It would seem to me, that if there was a juicy number (think a $400 haircut), that we'd have seen that number by now. But perhaps not. And I'm also willing to cry foul at either party's ludicrous expenditure(s).
I wonder if the parties would roll out just exactly how much they spend on what. A fat PDF would be sufficient, don't you think? Maybe a spreadsheet? The mind reels.
We'll agree that the purpose of helping others is constantly thwarted by corruption. It's nice to have means, I don't have any jealousy of anyone else's. Rather, it's time to change the process, and it can be done. It takes vision to change the habits of governments, as well as the people. It takes governments that are willing to spread information about birth control and help provide the means to educate the populace, and to elevate the worth of life beyond just 'something else that died'. There is hope; there is action. Combined, one at a time, there's a better future that's bereft of the inequity that kills a child every eight seconds, 24/7.
I know what realistic expenses are. No one has to ride in the steerage class; and $150K is too much money for a wardrobe. If she needed that much work, it seems an awfully strained selection.
Both candidates also have their own fleets of aircraft, a huge carbon waste. One more than the other, pays lip service to this incredulous use of resources. I'm voting to that one, as the other one would veritably bask in it, and is accustomed to it.
His charity sucked. But his sense that shareholders get the best possible return on assets rendered is the point.
If he gets to St Peter's Gates and gets rejected for his lack of charity, then so be it. If you invested in Sam, you got a return without the fatuous, self-aggrandizing/self-enriching management contingent present today. I'll take that honesty and hard working ideal rather than stupendously insane market cap and lots of fat toys. Google is too big, given even this morning's disaster on Wall Street.
How much HAS Obama spent? Got a number? How about Obama AND Biden?
$150,000 on clothes is a huge number, campaign or not. Imelda Marcos comes to mind. Brutal. This isn't TV, this is wardrobe. Television advertising time isn't a shopping spree at Neiman Marcus.
I'm not 'you folks'. Get over an independent opinion-- mine.
Let's presuppose that global warming is true. Tell me the efficiency of two fellows hopping in their little 767, and its carbon footprint. And all of the other execs that believe themselves so self-important that they must also do so (think Larry, John Travolta, and the long list).
I have a motorbike. It's 125cc. Gets me around. Smallish footprint. Great mileage. But I understand there's rational justification for larger vehicles. I have a family van that transports five of us on holidays to my in-laws, and occasionally is used to haul large items. It sits, otherwise.
Spending money isn't a bad thing, and they're not 'bad' guys for doing so. Is charity a penance paid for outlandish consumption? I don't think so. It's done because we have a responsibility to those that have less than we do.
I'm not embittered by Google cash blasts, nor am I jealous. It was always my belief that stewards of invested monies should make the best use of them. The self-important uses can be understood, to a point. A 767 is past that point, as is a $150K wardrobe.
Toys are another thing altogether. The aphorism that 'he with the most/best toys when he dies wins' has launched enormous waves of reckless frivolity when there are 10,000 children dying of malnutrition every DAY (source: Kofi Anan's speech on World Hunger Day this past month).
Rewards are what motivates us. These aren't rewards, these are aristocracy in the making, and American principalities.
It's very easy to pounce on her for having the RNC spend $150,000 on a freaking wardrobe. This isn't Barbie we're dressing here, it's an Alaskan governor that ought to have already had a wardrobe for that office. Even the top women execs I know don't have a budget like that. It takes her from where she was to some sort of 'star' status, rather than a prudent user of political funds. I wonder aloud if they'd have paid for a boob job should she have needed one.
Hmmmm. And Sarah Palin's $150,000 was also good fiscal prudence, too?
What happened with Sam Walton driving a pickup truck?
And special landing rights at Moffet? Can't go a few extra miles out of SJA? Oh, right, it needs to be near their little Boeing something.
Great corporate stewardship. And if they join Larry at Oracle, that's guilt by association.
Not intended as flame. Intended as an observation of prima facia conspicuous consumption that smacks of aristrocracy in a country that soundly, firmly, and with my ancestor's blood-- rejected aristocracy.
