Then you may be driving illegally. And when your assets go away, for whatever reason-- and you clobber someone with your car while driving, you've become irresponsible. You've also not contributed to the risk pool, causing it to be weaker for when it needs to be fatter.
Yes, I've been clobbered several times over my long life span. Not everything was covered. Twice, I've been hit by uninsured motorists with no assets. My insurance company paid a bit, but my coverage wasn't huge and didn't cover everything. In lieu of any coverage, however, it helped dramatically.
But this is anecdotal. Civility mandates taking responsibility. Yes, it seems like insurance companies (like telcos) are leeches. That said, denying real costs is foolhardy and greedy concurrently.
The world is full of desirability, but also the reality.
Risk pools are important. I don't want you driving around unless you assuage the risks by being insured. I promise not to do so, either- by paying my insurance and driving responsibly. There are others among us that don't do either. That's what's necessitated the laws that protect us from them.
Young people face big insurance bills. They also statistically have lots of accidents. So it goes-- that's actuarial science. Is it also a reason for mandatory driver's ed, as well as verified experience before going solo? Sure. But we both know parents that don't educate their children about what happens when you get stoned/drunk and then drive. Then it's too late. There are many like that-- and the risk pool costs bear this out.
If you can't afford it, you have to get a moped or otherwise pool the costs. Sad, but I'll take it. It it all rife for reform? Probably.
You need to read more about George Boole, and Boolean logic, which doesn't apply here.
Responsibility is often argumentative. The he-said/she-said world has to be rectified. Insurance coverage does this, largely. I dislike big brother. I dislike when a car pulled in front of a friend of mine who was riding a motorcycle, causing him to flatten the top of the driver's car with his face. The $100Ks+ that it took to fix his face wasn't his responsibility, it was the person that didn't look in her left-side mirror before cutting over in a lane. Her insurance paid. It assuaged the damage satisfactorily, as it should have. That's how risk pools work, and why insurance is needed.
No, really it's a civil issue. Ask your BMV. Insurance is a great gatekeeper. Yes, affording it is tough. So is health insurance. So is life insurance. You don't really need to have any of them, yet they collectively pool risk.
Should I have the ability to assess you by your eating habits, the amount of exercise you get, whether you drink, or sit behind a keyboard for too long? Or do I put you into a collective risk pool and pay for your health care from that pool? Auto insurance is similar, based on admittedly weird rules, but following things like behavior-- speeding tickets, DUIs, and so on. That's what risk pools are for, and why we need them.
Like so many different 'rights', the right to drive is one that's seemingly presumed. The right to free association and travel are guaranteed. The method of travel, however, is not. You did not have the right to fly, either. That's why the TSA can bounce you for non-cooperation at an airport.
So far as I know, in all 50 states, driving is a privilege. When you meet the tests of a driver's license, now required in all 50 states, you can 'legally' drive subject to your behavior and insurance (although insurance is state-dependent, not a federal requirement).
Ever heard of uninsured motorist riders to an insurance policy?
When someone hits *you*-- they're liable. There are no-fault jurisdictions, and those that have fault assigned. Should you be liable for damages to your car when you're rear-ended, have someone turn left in front of you, hit your parked car, etc?
If you or your assets are damaged by someone else, an uninsured motorist rider pays those. The person responsible for your damages is supposed to pay; that's how civil law works in the US and many other parts of the world.
Your insurance is also designed to pay for something you do to the other guy, as in slide in to him/her on an icy road, etc.
Your knowledge of how civil responsibility and insurance works needs a bit of an education.
Then you take public transportation, walk, ride a bike, catch a ride with someone.
You must take responsibility, which includes insurance, to drive a motorized vehicle. To not do so jeopardizes all of us. Civility mandates concern for everyone else. I'm insured. It costs a lot of money. Public transportation where I live sucks, and the layout of the city I live in clearly was designed for private vehicles in mind. Yes, it sucks. But I'm convinced that those that drive with insurance are time bombs. I have a motorcycle, an RV, and a truck, and a car. My insurance costs a lot of money, but not as much as your PLPD.
