...this is it. We've got drones on Mars already. They just don't fly yet.
That's ridiculous reasonig. It presumes people can't adapt their knowledge to new applications. I have no trouble with that.
And Cisco people come more expensively than Cisco gear. Seems to me it would be cheaper to go with something "not cisco." This is why I said "maybe worse" [than Microsoft] because they REALLY leverage their critical mass hard and they do so by creating this army of Cisco loyalists because they all have the IT industry fooled into thinking they are worth more.
None of what has been presented actually says Cisco is "superior." It all says Cisco is conveniently entrenched.
What amazes me is the current level of brand name dominance in technology. (I know, I'm repeating myself so I'll abbreviate) It's all so consumerist. We don't care what it actually does or doesn't do... or even how well it does it. We just care about the brand name.
"Do you know about networking?" "I'm Cisco Certified!!" "That wasn't the question..."
How many Cisco certified people do you know that don't know anything about networking?? I know a lot. It's the brand name that makes them important and the brand name that makes these devices valuable.
It tickles me to hear people say "Linux" and "toy" in the same sentence knowing that Cisco uses Linux in almost everything these days. That's like saying "I own a Lexus, you wouldn't catch me dead in a Toyota... those cars are crap!!" Sorry, but... you know?
And to me the real killer is that networking is 99.999% about being protocol implementation faithful so ALL devices of all brands should do the same damned things. (Yes, I know there are Cisco specific protocols and people should avoid them to avoid vendor lock-in.) Cisco isn't quite as bad as Microsoft, but in some ways, they're worse.
I think you don't quite get it. It's not "countries" that hold economic sway. It's a rather small collection of bankers. Countries don't control their own money any more. Pretty much every nation "outsourced" their monetary policy to "the cloud."
Now, the US Dollar is pretty much the world's exchange currency, but BRIC is set to replace the dollar.
I'm not saying things will be better once the US collapses. But it will give the US a chance to reboot and become something better (but might become worse). The people in charge are NOT going to give up short term benefits in favor of a better long-term future.
Economic power used to have something to do with production and crap like that. Now it's all about who is in control of the money. Problem is, those in control of money are not particularly responsible or interested in the welfare of the world.
One of two bad things will happen:
1. The US's influence over the world will implode
2. The US's influence over the world will be "something something something 'DarkSide' something something something 'Complete!'"
What happens next should be obvious. Personally, I hope US influence implodes -- we need freedom and democracy again.
Free software, as good as it often is, does not do well in a consumerist society. We believe that anything good costs money and inversely, if it costs money it must be good and the more money it costs, the better it must be. What's more the implied belief is that if it's free, it can't be good.
But depite all that, it's not just people that are increasingly using it, it's that business is increasingly using it. I don't mind, terribly, that commercial software business actually uses free software to make their stuff... I do but I don't. VMWare still pisses me off in the sense that their product is Linux all over and yet they won't make a Linux client for it. (Way to take without giving back VMWare!!!)
But where the whole industry is going is changing. Where things will be in 3 to 5 years will be quite telling of where we're going and whether or not Microsoft will remain relevant into the future and all that. But one thing I know is certain: Things will not stay the same simply because Microsoft doesn't want them to change. And as Microsoft is apparently terrible at change, a pretty dismal picture is being painted for them. And seriously, are people really buying into the "cloud" nonsense?! Especially now with the NSA controlling the world's data?
Free software is and will be the way forward. Nothing is killing it. And I'm pretty sure open source software will be the way to restore trust in computing and in the internet.
...still don't know her last name...
If I were to do business in Japan and moved money in and out of a Japanese account for my business in Japan, does the IRS have the right to tax my business in Japan?
The IRS taxes on US business activity... in US currency. Not sure I agree with the IRS getting involved with something like this especially since I think they really don't understand what they are getting involved in.
Yeah, I get that already... Thanks NSA. I have ceased using a backup service for all my stuff -- I'll start subscribing to your services for data recovery.
If the shotgun shell evidence was relevant, it would reinforce their theory that squirming is an admission of guilt. They wouldn't leave that out unless the evidence was "inconclusive." That's the thing about shotgun shell evidence. It's either inconclusive or it's not. It's never proof of innocence.
You have to admit that these discussions help some. I'm sure others might argue to the contrary, but discussion and debate brings about new ideas (for some) to consider.
...and I might add that the shotgun shell evidence was not mentioned as direct evidence of guilt in this case. If they had matched the shells with the shotgun, they wouldn't need to rely on "he was squirming in his seat when I asked him!" as evidence. "He just LOOKED guilty as hell!"
Even this says that shotgun shells vary greatly in terms of quality of evidence.
Firing pin marks are EXTREMELY bad evidence. On some rare occasions, a firing pin might be deformed enough to leave a distinctive mark, but that's not quite the norm.
Shotguns and consistency are hard to put together.
If body language is testimony, then I am afraid we will have to release a LOT of convicted rapists. "She said 'No!' but her eyes said 'Yes!'" Sound familiar? Or is it the exclusive domain of the government to be allowed to interpret the meaning of body language? (And before anyone says "it was the jury, not the government!" I'll remind you that jurists *ARE* government and so is the prosecution who claims this is evidence and the judges who allow it.)
This ruling simply frightens and disturbs me.