Snowballs are making it through hell, is what I believe was implied. Pigs are flying.
AD must not be the holy grail anymore, but I'm not complaining. Openness to the FOSS community isn't a Microsoft trait, but as long as they have this deal with Novell/SUSE that's making them a mint, why not try and make it work? After all, they can look inside SAMBA with no obstacles to learn about their own code.
It's actually interesting, and definetly an 'LA' IP way of looking at things, not that I think it will work.
I think it's time we took a look at other bad things, and banned their logos, too--> AiG, Lehmann Brothers, Alan Greenspan, and perhaps a few others... perhaps enough to choke a web page with names of people that would get a lot of derision.
And that's why this is unlikely to work, but I'm going to enjoy watching the battle.
If you source the original term 'RAID', it goes to an ACM article describing Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks. In RAID 0, which is actually a marketing term, there's striping, but no redundancy that can infer the contents of a missing member of the array. From the perspective of availability, it has none. As you cite, RAID 1 is a mirrored pair, usually the same type of drive, and it also is likely the fastest RAID-- and most expensive in terms of available net data after redundancy for availability. There is also no RAID 6...10, as these are marketing terms, too.
RAID 0 is only redundancy, and doesn't do anything to protect data in any way beyond what the file system might do. RAID 1, or mirrored drives, is costly (2x drives). RAID5 permits one drive (min 3, but more is desirable and effective) to fail. Above RAID 5, the ACM paper that initially described all this, sayeth not, but it's generally a hot-spare.
We have several T; we back it up on an occasional basis to a slower drive array and it takes time. Subsequent backups are only delta, and it's surprisingly a small amount of data that needs backingup. We keep ISOs ready to go, too, in case we need to burn local laptops or servers-- online-- ready for PxE boot.
If someone steals the SAN, we have a backup and an insurance agent. Fortunately, it's not AIG.
I suppose we'll have to forget about the domestic terrorism in OK City. Or the terrorism in the Phillipines. Or Columbia. Or Bolivia, or Argentina, and gosh, the rest of S America. Forget about Africa, too. Maybe the Tamils will surrender peacefully. Maybe the Hindus will stop fighting. Will the IRA cease fire-- really? How about the Basque?
In each case, there's a group that fights the rule of law and with unrestricted, murderous violence.
Your argument is about civility underneath. Without civility, we can't be sure that something will blow up. Letting the Middle East stew behind a wall isn't going to solve anything. For some, the mere fact that you exist as an infidel is all that's rationalized to murder you in cold blood.
Will the insane backlash of western fear make it any easier to travel about freely? You've seen the results.
Otherwise, Rothke is the wrong guy to do this sycophantic, uncritical review of Scheier'w work. To Rothke, Shneier's feces have no scent, whether in fact they do or not.
Building a long-term successful governance infrastructure takes decades and decades. It needs to be flexible to meet the changing needs of the time. Warring tribes (oops, I mean EU constituent countries) need time to absorb and re-shape things. One failure isn't the end, it's the beginning.
Perhaps the EU Constitution was Byzantine. At least it's a start, rather than the hubris and narcissism of governmental superiority.
The one-world-government rubric is in a way, hate speech, and is designed to polarize. International governance is something quite different. That the US refuses to participate in international laws of many kind, and uses world trade onerously, I'd say that the rubric has infected many, perhaps yourself.
As far as ad hominems are concerned, the fact that I speak directly to your character as a seeming defender of rightist inflamatory diatribe, seems to disturb you. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize, but I get the feeling I'm likely right.
Governance and cooperation are strange things, in that we must submit to them in a civilized existence. I've seen the fear-based rightist rubrics bubble up time and again. They're ill-examined, and debase civil people each time they're raised. You needn't fear governance, you need to take an active part in it to make it successful. On the original poster's citation, there's a great premise involved. The one-world-governance fear rubric then rears its ugly head, and therefore shuts down the validity of all subsequent discussion. Fie.