I don't believe your figures, unless you live in one of the gouging areas of the country-- and I recognize that there are areas where the costs are serious profit centers for insurance companies. Nonetheless, the price must be born or chaos ensues.
Imagine: you get hit by an uninsured motorist, and wind up in the hospital with serious injuries, miss work, maybe lose your job, have a totaled car, and are unable to climb out physically and financially.
Maybe no one was at fault. Maybe they were. As motorists lacking insurance statistically also lack assets, responsibility for one's actions are shirked.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Your actions bear responsibilities, no matter the boorishness of insurance companies and accident litigators.
This is desperation by a fat, overgrown bunch of boors to squish a smaller company thru litigation. This, my friends, is the act of a company that's very desperate. They can't rest on their "laurels" (read: guaranteed marketshare through bullying) any more, so they pull this out of their aforementioned hat.
Ballmer: if you're reading this, please advise your stockholders and the SEC that the backlash from this will hurt you and your credibility for years to come. My suggestion is to get a room on Paul's yacht, and get the hell out of Dodge.
There are statistical measures, and then there are qualitative measures. If quality counted, many different items would be in use today.
Microsoft had a unique historical lead, and a great idea in the original concept of Windows over DOS and MacOS. They squandered that. Yes, they're exceedingly rich in terms of dollars. For some, that's to be revered.
>>The vision at Microsoft has always been to try and reduce complexity.
If this was true, then what's more onerous is that they failed, and did so in repeated, dramatically awful ways. The competing divisions, the lack of inter-disciplinary leadership, confused market views, the lie of 'customer-focused' decision making are all what were embodied in Microsoft's decided failure. Add in the mix of tawdry business practices, lack of belief in criticism, and an insular greed-based nature, and it's not a wonder even Gates could see and feel and experience the ultimate dysfunction. And Windows 7 cures none of that, years after this message. Instead, it continues the Microsoft habituation of trailing edge technology, executed poorly as an excuse to the madness of Vista. Ballmer needs to find a real replacement for himself and get the hell out.
We would disagree. Look at what Project LiMux has done for Munich. While more code is good, quality code that stands the test of time and reuse is still better. Core components are ageless, and there's so much to be done. Subsidy is a reality-- we all have to eat.
Statistically, your impression of the speed of the market has left you behind. VMWare's lack of a VIClient for LInux notwithstanding (think demand in a hideously Windows world), VMWare and Xen have done an interesting job of grabbing attention and mindshare.
In my mind, the operating system model is in the process of being upended, and virtualization and the reasoning behind it will change the face of computing in a few years anyway. Look to organizations like FastScale and others to strip the crap out of OS instances and for container methodologies to develop atomic instance management. Then it's all appropriate KVM for device characteristics. Damn-- they do it for USB identification and provisioning, why not everything from wristwatches and mobiles up to the desktop?
The core drivers for virtualization have been platform test and piloting, experimentation, and server farm collapse-- not to mention application re-aggregation and client services aggregation. RH hasn't offered a cogent set of applications to do any of these things, relying on Xen where it can. Others have evolved fairly decent if mind-bogglingly expensive suites of products to do the real work of adding availability, management, audit, and event management components.
We'll see. It would be nice if they got off their dead asses and did something with the acquisition. They're four years behind the market. Only fanbois seem to defend silly behavior like that. Let's see, six market competitors, one with five years, two with four years, one with 2.5 years, and SunComeLately. Then RH. I wish them the very best of luck. It's a tough VM world out there. Just because it's RH and Linux KVM means little these days.
NOCs with 1000s of servers running tens of thousands of VMs, now that means something. Today, RH might be the hosted OS/VM, but Red Hat is responsible for virtualizing about zippo/nada/SFA/Zero/Huh-uh VMs. There's a long way to go for them, statistically. That lunch has been eaten, IMHO.
Didn't say one was necessarily better than the other, if you'll read my post. RH hasn't been a leader. They're playing ketchup right now.
As far as my 'ignorance' is concerned, take a real look at which each vendor is offering. Sun is also way behind in mindshare, and perfection of their offering, while solid, hasn't exactly captured mainstream fancy. Xen performance is absolutely different as currently provided/supported by each vendor, and that's well documented.
Novell's Xen seems to be slowest, while Citrix's XenServer is fastest where it counts. And each version is absolutely different than the next. It's like saying that a specific distro, because it's based on 2.6.XY must always be exactly like any other distro based on 2.6.XY. Indeed the Xen derivatives aren't based on the same version, and their performance results are completely different as well.
It's possible that libvirt might mature, might evolve, might go some place. Like all 'marketshares', it's late, buggy, not widely supported by communities and is unlikely to gain significant groundswell as there are at least five viable competitors already at work and maturing. I like RH, its community, and its other significant projects. But it ignored virtualization until it's now a game of serious catch-up where others have invested long and hard. The Microsoft cooperation is significant, but given the competition, it's almost moot, even if it's free. xVM/VB and the Xen derivatives are all essentially free and supported. VMWare's basic kit is free, although everyone wants to charge for the 'extras', even though those extras are incredibly important.
Is Xen proprietary? Only the above mentioned pieces which equate with libvirt. So 'compete and overtake' is going to be still tougher yet. RH has lost this one, sadly. Microsoft need only flip a few switches and everyone's back to the drawing board. Its cooperation is onerous, yet it's still the one that people use whether that's good or bad.
I wish RH luck. They'll need plenty of it. And so far, they've not been virtualization leaders in any manner of measure.
IF Red Hat had squat for mature virtualization, it might make a difference. RH is behind, way behind, and it's a nice gesture, good for the press, and RH has lost out to VMWare, Novell's Xen product line, Citrix's XenServer, and even xVM/VB.
It sounds sweet, but it's a meaningless sort of announcement in the face of a ton of mature competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you may be driving illegally. And when your assets go away, for whatever reason-- and you clobber someone with your car while driving, you've become irresponsible. You've also not contributed to the risk pool, causing it to be weaker for when it needs to be fatter.
Yes, I've been clobbered several times over my long life span. Not everything was covered. Twice, I've been hit by uninsured motorists with no assets. My insurance company paid a bit, but my coverage wasn't huge and didn't cover everything. In lieu of any coverage, however, it helped dramatically.
But this is anecdotal. Civility mandates taking responsibility. Yes, it seems like insurance companies (like telcos) are leeches. That said, denying real costs is foolhardy and greedy concurrently.
This is your concept, not mine.
The world is full of desirability, but also the reality.
Risk pools are important. I don't want you driving around unless you assuage the risks by being insured. I promise not to do so, either- by paying my insurance and driving responsibly. There are others among us that don't do either. That's what's necessitated the laws that protect us from them.
We agree.
Young people face big insurance bills. They also statistically have lots of accidents. So it goes-- that's actuarial science. Is it also a reason for mandatory driver's ed, as well as verified experience before going solo? Sure. But we both know parents that don't educate their children about what happens when you get stoned/drunk and then drive. Then it's too late. There are many like that-- and the risk pool costs bear this out.
If you can't afford it, you have to get a moped or otherwise pool the costs. Sad, but I'll take it. It it all rife for reform? Probably.
You need to read more about George Boole, and Boolean logic, which doesn't apply here.
Responsibility is often argumentative. The he-said/she-said world has to be rectified. Insurance coverage does this, largely. I dislike big brother. I dislike when a car pulled in front of a friend of mine who was riding a motorcycle, causing him to flatten the top of the driver's car with his face. The $100Ks+ that it took to fix his face wasn't his responsibility, it was the person that didn't look in her left-side mirror before cutting over in a lane. Her insurance paid. It assuaged the damage satisfactorily, as it should have. That's how risk pools work, and why insurance is needed.
No, really it's a civil issue. Ask your BMV. Insurance is a great gatekeeper. Yes, affording it is tough. So is health insurance. So is life insurance. You don't really need to have any of them, yet they collectively pool risk.
Should I have the ability to assess you by your eating habits, the amount of exercise you get, whether you drink, or sit behind a keyboard for too long? Or do I put you into a collective risk pool and pay for your health care from that pool? Auto insurance is similar, based on admittedly weird rules, but following things like behavior-- speeding tickets, DUIs, and so on. That's what risk pools are for, and why we need them.
