4718 posts • joined 31 May 2010
So what you're saying is that you want to give every crazy fuckwad who hates whites/men/fat people/bearded individuals/etc (subtract as necessary) the means by which to more efficiently single me out, find where I am in real time and harm me? You want my boss to be able to see when I told a little white lie about why I'm late, and instead of dropping off a package, I went for a nooner with the missus?
How about the details of my sex life? Should they be available to anyone who wants to attempt to embarrass me? Or my wife? Or my parents, sister, what-have-you? People in power generally don't need to abuse that power because they're already in power. Their indiscretions (at least in wealthy societies) are relatively minor. They don't generally have a reason to want to spy on the average citizen.
But the world is full of truly crazy people who absolutely do get it in their heads to harm others. White power types hunting for [insert racial epithet] here. Minorities looking for revenge. Bored bosses looking for staff to fire or jealous lovers looking for an excuse to get the partner abuse on.
If I could watch every corner in the city, what prevents me for picking a secluded neighborhood, watching every night and logging who goes by? What if I see the same female every Thursday at the same time? Couldn't I plane a rape? Or a murder?
What if I see that kid who made fun of me in school going by that one dark alley every single night as he walks home from school? Or I find that my boss always drives too fast on the rather dangerous road where spike strips could easily be places and then removed?
I don't think you understand how horrible people are. People in power don't need to resort to most of the truly sadistic and horrible stuff because they have so much power that they can do whatever they want. People without power - and that's most of us - need to do our dirty deeds either in secret, or only in our own heads.
Give these people the power to observe everything, everywhere and "in their own heads" will become "in secret" more and more often. Especially as we start to find out what is in people's heads and regulate against it! (Thanks, UK. You guys are pro.)
What % of society needs to abuse these technologies before it's no longer "okay?" What excuses will we use? Cameras are a "level playing field" because everyone watches them? How many of use watch them to catch bad guys for free? How many of us watch the spaces between the cameras? How many of us use the cameras just to catch our hated neighbor putting out one extra bag of trash?
Are all laws worth enforcing, and worth enforcing equally? If so, we're all criminals, because modern laws are designed such that you break several of them during any given day, even if you are going out of your way to be law abiding. Who runs society when we're all in jail? Who pays the fines for all minor infractions when none of us can get jobs because we all have unpaid fines?
How does our society function when every minor slight - real or imagined - can be reciprocated to with completely disproportionate surveillance-enabled retribution?
You are advocating a society in which the most devious, the most douchy and the most morally able to execute dramatic preemptive strikes wins...because everyone else absolutely will lose.
If Google can see everything I do they can advertise at me more effectively. That's not something I'm comfortable with, but it's narrow and targeted. If the NSA can see everything I do, they can make my life hell every time I try to cross the US border to go to a conference. I'm even less okay with this, but they have a lot of very big men with even larger guns.
If my neighbor or my boss can see everything I do they can ruin my life in a similarly completely legal manner. I may or may not have the time and resources to fight that war and win.
If the crazy racist down the street can see everything I do, then he might Treyvon Martin my ass...and apparently, get away with it. This is a thing that you can do now.
I don't know man, your idea of a "level" society terrifies the shit out of me. It really does.
The ability to obtain 10cm imagery is not, in and of itself, "a new era of surveillance." That said, it's general availability in an easy-to-use form (read: Google Earth) absolutely is a "new era of surveillance."
Depending on how frequently these images are updated we're talking about taking surveillance capabilities once restricted to governments and "those in the know and who have the means" and given them to everyone. One extra tool for society's sociopaths and stalkers.
Oh, technology is neutral, and there are good arguments to be made for this. For example, I think it will make planning certain kinds of outdoor events much easier. The question we have to ask ourselves is "just because a technology can be commoditised, should it?"
It's 2014 and we still haven't solved the social issues of copyright infringement that the commoditisation of simple recording technology brought to the 80s, let alone digital distribution of the 90s! Yet here we are plunging headfirst into a society where we track everything, everyone, all the time and are even now making available the ability to judge the relative size of all objects on earth to within a penis-length from space.
I just don't think we're ready to handle this responsibly. Our laws, our mediation methodologies, our ability to solve differences...they haven't grown as fast as our technology. We're a dissatisfied and tribal bunch of miserable apes each clawing and scheming our way to an advantage over other apes...but now with the technology to do some Really Scary Stuff.
This one advancement won't make a world-ending difference...but where do we say "halt, we need time for our hearts to catch up to our heads"? That's the question with which I struggle...
