You should be able to do what you're describing with group policy. It's designed more for roaming profiles, but it should work for moving c:\users off of an SSD.
The requirements in a clinic are kind of simple, but they get complicated in a hospital environment. You can't have an errant switch take out your ICU's EMR.
What I've typically seen is core switches will have redundant routes. If the wall jack blows up, they have some number of floater laptops or thin-clients-on-carts that connect through wireless. If a Citrix server dies, the clients fall over to a backup. If the EMR dies, there's typically a "shadow" environment that gets reconciled with the main one when it's brought back up. If the power goes out, there are "downtime procedures" involving lots of paper.
A pianist is the equivalent of a data entry clerk. They have a sheet in front of them and faithfully reproduce what's on it.
Not quite. Once you move beyond entry-level competitions, it's simply a given that anyone and everyone can play anything given to them flawlessly. Your performance is judged on how you interpreted the piece, not merely on the fact you can read sheet music.
For example, listen to Rachmaninoff playing his Prelude in C# Minor versus a newer interpretation. Especially compare 1:58 in Rachmaninoff's piano roll with ~1:20 in Peter Roper-Curzon's version; there's a lot going on beyond technical accuracy.
I had high hopes for IE9 as well, but they didn't pan out. On my system (2.93GHz Core2 Duo, NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX) IE9 got 4846 points versus Chrome 8's 9911.
Markets are the very definition of your overturned bowl - self-correcting, equitable, and philosophically attractive. Compare with a command economy, which needs perpetual Sisyphusian adjustment:
even though the Soviet Union had its own passenger car manufacturing industry going back to 1940's, it was impossible for a Soviet citizen to simply walk into a store and buy a car--the entire output of all car manufacturing plants was allocated for years in advance.
...
An imbalance [in supply and demand], which would have been corrected naturally in a matter of years in a free-market economy, persisted for decades, while central planners turned a blind eye on it.
However, markets don't always function perfectly - the various stripes of monopoly will thrash a market. Markets deal primarily in price, meaning they handle all kinds of economic externalities poorly. Libertarians are attracted to the freedom a market provides, but erudite libertarians can also see whether your bowl is concave or convex.
It's not a matter of "faith" versus "science" - there's been no ex cathedra pronouncement that only radical anarchists can enter heaven, and the LHC is not going to discover a new economic system that quickly decays into three Ron Pauls and an Obama, and a Higgs boson. It's a matter of 1) What outcomes do we want to obtain, and 2) Where on the Ron Paul Stalin continuum maximizes those outcomes (and concavity).
Their internet service especially is awful. Ideally, setting up DSL should go something like this:
Unpack box, throw away disc.
Plug modem into wall.
Plug other end of modem into router
How it works with AT&T:
Open the DSL modem's management page, expecting to find something useful. Instead, experience a "setup wizard."
The "setup wizard" requires Internet Explorer and flash, because the setup wizard has to talk to you. Good thing the instructions are also mostly on-screen, unless you're on a netbook, in which case you're just fucked because 600 vertical pixels just doesn't cut it for AT&T.
If you can click on the "next" button from step 2, the setup program will try to download some other setup program, for Lord knows what reason. Unless you're running 64-bit Windows, in which case the x64 installer will just crash. Or unless you're running Linux, in which case you never made it past step 2, neckbeard.
Pride wounded, you open the disc, which requires breaking a a seal labeled something along the lines of "open only under the instruction of AT&T support."
Rage at the disc, because the setup program on it is password protected.
Dig through the directory structure a bit and find an older version of the setup program that died in step 3. This will finally let you finish activating your account with AT&T, and your DSL modem will now finally have service.
If you're like me (easily frustrated and poorly shaven), there's a few optional steps:
Immediately call AT&T to cancel because you'd rather eat the business end of an iPhone (you know which end) than give money to anybody who thought any of the above was a good idea.
Send back your used modem for the largest deposit I've ever paid for a lump of plastic.
Get sent a bill for $150 over what you owe because they lost your modem.