The 'one world government' lip fart is a distractive ruse designed to debase thinking that effects all of us. It's a distraction that goes back in origin to the John Birch Society, a ultra-radical right-wing batch of people that also aided the anti-flouride rouse, tried to impeach Earl Warren, and so on. It's a BS contention that's carefully calculated to debase the thought of international controls.
You can continue to switch nouns, but people are willing to put up with a lot of onerous behavior, which I consider this to be, so long as they're not inconvenienced. Somehow exposing this wart on an otherwise nicely evolving set of applications draws attention to this evil.
It would also be nice if they made their own mail system stable, but that's another story.
Here, let's change the proper nouns and read it all again:
"Microsoft's not locking you out of your hardware, unlike Apple. If they use the kill switch, they're ding it on their own service. A service you bought into, if you decide to add your app to the Microsoft Marketplace...."
Somehow, you trust Google. Google can at its whim, altruistic, mistakenly so, or because they've lost sight of the 'do no harm' ethic, blip your apps, and access to the data you've accumulated. This, ostensibly for the sake of a '"stable"' app repository. We don't agree. Fie on their ability to (arbitrarily or not) to do this. It's onerous, dangerous, and puts too much power at the hands of Google.
Let's say for a moment that someone cracks into Google's switch headquarters. Gee, Ernie, look at this! Let's have some fun. How about killing the contact book of say, Paris Hilton! That sounds fun, eh? How about this IP address range? Or better still, all the twits in Milwaukee, 'cause as we all know, they're drunk and would simply throw their little Android phones against the wall!
No. There's flawed logic and control-freakness at work here. Resist the urge to submit to your Google Overloards.
Slashdot Mirror
It would seem to me, that if there was a juicy number (think a $400 haircut), that we'd have seen that number by now. But perhaps not. And I'm also willing to cry foul at either party's ludicrous expenditure(s).
Interesting!
I wonder if the parties would roll out just exactly how much they spend on what. A fat PDF would be sufficient, don't you think? Maybe a spreadsheet? The mind reels.
We'll agree that the purpose of helping others is constantly thwarted by corruption. It's nice to have means, I don't have any jealousy of anyone else's. Rather, it's time to change the process, and it can be done. It takes vision to change the habits of governments, as well as the people. It takes governments that are willing to spread information about birth control and help provide the means to educate the populace, and to elevate the worth of life beyond just 'something else that died'. There is hope; there is action. Combined, one at a time, there's a better future that's bereft of the inequity that kills a child every eight seconds, 24/7.
Both seem injudicious. Please explain the altar.
I know what realistic expenses are. No one has to ride in the steerage class; and $150K is too much money for a wardrobe. If she needed that much work, it seems an awfully strained selection.
Both candidates also have their own fleets of aircraft, a huge carbon waste. One more than the other, pays lip service to this incredulous use of resources. I'm voting to that one, as the other one would veritably bask in it, and is accustomed to it.
His charity sucked. But his sense that shareholders get the best possible return on assets rendered is the point.
If he gets to St Peter's Gates and gets rejected for his lack of charity, then so be it. If you invested in Sam, you got a return without the fatuous, self-aggrandizing/self-enriching management contingent present today. I'll take that honesty and hard working ideal rather than stupendously insane market cap and lots of fat toys. Google is too big, given even this morning's disaster on Wall Street.
Clinton is of no consequence.
How much HAS Obama spent? Got a number? How about Obama AND Biden?
$150,000 on clothes is a huge number, campaign or not. Imelda Marcos comes to mind. Brutal. This isn't TV, this is wardrobe. Television advertising time isn't a shopping spree at Neiman Marcus.
I'm not 'you folks'. Get over an independent opinion-- mine.
...It's not illegal...
Let's presuppose that global warming is true. Tell me the efficiency of two fellows hopping in their little 767, and its carbon footprint. And all of the other execs that believe themselves so self-important that they must also do so (think Larry, John Travolta, and the long list).
I have a motorbike. It's 125cc. Gets me around. Smallish footprint. Great mileage. But I understand there's rational justification for larger vehicles. I have a family van that transports five of us on holidays to my in-laws, and occasionally is used to haul large items. It sits, otherwise.
