You are right, but for most things, late 2000's tech is still fine. Slap moar ram and a SSD, or cluster the crap out of it, and voila, Franken-server to the rescue. It might not work when facing the public internet, but for internal usage, that thing can still be made to rock.

The only problem with old hardware is that it gets near its points of failure. Hardware is hardware, thus it will degrade. But newly fabricated tech that is equivalent to not-too-old tech, obtained with a cheaper price tag, what's there not to like?

This is not an endorsement of Russian tech, but an observation on the value of old technology, or technology that has not caught up (and is not trying to catch up) with the joneses.

Geographically, it might be in Asia, but culturally, the majority of people aren't. And even if that weren't the case, what the hell does it mean Asian? Central Asian? Far East Asian? Siberian? Those three grossly oversimplified labels apply to Russia (and many other former USSR states for that matter.) Grossly oversimplified as they are, these stand for significantly different things.

And we are only discussing the Asian'ness of Russia, without even entering into the whole continent? Asian as in the Near East/Asia Minor? Central Asia as in Iran or Kazakhstan or Mongolia (the later, culturally, is a Central Asian nation)? Far East as in China, the Korean Peninsula or Japan? Japan in many ways is a unique Western Country, or a country whose Asian'ness is no longer in tandem with what 'Far East Asia' embodies. And we are not even touching South East Asia and South Asia at all.

Russia escapes such ridiculous descriptions. For all practical purposes, culturally, politically and economically, it is a European country. It is not a Western country, but neither is most of Eastern Europe.

And the term "Asian" means so many things that by itself, it almost means nothing.

Not sure why this gets neg-rep'ed. To be honest, every country needs a degree of self-sufficiency and, *gasp*, protectionism. This is not to say that I'm arguing against globalization and trade agreements that stem from it.

Barring Chicxulub II or, I dunno, Cthulhu's second coming, Globalization is 1) inevitable, and 2) not necessarily a bad thing. Every country needs to do its own balancing act regarding participating in a global economy while protecting its own national-level interests (and a national economy is, after all, a strategic asset). So the Russians, for whatever good or bad, or intelligent or stupid reasons, they are doing that at least in this type of market.

Good for them. The more companies and countries that compete in high tech (or at least try to push their local tech), the better on the long road. It might not be good for us in the US (and in other high-tech countries like Germany or Japan)... so long as we sleep in our laurels. If we do (and we are), then we just deserve a gold medal for the Dodo's Olympics, bestowed by the Darwin's Awards.

On the contrary, this is a good example. That the LEO got fired and arrested is inconsequential to the argument at hand (the probability of a LEO beating the crap out of you for no valid reason.) The LEO's arrest is a consequence of the event whose probability is into question, so this is irrelevant.

As for the old grandpa resisting arrest, well that is still not a reason. For starters he wasn't resisting, he was simply in a state of not knowing what to do in the face of having uniformed strangers "touching" him during a patdown, not understanding WTF was going on.

That is not resisting. No judge in any goddamned court in this country (nor most LEOS) will ever find that as an example of resisting arrest. Let's be real.

So right there is a counter-example of the claim that if you do nothing (code for "act reasonable") will not get you taken like a piñata by a LEO.

Secondly, this "resisting arrest" mantra is very troublesome and common in forums.

What if instead of an old grandpa from India with zero English skills, we have an adult that is clearly suffering from mental retardation, and he walks back/away from LEOs during a patdown.

Is that resisting? And if so, does that warrant a beat down?

What about a deaf person who cannot hear you, who cannot comply with your orders? Is that person resisting arrest? Fuck no.

kfor.com/2014/02/26/dash-cam-video-deaf-man-charged-with-resisting-arrest-officers-cleared/ At some point, LEOs (and people in general) are bound to exercise common sense, decency, and compassion. In Mr. Patel's case, the LEO clearly understood the old man didn't speak English. Logic would dictate that the officer (a college degree holder and thus, supposedly, sufficiently educated to know better) would know that this person was not capable of understanding instructions, nor following them.

That right there blows up the argument that he was resisting arrest. You can't allege resistance to arrest when you (or should know) the person is incapacitated to comply (be them by obvious language barriers or physical/mental incapacity.) I mean, you can argue that it is so, just in the same way we can argue the world was created in 7 days and that the world is flat with the sun orbiting it.

