Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Major disconnect from layers (Score 2) 287

To be honest (and my employer probably wouldn't like to hear this) I'm not a big fan of HPs enterprise solutions. It mainly comes down to them typically eschewing standards that everybody else uses (such as IPMI) and then slaps a fee on top of it (their ILO feature.) And then to make things worse, you have to have an active service contract in order to get firmware updates, even if they're only security related.

This might be fine for a big IT shop, but if you're a small to medium sized business (which most IT purchasers are) then HP is a terrible choice, because your shiny new servers may very well be doomed to the trash heap after 3 years unless you're willing to spend more than you can afford.

Comment Re:Major disconnect from layers (Score 4, Informative) 287

As far as consumers are concerned, that's what HP is. However as far as enterprise is concerned, HP is a best known as a major vendor of network, server, cloud, and storage appliances.

In fact, HP is actually in the process of splitting the company into two separate entities with two different stock tickers. One company will do the printers and other consumer grade crap, and the other will focus on enterprise grade technologies.

But yeah, other than that, they basically only bet on sure things these days, and are much more iterative than innovative.

Comment Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream. (Score 4, Insightful) 288

I really do think hell would freeze over before a republican would take office in any office that governs Seattle.

Besides, if that was the case, then I wouldn't have gig service right now where I live in Arizona, which is about as much of a red state as you can get. In fact, come to think of it, a lot of red states have gig service somewhere within the state, such as Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Louisiana.

Comment Re:A free search engine (Score 1) 152

In other places where I have lived, the electrical utilities are "owned" and operated by a "public utility district". That operation is beholden to the rate payers, who are also the voters who elect the commissioners to it's board. The difference is, in a word, stark. I can count on one hand the number of times I saw the power go out for more than a split second in 20-some years before moving to this model of free enterprise. The power went out more than that last week alone. The two (one a monopoly and one as close to socialism as it gets) could not be more different when it comes to the things that count.

I think that's more of a symptom of you're just beholden to whoever operates it, government or not. Take Arizona and California's relationship for example. California is mostly public run utility, and even then, they can only provide about 75% of the total power demand of the state. The rest of that they obtain from Arizona, and Arizona has so much ample power that it actually sells most of it to neighboring states. Arizona's power grid is also owned by two major companies: SRP and APS, both of which are privately held, for profit companies, generating electricity from hydro power and nuclear power respectively. They both only really answer to the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates them.

Here's another fun fact about Arizona: Our power grid is so reliable here, that a lot of the world's biggest tech firms have built major datacenters here, even though it's so hot that air conditioning is a real cost concern. In fact, Intel built the world's most advanced semiconductor fabrication plant just a few miles from me. Why? Two reasons: No earthquakes, and a very reliable power grid.

Comment Re:A free search engine (Score 1) 152

The difference is with socialism or marxism the government tries to make the service affordable to the people, whereas with a monopoly, a corporation tries to make as much profit as possible.

That's almost never the case. For example, in the USSR, cars were so expensive that buying one was a really big undertaking, and even after you paid all of those rubles for it, it took a long time to actually receive it, and even then it wasn't necessarily your car. And it wasn't just cars that were like this, most capital goods were.

Comment Re:A free search engine (Score 1) 152

At least in a socialist economy, assuming a democratic political structure, the people could vote in new managers. That's much more difficult when trying to do the same to a privately held monopolistic corporation.

Theoretically yes, but so far in every socialist country that has ever existed, the political elite end up granting themselves favors that the average person cannot obtain. Take for example Venezuela has free elections, but the common people live in the gutter, where the political elite and only the political elite have it made.

Granted, in the US the political elite have a status of their own, but being a politician isn't the only way to obtain that here, nor it is even the most common way. The most common way is exploiting an underserved market (also called disruption,) and/or creating a new market entirely. Which by the way, when you do that, you're making your customers happy in the process, as people only pay money for something if they value it more than they value their money.

I've seen a lot of people lament the fact that among the 20 most powerful/influential people in the US, only one is a government official, which is the US president. That's not something to lament at all however, in fact that's exactly what the founding fathers intended. They knew that democracies fail when any one entity gains too much power, so they were very adamant that there needs to be a balance between all types of power, such as balance between public and private, and balance between haves and have nots. So long as none of them become too powerful, then they all keep one another in check. So if somebody asks me if I am happy with having various CEOs being roughly as influential as the president, I'll answer that yes, I am happy with that.

Comment Re:A free search engine (Score 1) 152

So where do you draw the line between abuse of power and Google being in the end a dominant for-profit corporation? Do we really think there's a simple one word or one sentence answer?

Well here's a question: Who is Google abusing? And before you answer end user privacy, note that there are some very good alternatives to everything Google offers.

Comment Re:A free search engine (Score 1) 152

Not according to what our local tax-is-theft basement dwellers say. They assert that any sort of restriction in trading is "interfering with the market." In other words, according to them, the Free Market includes interference with supply-and-demand by restricting the market. And that includes prohibiting a market althogether.

Well a trade restriction certainly can hamper a free market, though usually it has a less noticeable impact than the four I mentioned above. For example, a tariff typically raises the price of a particular good by artificially increasing scarcity. But tariffs are bad for a different reason. Namely, they end up costing more than they supposedly save.

For example, the steel tariffs that George W Bush implemented were designed to save jobs by raising the price of foreign steel. The problem is, it ended up costing our economy something like $300,000 per job that was saved, meaning that while a few steelworker jobs were saved, many more people in adjacent industries probably lost their job. How does that happen? Well for example, steel is used to make cars, and if domestically produced cars now cost more because we are forced to pay a higher price for steel, then foreign cars are more attractive.

So slap a tariff on foreign cars then you say, right? Well, problem with that is sticking tariffs on foreign cars doesn't make our domestically produced cars anymore attractive to say Australia or Canada than Japanese cars. So, the end result is you're going to sell less cars, which means people might lose jobs. Remember, we're operating on a global economy now, so you can't just assume that forcing domestic purchasers to pay more means you're going to make more. In fact, it very rarely ever works out that way and usually results in a big loss, which is why even the most left leaning economists are overwhelmingly against tariffs (this even includes the New Keynesian economists, who are now in opposition to John Maynard Keynes who strongly believed in tariffs.)

For better or for worse though, politicians left and right typically ignore economists.

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner

Working...