I know the film changed how I think about some things. The most powerful scene for me was when the members of the Congressional Black Caucus got up to protest the official certification of the 2000 election, and not single senator (i.e., white guys) would stand up for them.
I believed that racism was something that our leaders wanted to stamp out. Now, I think that outrage by white politicians over racism is largely feigned. They don't really care, but they want to look like they do (or to not look like they don't). After the 2000 election, the way the wind was blowin', you were some whining liberal who couldn't get over it if you were still calling for recounts and contesting the results. So no senator wanted to risk that to stand up for what was a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise black voters in Florida.
I believed the networks were primarily lazy for not picking up many of the stories that aren't told. This scene in Congress, which I had not seen before, made me realize that even when the story is right in front of their faces, the media *chooses* the news very carefully. They had collectively decided to support the 2000 election results. To show protest by black congressmen and a lack of support by their white colleagues might have opened a Pandora's box.
Right. It can actually be cheaper to replace a part than to perform any kind of diagnostic test to see whether the part is working or the cause of the problem. When it costs $100 in labor to diagnose a $15 part, economics says train someone to replace the $15 part for $20, and you just saved $65-80.
Parts are cheap. Labor is expensive. Use less skilled labor for less time to just swap components, and you come out ahead.
The UPS thing is just the next lowest-hanging fruit. It's expensive for on-site service. It's expensive to run programs where dealers perform warranty work (not to mention all the fraud that goes on with that). Logistics is the place where a lot of money can be saved.
UPS is in the logistics business; this may be a smart strategic move for them. They have a great system for moving things around, and many businesses depend on putting material things together in the same place, which can be a costly thing. UPS offers economy of scale, and can extend their system easily to provide that service -- businesses save and UPS makes money.
Yes, there's potential for abuse. However, the FCC has a history for being more fair about issues than private enterprise would. That's the point -- property owners would do everything they could to abuse their power by restricting/putting toll booths up for wireless access. If the FCC were to be dissolved, to whom would the rights to control go? Do you want to put the electromagnetic spectrum in the hands of NikeWalmartCocaColaMicrosoft?
One analogy I would make to this approach is for the police to say, look, let us come in your homes and do whatever we need to. Give us full access and authority to keep your homes clear of criminal activity, and society will be a completely safe place. You won't need locks on your doors or windows, or have to secure your property or person in any way. You don't have to worry about being pickpocketed, so carry around whatever valuables you wish. Feel free to venture into dark alleys.
The reality is, of course, that even if it would be desireable to have a policeman walking his beat through your living room, it's not possible to keep up with all the activity in a free society to be able to prevent it. Crime happens. So put locks on your doors. Be aware of your surroundings. Don't make yourself a target.
In the same way, it is unrealistic to say to users, look, we've got this relatively open network that allows almost anyone to connect, so let us police your machines and nothing bad will happen. It's better to say, this network is a pretty chaotic place, and anything could be out there. You need to protect yourself and take responsibility for your property. Put a firewall in place. Know what ports are open on your machine. Have an updated anti-virus scanner. And so on. Know what software you have and be cautious about installing programs.
If the attitude of educational institutions is not to teach people how to be responsible on computer networks, can we hope for anyone to learn it anywhere?
Technology cannot cure crime or sociopathic behavior. The same level of technology used to prevent and punish the current modes of attack is being used to develop the next generation of attack. Until education becomes a fundamental principle for network security, there will never be a shortage of victims.
When a RAID 5 array loses a disk, performance is severely affected, as each "read" to the missing disk must be calculated by reading the same sector from every disk and caclulating the parity.
Actually, RAID 5 distributes the parity across all the disks. RAID 3 would have to calculate parity for every read (unless, of course, you lost the parity drive). So for RAID 5, you only need to calculate parity for 1/N of the disk reads. Still, performance will be degraded, but not quite to the same level as RAID 3.
I think where it crosses the line is that the ISP has a legal responsiblity/liability for the content. So are they acting on behalf of the government when they take down a site? Is it really "voluntary" action when an ISP can be legally liable if they don't act immediately? How much different is this than direct government action?
is a dangerous, dangerous slide into the sort of polarity we see in the United States today.
No, it isn't, you worthless jerk! All free-speech hippie-type people like you say that, but you're a bunch of useless fools who we could all live without.
Then I realized it was just poor people who were getting ripped off. Whew! I mean, if NEC doesn't do it, some payday loan place or another scam artist will anyway.
I am at TechEd this week and saw the keynote and the session on sql 2005 where they demo'ed the encryption feature. It appears to work by implementing what are essentially external libraries for encryption. The example shown used DES encryption.
The integrated encryption has the benefit of automatically decrypting for users who are configured for access, and left encrypted for those who don't.