Spend a week trying to call their support number. Contrary to what their website and any other department you call will tell you, it's only open until 5:00 in your timezone. (Bonus points for making them call that number themselves and listen to the "we're closed" tape.) (Although you can add services online, you cannot cancel online; imagine that.)
Finally get somebody to "find" the modem.
Get told to wait for a new, corrected bill.
Receive a collections notice in lieu of said new, corrected bill.
Call back AT&T during work hours. Play back the recording made of step 6.
Pay correct amount over the phone, and then cancel the card.
Thank the Almighty God, who makes the Sun orbit the Earth, that your service, bill, and credit check were all in the name of Ranka Lee. (Kira~! ^_>) Let me know if you see her name in a telephone book somewhere; I didn't pay extra to opt out of that.
Can anyone tell me if signing up for their wireless service still requires an acoustic coupler and landline?
Having a better project to invest in than your competitors do is what helps, not the debt itself. I'm not trying to argue "all debt is bad", just that "credit" by itself isn't the one and only way businesses anywhere make money.
Social networks have strong economies of scale - they're only useful if your friends are likely to be on it, and only large ones are likely to have your friends. This isn't true for the internet as a whole that right now supports oodles of competing search engines, commerce sites, news outlets, and blags.
You make money by pushing your competitors out of the market and taking their business.
You don't have to, but you certainly will make money if you accomplish all that. So far, so good.
Credit is what allows you to do that.
I don't get it. Are you the only person with credit? Do you have more credit than your competitors? Would anyone give you that much credit if you weren't already pushing your competitors out? "Having more credit" only makes a difference if you use it, which is the same as "having more debt." How does that help?
In addition, the fact that you have loans to pay means you are largely required by your creditors to grow.
Your creditors don't "largely require" you to do shit other than pay them back. You're confusing "I have a corporate charter" with "I have student loans."
free market is what tends towards monopolies eventually. because there is competition, and nothing to prevent the big players from getting bigger
"Free market" means the government does nothing other than police fraud. A perfectly competitive market meets these conditions. They overlap, but you can have a "free" market without it being anywhere close to competitive.
That aside, is the internet a "free" market? It comes pretty damn close. No one government can regulate more than a corner of it, for fraud or otherwise. It's likely the closest thing to a free market we'll see.
Is it a "perfectly competitive" market? It comes close here, too. Barriers to entry? Anyone can throw up a website. Transaction costs? Cost of bandwidth. Exit costs? Turn off your modem. Perfect factor mobility? It's why the Pirate Bay hasn't been shut down. But, TFA's premise is something like this:
There are Big Companies on the internet.
Therefore, "the free market on the Internet actually tends toward monopolies". (Because we know adding on the internet makes something completely unique and different and worthy of a patent.)
Worse yet is his comparison of Facebook's "monopoly" to AT&T's up until 1984. Any college student can start another Facebook - that was actually a semester project we did in college, and it's exactly what Zukerberg did. The very same college student shut down the previous "monopoly" MySpace and wiped the floor with Google's competing offering. That suggests two things:
Free market "on the internet" isn't any less competitive elsewhere.
Tim Wu is an idiot. Times [no pun intended] must be hard for newspapers.
Your DERP has incensed the moderators, but there are plenty of crimes where it makes sense to take motive into account. Accidentally bumping an old lady with your bike is entirely different from taking an axe to her head, even though recent events show both ways leave her equally dead.
The question shouldn't be "Why do we take intent into account?" but "Is the victim's race as important as whether or not as whether the crime was an accident?" DERP to all those who said, "yes."
Typing Japanese is exactly like typing in English - you press the "space" key between words. The IMEs are pretty smart, and usually the first kanji is the one you want. If it's not you might have to press "space" a second or third time, but it's rare to have to dig through a giant list of kanji to get what you want.
So, you might have to hit the space key more often if you're typing Japanese. Or, you might not - you can space-to-kanji entire sentences at once, whilst the romance languages are stuck hitting space between every word like shmucks. Except for the Germans. I don't think their language uses spaces.
The Japanese keyboard layout also types produces kana (most of which are romanized with two latin characters) rather than individual letters. Instead of typing w-a-t-a-s-h-i-space, you type wa-ta-shi-space.
