While the police may be stupid to use ambulance as transport vehicle, it is not appropriate to compare this situation to that of a war zone. In a war zone, everyone is shooting at the others. Not shooting red cross is an humanitian exception. However, in a civilian settings, no one has the right to shoot at any passing vehicle, regardless of whether the vechicle is a police car or an ambulance, unless people inside the vehicle shoot first. It is important to point out that these people who shot at ambulance are not soldiers who are doing their duty, but criminals who use violence for their own benefits.
This story tells an important reason why the police want to form more SWAT. Who are these people shooting police cars from the houses, and why they are doing the shooting? Unless the police in the cars are shooting at the houses, no one has a right to shoot at the police cars. In all likelihood, the ones doing the shooting are violent criminals, and it is therefore no surprise that the police feel the need to concentrate their force into SWAT.
Your story about the ambulance being shot is even more illustrating. While it may well be stupid for the police to use ambulance as transport vechicle, no one has the rights to shoot at the ambulance. No matter whether it is the terrorists or police being inside the ambulance, the ambulance should not be shot unless the people inside the ambulance shoot first. If these people feel free to shoot at police cars or ambulance passing through the road, do you think they will sit calmly when the police come to arrest them?
An earlier post in slashdot said Microsoft has 1 million servers. Therefore, Microsoft could put these unsold Surface tablets into good use by converting them to servers. Instantly increase the number of servers by 600%.:)
You misunderstand what Streisand effect is. No one is trying to delete or remove the report published by ABI Research. If you want to know what Streisand effect really means, a quick trip to wikipedia would show you the common usage of this term. Discussing the merits or shortcomings of such reports is something anyone with a brain would like to do. Only those ignorant or lazy would blindly accept everything they read without questions.
Your attempt to defend Intel from accusation of cheating using compiler is misleading. You keep saying that if ARM engineers are good at making compiler, programs would run faster in ARM CPU than in Intel CPU. However, whether ARM engineers are good or bad at making compiler is completely irrelevant to the quesition whether Intel is cheating or not. Appying your way of thinking to the case of a sports race, when one of the athletes in a race is suspected of cheating, your answer would be that the other athletes should run faster than the suspected cheater if they are good athletes. This is ridiculous. Unless you believe cheating is good, as some marketroids do, those who cheats should be exposed and shamed in the public. To find out if cheating has occured or not, the only valid method is to do a technical analysis of the output of the compiler and the benchmark programs, which is what some other analysts are doing.
In case you haven't heard it before, there is a well known saying, âoeWhen you point your finger at someone, three are pointing back at youâ. By calling people who supports ARM CPU as "ARM jihadists", you have revealed your bias and prejudice, and it is now reasonable to believe that you are yourself an "Intel jihadists".
Without more information about the real cause of the problem, it is too early to declare that it is "not an indicator of a failure of free market". Just because something appears to be working right now does not imply that it is optimal or near optimal. Otherwise, in 2008 before the subprime crisis exploded, someone could say that the banking industry is "near optimal from a cost/benefit viewpoint". Especially for a geek, one should always research and study the possibilities for improvement. Otherwise, it is just blind faith in the current system.
It is too early to tell if Snowden is a hero or not. While it is true that he is willing to give up personal comfort and riches in order to do something he deems important, so do Osama Bin Laden and his followers. Bin Laden and his followers are even willing to commit suicides in order to achieve their aims, and in their way of thinking, they may even believe they are fighting for the freedom and welfare of their fellow Muslims. To qualify as a hero, it is also necessary to ascertain that the benefits of his action significant outweigh the damages caused. The debate about this would certainly continue for quite a while.
Does anyone notice the name of this poster? According to wikipedia, "Spies" most commonly refers to people who engage in spying, espionage or clandestine operations. And someone claiming to be the CTO of a company providing Email Encryption Gateway has the name "Spies". If this is not a joke, the irony is incredible.
The free market is a race to the bottom. Thats kinda why it works so well. The problem is, the government with unions, tariffs and minimum wage prevent it from becoming a race to the bottom and thus prevent cheaper goods and services from being sold. A race to the bottom is a good thing, just look at computer prices, I don't think that Apple and MS could have survived if the price of a cheap desktop was still $1000+, similarly Google and the internet businesses would also be gone.
And why wouldn't I want the government allowing this? Why wouldn't I want the government to collect millions in tax dollars so I can in effect pay less taxes?
If you truly believe that a race to the bottom is a good thing, you should start drinking baby milk produced in China. The melamine enriched milk is a shining example of products of a race to the bottom.