Spending money isn't a bad thing, and they're not 'bad' guys for doing so. Is charity a penance paid for outlandish consumption? I don't think so. It's done because we have a responsibility to those that have less than we do.
I'm not embittered by Google cash blasts, nor am I jealous. It was always my belief that stewards of invested monies should make the best use of them. The self-important uses can be understood, to a point. A 767 is past that point, as is a $150K wardrobe.
Toys are another thing altogether. The aphorism that 'he with the most/best toys when he dies wins' has launched enormous waves of reckless frivolity when there are 10,000 children dying of malnutrition every DAY (source: Kofi Anan's speech on World Hunger Day this past month).
Rewards are what motivates us. These aren't rewards, these are aristocracy in the making, and American principalities.
It's very easy to pounce on her for having the RNC spend $150,000 on a freaking wardrobe. This isn't Barbie we're dressing here, it's an Alaskan governor that ought to have already had a wardrobe for that office. Even the top women execs I know don't have a budget like that. It takes her from where she was to some sort of 'star' status, rather than a prudent user of political funds. I wonder aloud if they'd have paid for a boob job should she have needed one.
It's imprudent, and grandiose.
That's a fact. And when he was alive, he lived an unostentatious life, as have many entrepreneurs.
I did.
Nothing like a little government money.
Hmmmm. And Sarah Palin's $150,000 was also good fiscal prudence, too?
What happened with Sam Walton driving a pickup truck?
And special landing rights at Moffet? Can't go a few extra miles out of SJA? Oh, right, it needs to be near their little Boeing something.
Great corporate stewardship. And if they join Larry at Oracle, that's guilt by association.
Not intended as flame. Intended as an observation of prima facia conspicuous consumption that smacks of aristrocracy in a country that soundly, firmly, and with my ancestor's blood-- rejected aristocracy.
Snowballs are making it through hell, is what I believe was implied. Pigs are flying.
AD must not be the holy grail anymore, but I'm not complaining. Openness to the FOSS community isn't a Microsoft trait, but as long as they have this deal with Novell/SUSE that's making them a mint, why not try and make it work? After all, they can look inside SAMBA with no obstacles to learn about their own code.
There are lots of flat spaces in Canada. Think of a link between TO and Montreal. Or Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, and Winnepeg.
Calgary to Vancouver would be a bitch, but I like driving the route anyway, or taking a slow train; such lovely scenery.
And by the time one considers the Air Canada subsidy taxes, you could finance mag levs from Halifax to Prince George.
Someone's fishing for consulting revenue during hard times.
Too bad his karma's in the krapper as a result.
It's actually interesting, and definetly an 'LA' IP way of looking at things, not that I think it will work.
I think it's time we took a look at other bad things, and banned their logos, too--> AiG, Lehmann Brothers, Alan Greenspan, and perhaps a few others... perhaps enough to choke a web page with names of people that would get a lot of derision.
And that's why this is unlikely to work, but I'm going to enjoy watching the battle.
If you source the original term 'RAID', it goes to an ACM article describing Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks. In RAID 0, which is actually a marketing term, there's striping, but no redundancy that can infer the contents of a missing member of the array. From the perspective of availability, it has none. As you cite, RAID 1 is a mirrored pair, usually the same type of drive, and it also is likely the fastest RAID-- and most expensive in terms of available net data after redundancy for availability. There is also no RAID 6...10, as these are marketing terms, too.
RAID 0 is only redundancy, and doesn't do anything to protect data in any way beyond what the file system might do. RAID 1, or mirrored drives, is costly (2x drives). RAID5 permits one drive (min 3, but more is desirable and effective) to fail. Above RAID 5, the ACM paper that initially described all this, sayeth not, but it's generally a hot-spare.
We have several T; we back it up on an occasional basis to a slower drive array and it takes time. Subsequent backups are only delta, and it's surprisingly a small amount of data that needs backingup. We keep ISOs ready to go, too, in case we need to burn local laptops or servers-- online-- ready for PxE boot.