So, it's really not that bad. What's worse is the irony of seeing an article on slashdot complain about the persistence of ASCII. I mean, really now, slashdot.jp manages to display non-ASCII characters.
I find the act of reading your descriptions laborious, and have decided to never bother learning Japanese just so I don't have to put up with that kind of thing EVER.
"That kind of thing" is quite literally hitting the "space" key between words. I'm surprised you managed to put up with it long enough to finish your post.
Thrasymachus wasn't as much as a philosopher as a giant douche invented to help Plato drive home some points in his Republic. Other tidbits from Thrasymachus: "Justice" is little more than getting ahead, and the "just" will stab anyone in the back should it benefit them.
In too many situations if we have more time to work, we'd just work more.
We'd have the option to work more; gaining an extra hour of free time each day doesn't mean we have to spend it tethered to a Blackberry.
Consider the effects of other productivity-increasing technology. Today, someone working a minimum wage job part time has a higher standard of living than someone working sunrise to sunset had as few as 100 years ago. That's damn near Jetsons wages.
Despite that, most of us choose to work full time. So what? That doesn't mean every incremental advance in technology since Edison's light bulb heaped yet another misery upon the wage-slave; rather, it made our work more valuable. If, despite that, your friends can't keep work from filling every waking moment of their lives, they have bigger problems than robochauffeurs.
After all, why would I invest money knowing ahead of time there is a good possibility of negative return?
You wouldn't. You'd pick something that has a good possibility of positive return. Also note that most people's idea of "investment" isn't ""economic investment."
The economy doesn't grow when you're holding on to all of your money. How could it?
Short version: Your money is only stagnant if you hide it in a mattress, and then burn the mattress. Long version: here. TL;DR version: Magic.
You make some good points, but I'd say it's not a satisfactory rebuttal. It may help if we specify what time frame we're looking at.
In the short run, production is fixed. In this time frame, firms can't hire or fire, expand, shut down, or otherwise change what they produce. By definition, consumption is the only things that matters.
In the long run, standards of living depend on production. This is ultimately determined by savings - higher savings means a lower real interest rate. This means, all other things equal, the cost of investing in capital is lower, which leads to more capital, which leads to more production.
Put another way: Say we're considering a million-dollar factory expected to yield $100,000 a year in profit, a 10% return. This factory will not be built if the interest rate is 11%. Say a plethora of other factories only return 5% - they won't be built when the interest rate is 6%. In the long run, savings determines the level of production.
Your existing stock of capital also depreciates - machines wear out and break down. If economic investment is less than depreciation, your economy quite literally shrinks.
I think we both agree in the short run, consumption dominates. Can we agree that, in the long run, savings and investment matter at least as much?
Slashdot Mirror
You only have to escape the <. Slashdot doesn't eat the >
You should be able to do what you're describing with group policy. It's designed more for roaming profiles, but it should work for moving c:\users off of an SSD.
The requirements in a clinic are kind of simple, but they get complicated in a hospital environment. You can't have an errant switch take out your ICU's EMR.
What I've typically seen is core switches will have redundant routes. If the wall jack blows up, they have some number of floater laptops or thin-clients-on-carts that connect through wireless. If a Citrix server dies, the clients fall over to a backup. If the EMR dies, there's typically a "shadow" environment that gets reconciled with the main one when it's brought back up. If the power goes out, there are "downtime procedures" involving lots of paper.
I hear liability's a bitch, too.
A pianist is the equivalent of a data entry clerk. They have a sheet in front of them and faithfully reproduce what's on it.
Not quite. Once you move beyond entry-level competitions, it's simply a given that anyone and everyone can play anything given to them flawlessly. Your performance is judged on how you interpreted the piece, not merely on the fact you can read sheet music.
For example, listen to Rachmaninoff playing his Prelude in C# Minor versus a newer interpretation. Especially compare 1:58 in Rachmaninoff's piano roll with ~1:20 in Peter Roper-Curzon's version; there's a lot going on beyond technical accuracy.