Constitution changes typically require a referendum or at least a majority of provinces to agree to the change. In what western nation is that likely to occur? On what topic can any of our nations find unity?
Okay. You're still left with the question of "what would the suits in question choose to do?"
Okay, let's say for a moment that you're right. That someone (we'll use Mrs Merkel as our example) has the osmium gonads required for such a move. Let's ask the tough questions.
If you're the Apple exec, do you cave? If you give that data to German authorities then you're in violation of US law. If you don't, you're in violation of German law.
From an economic standpoint: the US is the larger market. If you have to pull out of any market in order to protect you US revenue, then you do so. It sucks, but that's politics. You lobby, you whine, you carry on until you're allowed back in...but the US gravy train is the one you protect.
From a personal perspective: if you risk jail directly in either nation then the one you don't want to end up in is the US jail. More to the point, you have to look at "how long will you be in jail" and "how much of your wealth do you get to keep so that when you come out of jail you can Live Well." Also: how will your family be affected. Where does this piercing of the corporate veil start, where does it end?
"We'll levy fines against you" is a hell of a lot simpler maths than "we're going to enforce our viewpoints with guns." It sucks to no longer be able to do business in Germany, but it sucks a lot more if anyone is facing any jail time.
Now, would they? Where? In what nations is that true? Under what circumstances?
These are the issues that we, as a society, are having to hash out.
Powerful people say that copyright should be enforced at the barrel of a gun. And they get their wish. Why not surveillance? And why not privacy? This isn't just about money: these clashes are starting to get into fundamental philosophical differences between nations about the type of society that their people would like to see built. Those rarely end well, especially when the disputes are amongst allies.
I wouldn't want to be caught in the middle of it (I.E. being the above discussed Apple exec,) but I certainly don't think that any individual business interests are going to make a substantive difference to US policy in this matter. American Exceptionalism exists in many forms, not the least of which is this insular belief that "not America" cannot be considered in their law. (And frankly, many other nations are the same.)
To change that you need to start making fundamental changes to how the nation perceives itself, how the judiciary and government is organized, the role of the citizen and the role of a nation-state itself in today's more interconnected world. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the US - or any other nation - will be "forced" to adapt. Nations have tried to take over the world for reasons more petty than resistance of social change...I do believe they'll fight and resist and struggle to the dying breath of last among them that believe in this vision of their nation.
Time is the only thing that will change that nation. Society evolves one funeral at a time...and we're decades away from being able to see any meaningful change towards openness, transparency or multilateral recognition of human rights...at least from the USA, and those nations most heavily influenced by her.
I believe the response is likely to be "the judge was wrong, but only due to this minor esoteric error in the application of the law." No precedent will be set, nothing will in fact be decided.
The issue here is that US law doesn't allow for the consideration of other countries, their laws or the rights of non-Americans. The only definitive ruling to be made in this case is that the laws of other countries don't matter because other countries don't matter...as a point of law. If, however, that ruling were made publicly at this juncture, the feedback would be catastrophic.
Thus this will be punted, and then handled discretely during some other trial in the future, when the rest of the world isn't looking quite so closely.
Re: Attention getter
And yet, if it were showing advertisements it'd be legal.
Re: Re Christoph: Equilibrium?
Noah's Ark was a racial memory of a localized catastrophic event. Possibly this one. Like most people "the world" consisted of that which they could experience.
There was no global flood, unless you count the two "snowball earth" events. But those were solid water, not liquid. And significantly before humankind. (Thus no way they could have made it into some random sky-fairy peasant control document.)
Re: Yes it is CompSci
"what do you call CS"
The "Dev" in "DevOps". Generally raised with both a complete inability to grok the "Ops" part of the equation combined with such a deep and ingrained scorn for "Ops" that when they "Dev" it becomes a nightmare to actually "Ops" the shite that "CS" produces.
But that's a bitter "Ops" guys speaking...
Yes they are. Diablo Technologies makes ULLtraDIMMs, which are indeed flash. They are NAND flash in a DIMM form factor.
Where have you been?
Google want their own satellite network. Google use a lot of Linux. So basically, they're the movie Antitrust?
??? You consider the Arab Spring a bad thing? That bit where a downtrodden people took control of their own governments and slowly started to move away from repressive dictatorships towards a new culture of their own making? This is bad?
Why? Is it because the culture they wish to make is different from your own? Or because a few have stumbled and fallen? An entire generation learned the value of self-determination and you call it "a bad thing?"
