Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Once Again (Score 1) 116 116

are saying that taxing people diverts spending away from non gov't goods and services, you are wrong

No, I'm saying that government spending does that, regardless of whether the revenue comes from taxes, borrowing, or glowing presses. Collectively we make what we make (goods and services), and whatever portion of that GDP is diverted into government hands is just that much less for the people (except for the remarkably tiny percentage of government spending that actually goes to needed infrastructure, perhaps, but that's almost a rounding error in recent budgets).

the economy is in a slump; in that case, gov.t spending is good

Oh, yes, it worked so well for the Greeks, I'm sure it will work just as well for us. It's individual consumer spending that has pulled us out of every recession, and that waits on stability more than anything else. The best thing the government can do in a recession is: change nothing: no new regulations, no obviously-temporary programs. Historically people start spending again once they feel they've adjusted to the "new normal".

your idea that lower taxes = more productivity is just wrong in some, and perhaps most circumstances

Again, spending, not taxes, is what affects efficiency, not productivity. "Broken windows" are great for productivity, but do nothing to actually make things better.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 736 736

The US Government isn't brave or cowardly.

Some of there actions are brave. Others cowardly.

They're fighting a war.

No. They really aren't fighting a war.

They are using the military as an international extrajudicial hit squad.

Call it a "war" to rationalize it is like rolling tanks down main street to wage war on shoplifters. After all, we can't simply send the police... they might get injured, how can we take that risk? We should use every advantage we have, all the time... right?)

The "brave" alternative is sending troops in to get killed. That's not a solution, then you just get more people killed.

There are a lot of options between "drone strike at wedding" and "boots on the ground invasion"; lets not frame the question as a binary choice.

And if you don't like policy, you don't frame it in terms of how effective we are at fighting

How we engage is as important as policy. We could use ICBMs, with nuclear warheads too, without loss of American life. That doesn't make it a sensible choice.

Drone strikes at weddings aren't sensible either.

Comment: Re:They could save space (Score 1) 105 105

Facebook seems to have your friends in mind, at least for now. They have a system where old photos are store quite cheaply, because they simply fail to display the first time you try to view them. By giving up on storing them in a way that can serve a web page hit, Facebook can be quite cheap (though I hear they use powered-down HDDs, not optical - and Western Digital has a new line of HDDs just for this purpose).

Comment: Re:A corrupt company stuggling. Boo hoo. (Score 1) 123 123

What's sad is that UOP really could have done it! If they offered actual counseling guidance, and curricula that didn't just suck, and made sure that their clients passed classes with rigor, they could have *easily* made a profitable college with good reviews and earned trust.

Instead, they violated that trust, and probably deserve to be shut down.

Comment: Re:How much?!? (Score 1) 117 117

That's enough to buy half an F-35C!

Well, we need to buy something to replace aging airframes, so it might be better to say "we could save that just by building a one new F-15 instead of a new F-35". (Seriously, I'm as hawkish as they come, but the F-35 isn't the answer, and fortunately we haven't shut down F-15 production).

Comment: Re:Once Again (Score 1) 117 117

The government can only print dollars. It can't print goods and services, so you're still diverting those goods and services (whatever the government is buying) away from the people. Also, there is a high "frictional" cost to an unstable currency - it's just an inefficient waste, so, again, less goods and services for the people.

Comment: Re:Iran is not trying to save money (Score 1) 264 264

A bit before 1970 many places, even Egypt, South Africa and Indonesia had nuclear weapons programs (which didn't get far) - plus even Turkish and Australian governments were considering starting one. Turkey got as far as trying to get approval for a CANDU reactor to make weapon material (as India successfully did later to make their first bomb) while Australia just talked about it at high levels of government leaving us to read about it in sheer disbelief years later when the papers were released.

Comment: Re:Don't strawman me (Score 1) 113 113

Last decade, when you were doing this shit

Bit longer than that and still doing it. Why bother to quote something if you haven't read and comprehended it?

Twenty-year-old back-ups?

Indeed. Even though that's a bad idea with media life and formats there's a lot of material that fits that description, especially in the geosciences and some other applied sciences. It's something I have to deal with several times a year with some clients even providing tapes from the late 1970s.

Comment: What's with the misrepresentation? (Score 1) 113 113

Losing an encryption key is one of the most minor risks I can imagine

It's both potentially a complete showstopper and totally unnecessary in the first place. I don't really understand why you cannot grasp the concept.
I'll restate something above in another way - if you can't work out how to do a bare metal restore on a single system with all the needed data on media that you can read and the right hardware then somebody has seriously fucked up. That guy that worked there should have put something together in such a way as someone with a moderate skillset can work it out, or someone with detailed instructions can do it with very little in the way of skills. Requiring a key that can be lost is a major fuckup waiting to happen. You suggested you wouldn't be able to work it out in a couple of hours - I think you were selling yourself short to try to make a point just as your ridiculous strawman in my name "with no foreknowledge of their systems" WHEN THE ENTIRE POINT is to PROVIDE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THEIR SYSTEMS by having disaster recovery documents designed to be read by the least skilled person capable of doing the job.

Comment: Re:Virtulize it (Score 1) 63 63

The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee