The same thing will happen when the price of oil skyrockets. Continuing the addiction to fossil fuels is a dead end road, no matter whether you accept AGW or not. At the very least, we should be taxing the living fuck out of energy companies, or giving them a carrot if they invest a substantial amount of their profits into alternative energies, because when the price of a barrel of oil becomes too high, it isn't just your car that grinds to a halt, but agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and a thousand manufacturing processes that either rely on long-chain hydrocarbons for fuel or as the raw material.
In fact, using fossil fuels as energy is possibly the most moronic thing you can do with those long chain hydrocarbons, and our descendants will be pissing on our graves for wasting them in SUVs and jet airplanes.
I think we should have but one regulation. If your oil company fouls up the environment, your CEO, senior management, the board of directors, and the top ten investors are taken out and shot (and if the investor is another company, then you start with their board and their management).
I think you'd probably have significantly fewer problems if the guys at the top knew a bullet waited for them if they contaminated groundwater, or say, a big fucking chunk of the Gulf of Mexico.
With polling still barely able to crack 40 percent, it's extremely unlikely that Scotland will vote for independence. And before you bring up SNP's successes, a quick look at Quebec tells you that a vote for a secessionist party is not a vote for secession. As much as anything SNP's success in the last election has much more to do with the collapse of Labour support in Scotland than with any particular desire for independence. Two of every three Scots still wants to remain part of the UK.
I find the statement "... or should they consider the realities of science, where people advocate for their own theories far more than they question them?" kind of leading and biased in its own right. To be sure researchers will advocate their theories, but that does not mean they don't question them. Someone has a chip on their shoulder.
In other words an end to centralized policy. If that's the case I suggest the mobile OS designers do a lot more to lock down devices. If an enterprise is to lose considerable authority over devices that connect to its network, then the powers left to it should be considerable. Enterprises are being forced to tolerate devices on their networks that in many cases are very weak compared to their desktop cousins.
AD works fine for me with road warrior notebooks. They connect via VPN, the VPN network segments having their own DC so the VPN becomes another "site". It's really nice for rolling out updates, making sure configuration settings are all in order and creating what the experience we feel important for those who work out of the office. Most important of all, it's the ability to enforce security settings.
To this point, mobile devices have got away with things by only being limited-use devices; basically you check your corporate email and calendar. But if you're talking about moving to the next step, with devices that can more directly access network resources like file shares, then why shouldn't network admins be able to apply group policies to these devices?
I love these catchphrases. Reading the documentation, all BYOD seemst to mean is that they can operate in a Windows-for-workgroups mode, caching authentication and being smart enough to pass it on to domain servers. Through the magic of marketing, a capability that has been in consumer grade Windows operating systems for sixteen or seventeen years now suddenly is The New Hot Thing!
That appears to be no different than the capacity of Home editions of Windows operating systems to work on AD domains because the "Home" client will cache the credentials and pass it on to the domain-connected host (heck, I've done it with a Samba domain member that will act as an authentication broker pass on authentication of non-domain workstations to a domain controller those work stations can't even see). Absolutely nothing new about that, and authentication is only a part of it. We're talking about GPOs here, about automating configurations, about site-based configurations, and so on and so forth.
I realize that tablets are not PCs, but I could well see the value of putting them on there own OUs and rolling out GPO settings for printers, shares, encryption settings and the like. Nothing I've seen about Windows RT suggests to me that it has the least advantage over an Android or Apple tablet. The one area where Microsoft has the higher ground, where they could create devices that would have a marked advantage over the competition, and all they do is basically supply the same abilities the competition does. I thought Microsoft was inevitably losing ground on the consumer front, I had no idea they were going to end up damaging themselves in the enterprise.
But the underling OS is portable and has been for 20 years. All the enterprise functionality is user land, written in c or c++ so should be trivial to recompile to ARM.
It really was the first of its kind. Yes, Osbourn had a "portable" computer, which stretched the definition heavily, but the Model 100, well it was pretty much the first laptop.
I do. My first computer was a TRS-80 MC-10 (a sort of little brother to the CoCo that run a 6803, where I did my first assembly language experiments). The first actual code I wrote was on a Commodore 64 and I mucked around with Integer BASIC on Apple II's at school. And OS9 definitely rocked, and BASIC-09 is still for me the best structured BASIC variant ever developed. I'd take my Pascal programming class at school and with relative ease port the code I wrote over to BASIC-09.
In the Ron Paulite religion, gold is a sacred and mystical metal that can stave off recessions and makes economies unsinkable. Ron Paulites could be described as something of precious metal fetishists.
And that's really the issue. As populations rise and the need for water and arable land increases, not to mention that it's awfully hard to hide catastrophic policies that kill tens of thousands (or in the case of the Great Leap Forward millions), the cost of extraction is going to rise. We are also likely going to have grabbed the cheaper sources of metals at some point, and as those prices keep rising, the economics of mining asteroids will become more viable.
The whole point behind developing concepts is that when the technology and economic conditions reach that point, well, you have something in your back pocket. I realize lots of Slashdotters seem to have this "Dig/mine/drill no matter the fuck what!" and seem tragically disinterested, or even hostile towards anyone who is trying to solve the problem from another direction.
The Heartland Institute has victimized enough scientists in multiple areas of research that I'm sure they'll survive such an attack, if what you say is true.
No kidding. This is not the same situation. Any way you look at it, getting Google to be the default search engine on a fresh Windows install takes more steps than Bing. In fact, it's a testament to how badly Microsoft is doing in the browser and search markets that it still can't get past distant second in search and people in increasing numbers are moving to Chrome.
In other words it's not because of Google's monopoly that its search has been so successful but because Microsoft's monopoly is failing.
I suspect an investigation into journalistic fraud would be far more fruitful. But I tend to agree with you, only because only those miserable fuckers at the Heartland Institute would spread around a lie like "retraction == fraud".
Who isn't a scientist and doesn't publish in journals, so has nothing to retract from them. You might as well say "I've been saying this for years about Ron Jeremy".
Indeed. I'm beginning to suspect these claims of widespread fraud have more to do with some pretty bizarre metrics on the part of those making the claim. It makes great headlines, but I think there's something rather fishy about it.
The Japanese were the aggressors in WWII. Ask the Koreans, the Chinese, and all the other people of region. At any rate, they had no hope of winning. Yes, they could have cost a lot of Allied lives, but sooner or later they were done. They had no way of propping up their industrial capacity, and even with two A-bombs gone, a conventional bombing campaign would have wiped out what was left of its industrial capacity, not to mention killing hundreds of thousands in the process.
The Emperor saw the writing on the wall. He knew that if they refused the unconditional surrender, Japan would be knocked back to the Stone Age, and everything the country had struggled to do from the Meiji Period on would be destroyed. He took the only sane approach, it was his government that had lost its wits and believed it still had any meaningful capacity to negotiate.
They will be thinking that when the German public and German artists start screaming at them for pulling the plug on Youtube. It's a self-destructive move. Google can afford to sit on its ass, and let GEMA self-destruct itself.
Hardly a massive loss, considering Germany is only a small fraction of the total customer base. And it's GEMA's alleged constituency who would be suffering as they would no longer have access, nor would potential customers in Germany, to their performances.
Well, more to the point, once those Gema represented figured out that they had just lopped off their own noses despite their face, it's likely Google would be in the far stronger position at the bargaining table.
At the end of the day, Youtube holds all the cards. It's the most visited video delivery site on the planet. You can be sure that if 80 million Germans suddenly found a message saying "Because of your courts and GEMA you will no longer be able to use YouTube", it wouldn't be long before GEMA came crawling back begging.