I do not comprehend you.
Anything that moves a society closer to self-determination is a good thing. Even if the road is rough, it's better than dictatorship.
Re: Target advertising?
If you honestly believe that Microsoft don't have a machine "reading" every single e-mail, text, chat, etc that goes through their network you're a fucking idiot. Of course they do. They know as much about you as Google does, they just use it in different ways.
Frankly, I find the uses Microsoft engages in scarier than Google's attempts to sell me more accurate tat.
Re: Of Course They Did
Yo, Canuck from out west here. We got nothing but Telus and Shaw, and no hope of FTTP except in greenfields aimed at rich white folks. (Greenfields aimed at poor people are still on copper.)
I don't know where you are getting your info, but the situation is getting worse out here, not better. Prices are skyrocketing, connectivity is dropping, everything's congested and they've no interested in last mile investment whatsoever.
Sorry mate, but this isn't out east, where there are enough liberals to make a difference for the little guy. There is no forced line sharing. No TekSavvy for ADSL and Cable, no a lot of things. You've got Shaw that you can't afford (and doesn't work) and Telus that you can only barely afford and barely works. There's crappy microwave backhaul and terrifyingly bad sattelite. That's it.
Want to get a consistent >5Mbit upstream? That'll be $900/mo just to light the fibre, and that's after $30K to bring the fibre in, and $90/mo/mbit on 95th percentile billing. Oh, and a minimum 5 year contract.
Bell Alliant is amazeballs, but it just covers the coasties out east. Bell proper is shite and Telus + Shaw are criminally asstastic. You start out with "Awesome!!111!!oneoneone" out east, and it steadily gets worse as you go west.
Re: "whoever successfully builds a reliable, mass-producable qubit"
You're a funny, funny man.
Also, how the hell is a 5 man startup with $0.5M in angel funding going to take a mass producible qbit to market? That isn't going to run classical tasks. Or classical OSes. You'll need massive R&D just to get the right questions to ask. You'll need to develop a OEM partnerships, a channel, a developer community, a support network...and all of it while fighting off massive amounts of FUD from established players.
Christ man, companies today doing nothing more revolutionary that iterating a technology so that you can defer your purchase of a big shiny by another year or two (thus saving your company a few million) get buried under the power of the establishment. Do you honestly think that an HP or an IBM is going to let Bob's Bit Shack and Hot Dog Emporium come to market with a technology that could render them obsolete, or at least threaten to take away the high-margin portion of the market?
Really? You honestly believe that? I want whatever you're on.
If someone who is not a major comes out with a technology this revolutionary the only chance they have of bringing it to market is if one of the founders is an Elon Musk-class osmium-testicled billionaire willing to bet their entire fortune on a roll of the proverbial. And so far as I know, there's only one Elon Musk.
That means they'll sell. Even if they're a crazy high-end VC that normally rolls the hard six looking for a multi-instagram payout, they'll sell. They might take it to Nutanix size, but they'll ultimately sell.
Mark my words. Bookmark this comment. Throw it in my face if I'm wrong...but I promise you, I'm not.
Windows 8 was an unmitigated disaster...and not the only one. But Microsoft has a massive R&D department of incredibly smart people that does a truly fantastic job of coming up with great tech. Even practical tech.
Admittedly, a lot of what they do is take someone else's work and refine it (see: Kinect), but they do have a talent for finding ways to take otherwise PhD-level stuff and beating it into something the average prole can use.
...or they did. Today's Microsoft seems to think that PowerShell is the answer to everything, and we all are able to memorize entire tomes by rote. The company is a schism: one side focusing on the end user too much, to the point that they focus on their vision of what's 'easy' and to hell with everyone else. The other side focusing on pragmatic, practical technologies that the average user is never going to be able to use.
...but somewhere, deep inside that company...there are a great many people who damned good at taking any technology you could imagine and making it approachable. They just need to be given the reins.
Re: Needs better explanation
Uh...what? There's lots of quantum computing problems. Natural language comprehension is one. There's a lot of research going into the idea that mammalian neural processing employs a certain quantum component that allows us to solve "hard" problems faster than we should be able to, given the number of synapses, and our limited storage capacity.
A quantum computer isn't going to play Crysis...but it might well be an important part of a true AI. Another place it could come in handy is simulating human behavior. Quantum-assisted SimCity anyone?
Re: A quantum computer running Windows?