I had high hopes for IE9 as well, but they didn't pan out. On my system (2.93GHz Core2 Duo, NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX) IE9 got 4846 points versus Chrome 8's 9911.
Markets are the very definition of your overturned bowl - self-correcting, equitable, and philosophically attractive. Compare with a command economy, which needs perpetual Sisyphusian adjustment:
even though the Soviet Union had its own passenger car manufacturing industry going back to 1940's, it was impossible for a Soviet citizen to simply walk into a store and buy a car--the entire output of all car manufacturing plants was allocated for years in advance.
...
An imbalance [in supply and demand], which would have been corrected naturally in a matter of years in a free-market economy, persisted for decades, while central planners turned a blind eye on it.
However, markets don't always function perfectly - the various stripes of monopoly will thrash a market. Markets deal primarily in price, meaning they handle all kinds of economic externalities poorly. Libertarians are attracted to the freedom a market provides, but erudite libertarians can also see whether your bowl is concave or convex.
It's not a matter of "faith" versus "science" - there's been no ex cathedra pronouncement that only radical anarchists can enter heaven, and the LHC is not going to discover a new economic system that quickly decays into three Ron Pauls and an Obama, and a Higgs boson. It's a matter of 1) What outcomes do we want to obtain, and 2) Where on the Ron Paul Stalin continuum maximizes those outcomes (and concavity).
The best trolls are subtle. Well played, sir.
a coming of hipsters who flaunt around their consistent use of the "advanced reading level only" setting when they search things.
That piqued my curiosity, so I searched for "i can haz cheezburger" at the "Advanced" reading level to see what search results would pop up.
Behold! Emeril, and a rather dense description of anorexia nervosa.
Shit, you made a believer out of me.
HP Support killed Kennedy from the grassy knoll.
Sir, I believe this means fisticuffs.
Their internet service especially is awful. Ideally, setting up DSL should go something like this:
How it works with AT&T:
If you're like me (easily frustrated and poorly shaven), there's a few optional steps:
Can anyone tell me if signing up for their wireless service still requires an acoustic coupler and landline?
I don't think you should be accusing anyone of missing the point. Most everyone else figured out "actions speak louder than words."
Having a better project to invest in than your competitors do is what helps, not the debt itself. I'm not trying to argue "all debt is bad", just that "credit" by itself isn't the one and only way businesses anywhere make money.
Social networks have strong economies of scale - they're only useful if your friends are likely to be on it, and only large ones are likely to have your friends. This isn't true for the internet as a whole that right now supports oodles of competing search engines, commerce sites, news outlets, and blags.
Let's look at your post:
You make money by pushing your competitors out of the market and taking their business.
You don't have to, but you certainly will make money if you accomplish all that. So far, so good.
Credit is what allows you to do that.
I don't get it. Are you the only person with credit? Do you have more credit than your competitors? Would anyone give you that much credit if you weren't already pushing your competitors out? "Having more credit" only makes a difference if you use it, which is the same as "having more debt." How does that help?
In addition, the fact that you have loans to pay means you are largely required by your creditors to grow.
Your creditors don't "largely require" you to do shit other than pay them back. You're confusing "I have a corporate charter" with "I have student loans."
free market is what tends towards monopolies eventually. because there is competition, and nothing to prevent the big players from getting bigger
"Free market" means the government does nothing other than police fraud. A perfectly competitive market meets these conditions. They overlap, but you can have a "free" market without it being anywhere close to competitive.
That aside, is the internet a "free" market? It comes pretty damn close. No one government can regulate more than a corner of it, for fraud or otherwise. It's likely the closest thing to a free market we'll see.
Is it a "perfectly competitive" market? It comes close here, too. Barriers to entry? Anyone can throw up a website. Transaction costs? Cost of bandwidth. Exit costs? Turn off your modem. Perfect factor mobility? It's why the Pirate Bay hasn't been shut down. But, TFA's premise is something like this:
Worse yet is his comparison of Facebook's "monopoly" to AT&T's up until 1984. Any college student can start another Facebook - that was actually a semester project we did in college, and it's exactly what Zukerberg did. The very same college student shut down the previous "monopoly" MySpace and wiped the floor with Google's competing offering. That suggests two things:
Your DERP has incensed the moderators, but there are plenty of crimes where it makes sense to take motive into account. Accidentally bumping an old lady with your bike is entirely different from taking an axe to her head, even though recent events show both ways leave her equally dead.