Ask your bureau of motor vehicles for the answer to the question: is there a RIGHT to drive in ________ (your state)?
I'll bet you believe everything you read on the Internet.
See http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/archives/2007/12/28/the-right-to-drive/
Enjoy!
Like so many different 'rights', the right to drive is one that's seemingly presumed. The right to free association and travel are guaranteed. The method of travel, however, is not. You did not have the right to fly, either. That's why the TSA can bounce you for non-cooperation at an airport.
So far as I know, in all 50 states, driving is a privilege. When you meet the tests of a driver's license, now required in all 50 states, you can 'legally' drive subject to your behavior and insurance (although insurance is state-dependent, not a federal requirement).
This has NOTHING to do with illegal aliens in any way. Zero.
Ever heard of uninsured motorist riders to an insurance policy?
When someone hits *you*-- they're liable. There are no-fault jurisdictions, and those that have fault assigned. Should you be liable for damages to your car when you're rear-ended, have someone turn left in front of you, hit your parked car, etc?
If you or your assets are damaged by someone else, an uninsured motorist rider pays those. The person responsible for your damages is supposed to pay; that's how civil law works in the US and many other parts of the world.
Your insurance is also designed to pay for something you do to the other guy, as in slide in to him/her on an icy road, etc.
Your knowledge of how civil responsibility and insurance works needs a bit of an education.
Correction to the above-- those that drive without insurance are time bombs. Sorry.
Then you take public transportation, walk, ride a bike, catch a ride with someone.
You must take responsibility, which includes insurance, to drive a motorized vehicle. To not do so jeopardizes all of us. Civility mandates concern for everyone else. I'm insured. It costs a lot of money. Public transportation where I live sucks, and the layout of the city I live in clearly was designed for private vehicles in mind. Yes, it sucks. But I'm convinced that those that drive with insurance are time bombs. I have a motorcycle, an RV, and a truck, and a car. My insurance costs a lot of money, but not as much as your PLPD.
I don't believe your figures, unless you live in one of the gouging areas of the country-- and I recognize that there are areas where the costs are serious profit centers for insurance companies. Nonetheless, the price must be born or chaos ensues.
Uh, no.
Your quotation is specious. You do have the right to walk, and travel freely. You don't have the right to drive a motorized vehicle.
I'm with the insurance companies in this case.
Imagine: you get hit by an uninsured motorist, and wind up in the hospital with serious injuries, miss work, maybe lose your job, have a totaled car, and are unable to climb out physically and financially.
Maybe no one was at fault. Maybe they were. As motorists lacking insurance statistically also lack assets, responsibility for one's actions are shirked.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Your actions bear responsibilities, no matter the boorishness of insurance companies and accident litigators.
Mod parent up.
The crappy thing is that only the dogmatic try to do something a third time and expect different results. Something about Einstein and insanity.
Orthodoxy in the face of real truths is an appalling sight.
This is desperation by a fat, overgrown bunch of boors to squish a smaller company thru litigation. This, my friends, is the act of a company that's very desperate. They can't rest on their "laurels" (read: guaranteed marketshare through bullying) any more, so they pull this out of their aforementioned hat.
Ballmer: if you're reading this, please advise your stockholders and the SEC that the backlash from this will hurt you and your credibility for years to come. My suggestion is to get a room on Paul's yacht, and get the hell out of Dodge.
Let the boycott begin!
There are statistical measures, and then there are qualitative measures. If quality counted, many different items would be in use today.
Microsoft had a unique historical lead, and a great idea in the original concept of Windows over DOS and MacOS. They squandered that. Yes, they're exceedingly rich in terms of dollars. For some, that's to be revered.
>>The vision at Microsoft has always been to try and reduce complexity.
If this was true, then what's more onerous is that they failed, and did so in repeated, dramatically awful ways. The competing divisions, the lack of inter-disciplinary leadership, confused market views, the lie of 'customer-focused' decision making are all what were embodied in Microsoft's decided failure. Add in the mix of tawdry business practices, lack of belief in criticism, and an insular greed-based nature, and it's not a wonder even Gates could see and feel and experience the ultimate dysfunction. And Windows 7 cures none of that, years after this message. Instead, it continues the Microsoft habituation of trailing edge technology, executed poorly as an excuse to the madness of Vista. Ballmer needs to find a real replacement for himself and get the hell out.