"MS are no doubt up to the challenge of bloating even a quantum computer to death"
Uh...what? Windows 7 consumed fewer resources than Vista. Windows 8 fewer than 7 and 8.1 fewer than 8. Say what you will about Microsoft, but they have done a damned fine job of delivering ever more functionality while requiring less and less horsepower to drive it. (Though they still have that "storage footprint" problem.)
I have no problems with homeschooling, so long as very stick guidelines are observed, and there's a damned good reason. The reason pretty much has to be "there isn't an adequate public school system available." In Canada, in a major city, that's a line of bullshit, and almost always trotted out by people who want to homeschool in order to indoctrinate their children.
Which brings me to the next item: homeschool should never include religious indoctrination. No child should be exposed to any religion until they are in secondary school. At which point, religious instruction should be mandatory: all major religions and beliefs should be covered, as well as where they have been (or not) disproven by science.
At that point, children should have a solid foundation of science, mathematics and critical thinking that allows them to make a rational, informed choice as to whether or not they want to believe in a given religion. No family should have a "right" to commit child abuse by forcibly indoctrinating their children before they are old enough to understand.
Where and when homeschooling is used as an excuse to isolate a child from science and increase their religious indoctrination children should be placed in custodial care and parents jailed ad aeternum.
I don't just dislike creationists, sirrah. I believe they are dangerous, and that teaching that shit to youth is child abuse.
Believe what you want, but don't teach lies to children and call it the truth.
Re: "Earth and its smallish satellite."
Pluto and Charon really should be considered a double dwarf planet with 3 minor satellites.
Re: Bad poll?
Well the rabid antelope comes in because I share John Oliver's opinion of internet commenters. He calls them "monsters", and they are. I don't claim to be any better, just honest. Quite frankly, I think the climate deniers are dangerous. They are not only distorting the truth, they are preventing us from engaging a very real threat.
The actions of deniers are driving up the very real cost of dealing with the tangible effects of climate change and virtually eliminating any chance we have to minimize the damage caused by acting proactively. To put it in terms they can understand "they fuckers are taking money out of my wallet by refusing to actually understand science all in the name of fear of someone taking from their wallet"!
Using science hasn't worked. Being polite hasn't worked. So far, not a single thing anyone has done has caused them to accept the truth of the world and we are collectively all the poorer for it. So yeah, it's them or us. In that context, I do entirely hope they all get eaten by rabid antelope before the damage done creates a planet unable to sustain a population of ten billion humans.
Even if you lop off the more fantastic potential long term effects of climate change, the picture is pretty bleak. Most especially the changing rainfall patterns (especially as so much of the human population is dependent on groundwater that has a miserable enough recharge rate as it is.)
It's time to be done with this ridiculous "teach the controversy" movement and get on with the business of coping with reality. There is no Santa Claus, your deity doesn't exist, and you have to be biologically incapable of understanding both maths and statistics to deny the reality of climate change.
Maybe it makes me a bad person that wish ill on others...I'm increasingly okay with that. There are bigger things to worry about than bent feelers or even entire individuals. Humanity is about to pass through the crucible; we'll have the best chance of it if we enter the journey with the maximum number of us capable of understanding basic science.
Besides, I think we've achieved a high enough species-wide fertility rate that we can jettison the sociopaths, don't you? Those who would sacrifice the future for a few cents off a tank of gasoline...
Re: Bad poll?
"doncha think?" No. Deniers don't. That's the problem.
No rational person debates the fact of climate change. If you feel inclined to debate either that climate change is occurring or that humans are playing a lead role, click that link, watch the video and then fuck the hell off...because you are objectively wrong.
The only rational question is "what do we do about climate change?" There are two possible answers: "fuck the future, I want mine and that's all that matters" or "let's all work together to leave the world a better place for those that follow than we found it."
Which you choose defines the kind of person you are. If you choose the former, then I hope you get eaten by a rabid antelope. If you choose the latter, hey, beer for you.
Re: Nutanix? Really?
Re: All very well but
Not while playing crysis...
You must die. My 15 / 2 demands a sacrifice.
Re: I want a high speed version of 10base2
Re: non story
"No, you got to play as a male w*nk fantasy instead."
I don't know about you, but a badass with a pair of .45s and a worse attitude isn't any wank fantasy of mine...
Re: Title change
1.21, not 1.32
According to my understanding, it is. There are lots of treaties that basically give the US carte blanche to ask for a foreign warrant for the data, wherein the foreign plod will see that warrant enacted and the data returned to the US. That's the proper way to do this, according to treaty.