Slashdot Mirror
The same thing will happen when the price of oil skyrockets. Continuing the addiction to fossil fuels is a dead end road, no matter whether you accept AGW or not. At the very least, we should be taxing the living fuck out of energy companies, or giving them a carrot if they invest a substantial amount of their profits into alternative energies, because when the price of a barrel of oil becomes too high, it isn't just your car that grinds to a halt, but agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and a thousand manufacturing processes that either rely on long-chain hydrocarbons for fuel or as the raw material.
In fact, using fossil fuels as energy is possibly the most moronic thing you can do with those long chain hydrocarbons, and our descendants will be pissing on our graves for wasting them in SUVs and jet airplanes.
I think we should have but one regulation. If your oil company fouls up the environment, your CEO, senior management, the board of directors, and the top ten investors are taken out and shot (and if the investor is another company, then you start with their board and their management).
I think you'd probably have significantly fewer problems if the guys at the top knew a bullet waited for them if they contaminated groundwater, or say, a big fucking chunk of the Gulf of Mexico.
With polling still barely able to crack 40 percent, it's extremely unlikely that Scotland will vote for independence. And before you bring up SNP's successes, a quick look at Quebec tells you that a vote for a secessionist party is not a vote for secession. As much as anything SNP's success in the last election has much more to do with the collapse of Labour support in Scotland than with any particular desire for independence. Two of every three Scots still wants to remain part of the UK.
I find the statement "... or should they consider the realities of science, where people advocate for their own theories far more than they question them?" kind of leading and biased in its own right. To be sure researchers will advocate their theories, but that does not mean they don't question them. Someone has a chip on their shoulder.
In other words an end to centralized policy. If that's the case I suggest the mobile OS designers do a lot more to lock down devices. If an enterprise is to lose considerable authority over devices that connect to its network, then the powers left to it should be considerable. Enterprises are being forced to tolerate devices on their networks that in many cases are very weak compared to their desktop cousins.
AD works fine for me with road warrior notebooks. They connect via VPN, the VPN network segments having their own DC so the VPN becomes another "site". It's really nice for rolling out updates, making sure configuration settings are all in order and creating what the experience we feel important for those who work out of the office. Most important of all, it's the ability to enforce security settings.
To this point, mobile devices have got away with things by only being limited-use devices; basically you check your corporate email and calendar. But if you're talking about moving to the next step, with devices that can more directly access network resources like file shares, then why shouldn't network admins be able to apply group policies to these devices?
I love these catchphrases. Reading the documentation, all BYOD seemst to mean is that they can operate in a Windows-for-workgroups mode, caching authentication and being smart enough to pass it on to domain servers. Through the magic of marketing, a capability that has been in consumer grade Windows operating systems for sixteen or seventeen years now suddenly is The New Hot Thing!
That appears to be no different than the capacity of Home editions of Windows operating systems to work on AD domains because the "Home" client will cache the credentials and pass it on to the domain-connected host (heck, I've done it with a Samba domain member that will act as an authentication broker pass on authentication of non-domain workstations to a domain controller those work stations can't even see). Absolutely nothing new about that, and authentication is only a part of it. We're talking about GPOs here, about automating configurations, about site-based configurations, and so on and so forth.
I realize that tablets are not PCs, but I could well see the value of putting them on there own OUs and rolling out GPO settings for printers, shares, encryption settings and the like. Nothing I've seen about Windows RT suggests to me that it has the least advantage over an Android or Apple tablet. The one area where Microsoft has the higher ground, where they could create devices that would have a marked advantage over the competition, and all they do is basically supply the same abilities the competition does. I thought Microsoft was inevitably losing ground on the consumer front, I had no idea they were going to end up damaging themselves in the enterprise.
But the underling OS is portable and has been for 20 years. All the enterprise functionality is user land, written in c or c++ so should be trivial to recompile to ARM.
And meanwhile they're competitors have put at least some effort into interoperability with Microsoft enterprise software.
You Would think Microsoft would have a leg up in this area, if no other.
It really was the first of its kind. Yes, Osbourn had a "portable" computer, which stretched the definition heavily, but the Model 100, well it was pretty much the first laptop.
