You seem to be implying that the mere allegation of possible business push-back "smacks of intimidation". Can't you wait to see if there is any before impugning people?
Now it turns out they got the guy. So it just boils down to a question of whether the ends justifies the mean.
Did they? Most law enforcement is honest about such things. Still, there exists a small sub group that really just wants to close cases. If they did their canvasing because they wanted to claim success instead of justice...
Correlation is not causation, but there seems to be correlation here. (I don't know much about the case, other evidence, etc.)
Trains, in general are one thing, and worth debating. This train is an unbelievably wasteful debacle, and they've only barely begun. To be profitable, gasoline will need to go to $40/gallon. (Their own ridership estimates require this, meaning it's a low-balled estimate.) And it won't go 1.5x faster than current trains. It's not likely to outpace the freeway for most of it's length.
Neither do we get the worst of business and the best of government.
And yes, government can do that in a democracy as long as people aren't paying attention. They do it all the time. (less often lately on the federal level, but not for lack of trying)
If you can't convince other voters to shut down a given government program, then either canning it is not a good idea, or your fellow voters are stupid.
Uhm, yes... they are? When haven't they been?
And most of the time you can't vote down a given project, you can only vote out an incumbent. The new guy that replaces him won't shut down the project either, so, what have you bought?
(Yeah, I know, we should vote incumbents out frequently so that they might learn, but see point (1) about stupid voters.)
Oh, come off it! Businesses and Gov't both screw up and get screwed. It's part of buying goods and services. The gov't stands out from private enterprise only because whenever society needs something done and it's too expensive to get anyone to pay for it we have the gov't do it.
That's one important difference, but it's not the "only" one.
The other really big difference is in revenue. Business ultimately must entice people to give them money. If they can't make ends meet, upper management must find a way to increase efficiency or they will go under. Government, on the other hand, chooses who will pay, and how much. If they can't make ends meet, they have the additional choice to unilaterally "increase revenue" (taxes). Businesses can't do that (usually, unless there aught to be an anti-trust case).
Very true, but it's usually much more efficient to entirely shut down a program, and restart it from scratch. (It really shouldn't be, but it is.) The problem is in identifying and firing problem bureaucrats, and nobody is willing to do that. Instead, they slap them on the wrist, or transfer them around. Nothing ever changes.
There are a number of ways they do this. In some localities, all they need to do is fill out the voter registration form, lie about citizenship, and give a false SSN. (I don't know how common that is, but there have been places busted for permitting it.) Others register using a dead person's credentials. Some register using the credentials of someone from another state. I would even go so far as to guess that some expensive fake IDs come with forged government database entries.
All that's required in most places is a little creativity and the daring to do it. (Voter ID laws would only solve some of these.)
Oh come on, you accuse him of drinking the "cool aid" (sic) and then start spouting off this conspiracy nonsense about non-citizen voters and rigging elections?
Both major parties steal elections regularly. They consider it a part of the game.
Where is your evidence?
A variety of voting watchdog groups. The general public finds it esoteric and the media either can't figure out how to spin it into a frenzy, or they're just plain bought off. (probably the former, but I have no way to know.)
Why would the Democrats even risk such scandal in a state that reliably votes for them to begin with?
You've made a non-sequiter leap here. The Democrat party is opposing voting ID laws across the country, not just in California. And they do steal elections in California, when it's going to be close and they think it matters.
Stop listening to right-wing radio.
I don't. Not often, anyway. I've never heard them cover this topic.
They are poisoning your brain.
They're on par with most news, only they don't claim to be unbiased. As with anything, a variety of sources and opinions is to be preferred.
Oh it has nothing to do with identity. It has to do with politics.
It's truly unfortunate, but the word "racist" has developed two distinct and separate definitions. Only one of them has anything to do with race.
Racist (n)
1) Someone who unfairly dislikes or discriminates based on race. May or may not be a white male discriminating against a black person. May be a black person discriminating against a mexican national, for example.
2) A republican, or someone of republican leanings.
Do note how the Republicans started to co-opt the tea-party movement, and immediately there were accusations of racism. This is, of course, by definition.
At least in California, there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be)...
The idea is that a poll watcher (a neighbor, for instance) could, at that time, say, "hey, that isn't John Smith who lives on Cherry Lane", triggering a provisional vote for that person. The provisional ballot has a signature on it and gets comared against the signature on file at the county.
Please stop drinking to cool aid. It's not healthy.
