated what those numbers would be. In the history of taxes we are currently paying less than we ever have so I'm having difficulty figuring out why there is such resistance to restoring taxes to the point at which the budget was balanced previously.
How does lifting the Bush era tax cuts raise the deficit? Combined with cutting subsidies and actually adopting the Republican proposals for spending cuts and I think you have to be pretty disingenuous to say what you are saying.
Maybe you should look at their proposals? There have been many, they say raise taxes as you need to increase revenue which will reduce the need to cut spending so dramatically all at once. The Republican side wants to keep taxes lower than they've ever been while severely cutting programs affecting millions of Americans. I'll grant none of those cuts will really affect me but I also care about those around me including those who are successful and those that aren't so successful.
You are quite mistaken if you think every major player does it. Qwest got in trouble two years ago for NOT doing it. Cox here in the southwest at least is the same way. Few other carriers are as large as ATT so its quite impractical for most other players to do it. Verizon and ATT probably do it but anyone else I doubt it. Time Warner might be in on it but it's mostly the old telcos that are working with the government rather than the old cable companies.
What do you plan on doing with those cast away kids? I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.
Private schools traditionally do better because the parents have a financial incentive to ensure their children are getting the most out of their education. If you pay to have your kid educated you are more likely to care if the kid is skipping class.
The other side of the coin with public schools is again, parents have to be part of the process or it is doomed to failure again and again. There will always be kids that rise above the fray despite parents but until parents are responsible there will always be a problem. This does not mean that restrictions on teachers should be lifted and does mean all parties should be accountable in some way. Then of course unfunded mandates like no child left behind further exacerbate the problems of the public sector. At some point you have to except that there is no system in place that will teach 100% of kids to be productive members of society. So you should focus helping the most people you can while figuring out how to deal with large portions of the population that neither value nor want education.
I wasn't aware our cruise missiles or ICBMs had such a poor navigation capabilities.
Even if Hawaii had been wiped off the map from a nuke 95% of our forces would not have been lost as they are spread out strategically for a reason. We don't keep large swaths of our ships close together, the worst you get is a battle group close together. Pearl Harbor taught us a lesson about that as well of course. Either way, there is no scenario where 95% of our forces would be wiped off the map in one strike. That is just fear mongering, there is no nation on this earth capable of accomplishing that in the next decade. China is the only nation with the economic strength to deploy such a program and it wouldn't be in their interests to use nuclear weapons much like it's not in Russia's interests.
Why do you have to assume only half reach their targets? Actually, why do you make all of those assumptions? 95% of our forces in one hit? Even Pearl Harbor wasn't that bad.
People who live in rural areas do pay more for services. They just pay less in rent/mortgage. They pay more for gas, less for food. You really should realize that all that food you get in the cities came from people willing to live in rural areas so it's in your interests to support them.
Furthermore, we got phone service to these rural communities, I have no idea why Internet can't be done other than the fact that telecoms are too lazy and aren't being forced to act appropriately. How can we give billions in subsidies and provide funding for reporting on how that money was spent? That is the problem with having private entities doing public work. Unless you have a very specific scope of what you want the private entity to do you will be ripped off big time.
As a fellow driver of a fun and fast car I can say that private track and road courses will always be available. I have way more fun on the private courses here in AZ. It's also nice because you don't have to worry about cops thinking that you're going too fast.
It will be a long time before cars driving themselves will become the status quo, you've got nothing to worry about.
No offence, but you clearly haven't thought your cunning plan all the way through.
First off, there are many conditions that can cause an accident, not paying attention is one of them but is certainly not the only one. Where I grew up black ice in the winter was a huge issue and is beyond your control because you can't see it all the time and when it comes to a car and a biker even 15 mph is enough to seriously injure or kill someone. I've even had birds dive bomb right into my windshield making me swerve unintentionally. Animals entering the roadways often cause cars to swerve as well and heaven help the cyclist in that situation. It would most certainly be an accident.
In addition to that there is also the fact that cars can and do break down sometimes in unpredictable ways such as tire blow-outs or loss of power brakes or any number of scenarios. Being thrown in jail because the mechanic failed to put enough brake fluid in your car would definitely suck, nevermind if you happened to sneeze at the wrong time.
I'm all for drivers paying better attention to the road but draconian laws aren't going to make it happen. Better driver education goes a much longer way and doesn't crowd our prison system even further.
I think the argument is that the rules of the road regarding motor vehicles is pretty much the same from place to place but biking laws are very different from state to state.
