Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Elephant in the room (Score 1) 178

by bhiestand (#47792231) Attached to: Intel's Haswell-E Desktop CPU Debuts With Eight Cores, DDR4 Memory

I suspect you're right about price fixing. However, the fact that someone in the economy has to pay a large sum of real money is irrelevant in determining cost-benefit.

Yes, it's real money. But so are labor costs. And, in theory, those labor costs represent [a portion of] the real value that person is adding to the economy. So anything that makes the employee able to add value more efficiently is overall good.

In general, an employee would not be earning $200/hr on a $7,000 workstation if they weren't adding more than $200/hr of value to the economy in some way. So making them more efficient either allows them to add more value, or gives them more free time to do other things (which tend to benefit the economy and society as a whole).

So maybe there is collusion, price gouging, artificial shortages, or something going on... but I know people who would gladly pay a huge premium for minor speed increases. And that really drives development, which should ultimately benefit the home user.

Comment: Re:Bottom line... (Score 1) 170

You are the one making an elementary mistake, I am afraid. Your conclusion does not follow, even if we accept your entire argument.

You have heard the phrase "trust, but verify". It is far too easy to fake transparency and mislead other states. Every state throughout history has done this. At the very least, you need good intelligence sources to verify a state's public pronouncements regarding intentions are sincere. Even if they are sincere, you need to know the intentions/plans/abilities of internal players who may be in opposition.

Although I guess we could just take Putin at his word that he is just conducting military exercises and has no intentions towards Crimea? I'm sure he'll be giving Crimea back to Ukraine any day now.

Advocating covert verification of states' intentions and abilities has nothing to do with government accountability. That is an extreme oversimplification and false dichotomy.

Comment: Re:Cheaper drives (Score 1) 183

No, any enterprise that cares about its data or uptime will use "enterprise" SSDs*. All** the big storage players have been using enterprise rated/labeled SSDs, and many of them use "enterprise" HDDs as well. So that's a pretty big chunk of the storage market. I'm not saying EMC doesn't have a high markup, but if you're using EMC storage with SSDs, you're using enterprise SSDs.

There are a bunch of reasons to use enterprise stuff in other situations as well, but I'm not going to try to debate the technicals right now.

As a side note, it sounds like your company is having pretty serious issues with storage and backup. What are they going to do when data grows a bit and daily backups start taking 25 hours?

*Or have a completely different architecture to sidestep the problem. It's harder than it sounds.
**There may be exceptions?

Comment: Re:The Brookings Institution? (Score 1) 409

That is true of a lot of newer think tanks. You can generally judge a think tank by its ratio of PhDs to staff.

Brookings is part of the old guard. They employ a lot of serious researchers and generally strive towards objectivity. Nothing's 100%, but I'd say they're comparable to a good university.

Comment: Re:Comprehension fail. Green: Give Wheeler more po (Score 1) 200

Fair enough. I appreciate your honest reply.

W was a unique president. Off the top of my head, he's the only recent president who seems to have actually done everything wrong. Obama has done some good... but since everything he does is controversial and subject to the harshest rhetoric I've seen in the US, I decided to leave him out of this.

Comment: Re:Have you seen Gedit lately? (Score 1) 402

by bhiestand (#47589465) Attached to: Comparison: Linux Text Editors

While that is correct, you are assuming vi has a steep upward slope. That was not the case for me.

1 minute in: "Oh crap... how I do I type? How do I EXIT?"
15 minutes in: "whew, helpful man page and articles." "cfg edited and saved. Go me!"
1 day later: "I just deleted two lines! Crap! How do I exit without saving? Ugh... what'd that man say again?"

A quick initial climb, a steep drop into a lake filled with tears, and then a gradual slope.

Comment: Re:Whew. FFS... (Score 1) 113

by bhiestand (#47585025) Attached to: Countries Don't Own Their Internet Domains, ICANN Says

Let me guess where you're from.

A place where imagination is non-existent.

The problem is that in this statement:

Now imagine you're neither country. Dependent on a bully country and some other random country for your internet control. Which would you take? Or the UN?

you are imaging that the US is the "bully country", and failing to imagine what most other countries would do with control over the internet. And actively ignoring what many other countries do with control over their piece of the internet.

The US bullies on plenty of issues. Control over the internet really isn't one of them.

Comment: Re:Comprehension fail. Green: Give Wheeler more po (Score 1) 200

It's government that enforces the cable monopolies. They are called franchises, and it's the government saying only one company can run service to a given neighborhood. An EXCELLENT example of government doing harm.

I got the impression you were making the argument about the federal government specifically. Sometimes the federal/state government increases liberty by getting rid of a federal/state regulation. Sometimes abolishing a regulation leads to less liberty.

