Alternative: build your own private cloud out of the smallest servers you can find that still suit your need. I did so: a private cloud on HP Microserver (gen 8). The things consume almost no power when idle. Taken together, they provide quite the computing power ( 64 cores, Xeon E3 ) and quite the storage (32 TB). Cost me around € 450 in electric power per year. Am not dependent on Azure or Amazon. Use no bandwidth when doing cloudy things.
In Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa (I traveled both of them extensively), internet cafes are very often shoddy affairs, with impossibly old PCs running sometimes Windows 95 or Windows 98. But then again... I once went for a 4x4-wheel drive deep into the Mauritanian desert, with a friend who lives there. After about 200 kilometers, in the middle of only sand dunes, we met a family of nomads. They crowded around our pickup truck,and the first thing they asked: "Do you have any phone credit for sale?!?" (The closest cell mast was 160 kilometers away). Fond memory...
Ah, and here are lessons #2 and #3. Lesson #2: save 10% of what you earn, if you can (if you can't, save whatever you can ). Lesson #3: only cash and gold are money. A balance on a bank account is not real money. Stock isn't, either. Nor are governments bonds or loans to other people. All these things representmonetary value, and may one day be converted to money. They may also evaporate.
Disagree. Expenses such as airline tickets and car rentals are to me, being an independent engineer, things I should be able to finance immediately out of my own pocket. Being able to do so is the result of sane financials. Running up debt for such things, even if it is short-term debt, is an unnecessary complication and inevitably has a cost. Short-term debt is only financial leverage iff it helps to secure a major deal that otherwise I could not have secured. Which has not happened until now. I learned all my financial planning from my mum, who managed to run our 2-children, 2-adult household from the income of a simple beekeeper, paying off the mortgage on a house in the process. Lesson #1: don't run up debts for consumption goods or services, ever. Ever. It has served me well.
don't use credit cards. I don't. I pay cash. Car rentals, hotels, flights. Besides the fact that I don't incur debt - as "paying" with a credit card is actually paying with borrowed money - no data can be leaked. Sure, I am European and live in Europe. When I slap down € 2000 on the desk of a car rental company, I can drive away with a VW Golf. In the US it's virtually impossible to live without a credit card. Which demonstrates the sickness of the whole system, IMHO.
don't think it's possible to maintain this half-assed state the EU is in right now indefinitely.
Neither do most of us, European citizens (if I read the serious media and various polls correctly, ).
We'll hit another speedbump, and the EU will fly apart.
Not necessarily. A "speedbump" might as well lead to tighter integration. It's as it is with real speedbumps: they *do damage you and your car badly, if you drive over them with 140 km/h. If you drive over them with 20 km/h, they may lead you to permanently alter your driving behaviour in *that street.
Exactly. My ex-girlfriend, a US-born Latina living in Virginia, resorted to that as well. She'd rather relocate to the West Coast and find a new job there, than undergo the hassle and degrading, even humiliating procedures in US airports when flying. And she was a very prettyLatina.
Nope. Sorry, but that is plain batshit wrong (spoiler: I am a European citizen of country A, member state of the EU, living in country B, also an EU member state). We have no common head of state - only a president of the European Commission, whose function is not even close to that of a head of state. We have no federal laws - we only have regulation which member states "translate" into their own laws. We have not even begun to integrate our military; we're talking about a common border patrol force of about 2000 strong, and this is - for the moment - only talk. Now, if you ask as to whether I would like to have a common head of state, and federal European law, and a common military.... I would rather be in favour of it, with (probably) a totally new system of checks and balances. Many of my fellow Europeans, especially the lower socio-economic "classes", are rabidly against it. But that is another discussion.
I use neither Siri nor any Apple product. Besides that, I don't *speak to computers. Nor do I chat with them. Speech & chat are communication forms for human beings.
..what I need to do, as a European, before being able to get into the US: get a ticket, and better pay that with a credit card (if I pay cash, officials at the airport will ask the hell out of me why I paid cash and annoy me with a very tough security check), pay with a credit card some entry fee, at least 3 days ahead of travelling. Let DHS pat me down upon arrival. Of all these things, only getting a ticket makes sense to me, the rest is security-craze-inspired overhead. Solution: I don't travel to the US anymore. My life is easier that way. If a US-based customer wants to meet, tough luck. I now have as solid a reason not to fly to the US anymore as I have not to go to Saudi Arabia, although the nature of the reason is different. Well done, America !
As a systems and software architect by profession, I'll chime in. My metric for success is the satisfaction of all of four constraints:
1. system must be desirable by user (here, fill in words as "content", "happy", "enthusiastic", "prepared to pay if necessary")
2. system must be affordable
3. system must be feasible to the builder
4. system must be certifiable (which is more than just "testable")
Now I think it is not hard to see that Linux-as-a-desktop-system easily meets #2 and #3. As to meeting #4, many private users will not care much about it; I certainly don't, not for private use. I consider Linux' history and ongoing development by enthusiastic developers as a strong indication of certifiability, and that suffices - for private use. As to #1, Linux may not seem desirable to many private users who are currently on Windows. This may be a question of marketing more than anything else. Personally, I switched to Linux years ago, doing all my work and all my private stuff on it (besides a Solaris system which I keep for nostalgic reasons, Solaris was my first great love). After the switch to Linux, I never looked back. I rummaged through distributions and tried quite some, then settled for one particular combination that suits my needs (Linux Mint with xfce). What did I get? An infinitely customizable, tunable system that is rock-solid, for which there are tools for any task imaginable on a computer. (The one Windows laptop I have is for working with those customers whose eyes glaze over at the mention of the word "Linux".)
Video recognition. This Vienna-based company is called SailLabs. I'm sort of acquainted with the CTO, and got a demo once. Pretty awesome. They can analyze hundreds of video streams in near-real time.
I do agree we're not going to agree. Probably not before the Earth's magnetic field changes polarity. And even then. I do appreciate the conversation, however. It gives me (some) insight into how otherwise perfectly normal people can defend a stance considered inacceptable in my culture / place / state. Conversations of this caliber (pun intended) are rare on Slashdot. And yes - the similarity in backgrounds is a nice example of the kind of irony one will only find in real life, not in a novel.
I was going to be polite, and answer you on your private email. However, after this reply, I'll do it in public. You merit it.
First as to my alleged cowardice. Although the insult doesn't hurt at all, I'm going to rectify this. I served for five years in the French Foreign Legion, in its toughest regiment: 2 REP ( 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment ), as légionnaire nr 173531. I took part in operations in the desert in Chad, the Centrafrican Republic and on the Comores (where we kicked mercenary king Bob Denard from the islands). Do we agree this settles the cowardice argument, and that I am very well to be trusted with a firearm ? ( After the Legion, I studied mathematics, and then got a second degree in software engineering, which is how I ended up on Slashdot. )
Second as to freedom. You seem to define freedom as "the possibility to do whatever I wish". That is philosophically hardly defensible. The best definition of freedom, IMHO, and one accepted by many philosophers and political thinkers, is: "Freedom is the acceptance of necessity". As to liberties - these are guaranteed by laws, both by a country's constitution and the laws based upon it. There is hardly any link between freedom and liberties, as legislation may grant you any liberty ( or take any liberty away from you ) without altering your freedom. Hegel said it more beautifully than I can: "An individual may be free in spite of being in the bonds of iniquity". So - no, no and no: ownership of property is NOT a cornerstone of freedom. The cornerstones of freedom are: a sane mind, education and at least a foundation of morals.