But what happens if the innovating companies go away? What happens if nobody bothers with R&D? Who will Linspire rip off then?
dunno...SCO?
Re:No such thing as a "virtual church"
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 1
Purpose Driven Life is "junk theology?"
No, I would classify it as pulp theology -- it's not incorrect, it's just that it's watered down compared to truedevotionalclassics. It's just enough to make people feel holy for reading it without actually compelling them to change their life. PDL should have "for entertainment purposes only" stamped on the cover. Prayer of Jabez is junk theology.
No such thing as a "virtual church"
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:35.
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Acts 2:42-47
These two passages, while not giving the complete picture, give a window into what a church is supposed to look like. In America, churches act like vendors of religious goods and services -- just a worldly business like any other. The early church lived more like a commune than a McJesus'. But today, a virtual church is only the logical extension of the modern church business model.
The fact that anyone would be willing to call this a church shows how corrupted the definition of church has become. A church is a group of people who are willing to sacrifice their lives for God, for one another, and for the good of the world. A church is a group of people who choose to live their lives in true community, not hiding behind suburbia. A group of people who choose to live with values completely different from those of a greedy, callous, militaristic, mechanized society. The hospital is an invention of the church when it was the church, when people and communities freely opened up their homes to the sick, poor, and homeless. Today we have conferences, retreats, and other pseudo-religous claptrap (not to mention junk and pulp theology like Prayer of Jabez or Purpose Driven Life).
So this web site is not a church. That's not the real surprise. But guess what? That stone building down the street where people go on Sunday to munch bagels and gossip? That's not a church either. It's a fraud. It's a country club disguised as a religious institution. It exists only for itself and is more about excluding people than including them.
So I suppose that Apple's interpretation of fair use is the only correct one?
I, for one, welcome our new fair-use overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a respected member of the slashdot community, I can be helpful in rounding up others who think they have the right to decide for themselves where their fair use rights lie.
Wow, that's pretty thin. But let's assume it is a real possibility. What are the employee vetting procedures of closed-source companies? How do we know terrorists aren't working for Microsoft? If I were a terrorist, I think I would rather go the route of working for closed source in order to insert my devious code. There isn't a public review of my code, and apparently, important decision-makers seem to want to blindly trust closed-source companies while being hyper-suspicious of publicly-available open source code.
What people seem to forget as well is that terrorism is a moving target. One of the the things terrorists try to do is exploit weaknesses in the system. If open-source/Linux development had a history of rolling out changes with little review or testing, then I could see there being a case for concern. But where is the weakness right now? Closed source! Partly because of attitudes like this. You can't trust open source, but you can trust closed source. So who would the terrorists try to exploit? They aren't going to use open-source if it is going to be heavily scrutinized. Not to mention the outsourcing of development, which only reduces the ability of employers to know who is really working for them.
What's the difference with open-source? I think that it's simple -- your code is your identity. I don't care who you are, I care what you are contributing. You can tell me what a great patriot you are and show me all sorts of credentials, but if you submit crappy code, you aren't worth any more than someone who submits the same code anonymously. You will have to endure the same peer review, your code will have to perform just as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I believed that racism was something that our leaders wanted to stamp out. Now, I think that outrage by white politicians over racism is largely feigned. They don't really care, but they want to look like they do (or to not look like they don't). After the 2000 election, the way the wind was blowin', you were some whining liberal who couldn't get over it if you were still calling for recounts and contesting the results. So no senator wanted to risk that to stand up for what was a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise black voters in Florida.
I believed the networks were primarily lazy for not picking up many of the stories that aren't told. This scene in Congress, which I had not seen before, made me realize that even when the story is right in front of their faces, the media *chooses* the news very carefully. They had collectively decided to support the 2000 election results. To show protest by black congressmen and a lack of support by their white colleagues might have opened a Pandora's box.
Parts are cheap. Labor is expensive. Use less skilled labor for less time to just swap components, and you come out ahead.
The UPS thing is just the next lowest-hanging fruit. It's expensive for on-site service. It's expensive to run programs where dealers perform warranty work (not to mention all the fraud that goes on with that). Logistics is the place where a lot of money can be saved.
UPS is in the logistics business; this may be a smart strategic move for them. They have a great system for moving things around, and many businesses depend on putting material things together in the same place, which can be a costly thing. UPS offers economy of scale, and can extend their system easily to provide that service -- businesses save and UPS makes money.
Yes, there's potential for abuse. However, the FCC has a history for being more fair about issues than private enterprise would. That's the point -- property owners would do everything they could to abuse their power by restricting/putting toll booths up for wireless access. If the FCC were to be dissolved, to whom would the rights to control go? Do you want to put the electromagnetic spectrum in the hands of NikeWalmartCocaColaMicrosoft?