Neither I nor the Green Party believes government never does harm. I am certainly not claiming that federal, state, or local governments are free of corruption.

The core of the argument is that 1) government is not inherently bad and 2) we can substantially improve the quality of our government through 3) changes in electoral rules, campaign financing, and the revolving door. When a large voting bloc stops believing 1 and 2, we're basically doomed. I'd much rather argue over the best #3 and how to get them implemented.

Comment: Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 200

Key part of your quote:

The quality of drinking water in the United States remains universally high, however. Even though pipes and mains are frequently more than 100 years old and in need of replacement, outbreaks of disease attributable to drinking water are rare.

Universally high quality drinking water? That's "remarkably well". Yes, infrastructure needs work because nobody is willing to spend the money to do it. But, as of today, nearly everyone has potable water.

Comment: Re:Comprehension fail. Green: Give Wheeler more po (Score 1) 200

I'm sorry, but you are misinterpreting or misrepresenting Greens, at least in this paragraph:

It's pretty clear, isn't it, that they are for more government - WAY more government. In fact, the preamble of their platform says they seek to refute the idea "that government is intrinsically undesirable and destructive of liberty". They think more federal government leads to more liberty. How cute.

The entire point of that line is that governments are not always bad, and they can lead to liberty. The rest of the platform is basically saying "we need all of these things to have a good government again".

I'd call the notion that government never leads to more liberty "cute", but it's ugly and overly cynical. Let me give you a few examples of the federal government creating more liberty:
* abolishment of slavery (Civil War will give you a lot of fun arguing points, I'm sure, but still true)
* abolishment of Jim Crow laws
* child labor laws
* Roe v Wade (trollbait, but millions of Americans have been grateful for this liberty)
* hopefully someday, breaking cable's blockade of good internet (I don't have the liberty to have fiber because a municipal official made a deal with a donor?)

I'm not a Green, but I'm with them on this. And I think any sane person should be. Government is not always bad.

Comment: Re:Cry Me A River (Score 1) 608

by bhiestand (#47426051) Attached to: Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software

Hell, take things "programmed" in Excel for that matter. I've seen people use 3 columns to do things which could've been written in 1 operation especially when it comes to adding percentages to a value (they'll calculate 4%, then add it's outcome to the source value to get a +4% and then hide the other 2 columns instead of just doing 104%). That will take them 2 hours to complete.

I agree with your point. But to be fair, I have seen 'geniuses' use one formula to do things which could have been written in 50 columns. There are advantages to breaking up the formula and "showing your work" in hidden columns. I hate trying to debug or change formulas with a thousand parentheses. Now if we can only get people to make their excel formulas readable and then start documenting...

Comment: Re:Any Memory?? what judge will go on just that? (Score 1) 415

by bhiestand (#47410201) Attached to: Police Using Dogs To Sniff Out Computer Memory

Yeah, it's kind of sad how very few places will tolerate anyone who truly cares (rather than pretends to care while supporting policies infringe upon free speech rights) about free speech.

Freedom? You want the "free speech right" of a rapist to trump a rape victim's freedom to decide whether or not to be be in an adult video.

It's possible you're not trolling, but it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would mod you up. So much for #NotAllMen and all those "slashdot isn't misogynist!" comments...

Comment: Re:You think? (Score 1) 385

No, that would be a subsidy, if it wasn't applied to all businesses equally. My point was that some people claim a tax cut, usually in the form of a rate cut, is "the same thing as spending." E.g., if a tax cut is expected to reduce revenues by $100 million, they will say it's the same as the government spending $100 million. It's not, for various reasons too off-topic to go into.

I am glad we agree on the first point. I may have missed some of the context of your post, and I often get the impression that some on slashdot would not agree that targeted rate cuts are a subsidy.

On the latter, I suspect we disagree somewhat. But we don't have to argue that point. Over the last 14 years, I have seen an ugly cycle of: 1) cut taxes disproportionately for the wealthy and corporations; 2) increase defense spending; 3) cite new deficits as justification for cutting entitlements by an amount dwarfed by 1 and 2; 4) propose new tax cuts. The claim that "tax cuts [always] pay for themselves" concerns me greatly.

Comment: Re:You think? (Score 1) 385

Today on /. we find out who doesn't know the difference between subsidies, tax deductions, tax breaks, and taxes.

You'd have a mod point if I had one right now. You could have added "spending," because I've seen people argue that tax cuts (i.e. taking less of someone's money) is the same thing as more government spending.

So, to be clear, if Obama got on TV and announced that no taxes would need to be paid on corporate or personal income from renewable energy sales, you would NOT consider that a form of subsidy? And he would get no resistance from the right, because it would just be "taking less of someone's money"?

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries