Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:IBM no longer a tech company? (Score 1) 44

by drinkypoo (#48228593) Attached to: Ballmer Says Amazon Isn't a "Real Business"

The reports are that the cloud provider part of the business is losing stunning amounts of money.

Only because they're trying to corner the market

right, but just like retail, it's not clear that this is possible,

overall the company seems sustainable, it can afford to make losses like the one last quarter in part because it can easily reverse those losses if it ever becomes a serious problem

It's not clear that it can. Amazon's model depends on endless growth, but you can't grow forever.

Comment: Re:What is critical thinking? (Score 1) 453

by drinkypoo (#48228583) Attached to: Employers Worried About Critical Thinking Skills

They just assumed the "right" group is big enough to support their growth and they were wrong.

No, no they were not. The problem is that hiring criteria have gotten all fucked. Instead of proving what you can do, it's having all the right buzzwords on your resume, and being young. So they hire young people who haven't developed common sense yet and then wonder why there isn't any in their organization. They fail to reward their most valuable players, literally often pushing them out the door, and then wonder why they can't execute.

It's not because there are not people out there with critical thinking skills. It's that the people doing the hiring lack them. They're hiring people based on ooh shiny, and not on actual abilities needed to get the work done.

TL;DR: If they stop hiring people based on bullshit and actually hire for creativity, common sense, flexibility, and yes, critical thinking skills, then they won't be having these problems.

Comment: The US tech industry (Score 1, Insightful) 45

by Taco Cowboy (#48228567) Attached to: Ballmer Says Amazon Isn't a "Real Business"

Although I came in the tech field quite late (in the 1970's) I've still been around the block a few times, so here's my take ...

IBM was a sales company with strong tech foundation. Was. Now IBM has turned into a service company

Cisco's strength was derived from teams of cracked engineers churning out amazing communication hardware. Was. Now that the cracked teams of engineers have mostly left Cisco has turned more and more like an Indian company

Microsoft used to be THE company that sells software that corporations need (from OS to their office suites). Used to. Now Microsoft is a company clinging onto new versions of legacy software

Apple used to be a very brave company that dare to come up with strange products that people crave for. Used to. Now Apple, much like Microsoft, is a company clingong onto new versions of legacy hardware

Comment: Re:Go T-Mo (Score 1) 88

by drinkypoo (#48228539) Attached to: AT&T Locks Apple SIM Cards On New iPads

erhaps you have just been using the built-in crapware that Verizon ships with their phones. Also, even though the phones ship with a locked bootloader, I have had no trouble unlocking the bootloader in order to install a custom ROM like cyanogenmod, or rooting the existing rom, or both.

This is not always a practical option; it can void your manufacturer's warranty so if something goes wrong with your $600 phone within the warranty period then you're screwed,

If someone told me I voided my warranty for installing CM, I really would see them in court. They're going to have to show that CM is incompatible, and in the process, they'll basically have to declare that their phone is not an android phone, which will make them look like cunts in the press.

Comment: Re:We have always been at war with Oceania. (Score 1) 236

by drinkypoo (#48228533) Attached to: Days After Shooting, Canada Proposes New Restrictions On and Offline

Please confine yourself to references to the title of that book. Quotes from the text invariably give me the creeps.

That's because it's such a successful imitation of life. That feeling is supposed to galvanize you to action... hopefully not involving firearms

Comment: Re:yup! (Score 1) 236

by drinkypoo (#48228519) Attached to: Days After Shooting, Canada Proposes New Restrictions On and Offline

While in reality the invention of the assault rifle and the Internet has pretty much blown away anything they intended in the Second and First Amendments, respectively.

[citation needed]

Before you even try, you're completely, absolutely wrong. The assault rifle did nothing to blow away the second amendment, because it does nothing to change the reasons for its inception. And the internet does nothing to blow away the first amendment, it only makes it more important.

But, I can't wait to see your reasoning as to why freedom should be reduced because progress has happened. You just want to maintain a balance of progress, and we have to go backwards socially to make you happy?

Comment: Re: Ugh! (Score 1) 236

by drinkypoo (#48228505) Attached to: Days After Shooting, Canada Proposes New Restrictions On and Offline

In an ideal system (and probably one that exists only in imagination),

oh, you get it!

Working towards a better ideal system is not a bad thing at all.

You can't work towards an unattainable goal. And that's what this is about. It's not trying to get as close as possible to utopia, it's trying to create it. But utopia means "nowhere" for a reason. You cannot create perfection. You can only mitigate the lack of perfection inherent to a world with free will. Or, you know, you can eliminate free will. That's the only way to have an "ideal" system. And again, that's precisely what this is about. The attempt to eliminate free will. Instead of building a fairer system, and thus reducing events like these, they want to build a system that maintains the status quo while also suppressing events like these. In order to do that, they will reduce free will.