Third as to fear. I fail to see how European-style arms legislation is based upon fear. An average citizen of a European country is not more afraid of firearms than an average US citizen is. There are shooting clubs, and if you absolutely want to possess a firearmd, you can do so through a shooting club - iff you fulfil the legal requirements: you must be an adult without a criminal record and without a history of psychological disorders. Want to hunt ? Idem ditto. And no, you will NOT be allowed ( at least not here in Austria ) to have both your weapon AND ammunition at home. Why not ? Because of the possible consequences. We regularly read about children, even toddlers, in the US, killing themselves or someone else because mommy or daddy committed the stupidity of having firearms AND ammunition in the house. Moreover, we don't want you to kill e.g. a burglar. We want the burglar before a court. So no, firearms are not "outlawed" here: they are heavily regulated. And a majority of Europeans see a country like the USA as a sort of hell, of which firearms are certainly a part.
Fourth, as to "bombing your entire civilization". That is a non-argument. Moreover, it is a diversion from the main topic of discussion, and hence irrelevant. Spoiler: I was born in 1967, and never took part in any world war. I AM, however, a staunch defender of the European Union, IMHO the greatest and largest-scale peace project ever launched ( and, up to today, a successful one, too ).
Fifth, and almost last, as to "everything has a cost". If you say that firearms are the cost of whatever, well you then undermine your own argument by portraying them as something negative, whereas until now you glorified both firearms and your possession of them.
Sixth, and concluding, as to the attitude of many Americans towards firearms: it looks suspiciously like an addiction. Addicted persons will say - and do !! - anything to both justify and maintain their use of the addictive substance. Addiction lowers a person's morals, and I do, indeed, think that you are a person of addiction-induced questionable morality, albeit a rather intelligent one.
There should be two tiers of healthcare. One is what the government funds, which should be things that a person couldn't reasonably prevent, congenital/genetic disorders mostly, or diseases with unknown causes. For other things, people should be allowed to choose whether they want coverage or to take the risk, and insurance companies certainly should be able to choose to deny people with risky lifestyles (smokers, people who partake in extreme sports, etc.) That's a lifestyle choice, and it should not be supported by those who choose to take care of themselves by avoiding these things (as well as exercise frequently and eat well).
That is what we have in Europe **grin** sou you are implicitly conceding a point you were opposed to earlier in this discussion. You do make, however, an important conceptual error. "The government" does not fund healthcare - it is the citizens themselves who fund healthcare, with their own contributions. The state, at the utmost, fills up the deficit, should one arise. But then again, you seem not to realize that "the state" is not an entity outside of yourself. You yourself are a part of the state.
As to to guns and Australia, Australia is not an island. It is a continent which happens to be one and only one country, relying heavily upon foreign trade. And your "Mexican border" argument does not hold, as it contradicts your earlier argument that "there are simply so many guns inside of the USA. You can't blame on "the Mexicans" or "the drug smugglers" what you, in your own country, fail to control, it being already there: guns.
I've thought that more than once - "the Americans are in a dead-end street with their 2nd amendment, and it would take amazing political courage and willpower to change that..."
Here you are. As an intelligent person, you'll certainly not fail to notice that, after most Central- and South American countries, the USA tops the list - by far.
That is diversion of attention from the main topic of discussion (gun control). You don't even address the point made. As rhetorically effective as a filibuster.
If you buy in to universal health care, it is not up to the individual to decide what the health insurance shall cover. That is a political process (at least here in Europe), and hence such discussions are made by elected representatives, with support by experts. Your argument is does not take into account the collective good, only your ( (mis-)perceived ) personal benefit.
As to guns, you make another classic stance against improvement, be it tiny: "Won't work, can't work". Really ? Did you try it, in your district / county / state ? Look at the Australians - it DID work there. Look at us in Europe. And worry about it ? I would, if the children of my fellow citizens were regularly killed by such a totally preventable stupidity. Even if I have (chosen to have) no children. You are a part of the larger whole you live in, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Alternative: build your own private cloud out of the smallest servers you can find that still suit your need. I did so: a private cloud on HP Microserver (gen 8). The things consume almost no power when idle. Taken together, they provide quite the computing power ( 64 cores, Xeon E3 ) and quite the storage (32 TB). Cost me around € 450 in electric power per year. Am not dependent on Azure or Amazon. Use no bandwidth when doing cloudy things.
In Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa (I traveled both of them extensively), internet cafes are very often shoddy affairs, with impossibly old PCs running sometimes Windows 95 or Windows 98. But then again... I once went for a 4x4-wheel drive deep into the Mauritanian desert, with a friend who lives there. After about 200 kilometers, in the middle of only sand dunes, we met a family of nomads. They crowded around our pickup truck,and the first thing they asked: "Do you have any phone credit for sale?!?" (The closest cell mast was 160 kilometers away). Fond memory...
Ah, and here are lessons #2 and #3. Lesson #2: save 10% of what you earn, if you can (if you can't, save whatever you can ). Lesson #3: only cash and gold are money. A balance on a bank account is not real money. Stock isn't, either. Nor are governments bonds or loans to other people. All these things representmonetary value, and may one day be converted to money. They may also evaporate.
Disagree. Expenses such as airline tickets and car rentals are to me, being an independent engineer, things I should be able to finance immediately out of my own pocket. Being able to do so is the result of sane financials. Running up debt for such things, even if it is short-term debt, is an unnecessary complication and inevitably has a cost. Short-term debt is only financial leverage iff it helps to secure a major deal that otherwise I could not have secured. Which has not happened until now. I learned all my financial planning from my mum, who managed to run our 2-children, 2-adult household from the income of a simple beekeeper, paying off the mortgage on a house in the process. Lesson #1: don't run up debts for consumption goods or services, ever. Ever. It has served me well.
€2000 = deposit. Also, here in Europe, I can pay in cash for hotels and tickets, no problemo.
don't use credit cards. I don't. I pay cash. Car rentals, hotels, flights. Besides the fact that I don't incur debt - as "paying" with a credit card is actually paying with borrowed money - no data can be leaked. Sure, I am European and live in Europe. When I slap down € 2000 on the desk of a car rental company, I can drive away with a VW Golf. In the US it's virtually impossible to live without a credit card. Which demonstrates the sickness of the whole system, IMHO.
don't think it's possible to maintain this half-assed state the EU is in right now indefinitely.
Neither do most of us, European citizens (if I read the serious media and various polls correctly, ).
We'll hit another speedbump, and the EU will fly apart.
Not necessarily. A "speedbump" might as well lead to tighter integration. It's as it is with real speedbumps: they *do damage you and your car badly, if you drive over them with 140 km/h. If you drive over them with 20 km/h, they may lead you to permanently alter your driving behaviour in *that street.
Exactly. My ex-girlfriend, a US-born Latina living in Virginia, resorted to that as well. She'd rather relocate to the West Coast and find a new job there, than undergo the hassle and degrading, even humiliating procedures in US airports when flying. And she was a very prettyLatina.
Nope. Sorry, but that is plain batshit wrong (spoiler: I am a European citizen of country A, member state of the EU, living in country B, also an EU member state). We have no common head of state - only a president of the European Commission, whose function is not even close to that of a head of state. We have no federal laws - we only have regulation which member states "translate" into their own laws. We have not even begun to integrate our military; we're talking about a common border patrol force of about 2000 strong, and this is - for the moment - only talk. Now, if you ask as to whether I would like to have a common head of state, and federal European law, and a common military.... I would rather be in favour of it, with (probably) a totally new system of checks and balances. Many of my fellow Europeans, especially the lower socio-economic "classes", are rabidly against it. But that is another discussion.
Being an emacs aficionado myself, I find this the funniest remark on slashdot this year. But hey - there's eight days to go, yet.
I use neither Siri nor any Apple product. Besides that, I don't *speak to computers. Nor do I chat with them. Speech & chat are communication forms for human beings.
And I already do feel so penetrated by their ads.....
Some people know how to dress well, ya know... It's not hist fault if you are a conformist.
messaging apps and chatbots threaten Google's role as the Internet's premier discovery engine
I mean, wtf??