How many times is that going to happen? 0.01% of the time? Less? If it does happen, what's to keep the perp from signing a scribble, knowing that it may be thrown out, and move onto the next polling place to vote again? They're not going to be arrested on the spot, and there aren't cameras at polling places. Even if there were, there'd be no way to connect the ballot to the face on the camera. (There'd better not be!) There is simply no risk of getting caught.
What it's really about is permitting non-citizens to vote, and encouraging them to vote democrat. (and probably rigging the odd close race, though they have much more efficient ways to do that.) (California will give you an ID if you claim to be poor. Well, they discount it to $7 and the welfare office will give you cash. Close enough.)
Environmentalist who know nothing about nuclear power, storage, risk or containment are always given too much voice.
I agree with this....WAY too much voice.
Let the people who have the actual knowledge debate these issue, the rest of the public should just shut the hell up.
This is obviously wrong.
There are some environmentalists who actually know what their talking about, and some laymen who have intelligent ideas. Just because the tree huggers are given a spotlight is no reason to silence (or ignore) reasonable discussion from outside your field.
(In case you feel like splitting hairs: There's no truer way to find those with "actual knowledge" than to let them speak. Licencing, credentialing, diplomas, etc, are only ways to tell what a person ought to know. Their lack doesn't tell you a thing about what a person doesn't know.)
A director is not a low level manager, it is typically a senior management position or the lowest of the executive levels, and implies responsibility for a major business function.
Might I point out:
I'm being promoted to be a director of a computer/web services department at work with staff members (not yet hired) working under me. [emphasis added]
This sounds like a small, growing organization. Small outfits use the same glorified terms that large outfits do, but for less glorified positions. He might as well be a "team leader" for the next couple of years. Granted, this tends to expose "directors" more directly to customers, meaning a modicum of respectable dress is called for.
According to classical theology, which is totally unsubstantiated by biblical text. Just because it's been taught for more than a thousand years doesn't make it biblical.
You shouldn't be crawling under desks. The people you will be supervising should.
Woah! BUZZ! Wrong.
A low level manager (team leader) should do the work that he expects his team to do. It is the only way to earn their respect, and the best way to set a high standard of expectation. Even if extra responsibilities and meetings prevent him from engaging everyday, he should be participating for a couple of hours, several days a week.
True, but that's a minor problem compared to a disk that's spouting garbage. The Article doesn't address very well how it's dealing with that problem, but I think I can puzzle out the basic idea.
epp_b brought up the context of backups against the theme of drive failure. I'm sorry that I didn't read the word "protect" in your post as availability and uptime. ("protect" seemed to imply integrity.) It just wasn't in the pre-existing context.
You have no idea how many people I've talked to who seem to believe RAID is a fancy backup mechanism. I know of one small business owner in particular who had RAID 5 on his office computer, but no backup regimen. He didn't even know that the first drive had failed till he had lost all his business records. People ask about it regularly, with no apparent knowledge of its inherent limitations. They seem to think it's magic (like "the cloud").
Maybe I'm predisposed to see this particular lunacy everywhere.
You might be interested in some of the data integrity features in ZFS
I am. I'm also given to understand that BTRFS is barking up that particular tree. (Though I haven't looked into it in a long time, and could easily be wrong.) I'm a little skeptical of mashing all of this into the file system level, but I'm not sure my fears are rational. It just feels like it ought to be easier to detect and fix problems if there were a separate RAID layer. They're probably concerned with performance, and I can't fault them there.
RAID does provides some redundancy, but it is NOT a backup method. I can't tell you the times I've seen/heard of RAID failure causing data loss. Of particular consequence are the drives that fail to store store and retrieve the correct data. Even RAID 5 and 6 can only reconstruct data if the drive reports a failure. If the drive is spitting out bad data, or failing to record data, it's gone.
RAID is primarily for performance. It only adds a smidgen of reliability.
(I keep waiting for someone to come out with a RAID 6 ECC standard. Yes, It would be slow, but it would be reliable. Sometimes that's desirable. I think some of the expensive RAID cards can do this, though I've never seen one.)
I've seen it work against the infamous "click of death", which I'm pretty sure is a different problem, but I like your explanation. Something's stuck those platters in place.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, what?
You seem to be implying that the mere allegation of possible business push-back "smacks of intimidation". Can't you wait to see if there is any before impugning people?
...Who do you think picks up the insurance when someone robs money from a bank? We do. Witness TARP.
Nobody robbed the banks. They threw away money they didn't have.
TARP isn't issuance, strictly speaking. That's the FDIC. (TARP is rewarding failure, but it isn't insurance.)
Hah.
No seriously, let's keep a critical eye on any police activity that seems overly enthusiastic. That's all I'm saying.
