I'll agree with your general principle. With applications like Truecrypt out there though you can still use these services without the worry of some entity making a copy and rifling through your stuff. Just put up your truecrypt file and you get all the convenience and almost none of the worry. The only problem becomes how you send your passphrase or whether you know your passphrase from memory.
My cell phone has an AM/FM radio in it, it also plays hours and hours of mp3s. So I'd say it's already possible and in a lot of places. If you want something specific, the Motorola Photon here in the U.S. but it is far more common on European model phones.
One thing not mentioned is that Microsoft offers hosted Exchange and Office which is significantly easier to afford and maintains that warm fuzzy a lot of people have with the environment. Of course the first question as always is, what platform are most people familiar with already? Odds are they should be the target otherwise you spend a lot of time retraining which may be completely unnecessary.
In terms of a start-up, if you have a funding source they will see it as a reasonable expenditure and feel more comfortable providing more money as they see you doing your best to keep costs which can and does include internal infrastructure. For an organization with 10 users you probably wouldn't need any kind of directory services. OpenLDAP takes a lot more time to setup but the price is right.
I hear this a lot, people only struggle in the beginning and then type much faster on a smaller keyboard. I went from using my netbook exclusively for a few months back to a full size keyboard and was amazed how much more effort it took to type. The screen is the real problem with netbooks. It's the reason I went with an Ultrabook this last time around, I needed the higher resolution display.
Vermont gets a lot of it's power from HydroQuebec, there is also a dam in Williston that is immediately next to the IBM plant so I suspect the IBM plant itself won't see any change.
Just out of curiousity, you realize your argument reads like a communist manifesto right? That communism would work great if it was just done right! It's like expecting large banks to always do the right thing and using that as an argument to lift regulations that were put in place because large banks lost large sums of money causing a great depression. When human nature does one thing and you set a system up expecting it do something different you can't be surprised that some bad men took advantage of small towns with struggling economies and rendered them wastelands much like pre-EPA America.
Clearly someone that doesn't know anyone from Vermont. You know how frustrating it was for me to move to AZ back in 2001? I had DSL in Vermont since 1996. They were one of the first states to deploy it state-wide to assist with telecommuting. Our governor at the time, Howard Dean, even pumped state funds to help the more rural areas get it which was a direct benefit to myself.
No, Vermonters are not afraid of progress or technology, hell IBM is a huge part of their tax payer base. You also wanna know where the two safest places are in terms of natural disasters? Yep, Arizona and Vermont! That's why people like to build data-centers there. I imagine they want to keep their drinking water and maintain steady ground beneath their feet. They actually care about their natural resources.
Also, Vermonters are big producers of biodiesel so again I say, you probably shouldn't attack something you clearly know little to nothing about.
With all the evidence against fracking and the banning of it in Europe, I'm concerned that people still haven't seen the writing on the wall with it.
Blackraven already pointed out the flaw in your argument so I'll just add that there was a whole lot of legislation that passed during those two years. Way more was passed in those two years compared to the last two years where the Republicans our outspoken about making Obama fail. If Obama is working to improve the country which ostensibly is the goal, then Republicans are actively trying to make this country fail. This is pretty obvious when you talk about the debt ceiling suddenly being an issue.
Where were you where town hall meetings were cancelled? It was big news tea parties shouting everything down causing a huge scene. There were even a few instances of violence. I'll even site a source. There was a lot of scrutiny, there were many many polls performed and lots of the bill was read aloud on tv.
Lots of people read the bill,it was one of the most read out there, and it was over 1,000 pages! There was huge concern for the people who were affected, like my sister who how has healthcare due to the pre-existing condition clause so again I'm not sure where you were when all of this happened.
I'm also confounded how you can say there was no debate. There was so much debate in fact that it took a long time to finally pass.
I don't disagree with this, I think more people read the healthcare bill than most of bills that have been passed recently. Unfortunately there isn't a whole lot beside the individual mandate that people can argue against. Republicans can and do though even when they have to make stuff up.