The reality is, of course, that even if it would be desireable to have a policeman walking his beat through your living room, it's not possible to keep up with all the activity in a free society to be able to prevent it. Crime happens. So put locks on your doors. Be aware of your surroundings. Don't make yourself a target.
In the same way, it is unrealistic to say to users, look, we've got this relatively open network that allows almost anyone to connect, so let us police your machines and nothing bad will happen. It's better to say, this network is a pretty chaotic place, and anything could be out there. You need to protect yourself and take responsibility for your property. Put a firewall in place. Know what ports are open on your machine. Have an updated anti-virus scanner. And so on. Know what software you have and be cautious about installing programs.
If the attitude of educational institutions is not to teach people how to be responsible on computer networks, can we hope for anyone to learn it anywhere?
Technology cannot cure crime or sociopathic behavior. The same level of technology used to prevent and punish the current modes of attack is being used to develop the next generation of attack. Until education becomes a fundamental principle for network security, there will never be a shortage of victims.
oh, I just thought he was using a perverted form of "perverted", like seks, pr0n, etc.
Hell, just replace communist with terrorist and you're ready to go!
No, of course not. They can just get that from the text of your e-mails.
Actually, RAID 5 distributes the parity across all the disks. RAID 3 would have to calculate parity for every read (unless, of course, you lost the parity drive). So for RAID 5, you only need to calculate parity for 1/N of the disk reads. Still, performance will be degraded, but not quite to the same level as RAID 3.
http://robotiq.com/index.asp?category=orac
I think where it crosses the line is that the ISP has a legal responsiblity/liability for the content. So are they acting on behalf of the government when they take down a site? Is it really "voluntary" action when an ISP can be legally liable if they don't act immediately? How much different is this than direct government action?
No, it isn't, you worthless jerk! All free-speech hippie-type people like you say that, but you're a bunch of useless fools who we could all live without.
oh, wait, that proves your point. hmm...
Then I realized it was just poor people who were getting ripped off. Whew! I mean, if NEC doesn't do it, some payday loan place or another scam artist will anyway.
The integrated encryption has the benefit of automatically decrypting for users who are configured for access, and left encrypted for those who don't.
dunno...SCO?
No, I would classify it as pulp theology -- it's not incorrect, it's just that it's watered down compared to true devotional classics. It's just enough to make people feel holy for reading it without actually compelling them to change their life. PDL should have "for entertainment purposes only" stamped on the cover. Prayer of Jabez is junk theology.
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Acts 2:42-47
These two passages, while not giving the complete picture, give a window into what a church is supposed to look like. In America, churches act like vendors of religious goods and services -- just a worldly business like any other. The early church lived more like a commune than a McJesus'. But today, a virtual church is only the logical extension of the modern church business model.
The fact that anyone would be willing to call this a church shows how corrupted the definition of church has become. A church is a group of people who are willing to sacrifice their lives for God, for one another, and for the good of the world. A church is a group of people who choose to live their lives in true community, not hiding behind suburbia. A group of people who choose to live with values completely different from those of a greedy, callous, militaristic, mechanized society. The hospital is an invention of the church when it was the church, when people and communities freely opened up their homes to the sick, poor, and homeless. Today we have conferences, retreats, and other pseudo-religous claptrap (not to mention junk and pulp theology like Prayer of Jabez or Purpose Driven Life).
So this web site is not a church. That's not the real surprise. But guess what? That stone building down the street where people go on Sunday to munch bagels and gossip? That's not a church either. It's a fraud. It's a country club disguised as a religious institution. It exists only for itself and is more about excluding people than including them.
Can't understand how they passed that deal up.
So I suppose that Apple's interpretation of fair use is the only correct one?
I, for one, welcome our new fair-use overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a respected member of the slashdot community, I can be helpful in rounding up others who think they have the right to decide for themselves where their fair use rights lie.
What people seem to forget as well is that terrorism is a moving target. One of the the things terrorists try to do is exploit weaknesses in the system. If open-source/Linux development had a history of rolling out changes with little review or testing, then I could see there being a case for concern. But where is the weakness right now? Closed source! Partly because of attitudes like this. You can't trust open source, but you can trust closed source. So who would the terrorists try to exploit? They aren't going to use open-source if it is going to be heavily scrutinized. Not to mention the outsourcing of development, which only reduces the ability of employers to know who is really working for them.
What's the difference with open-source? I think that it's simple -- your code is your identity. I don't care who you are, I care what you are contributing. You can tell me what a great patriot you are and show me all sorts of credentials, but if you submit crappy code, you aren't worth any more than someone who submits the same code anonymously. You will have to endure the same peer review, your code will have to perform just as well.