This is the reason why a certain level of regulation must be enforced by the government. And, no, the purpose of a government is not to collect millions of tax or to ensure hefty profit for a few corporations, but to help to protect the well-being of its citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
While the police may be stupid to use ambulance as transport vehicle, it is not appropriate to compare this situation to that of a war zone. In a war zone, everyone is shooting at the others. Not shooting red cross is an humanitian exception. However, in a civilian settings, no one has the right to shoot at any passing vehicle, regardless of whether the vechicle is a police car or an ambulance, unless people inside the vehicle shoot first. It is important to point out that these people who shot at ambulance are not soldiers who are doing their duty, but criminals who use violence for their own benefits.
This story tells an important reason why the police want to form more SWAT. Who are these people shooting police cars from the houses, and why they are doing the shooting? Unless the police in the cars are shooting at the houses, no one has a right to shoot at the police cars. In all likelihood, the ones doing the shooting are violent criminals, and it is therefore no surprise that the police feel the need to concentrate their force into SWAT.
Your story about the ambulance being shot is even more illustrating. While it may well be stupid for the police to use ambulance as transport vechicle, no one has the rights to shoot at the ambulance. No matter whether it is the terrorists or police being inside the ambulance, the ambulance should not be shot unless the people inside the ambulance shoot first. If these people feel free to shoot at police cars or ambulance passing through the road, do you think they will sit calmly when the police come to arrest them?
An earlier post in slashdot said Microsoft has 1 million servers. Therefore, Microsoft could put these unsold Surface tablets into good use by converting them to servers. Instantly increase the number of servers by 600%. :)
You misunderstand what Streisand effect is. No one is trying to delete or remove the report published by ABI Research. If you want to know what Streisand effect really means, a quick trip to wikipedia would show you the common usage of this term. Discussing the merits or shortcomings of such reports is something anyone with a brain would like to do. Only those ignorant or lazy would blindly accept everything they read without questions. Your attempt to defend Intel from accusation of cheating using compiler is misleading. You keep saying that if ARM engineers are good at making compiler, programs would run faster in ARM CPU than in Intel CPU. However, whether ARM engineers are good or bad at making compiler is completely irrelevant to the quesition whether Intel is cheating or not. Appying your way of thinking to the case of a sports race, when one of the athletes in a race is suspected of cheating, your answer would be that the other athletes should run faster than the suspected cheater if they are good athletes. This is ridiculous. Unless you believe cheating is good, as some marketroids do, those who cheats should be exposed and shamed in the public. To find out if cheating has occured or not, the only valid method is to do a technical analysis of the output of the compiler and the benchmark programs, which is what some other analysts are doing. In case you haven't heard it before, there is a well known saying, âoeWhen you point your finger at someone, three are pointing back at youâ. By calling people who supports ARM CPU as "ARM jihadists", you have revealed your bias and prejudice, and it is now reasonable to believe that you are yourself an "Intel jihadists".
Everything in slashdot is unsourced anecdote. If you only read something if it has clear citations, you should read only wikipedia. :)
Without more information about the real cause of the problem, it is too early to declare that it is "not an indicator of a failure of free market". Just because something appears to be working right now does not imply that it is optimal or near optimal. Otherwise, in 2008 before the subprime crisis exploded, someone could say that the banking industry is "near optimal from a cost/benefit viewpoint". Especially for a geek, one should always research and study the possibilities for improvement. Otherwise, it is just blind faith in the current system.
It is too early to tell if Snowden is a hero or not. While it is true that he is willing to give up personal comfort and riches in order to do something he deems important, so do Osama Bin Laden and his followers. Bin Laden and his followers are even willing to commit suicides in order to achieve their aims, and in their way of thinking, they may even believe they are fighting for the freedom and welfare of their fellow Muslims. To qualify as a hero, it is also necessary to ascertain that the benefits of his action significant outweigh the damages caused. The debate about this would certainly continue for quite a while.
Does anyone notice the name of this poster? According to wikipedia, "Spies" most commonly refers to people who engage in spying, espionage or clandestine operations. And someone claiming to be the CTO of a company providing Email Encryption Gateway has the name "Spies". If this is not a joke, the irony is incredible.
The free market is a race to the bottom. Thats kinda why it works so well. The problem is, the government with unions, tariffs and minimum wage prevent it from becoming a race to the bottom and thus prevent cheaper goods and services from being sold. A race to the bottom is a good thing, just look at computer prices, I don't think that Apple and MS could have survived if the price of a cheap desktop was still $1000+, similarly Google and the internet businesses would also be gone.
And why wouldn't I want the government allowing this? Why wouldn't I want the government to collect millions in tax dollars so I can in effect pay less taxes?
If you truly believe that a race to the bottom is a good thing, you should start drinking baby milk produced in China. The melamine enriched milk is a shining example of products of a race to the bottom.
This is the reason why a certain level of regulation must be enforced by the government. And, no, the purpose of a government is not to collect millions of tax or to ensure hefty profit for a few corporations, but to help to protect the well-being of its citizens.