The question shouldn't be "Why do we take intent into account?" but "Is the victim's race as important as whether or not as whether the crime was an accident?" DERP to all those who said, "yes."
Typing Japanese is exactly like typing in English - you press the "space" key between words. The IMEs are pretty smart, and usually the first kanji is the one you want. If it's not you might have to press "space" a second or third time, but it's rare to have to dig through a giant list of kanji to get what you want.
So, you might have to hit the space key more often if you're typing Japanese. Or, you might not - you can space-to-kanji entire sentences at once, whilst the romance languages are stuck hitting space between every word like shmucks. Except for the Germans. I don't think their language uses spaces.
The Japanese keyboard layout also types produces kana (most of which are romanized with two latin characters) rather than individual letters. Instead of typing w-a-t-a-s-h-i-space, you type wa-ta-shi-space.
So, it's really not that bad. What's worse is the irony of seeing an article on slashdot complain about the persistence of ASCII. I mean, really now, slashdot.jp manages to display non-ASCII characters.
I find the act of reading your descriptions laborious, and have decided to never bother learning Japanese just so I don't have to put up with that kind of thing EVER.
"That kind of thing" is quite literally hitting the "space" key between words. I'm surprised you managed to put up with it long enough to finish your post.
I thought we were discussing a pretty epic Mio cover, who just happened to be poorly covered.
Thrasymachus wasn't as much as a philosopher as a giant douche invented to help Plato drive home some points in his Republic. Other tidbits from Thrasymachus: "Justice" is little more than getting ahead, and the "just" will stab anyone in the back should it benefit them.
In too many situations if we have more time to work, we'd just work more.
We'd have the option to work more; gaining an extra hour of free time each day doesn't mean we have to spend it tethered to a Blackberry.
Consider the effects of other productivity-increasing technology. Today, someone working a minimum wage job part time has a higher standard of living than someone working sunrise to sunset had as few as 100 years ago. That's damn near Jetsons wages.
Despite that, most of us choose to work full time. So what? That doesn't mean every incremental advance in technology since Edison's light bulb heaped yet another misery upon the wage-slave; rather, it made our work more valuable. If, despite that, your friends can't keep work from filling every waking moment of their lives, they have bigger problems than robochauffeurs.
After all, why would I invest money knowing ahead of time there is a good possibility of negative return?
You wouldn't. You'd pick something that has a good possibility of positive return. Also note that most people's idea of "investment" isn't ""economic investment."
The economy doesn't grow when you're holding on to all of your money. How could it?
Short version: Your money is only stagnant if you hide it in a mattress, and then burn the mattress. Long version: here. TL;DR version: Magic.
Holy shit, two slashdotters came to a reasoned agreement. I think I'm doing something wrong.
You make some good points, but I'd say it's not a satisfactory rebuttal. It may help if we specify what time frame we're looking at.
In the short run, production is fixed. In this time frame, firms can't hire or fire, expand, shut down, or otherwise change what they produce. By definition, consumption is the only things that matters.
In the long run, standards of living depend on production. This is ultimately determined by savings - higher savings means a lower real interest rate. This means, all other things equal, the cost of investing in capital is lower, which leads to more capital, which leads to more production.
Put another way: Say we're considering a million-dollar factory expected to yield $100,000 a year in profit, a 10% return. This factory will not be built if the interest rate is 11%. Say a plethora of other factories only return 5% - they won't be built when the interest rate is 6%. In the long run, savings determines the level of production.
Your existing stock of capital also depreciates - machines wear out and break down. If economic investment is less than depreciation, your economy quite literally shrinks.
I think we both agree in the short run, consumption dominates. Can we agree that, in the long run, savings and investment matter at least as much?