In addition, you pretty stated the real problem. People who drive cars or motorcycles know the rules of the road, they do not know about cycling laws because they don't bike through the streets and they don't have to subscribe to the same rules that cars or motorbikes do. Can you blame people for getting frustrated when a cyclist can do things to cause major congestion while the same actions with a motor would get you ticketed?
Personally I think this idea that biking on a sidewalk is dangerous is utterly stupid compared to the danger of biking in the road. That was one major overreaction to what I'm sure was a tragic event for someone.
Sounds like you're in the same boat as me, I have 100TB of back-end storage. All of that doesn't even necessarily matter as this business is driven by the need for fast access to that content which includes HD video from our shows, having to download all of that to start editing would suck majorly.
I agree with putting "cloud" in quotes as it depends on context to what you mean. I was asked by the CEO about moving services to the cloud, I mentioned to him that our Xen setup with Citrix provisioning services among many other tools means we already have a private cloud so we would not gain a whole lot by moving our stuff. The only time I see it as potentially worth while is when you know you'll have huge traffic spikes and you can preprovision inside Amazon or whatever provider you like. Even then I'm finding Limelight, Akamai, and even Microsoft have better options available from a CDN perspective which scales far better for web services especially if you're doing a cost comparison between Limelight and Amazon EC2. Management and total costs are significantly lower going the Limelight route.
As always, it just depends on your situation, for some people it'll work just fine, for others it won't.
Way cheaper for a single server perhaps, I haven't found it to be any cheaper when you're talking 5-10 servers or more. The cloud is a decent option for the ultra small and the ultra large companies out there. Anyone in between and it's still very much up in the air as to whether it is cheaper or not.
I've found the key is to have enough local infrastructure to function on your own and use cloud services to scale out. So I have a redundant database environment locally which replicates to the cloud when I need additional traffic for our website. Same story for web servers, for any other type of server I haven't found a need to throw it into the cloud.
All the while I fight the urge to call it all bullshit as the added work and security risks involved with integrating a third party into your environment adds to the costs. A few terabytes of space in the cloud will also cost a pretty penny.
You are correct about bad arguments but the specifics are wrong. People who say humans are impacting climate change actually predicted that some areas would be colder and some areas would get more snow, the problem is when you look at global temperatures you realize that Europe and Asia were warmer while people were claiming a cold winter in Maryland as proof that there is no climate change.
Additionally, crazy weather is also predicted in the same models so in reality, all of these events are lining up with predictions made about climate change. As others have pointed out, the question isn't whether climate is changing but whether humans can do anything to slow it down or if they should which to me makes a lot of sense. Encouraging people to use resources more efficiently doesn't sound like a bad idea anyway, so the interests of human driven climate change advocates generally line up with good policy anyways.
Additionally when it comes to this specific case, prior to 1970, the region had almost 400 years without precipitation, the climate change models show tremendous change in the makeup of our atmosphere starting in the 50s and peaking in the late 70s as the clean air act and other international efforts started to take effect reversing the trends for a while until the new millenium when Bush's administration repealed many of the environmental regulations that Clinton's administration put in place.
I find it difficult to believe anyone thinks that humans don't impact our environment tremendously. I come from Vermont with family in upstate New York which was plagued with acid rain because of polluted Ohio. At the same time, about 20 years ago you also had huge problems with smog in California among many other places. Lots of small impacts add up, there are even more egregious environment threatening events happening internationally all at the same time and somehow we're not changing any of the Earth's natural cycles?
I think we should change the focus of the conversation to using our resources more efficiently which makes us less dependent on third parties and reduces our impact on the world around us. There's no reason we need to kill an economy, but there's also no reason we have to lay waste to every place we live.
That's funny, because I know a lot of super rich that only got that way because their family had money to begin with. They will do everything they can to drive the cost down of any project usually at the price of making the project cost more than it would have originally.
There's also the fact that continued success is always a team effort, a CEO cannot make the company lots of money by him or herself and without intelligent people steering information none of it is possible. Through automation and optimization of processes I have helped the company expand to almost four times the size of when I started. I didn't do this alone either, I got great programmers, a great web development team, brought our infrastructure into this millennium, and made deals with outside parties to expand our presence further while reducing costs. Again, I would not have been successful in my goals had it not been for the great work of the programmers and designers. This idea that the super rich are somehow better, or at least smarter is a huge fallacy that I see again and again as I make more business connections.