..what I need to do, as a European, before being able to get into the US: get a ticket, and better pay that with a credit card (if I pay cash, officials at the airport will ask the hell out of me why I paid cash and annoy me with a very tough security check), pay with a credit card some entry fee, at least 3 days ahead of travelling. Let DHS pat me down upon arrival. Of all these things, only getting a ticket makes sense to me, the rest is security-craze-inspired overhead. Solution: I don't travel to the US anymore. My life is easier that way. If a US-based customer wants to meet, tough luck. I now have as solid a reason not to fly to the US anymore as I have not to go to Saudi Arabia, although the nature of the reason is different. Well done, America !
As a systems and software architect by profession, I'll chime in. My metric for success is the satisfaction of all of four constraints:
1. system must be desirable by user (here, fill in words as "content", "happy", "enthusiastic", "prepared to pay if necessary")
2. system must be affordable
3. system must be feasible to the builder
4. system must be certifiable (which is more than just "testable")
Now I think it is not hard to see that Linux-as-a-desktop-system easily meets #2 and #3. As to meeting #4, many private users will not care much about it; I certainly don't, not for private use. I consider Linux' history and ongoing development by enthusiastic developers as a strong indication of certifiability, and that suffices - for private use. As to #1, Linux may not seem desirable to many private users who are currently on Windows. This may be a question of marketing more than anything else. Personally, I switched to Linux years ago, doing all my work and all my private stuff on it (besides a Solaris system which I keep for nostalgic reasons, Solaris was my first great love). After the switch to Linux, I never looked back. I rummaged through distributions and tried quite some, then settled for one particular combination that suits my needs (Linux Mint with xfce). What did I get? An infinitely customizable, tunable system that is rock-solid, for which there are tools for any task imaginable on a computer. (The one Windows laptop I have is for working with those customers whose eyes glaze over at the mention of the word "Linux".)
Video recognition. This Vienna-based company is called SailLabs. I'm sort of acquainted with the CTO, and got a demo once. Pretty awesome. They can analyze hundreds of video streams in near-real time.
I do agree we're not going to agree. Probably not before the Earth's magnetic field changes polarity. And even then. I do appreciate the conversation, however. It gives me (some) insight into how otherwise perfectly normal people can defend a stance considered inacceptable in my culture / place / state. Conversations of this caliber (pun intended) are rare on Slashdot. And yes - the similarity in backgrounds is a nice example of the kind of irony one will only find in real life, not in a novel.
I was going to be polite, and answer you on your private email. However, after this reply, I'll do it in public. You merit it.
First as to my alleged cowardice. Although the insult doesn't hurt at all, I'm going to rectify this. I served for five years in the French Foreign Legion, in its toughest regiment: 2 REP ( 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment ), as légionnaire nr 173531.
I took part in operations in the desert in Chad, the Centrafrican Republic and on the Comores (where we kicked mercenary king Bob Denard from the islands).
Do we agree this settles the cowardice argument, and that I am very well to be trusted with a firearm ?
( After the Legion, I studied mathematics, and then got a second degree in software engineering, which is how I ended up on
Slashdot. )
Second as to freedom. You seem to define freedom as "the possibility to do whatever I wish". That is philosophically hardly defensible.
The best definition of freedom, IMHO, and one accepted by many philosophers and political thinkers, is:
"Freedom is the acceptance of necessity". As to liberties - these are guaranteed by laws, both by a country's constitution and
the laws based upon it. There is hardly any link between freedom and liberties, as legislation may grant you any liberty
( or take any liberty away from you ) without altering your freedom. Hegel said it more beautifully than I can:
"An individual may be free in spite of being in the bonds of iniquity". So - no, no and no: ownership of property is NOT a cornerstone of freedom.
The cornerstones of freedom are: a sane mind, education and at least a foundation of morals.