Sorry, but you're confused, Bush could do these things because Congress moved in lock step with him. That is not the case with Obama who was and is currently fighting republicans who publicly state that their goal is for the President to fail. It's one thing to disagree with someone on principle, that is not the case. Republican proposals such as cap n trade are now vilified because it was proposed by Obama.
The President is not a dictator, he does NOT have his own money, and it would take an act of Congress to close Gitmo. These are no opinions, they are the reality of the situation and rightfully so. The President has broad powers but they do have limits, especially when their is direct opposition to the action taken. The generals on the ground take orders from the President but also report to the Senate.
You are correct, Obama caved to Republicans who were unwilling to compromise on any issue, even issues they proposed which Obama supported as a public good. Your personal attacks on his character are unwarranted as well as unknown. A principled person, even the President only has so much power. He cannot just enact laws. Even when the dems had a majority, they never had a super majority across both the house and senate, republicans were still filibustering and obstructing the whole process.
Note, Obama did try to close Gitmo, the republicans and really a lot of democrats too couldn't decide what to do with the prisoners, that is outside the powers of the executive office to determine. The issue was politically very controversial and I agree, he should have stuck to his guns since the republicans couldn't have made it even harder for him than they already have. That's hindsight though, it's hard to throw away future chances at compromise when you don't yet know what those chances are. I suspect we'll look back at Gitmo with great embarrassment, much like the Japanese internment camps during WW2.
The healthcare bill originally contained a public option, why do you think that option was struck down and who do you think did it?
You're absolutely right about the TSA, it's outragious the amount of money they throw away in times where we are cutting funding for education to help balance our budget.If they were at all effective you could make a case for a smaller budget, as I see it, the times before the TSA had the same track record for safety without all of the extra spending.
The only people I hear asking for a tax cut are Republicans and its not for the middle-class. Everyone else thinks we should go back to the tax structure we had in the 90s when we were, you know, successful and had a balanced budget.
It would be great if we could afford to reduce sales tax but we've learned to live with it. For now, we just have to get the balance sheet under control which will require both cuts in spending as well as increases in taxes.
I am greatly saddened by flagrant disregard for history these days, especially recent history. Explain to me how Obama wasn't undermined by a Republican agenda at every turn to do the right thing? Closing Guantanamo? The healthcare bill? Honestly the democrats were spineless while the republicans were strong-arming. When you hear republicans talk about compromise as being all or nothing their way it's hard to not believe the rhetoric coming from dems.
I'll agree that power begets more power, the strange thing is that the congress has given up a majority of its power to do anything. They chose to just stand by and let Bush run us off a cliff and they've done the same thing to create crisis after crisis with Obama.
So as you might have guessed, I don't have a problem with Obama, my problem lays with Congress not doing their jobs. If they were using their powers responsibly then the checks and balances this country was founded on would have prevented a whole mess of trouble over the last two decades.
Nobody is perfect, but I'll give Obama credit for actually trying to get things done as opposed to maintaining the status quo which has proven that it's only good for a small subset of the county.
Yeah, the whole holding these truths to be self evidence bit seems to be pretty lost on most people that think it's okay as long as they aren't a citizen.
Of course I've seen video coverage of CPAC where the crowd actually cheers letting people die instead of providing healthcare for all so that's what we're up against. Dignity is only allowed if you make over a certain amount of money, nevermind the fact that success always comes from the bottom up.
Your cynicism is based in reality so I don't fault you for it. The problem with saying socialism always fails is that it's an absolute. No one here at least is advocating an entirely socialist approach to our lives as a whole, merely proposing approaches that remove for profit scenarios from physically harming the life of millions of Americans who's lives have either been lost or ruined due to the current situation which isn't likely to change. If their had been a public insurance option for instance, that would have done a lot to spur competition as the big powers that be wouldn't have a stranglehold on its customers. The problem is big and complex and there is no reason you couldn't build in similar checks and balances against fraud and waste.