Now it turns out they got the guy. So it just boils down to a question of whether the ends justifies the mean.
Did they? Most law enforcement is honest about such things. Still, there exists a small sub group that really just wants to close cases. If they did their canvasing because they wanted to claim success instead of justice...
Correlation is not causation, but there seems to be correlation here. (I don't know much about the case, other evidence, etc.)
Trains, in general are one thing, and worth debating. This train is an unbelievably wasteful debacle, and they've only barely begun. To be profitable, gasoline will need to go to $40/gallon. (Their own ridership estimates require this, meaning it's a low-balled estimate.) And it won't go 1.5x faster than current trains. It's not likely to outpace the freeway for most of it's length.
Neither do we get the worst of business and the best of government.
And yes, government can do that in a democracy as long as people aren't paying attention. They do it all the time.
(less often lately on the federal level, but not for lack of trying)
???
Who kicked your puppy?
I'm having trouble telling if you're knee-jerking, or trolling.
If you can't convince other voters to shut down a given government program, then either canning it is not a good idea, or your fellow voters are stupid.
Uhm, yes... they are? When haven't they been?
And most of the time you can't vote down a given project, you can only vote out an incumbent. The new guy that replaces him won't shut down the project either, so, what have you bought?
(Yeah, I know, we should vote incumbents out frequently so that they might learn, but see point (1) about stupid voters.)
As examples: Boston's "Big Dig" and California's "Bullet Train" (ie, slightly faster than normal, incredibly expensive train.)
Oh, come off it! Businesses and Gov't both screw up and get screwed. It's part of buying goods and services. The gov't stands out from private enterprise only because whenever society needs something done and it's too expensive to get anyone to pay for it we have the gov't do it.
That's one important difference, but it's not the "only" one.
The other really big difference is in revenue. Business ultimately must entice people to give them money. If they can't make ends meet, upper management must find a way to increase efficiency or they will go under. Government, on the other hand, chooses who will pay, and how much. If they can't make ends meet, they have the additional choice to unilaterally "increase revenue" (taxes). Businesses can't do that (usually, unless there aught to be an anti-trust case).
Very true, but it's usually much more efficient to entirely shut down a program, and restart it from scratch. (It really shouldn't be, but it is.) The problem is in identifying and firing problem bureaucrats, and nobody is willing to do that. Instead, they slap them on the wrist, or transfer them around. Nothing ever changes.
There are a number of ways they do this. In some localities, all they need to do is fill out the voter registration form, lie about citizenship, and give a false SSN. (I don't know how common that is, but there have been places busted for permitting it.) Others register using a dead person's credentials. Some register using the credentials of someone from another state. I would even go so far as to guess that some expensive fake IDs come with forged government database entries.
All that's required in most places is a little creativity and the daring to do it. (Voter ID laws would only solve some of these.)
Oh come on, you accuse him of drinking the "cool aid" (sic) and then start spouting off this conspiracy nonsense about non-citizen voters and rigging elections?
Both major parties steal elections regularly. They consider it a part of the game.
Where is your evidence?
A variety of voting watchdog groups. The general public finds it esoteric and the media either can't figure out how to spin it into a frenzy, or they're just plain bought off. (probably the former, but I have no way to know.)
Why would the Democrats even risk such scandal in a state that reliably votes for them to begin with?
You've made a non-sequiter leap here. The Democrat party is opposing voting ID laws across the country, not just in California. And they do steal elections in California, when it's going to be close and they think it matters.
Stop listening to right-wing radio.
I don't. Not often, anyway. I've never heard them cover this topic.
They are poisoning your brain.
They're on par with most news, only they don't claim to be unbiased. As with anything, a variety of sources and opinions is to be preferred.
Oh it has nothing to do with identity. It has to do with politics.
It's truly unfortunate, but the word "racist" has developed two distinct and separate definitions. Only one of them has anything to do with race.
Racist (n)
1) Someone who unfairly dislikes or discriminates based on race. May or may not be a white male discriminating against a black person. May be a black person discriminating against a mexican national, for example.
2) A republican, or someone of republican leanings.
Do note how the Republicans started to co-opt the tea-party movement, and immediately there were accusations of racism. This is, of course, by definition.
(end sarcasm)
At least in California, there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be)...
The idea is that a poll watcher (a neighbor, for instance) could, at that time, say, "hey, that isn't John Smith who lives on Cherry Lane", triggering a provisional vote for that person. The provisional ballot has a signature on it and gets comared against the signature on file at the county.
Please stop drinking to cool aid. It's not healthy.