I do. My first computer was a TRS-80 MC-10 (a sort of little brother to the CoCo that run a 6803, where I did my first assembly language experiments). The first actual code I wrote was on a Commodore 64 and I mucked around with Integer BASIC on Apple II's at school. And OS9 definitely rocked, and BASIC-09 is still for me the best structured BASIC variant ever developed. I'd take my Pascal programming class at school and with relative ease port the code I wrote over to BASIC-09.
Gawd I do feel old.
In the Ron Paulite religion, gold is a sacred and mystical metal that can stave off recessions and makes economies unsinkable. Ron Paulites could be described as something of precious metal fetishists.
You do realize the amount of extraction it would take to measurably alter the moon's orbit, right?
And that's really the issue. As populations rise and the need for water and arable land increases, not to mention that it's awfully hard to hide catastrophic policies that kill tens of thousands (or in the case of the Great Leap Forward millions), the cost of extraction is going to rise. We are also likely going to have grabbed the cheaper sources of metals at some point, and as those prices keep rising, the economics of mining asteroids will become more viable.
The whole point behind developing concepts is that when the technology and economic conditions reach that point, well, you have something in your back pocket. I realize lots of Slashdotters seem to have this "Dig/mine/drill no matter the fuck what!" and seem tragically disinterested, or even hostile towards anyone who is trying to solve the problem from another direction.
The Heartland Institute has victimized enough scientists in multiple areas of research that I'm sure they'll survive such an attack, if what you say is true.
No kidding. This is not the same situation. Any way you look at it, getting Google to be the default search engine on a fresh Windows install takes more steps than Bing. In fact, it's a testament to how badly Microsoft is doing in the browser and search markets that it still can't get past distant second in search and people in increasing numbers are moving to Chrome.
In other words it's not because of Google's monopoly that its search has been so successful but because Microsoft's monopoly is failing.
Do you think that retractions in journals equates to fraud?
I suspect an investigation into journalistic fraud would be far more fruitful. But I tend to agree with you, only because only those miserable fuckers at the Heartland Institute would spread around a lie like "retraction == fraud".
Who isn't a scientist and doesn't publish in journals, so has nothing to retract from them. You might as well say "I've been saying this for years about Ron Jeremy".
Indeed. I'm beginning to suspect these claims of widespread fraud have more to do with some pretty bizarre metrics on the part of those making the claim. It makes great headlines, but I think there's something rather fishy about it.
The Japanese were the aggressors in WWII. Ask the Koreans, the Chinese, and all the other people of region. At any rate, they had no hope of winning. Yes, they could have cost a lot of Allied lives, but sooner or later they were done. They had no way of propping up their industrial capacity, and even with two A-bombs gone, a conventional bombing campaign would have wiped out what was left of its industrial capacity, not to mention killing hundreds of thousands in the process.
The Emperor saw the writing on the wall. He knew that if they refused the unconditional surrender, Japan would be knocked back to the Stone Age, and everything the country had struggled to do from the Meiji Period on would be destroyed. He took the only sane approach, it was his government that had lost its wits and believed it still had any meaningful capacity to negotiate.
They will be thinking that when the German public and German artists start screaming at them for pulling the plug on Youtube. It's a self-destructive move. Google can afford to sit on its ass, and let GEMA self-destruct itself.
Hardly a massive loss, considering Germany is only a small fraction of the total customer base. And it's GEMA's alleged constituency who would be suffering as they would no longer have access, nor would potential customers in Germany, to their performances.
Well, more to the point, once those Gema represented figured out that they had just lopped off their own noses despite their face, it's likely Google would be in the far stronger position at the bargaining table.
At the end of the day, Youtube holds all the cards. It's the most visited video delivery site on the planet. You can be sure that if 80 million Germans suddenly found a message saying "Because of your courts and GEMA you will no longer be able to use YouTube", it wouldn't be long before GEMA came crawling back begging.