The other problem with medicine is that people almost always don't know what they need even if they think they do so you have to balance the needs of the patient against corrupt doctors and administrations for the very reasons you state. When you remove a profit motive though you take away a lot of the hidden parts of the debate. Then when you want to decide on whether the government will pay for abortion or birth control you can have a public debate instead of dismantling infrastructure state by state to accomplish goals much more slowly.
Your comment both amuses and saddens me. You describe the current situation when talking about socialized pharma presumably to condemn the idea not realizing the simplest solution actually is a government run business competing with big pharma except with goals that are in line with the most public good, curing disease for example. Run them side by side, let them compete and see which method will win or maybe we can achieve some kind of balance that doesn't make people's dear old mother's life a for profit matter.
Capitalism works great for selling goods, trying to apply it everywhere is not a good idea, imagine if police departments had to compete with other local police departments. Suddenly Robocop isn't so crazy! There are situations when it is not appropriate. You can look at the cannibalization of the public school system over the last 30 years and see how introducing competition there only served to distribute insufficient resources across a larger swath of schools. Instead of paying for one administration and one school you pay for six of them and run them as a for-profit business. It's wasteful as there is mounting evidence that it doesn't work.
As always, if you don't approve of the pork projects your representatives are constructing then you have the option to vote them out of office. If you are alone then you won't get your way, but if the majority of the people feel as you do then surprise! You have a democracy.
I'm confused how this is true, all my XBMC boxes are Linux, some are AMD and some use NVidia for graphics referring mostly to the Atoms though so all graphics is integrated. I have not seen any performance issues with the AMD drivers in Linux. These days both Nvidia and AMD support seems to be pretty good unless you have a top end latest model discreet GPU.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll agree with your general principle. With applications like Truecrypt out there though you can still use these services without the worry of some entity making a copy and rifling through your stuff. Just put up your truecrypt file and you get all the convenience and almost none of the worry. The only problem becomes how you send your passphrase or whether you know your passphrase from memory.
My cell phone has an AM/FM radio in it, it also plays hours and hours of mp3s. So I'd say it's already possible and in a lot of places. If you want something specific, the Motorola Photon here in the U.S. but it is far more common on European model phones.
One thing not mentioned is that Microsoft offers hosted Exchange and Office which is significantly easier to afford and maintains that warm fuzzy a lot of people have with the environment. Of course the first question as always is, what platform are most people familiar with already? Odds are they should be the target otherwise you spend a lot of time retraining which may be completely unnecessary.
In terms of a start-up, if you have a funding source they will see it as a reasonable expenditure and feel more comfortable providing more money as they see you doing your best to keep costs which can and does include internal infrastructure. For an organization with 10 users you probably wouldn't need any kind of directory services. OpenLDAP takes a lot more time to setup but the price is right.
What is this based on? They seem to get the job done pretty well all the way on up to multiple gigabit WAN links.
I hear this a lot, people only struggle in the beginning and then type much faster on a smaller keyboard. I went from using my netbook exclusively for a few months back to a full size keyboard and was amazed how much more effort it took to type. The screen is the real problem with netbooks. It's the reason I went with an Ultrabook this last time around, I needed the higher resolution display.
No Problem, there are plenty of good options.
AMD has always been solid on price/performance.
Except that I didn't call him a communist... Godwin has no place in my post, you should have read past the first sentence.
Vermont gets a lot of it's power from HydroQuebec, there is also a dam in Williston that is immediately next to the IBM plant so I suspect the IBM plant itself won't see any change.
Just out of curiousity, you realize your argument reads like a communist manifesto right? That communism would work great if it was just done right! It's like expecting large banks to always do the right thing and using that as an argument to lift regulations that were put in place because large banks lost large sums of money causing a great depression. When human nature does one thing and you set a system up expecting it do something different you can't be surprised that some bad men took advantage of small towns with struggling economies and rendered them wastelands much like pre-EPA America.