The old expression that it takes money to make money is very much a reality and is getting harder. There are certainly poor people who are that way out of laziness but they are outnumbered by people who are simply underemployed. There's also a large number of people that don't know how to handle money. When you come from a poor family you tend to spend new found money on things you don't need rather than investing it and putting it to work for you. They usually go bankrupt and the whole cycle starts over. The fact that they can says that the poor certainly can still make better lives for themselves but its definitely getting harder with newer laws and the mentality that the poor are stupid when the reality is that most aren't given an opportunity to prove themselves.
I know I can attribute a lot of my early success to a few people in the right positions believing in my abilities and giving me a chance to prove it. I have almost met many people with the entrepreneurial spirit that didn't have the resources to make it happen getting back to the fact that it takes money to make money.
As a recently promoted IT Manager from Sysadmin I can say that IT should have fought back. Spying is a dangerous game for anyone to play. Given the nature of trust granted to IT professionals privacy should always be a concern. Sometimes managers want to spy on their employees; to that I respond by asking them if they are happy with the work their employees are doing. If they are not happy then I suggest they talk to that employee about their performance, this usually happens with HR involved. I consulted with legal and it is now company policy. The only way we'll spy on you is if we think you're doing something illegal and luckily so far that hasn't come up.
It is our duty to safeguard all users of the network, not just the executives. The case would only be more true in a public setting like a school and especially when kids are involved.
or ya know, tape
As someone that worked for a non-profit record label I beg to differ. People are in it for the wrong reasons if their intention is to make a lot of money. That's what is wrong with big media today. With us, we had no problem as the community supported our efforts, each album that was release benefited a charity or two stating quite plainly how much of the money spent on the cd was given to artists as well as the charities. Those were the days. Crazy for me to think that was more than a decade ago but I'm happy in that the label is still alive and well and producing great music!
The USAF would like to have a word with you, many many many people used OtherOS and do miss it to this day. It was a grab by Sony for more revenue since people using otherOS weren't usually game players so they didn't want to sell the PS3 as a loss leader to people who wouldn't buy games.
Where are you getting your numbers from? They make no sense, corporations have killed people many times whether is was a coal mine, tobacco, or some medication, and that's on top of vehicle manufacturers and any number of other circumstances that are not inconsequential. Strong regulation is indeed necessary, the debate currently seems to be whether regulation is good or bad rather than the more obvious and useful question of how to do regulation well versus poorly as was the case leading up to the BP oil spill.
I'll also state DeBeers has been responsible for many millions of deaths as well. Definitely not essentially zero million. If you want to go all the way back to 1910 in the discussion then we can talk about textile camps and railroad expansion as well.
Both sides have plenty of blood on their hands. The Oil industry is full examples as well with lax regulation leading to unsafe working conditions which then lead to deaths.
The reason people find it so hard to believe is because it so rarely happens. The execs where I work have iPads and its really just a novelty, they will do presentations with it, view spreadsheets, basically all of the same things they used to do on their laptop except in most cases the iPad does it poorly.
Now I've seen it used in home automation scenarios and its kinda cool there. The owner was psyched when I installed the Citrix receiver on his iPad giving him the ability to use full Outlook, Java, Flash, and oh yeah, he could then print too! So we're kludging all these technologies together just to make the iPad useful.
The device is better off as a piece of consumer electronics rather than anything that people work on. I've seen some intriguing software that would be good in hospitals so I won't dispute that on a fundamental level it is quite possible but the vast majority of iPad use is probably better spent on a real computer where productivity is dramatically improved. I'm of course speaking from a business use perspective, on the consumer electronics side there are a great many entertainment related uses.
I'd be curious what whitebox product can match or beat the speed of a midrange range or even high end ProCurve. Most companies out their overprovision capacity while a 48 port ProCurve will actually offer 48gigabits of throughput. Even on the low-end HP provisions like this but you lose a lot of what makes a managed switch great. It was one of the original selling points against Cisco since they never liked you filling up their switches with actual connections.
That's funny, I ripped out all the Cisco switches and replaced them with HP ProCurves and we've never looked back. Much easier to use and free software upgrades for life plus lifetime warranty. Still use Cisco for advanced routing scenarios but for switching HP has been doing well, I'm not sure if 3Com will derail them though.
That's funny, There's not a single X4 that uses that much electricity even at full tilt.
Something is fishy about the benchmark, why are they using Corsair DDR3 ram in the AMD machine while they use Kingston DDR3 ram in everything else. They don't even use the same video cards and for some reason are trying to measure total system power consumption?
Damn you! Now I'm thinking about bacon