Third as to fear. I fail to see how European-style arms legislation is based upon fear. An average citizen of a European country is
not more afraid of firearms than an average US citizen is. There are shooting clubs, and if you absolutely want to possess a firearmd,
you can do so through a shooting club - iff you fulfil the legal requirements: you must be an adult without a criminal record and without
a history of psychological disorders. Want to hunt ? Idem ditto. And no, you will NOT be allowed ( at least not here in Austria ) to have
both your weapon AND ammunition at home. Why not ? Because of the possible consequences. We regularly read about children, even toddlers, in the US,
killing themselves or someone else because mommy or daddy committed the stupidity of having firearms AND ammunition in the house. Moreover,
we don't want you to kill e.g. a burglar. We want the burglar before a court. So no, firearms are not "outlawed" here: they are heavily
regulated. And a majority of Europeans see a country like the USA as a sort of hell, of which firearms are certainly a part.
Fourth, as to "bombing your entire civilization". That is a non-argument. Moreover, it is a diversion from the main topic of discussion, and hence irrelevant. Spoiler: I was born in 1967, and never took part in any world war. I AM, however, a staunch defender of the European Union, IMHO the greatest and largest-scale peace project ever launched ( and, up to today, a successful one, too ).
Fifth, and almost last, as to "everything has a cost". If you say that firearms are the cost of whatever, well you then undermine your own argument
by portraying them as something negative, whereas until now you glorified both firearms and your possession of them.
Sixth, and concluding, as to the attitude of many Americans towards firearms: it looks suspiciously like an addiction. Addicted persons
will say - and do !! - anything to both justify and maintain their use of the addictive substance. Addiction lowers a person's morals,
and I do, indeed, think that you are a person of addiction-induced questionable morality, albeit a rather intelligent one.
QED.
You seem to associate the private possession (and use) of firearms with freedom. How... odd.
There should be two tiers of healthcare. One is what the government funds, which should be things that a person couldn't reasonably prevent, congenital/genetic disorders mostly, or diseases with unknown causes. For other things, people should be allowed to choose whether they want coverage or to take the risk, and insurance companies certainly should be able to choose to deny people with risky lifestyles (smokers, people who partake in extreme sports, etc.) That's a lifestyle choice, and it should not be supported by those who choose to take care of themselves by avoiding these things (as well as exercise frequently and eat well).
That is what we have in Europe **grin** sou you are implicitly conceding a point you were opposed to earlier in this discussion. You do make, however, an important conceptual error. "The government" does not fund healthcare - it is the citizens themselves who fund healthcare, with their own contributions. The state, at the utmost, fills up the deficit, should one arise. But then again, you seem not to realize that "the state" is not an entity outside of yourself. You yourself are a part of the state.
As to to guns and Australia, Australia is not an island. It is a continent which happens to be one and only one country, relying heavily upon foreign trade. And your "Mexican border" argument does not hold, as it contradicts your earlier argument that "there are simply so many guns inside of the USA. You can't blame on "the Mexicans" or "the drug smugglers" what you, in your own country, fail to control, it being already there: guns.
I've thought that more than once - "the Americans are in a dead-end street with their 2nd amendment, and it would take amazing political courage and willpower to change that..."
Here you are. As an intelligent person, you'll certainly not fail to notice that, after most Central- and South American countries, the USA tops the list - by far.
That is diversion of attention from the main topic of discussion (gun control). You don't even address the point made. As rhetorically effective as a filibuster.
If you buy in to universal health care, it is not up to the individual to decide what the health insurance shall cover. That is a political process (at least here in Europe), and hence such discussions are made by elected representatives, with support by experts. Your argument is does not take into account the collective good, only your ( (mis-)perceived ) personal benefit.
As to guns, you make another classic stance against improvement, be it tiny: "Won't work, can't work". Really ? Did you try it, in your district / county / state ? Look at the Australians - it DID work there. Look at us in Europe. And worry about it ? I would, if the children of my fellow citizens were regularly killed by such a totally preventable stupidity. Even if I have (chosen to have) no children. You are a part of the larger whole you live in, after all.