We would disagree. Look at what Project LiMux has done for Munich. While more code is good, quality code that stands the test of time and reuse is still better. Core components are ageless, and there's so much to be done. Subsidy is a reality-- we all have to eat.
Statistically, your impression of the speed of the market has left you behind. VMWare's lack of a VIClient for LInux notwithstanding (think demand in a hideously Windows world), VMWare and Xen have done an interesting job of grabbing attention and mindshare.
In my mind, the operating system model is in the process of being upended, and virtualization and the reasoning behind it will change the face of computing in a few years anyway. Look to organizations like FastScale and others to strip the crap out of OS instances and for container methodologies to develop atomic instance management. Then it's all appropriate KVM for device characteristics. Damn-- they do it for USB identification and provisioning, why not everything from wristwatches and mobiles up to the desktop?
The core drivers for virtualization have been platform test and piloting, experimentation, and server farm collapse-- not to mention application re-aggregation and client services aggregation. RH hasn't offered a cogent set of applications to do any of these things, relying on Xen where it can. Others have evolved fairly decent if mind-bogglingly expensive suites of products to do the real work of adding availability, management, audit, and event management components.
We'll see. It would be nice if they got off their dead asses and did something with the acquisition. They're four years behind the market. Only fanbois seem to defend silly behavior like that. Let's see, six market competitors, one with five years, two with four years, one with 2.5 years, and SunComeLately. Then RH. I wish them the very best of luck. It's a tough VM world out there. Just because it's RH and Linux KVM means little these days.
NOCs with 1000s of servers running tens of thousands of VMs, now that means something. Today, RH might be the hosted OS/VM, but Red Hat is responsible for virtualizing about zippo/nada/SFA/Zero/Huh-uh VMs. There's a long way to go for them, statistically. That lunch has been eaten, IMHO.
Didn't say one was necessarily better than the other, if you'll read my post. RH hasn't been a leader. They're playing ketchup right now.
As far as my 'ignorance' is concerned, take a real look at which each vendor is offering. Sun is also way behind in mindshare, and perfection of their offering, while solid, hasn't exactly captured mainstream fancy. Xen performance is absolutely different as currently provided/supported by each vendor, and that's well documented.
Novell's Xen seems to be slowest, while Citrix's XenServer is fastest where it counts. And each version is absolutely different than the next. It's like saying that a specific distro, because it's based on 2.6.XY must always be exactly like any other distro based on 2.6.XY. Indeed the Xen derivatives aren't based on the same version, and their performance results are completely different as well.
It's possible that libvirt might mature, might evolve, might go some place. Like all 'marketshares', it's late, buggy, not widely supported by communities and is unlikely to gain significant groundswell as there are at least five viable competitors already at work and maturing. I like RH, its community, and its other significant projects. But it ignored virtualization until it's now a game of serious catch-up where others have invested long and hard. The Microsoft cooperation is significant, but given the competition, it's almost moot, even if it's free. xVM/VB and the Xen derivatives are all essentially free and supported. VMWare's basic kit is free, although everyone wants to charge for the 'extras', even though those extras are incredibly important.
Is Xen proprietary? Only the above mentioned pieces which equate with libvirt. So 'compete and overtake' is going to be still tougher yet. RH has lost this one, sadly. Microsoft need only flip a few switches and everyone's back to the drawing board. Its cooperation is onerous, yet it's still the one that people use whether that's good or bad.
I wish RH luck. They'll need plenty of it. And so far, they've not been virtualization leaders in any manner of measure.
IF Red Hat had squat for mature virtualization, it might make a difference. RH is behind, way behind, and it's a nice gesture, good for the press, and RH has lost out to VMWare, Novell's Xen product line, Citrix's XenServer, and even xVM/VB.
It sounds sweet, but it's a meaningless sort of announcement in the face of a ton of mature competition.