If someone steals the SAN, we have a backup and an insurance agent. Fortunately, it's not AIG.
As a certain Comedy Central host once said: Taliban is Taliban!
Sure. That'll help.
I suppose we'll have to forget about the domestic terrorism in OK City. Or the terrorism in the Phillipines. Or Columbia. Or Bolivia, or Argentina, and gosh, the rest of S America. Forget about Africa, too. Maybe the Tamils will surrender peacefully. Maybe the Hindus will stop fighting. Will the IRA cease fire-- really? How about the Basque?
In each case, there's a group that fights the rule of law and with unrestricted, murderous violence.
Your argument is about civility underneath. Without civility, we can't be sure that something will blow up. Letting the Middle East stew behind a wall isn't going to solve anything. For some, the mere fact that you exist as an infidel is all that's rationalized to murder you in cold blood.
Will the insane backlash of western fear make it any easier to travel about freely? You've seen the results.
Otherwise, Rothke is the wrong guy to do this sycophantic, uncritical review of Scheier'w work. To Rothke, Shneier's feces have no scent, whether in fact they do or not.
Building a long-term successful governance infrastructure takes decades and decades. It needs to be flexible to meet the changing needs of the time. Warring tribes (oops, I mean EU constituent countries) need time to absorb and re-shape things. One failure isn't the end, it's the beginning.
Perhaps the EU Constitution was Byzantine. At least it's a start, rather than the hubris and narcissism of governmental superiority.
The one-world-government rubric is in a way, hate speech, and is designed to polarize. International governance is something quite different. That the US refuses to participate in international laws of many kind, and uses world trade onerously, I'd say that the rubric has infected many, perhaps yourself.
As far as ad hominems are concerned, the fact that I speak directly to your character as a seeming defender of rightist inflamatory diatribe, seems to disturb you. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize, but I get the feeling I'm likely right.
Governance and cooperation are strange things, in that we must submit to them in a civilized existence. I've seen the fear-based rightist rubrics bubble up time and again. They're ill-examined, and debase civil people each time they're raised. You needn't fear governance, you need to take an active part in it to make it successful. On the original poster's citation, there's a great premise involved. The one-world-governance fear rubric then rears its ugly head, and therefore shuts down the validity of all subsequent discussion. Fie.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Your question can't be answered because it's a rubric of rightist spew-think.
The 'one world government' lip fart is a distractive ruse designed to debase thinking that effects all of us. It's a distraction that goes back in origin to the John Birch Society, a ultra-radical right-wing batch of people that also aided the anti-flouride rouse, tried to impeach Earl Warren, and so on. It's a BS contention that's carefully calculated to debase the thought of international controls.
You can continue to switch nouns, but people are willing to put up with a lot of onerous behavior, which I consider this to be, so long as they're not inconvenienced. Somehow exposing this wart on an otherwise nicely evolving set of applications draws attention to this evil.
You trust google too much.
It's not theirs to make "stable".
It would also be nice if they made their own mail system stable, but that's another story.
Here, let's change the proper nouns and read it all again:
"Microsoft's not locking you out of your hardware, unlike Apple. If they use the kill switch, they're ding it on their own service. A service you bought into, if you decide to add your app to the Microsoft Marketplace...."
Somehow, you trust Google. Google can at its whim, altruistic, mistakenly so, or because they've lost sight of the 'do no harm' ethic, blip your apps, and access to the data you've accumulated. This, ostensibly for the sake of a '"stable"' app repository. We don't agree. Fie on their ability to (arbitrarily or not) to do this. It's onerous, dangerous, and puts too much power at the hands of Google.
Let's say for a moment that someone cracks into Google's switch headquarters. Gee, Ernie, look at this! Let's have some fun. How about killing the contact book of say, Paris Hilton! That sounds fun, eh? How about this IP address range? Or better still, all the twits in Milwaukee, 'cause as we all know, they're drunk and would simply throw their little Android phones against the wall!
No. There's flawed logic and control-freakness at work here. Resist the urge to submit to your Google Overloards.