How many times is that going to happen? 0.01% of the time? Less? If it does happen, what's to keep the perp from signing a scribble, knowing that it may be thrown out, and move onto the next polling place to vote again? They're not going to be arrested on the spot, and there aren't cameras at polling places. Even if there were, there'd be no way to connect the ballot to the face on the camera. (There'd better not be!) There is simply no risk of getting caught.
What it's really about is permitting non-citizens to vote, and encouraging them to vote democrat. (and probably rigging the odd close race, though they have much more efficient ways to do that.) (California will give you an ID if you claim to be poor. Well, they discount it to $7 and the welfare office will give you cash. Close enough.)
Environmentalist who know nothing about nuclear power, storage, risk or containment are always given too much voice.
I agree with this. ...WAY too much voice.
Let the people who have the actual knowledge debate these issue, the rest of the public should just shut the hell up.
This is obviously wrong.
There are some environmentalists who actually know what their talking about, and some laymen who have intelligent ideas. Just because the tree huggers are given a spotlight is no reason to silence (or ignore) reasonable discussion from outside your field.
(In case you feel like splitting hairs: There's no truer way to find those with "actual knowledge" than to let them speak. Licencing, credentialing, diplomas, etc, are only ways to tell what a person ought to know. Their lack doesn't tell you a thing about what a person doesn't know.)
A director is not a low level manager, it is typically a senior management position or the lowest of the executive levels, and implies responsibility for a major business function.
Might I point out:
I'm being promoted to be a director of a computer/web services department at work with staff members (not yet hired) working under me. [emphasis added]
This sounds like a small, growing organization. Small outfits use the same glorified terms that large outfits do, but for less glorified positions. He might as well be a "team leader" for the next couple of years. Granted, this tends to expose "directors" more directly to customers, meaning a modicum of respectable dress is called for.
I can create something out of nothing ?
Well God did *that* some 6,000 years ago.
According to classical theology, which is totally unsubstantiated by biblical text. Just because it's been taught for more than a thousand years doesn't make it biblical.
You shouldn't be crawling under desks. The people you will be supervising should.
Woah! BUZZ! Wrong.
A low level manager (team leader) should do the work that he expects his team to do. It is the only way to earn their respect, and the best way to set a high standard of expectation. Even if extra responsibilities and meetings prevent him from engaging everyday, he should be participating for a couple of hours, several days a week.
True, but that's a minor problem compared to a disk that's spouting garbage. The Article doesn't address very well how it's dealing with that problem, but I think I can puzzle out the basic idea.
It's been a while since I've done it, but generally it's a one-time shot, and the drive will run till you power down.
Be ready to copy everything on your next boot! (preferably on a machine that has it's own primary HDD, not your dying drive)
*sigh*
epp_b brought up the context of backups against the theme of drive failure. I'm sorry that I didn't read the word "protect" in your post as availability and uptime. ("protect" seemed to imply integrity.) It just wasn't in the pre-existing context.
You have no idea how many people I've talked to who seem to believe RAID is a fancy backup mechanism. I know of one small business owner in particular who had RAID 5 on his office computer, but no backup regimen. He didn't even know that the first drive had failed till he had lost all his business records. People ask about it regularly, with no apparent knowledge of its inherent limitations. They seem to think it's magic (like "the cloud").
Maybe I'm predisposed to see this particular lunacy everywhere.
You might be interested in some of the data integrity features in ZFS
I am. I'm also given to understand that BTRFS is barking up that particular tree. (Though I haven't looked into it in a long time, and could easily be wrong.) I'm a little skeptical of mashing all of this into the file system level, but I'm not sure my fears are rational. It just feels like it ought to be easier to detect and fix problems if there were a separate RAID layer. They're probably concerned with performance, and I can't fault them there.
RAID does provides some redundancy, but it is NOT a backup method. I can't tell you the times I've seen/heard of RAID failure causing data loss. Of particular consequence are the drives that fail to store store and retrieve the correct data. Even RAID 5 and 6 can only reconstruct data if the drive reports a failure. If the drive is spitting out bad data, or failing to record data, it's gone.
RAID is primarily for performance. It only adds a smidgen of reliability.
(I keep waiting for someone to come out with a RAID 6 ECC standard. Yes, It would be slow, but it would be reliable. Sometimes that's desirable. I think some of the expensive RAID cards can do this, though I've never seen one.)
I've seen it work against the infamous "click of death", which I'm pretty sure is a different problem, but I like your explanation. Something's stuck those platters in place.
I'm going to preempt the unthinking masses out there and assume you meant the company you work for, and not the service provider.
Phones that are packaged in a service plan aren't "free".