Comment: Re:Shot in the back (Score 1) 236

by drinkypoo (#48228493) Attached to: Days After Shooting, Canada Proposes New Restrictions On and Offline

Bullets. You have to track the shit out of them. If you gave the guards at the War Memorial live ammo, it would be a complete clusterfuck.

If our government finds tracking bullets to be an arduous task, perhaps they are not qualified to have them in the first place.

What if the gun got dropped and discharged?

Then it's a miserable piece of shit. Only shitty guns discharge when dropped. Spend the money to get them a decent fucking gun, especially if they're your honor guard. There's no honor in standing there with a shitty gun. (The gun imparts no particular honor IMO, but it should at least be decent.)

What if you stopped for a picture and someone took your gun

Took your gun? Seriously? TOOK YOUR GUN? What the actual FUCK? You don't put the fucking thing down

or cut themselves on the bayonet?

If their gun doesn't have a sharp bayonet now, why would it magically gain one if you gave them bullets?

What if the magazine fell out and the ammo sprayed all over the ground? Now the person guarding is presenting the image of a drunkard scrambling around for their car keys in the dark.

What if the person you assigned to the honor guard was a total fuckup who should not be allowed to look at a gun, let alone hold one? Well gee, then I guess they shouldn't be in the fucking military. Give them a dishonorable discharge immediately. They failed to take their responsibilities seriously.

Or, you know, again, don't specify a shitty gun. Because again, an honor guard standing there holding a shitty gun is a symbol of impotence, and that's not what we want representing us.

Weird scenarios, but all significantly more likely than a schizophrenic walking up to you and shooting you in the back in cold blood on a boring Hump Day morning.

[citation needed]

If you're giving someone ammo, you're expecting them to get shot at, right? Which really means they should be wearing armour as well, not the ceremonial dress uniform

This is not about expecting them to get shot at. This is about it's fucking stupid to have a gun and no bullets. An unarmed honor guard is like a dick with no balls. How is that honorable?

Comment: Re:Clarification regarding backports (Score 1) 88

by drinkypoo (#48228473) Attached to: OwnCloud Dev Requests Removal From Ubuntu Repos Over Security Holes

Advising your users to use your own repository is not a satisfying answer.

Yes, yes it is. At least, I am satisfied by such an answer.

If there's a package in Debian, then it should be fine using it.

And if it's not fine to use it, then it should be removed from the repo, without a request from the developer.

My advice then would be to explicitely ask that the owncloud package is not synced again in any future release of Ubuntu, so you don't run into the same trouble again.

There's no technical reason they can't remove a non-required package from a release. So yes, that's the solution, but it shouldn't be the only solution.

Comment: IBM no longer a tech company? (Score 2) 45

by drinkypoo (#48228445) Attached to: Ballmer Says Amazon Isn't a "Real Business"

The only computer-related business I can think of with more R&D budget is Microsoft, IBM isn't a tech company? Shut your mouth. Then again, if Cringely says it, it's probably wrong.

Amazon is clearly a business. But its model is Microsoftian EEE. Sure, you can sell through Amazon, but they keep stats and if it becomes worth it to stock what you're selling, they're going to do that. Of course, on eBay, if the Chinese see you sell a lot of what they've got, they'll start selling it directly. Then you only get to sell to people who care about shipping time and support.

Amazon is a real business, but their business model basically requires that they shut everyone else down, and not everyone wants to shop with Amazon. So they'll eventually fail if they don't find a new model.

Comment: Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China (Score 1) 256

by drinkypoo (#48228437) Attached to: Michigan Latest State To Ban Direct Tesla Sales

Maybe where you are. For me registration cost is exactly the same for the 1st or the 100th car.

You didn't even mention registration cost. Moving the goalposts.

Insurance as well seems to make no difference

get a better insurer.

a car always has a base line minimum

No, no it does not. The number is different for everyone. They basically invent them, that's why they won't share their formulas. It's not because of competitive advantage. They're all fucking people in the same ways. It's to hide the fucking.

But you don't see huge cost differences between a 3 year old car with 30,0000 and one with 50,000 and, maybe wrongly, but I would prefer a newer car for safety, especially for long trips.

As long as it's new enough to have side curtain airbags, it doesn't really matter.

You don't want to leave oil sitting in your engine for long periods of time as it turns acidic.

Synthetics have less problem with this, the more synthetic they are the less problem. Run Schaeffer's or AMSOIL, because the other supposedly "full" synthetics have been tested as low as 24%. Mobil 1 was actually downranked a full grade it's such bullshit.

Also fuel goes off and can gum things like injectors, plugs, filters and pumps.

Fuel stabilizers are readily available, and will easily let gasoline keep for a year.

Which means no matter what you will be increasing your servicing costs.

Again, your logical fallacy is moving the goalposts. I said the costs don't double.

Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8.