Clearly someone that doesn't know anyone from Vermont. You know how frustrating it was for me to move to AZ back in 2001? I had DSL in Vermont since 1996. They were one of the first states to deploy it state-wide to assist with telecommuting. Our governor at the time, Howard Dean, even pumped state funds to help the more rural areas get it which was a direct benefit to myself.
No, Vermonters are not afraid of progress or technology, hell IBM is a huge part of their tax payer base. You also wanna know where the two safest places are in terms of natural disasters? Yep, Arizona and Vermont! That's why people like to build data-centers there. I imagine they want to keep their drinking water and maintain steady ground beneath their feet. They actually care about their natural resources.
Also, Vermonters are big producers of biodiesel so again I say, you probably shouldn't attack something you clearly know little to nothing about.
With all the evidence against fracking and the banning of it in Europe, I'm concerned that people still haven't seen the writing on the wall with it.
Blackraven already pointed out the flaw in your argument so I'll just add that there was a whole lot of legislation that passed during those two years. Way more was passed in those two years compared to the last two years where the Republicans our outspoken about making Obama fail. If Obama is working to improve the country which ostensibly is the goal, then Republicans are actively trying to make this country fail. This is pretty obvious when you talk about the debt ceiling suddenly being an issue.
What's your question? What's your rebuttal here?
Where were you where town hall meetings were cancelled? It was big news tea parties shouting everything down causing a huge scene. There were even a few instances of violence. I'll even site a source. There was a lot of scrutiny, there were many many polls performed and lots of the bill was read aloud on tv.
Lots of people read the bill,it was one of the most read out there, and it was over 1,000 pages! There was huge concern for the people who were affected, like my sister who how has healthcare due to the pre-existing condition clause so again I'm not sure where you were when all of this happened.
I'm also confounded how you can say there was no debate. There was so much debate in fact that it took a long time to finally pass.
I don't disagree with this, I think more people read the healthcare bill than most of bills that have been passed recently. Unfortunately there isn't a whole lot beside the individual mandate that people can argue against. Republicans can and do though even when they have to make stuff up.
Sorry, but you're confused, Bush could do these things because Congress moved in lock step with him. That is not the case with Obama who was and is currently fighting republicans who publicly state that their goal is for the President to fail. It's one thing to disagree with someone on principle, that is not the case. Republican proposals such as cap n trade are now vilified because it was proposed by Obama.
The President is not a dictator, he does NOT have his own money, and it would take an act of Congress to close Gitmo. These are no opinions, they are the reality of the situation and rightfully so. The President has broad powers but they do have limits, especially when their is direct opposition to the action taken. The generals on the ground take orders from the President but also report to the Senate.
You are correct, Obama caved to Republicans who were unwilling to compromise on any issue, even issues they proposed which Obama supported as a public good. Your personal attacks on his character are unwarranted as well as unknown. A principled person, even the President only has so much power. He cannot just enact laws. Even when the dems had a majority, they never had a super majority across both the house and senate, republicans were still filibustering and obstructing the whole process.
Note, Obama did try to close Gitmo, the republicans and really a lot of democrats too couldn't decide what to do with the prisoners, that is outside the powers of the executive office to determine. The issue was politically very controversial and I agree, he should have stuck to his guns since the republicans couldn't have made it even harder for him than they already have. That's hindsight though, it's hard to throw away future chances at compromise when you don't yet know what those chances are. I suspect we'll look back at Gitmo with great embarrassment, much like the Japanese internment camps during WW2.
The healthcare bill originally contained a public option, why do you think that option was struck down and who do you think did it?
You're absolutely right about the TSA, it's outragious the amount of money they throw away in times where we are cutting funding for education to help balance our budget.If they were at all effective you could make a case for a smaller budget, as I see it, the times before the TSA had the same track record for safety without all of the extra spending.
The only people I hear asking for a tax cut are Republicans and its not for the middle-class. Everyone else thinks we should go back to the tax structure we had in the 90s when we were, you know, successful and had a balanced budget.
It would be great if we could afford to reduce sales tax but we've learned to live with it. For now, we just have to get the balance sheet under control which will require both cuts in spending as well as increases in taxes.
I am greatly saddened by flagrant disregard for history these days, especially recent history. Explain to me how Obama wasn't undermined by a Republican agenda at every turn to do the right thing? Closing Guantanamo? The healthcare bill? Honestly the democrats were spineless while the republicans were strong-arming. When you hear republicans talk about compromise as being all or nothing their way it's hard to not believe the rhetoric coming from dems.
I'll agree that power begets more power, the strange thing is that the congress has given up a majority of its power to do anything. They chose to just stand by and let Bush run us off a cliff and they've done the same thing to create crisis after crisis with Obama.
So as you might have guessed, I don't have a problem with Obama, my problem lays with Congress not doing their jobs. If they were using their powers responsibly then the checks and balances this country was founded on would have prevented a whole mess of trouble over the last two decades.
Nobody is perfect, but I'll give Obama credit for actually trying to get things done as opposed to maintaining the status quo which has proven that it's only good for a small subset of the county.
Except that he's wrong, as others have pointed out. The term existing laws in there is pretty powerful.
Yeah, the whole holding these truths to be self evidence bit seems to be pretty lost on most people that think it's okay as long as they aren't a citizen.
Of course I've seen video coverage of CPAC where the crowd actually cheers letting people die instead of providing healthcare for all so that's what we're up against. Dignity is only allowed if you make over a certain amount of money, nevermind the fact that success always comes from the bottom up.
Your cynicism is based in reality so I don't fault you for it. The problem with saying socialism always fails is that it's an absolute. No one here at least is advocating an entirely socialist approach to our lives as a whole, merely proposing approaches that remove for profit scenarios from physically harming the life of millions of Americans who's lives have either been lost or ruined due to the current situation which isn't likely to change. If their had been a public insurance option for instance, that would have done a lot to spur competition as the big powers that be wouldn't have a stranglehold on its customers. The problem is big and complex and there is no reason you couldn't build in similar checks and balances against fraud and waste.
The other problem with medicine is that people almost always don't know what they need even if they think they do so you have to balance the needs of the patient against corrupt doctors and administrations for the very reasons you state. When you remove a profit motive though you take away a lot of the hidden parts of the debate. Then when you want to decide on whether the government will pay for abortion or birth control you can have a public debate instead of dismantling infrastructure state by state to accomplish goals much more slowly.
Your comment both amuses and saddens me. You describe the current situation when talking about socialized pharma presumably to condemn the idea not realizing the simplest solution actually is a government run business competing with big pharma except with goals that are in line with the most public good, curing disease for example. Run them side by side, let them compete and see which method will win or maybe we can achieve some kind of balance that doesn't make people's dear old mother's life a for profit matter.
Capitalism works great for selling goods, trying to apply it everywhere is not a good idea, imagine if police departments had to compete with other local police departments. Suddenly Robocop isn't so crazy! There are situations when it is not appropriate. You can look at the cannibalization of the public school system over the last 30 years and see how introducing competition there only served to distribute insufficient resources across a larger swath of schools. Instead of paying for one administration and one school you pay for six of them and run them as a for-profit business. It's wasteful as there is mounting evidence that it doesn't work.
As always, if you don't approve of the pork projects your representatives are constructing then you have the option to vote them out of office. If you are alone then you won't get your way, but if the majority of the people feel as you do then surprise! You have a democracy.
IPC is instructions per clock and is highly relevant to the discussion at hand.
Very strange, my XBMC rig on Ubuntu plays back full 1080p Blu-ray using the E-350. Sounds like you didn't have hardware acceleration enabled.
I'm confused how this is true, all my XBMC boxes are Linux, some are AMD and some use NVidia for graphics referring mostly to the Atoms though so all graphics is integrated. I have not seen any performance issues with the AMD drivers in Linux. These days both Nvidia and AMD support seems to be pretty good unless you have a top end latest model discreet GPU.