It happens all the time, all the fucking time, for no reasons, for no valid reasons, not even for quasi-reasons that could be stretched into something barely resembling a reason. It just that nowadays, this type of shit gets move visible because the ubiquitous presence of cameras.

As a parent, I agree with the sentiment with caveats. I film with my phone until I'm told to stop. I won't argue, I will simply comply and leave. Chances are my phone will not be taken from me, so the record stays with me. And if the phone is taken from me, I won't fight it. I will comply, hand it over, and go home, call my lawyer and litigate.

I haven't done yet, but I'm in the process of installing front and rear cameras in both our cars. And just by applying common sense, it can be done so without escalating a confrontation.

As a parent, you are completely right to avoid a confrontation. But as a parent, you are not right in doing a modicum of an low-risk effort to improve society. Your children will inherit it.

You don't have to go martyr, but for f* sake, at least show your children you have a backbone and a set of principles.

He can claim whatever he wants, it would still be a violation of your constitutional rights. That bad LEOs flunk at that one does not mean they legally have the power for it.

Tell that to poor Mr. Sureshbhai Patel: http://www.al.com/news/index.s...

It is your right to ask us to STFU. And it is equally our right to ignore you.

And who is stopping you? Just because we say it can be stupid, that doesn't constitute a way to stop you. Go ahead and bang yourself on the wall on principle. Whatever makes you feel like William Wallace. We'll still tell you you are being a dork too dumb to learn how to be strategic and pick your battles, that you are a dork who can't strategically know when NOT to fight so that you can fight another day and win. We will tell you so even more if your death is ineffectual to promoting your cause.

Ooooo, internet tiger here!

Tell that to Rosa Parks.

That should be your reaction by default because change always incur costs and risks. So better have a valid reason to incur in new costs and risks. The operation of something old has to be costly, or difficult, or subpar, or the change to something new has a real chance of decreasing costs, or the change is part of a larger, business-related strategy. Only then you have a valid reason to change.

The cost of electricity and maintenance costs may appear high, but if they are constant and well known, then they imply minimum risk. You can account them for (and you should if you are running a business, ... otherwise, don't run a business.)

If maintenance costs are limited to hardware support, you can ignore them. If it is software costs in terms of difficult deployments or software upgrades, then yes, that is the threshold over which a change needs to be initiated.

But if you don't have that, then, don't fix what is broken. Let the cost be constant and the risk known (and ergo manageable.)

No. It is because most COBOL systems are running within expected parameters. After running for years, if not decades, they are well known, their features and their glitches. They are battle tested.

And given the large size of these systems, it would be ridiculous to re-write them into something else. Why? Because that implies unknown risks and costs. Risk is something that grows exponential to the size of the re-write. This is not hand waving, this is a fact.

There is more to software engineering than writing code. It also involves delivering solutions and values and managing risk. Software engineering must be seen as integral part of a business process. Otherwise, we are not software engineers, but mere code monkeys throwing shit at the wall, packaging and selling whatever sticks.

Or because those platforms are running fine for the job they are required to do, and thus replacing them do yield any additional value? Proper engineering and business decisions call for changing things when you have to, when you have a reason, a valid reason.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it is not just an empty slogan.

Why cheaper? What if the hardware is already owned? What if the systems therein are running just fine as expected? If it ain't broke, don't fix it

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you don't get it, you are not cut for this business.

Do we go about rewriting all those lines of working-fine COBOL code into whatever is in vogue nowadays? Do you change your working-condition car every time a new model comes?

The only time you change something is if you have a reasonable expectations of gains, or if the cost of keeping something that old goes above a certain threshold. Otherwise, you let it be.

You know you are doing it right when your creation becomes legacy, and it runs unchanged for years, many years, providing value and ease of integration. That is, when the thing you created delivers value AND does not give reasons to decommission, then you know you did your job right, and you can brag about it.

In this case, it is. The anon is stating that apparently his premise is true just because he says so, without proving that it is the case (which is what I asked for in the first place.)

Well, Kansas gubmint doesn't care about people because *I think that's the case*. Apparently, this is the case (*without me having to explain why is the case*).

Doesn't get anymore circular than that .

Yes. If you don't understand why, you have no place in engineering.

But, but, but, then I have to compile it myself, do it myself? See, that is the root of my complains about monolithic kernels. Where is that damned violin when I need it :P