This judge is saying "we don't need to do that, because MS is a US corporation. Our vague and general subpoena is enough to obtain data on foreign soil without involving that foreign government."
Not even Canada would agree to that...and right now, Harper is the POTUS's bitch.
Re: Power and rack-space savings of virtualizing network gear
In opposition: I just compressed 12 physical hosts (each of which was already running ESXi 4.0 and several VMs) into two new servers. The new servers use half the power per node of the old cluster. Bonus: network visualization means I got to pitch almost all the network gear (was 6 switches and 3 routers.) That site is now 2 switches + 1 router + two compute nodes and finito!
And VMs move from that site to others without fiddling with the network! Doesn't that just beat all?
It's all about how you use it...
"in your profession you probably don't have to stick 1000+ cocks in your mouth per year"
Obviously, you've never worked helpdesk.
Did you just say a sociologist is greater than a Corydoras Elegans? Because I, and my passle of cute catfish, heartily disagree.
Re: Thank you for your business.
100% correct. Which is why I don't believe in cloud storage for primary copies of data, or the use of cloud for mission critical apps.
It's a bit different if we're talking monitoring and/or config management, especially in the case of something like InTune where there is a locally installable alternative that the thing actually can work in tandem with.
Your company doesn't cease to do business tomorrow if your desktop management app provider turns into a pumpkin. It's extremely inconvenient, yes, but you are not absolutely screwed. (And the risk of this happening should be factored into the price, IMHO. Thus cloudy desktop management should always be notably cheaper than local.)
Your company does turn into a pumpkin if your financials app was under someone else's roof and they decide to pack it in. Or if the working copy of all your primary storage is there. That's where I remain a skeptic of the public cloud.
But each use case it it's own thing. If we haven't collectively learned that by now...
I don't think it depends on size, I think it depends on "company focus area." If your company manufactures biological weapons (or maintains samples of products that could be used for such) then expect them to watch you like a hawk, no matter how big you are. If your company deals in high-end infosec stuff, also expect that anything and everything you do is monitored by them at all times, full stop.
But I seriously doubt that my local construction company is being monitored, even though they are large enough that their top minds (and best builders) are brought in to do things like "create palm-shaped artificial islands in the middle east." They are absolutely a major economic competitor to US-based construction companies of all sizes, but the NSA's resources are finite, the magnifying glass of congress is upon them, and there's no "national security interest" that could be made up as rationale for economic espionage against the construction company.
Aerospace firm? Yeah, I get that. I really do; that tech could end up in drones, fighters, etc. High-end telecoms or silicon photonics? Again; this could be used to create guidance systems, etc. So there's a decent chance you have to worry about the NSA. Your local bakery probably does not...yet.
It'll be another decade before they have the AI to automate industrial espionage. Today, they can vacuum up all the data they want in an automated fashion, but you still need a human to review it and figure out what to do with it. The vast majority of what they slurp up is simply discarded. There's no place to store it (no, the Utah datacenter isn't remotely big enough), and they only have about 20K people working for them. How can they possibly review everything from every company/individual all at once?
They can spy on anyone they please in a heartbeat if they decide you're worth spying on. Make no mistake. They've automated that. But "who is worth spying on" still largely requires human decision-making. ECHELON (and descendants)' keyword detection is only going to pick up the most obvious targets. The rest requires honest-to-god legwork and actual spying to determine who is of value to target.
That means a good chunk of those 20K people aren't even sitting around making decisions about the data crossing the NSA's spy network. They're out trying to figure out who they should be spying on in the first place.
This will become less of an issue as time goes on. They'll be able to automate "who to spy on" and eventually "how to deliver relevant data to friendly American companies." A decade from now, the only barrier to getting the results of large-scale economic espionage will be "does your company/industry association have people in it that can be trusted with ultra-high-level security clearance so that they can be trusted to receive the data without Snowdening the fact that it is occurring."
Thus, to my mind, the large construction company that works on hyperscale international projects is safe today. 10 years from now? Not a chance. But the bakery probably still be.
Re: How big is the block of salt.
I have 2 nanotech firms and one pharmaceutical company in my stable alone that I promise you would be targets for economic espionage. It isn't the size of the company, it's what you're working on that matters.
That said, eventually, I expect that all companies of a certain size will be subject to economic espionage, regardless of area of endeavour. I just don't believe for a second that the NSA has the raw manpower to handle that today. There's a lot of automated decision-making that needs to get born first.
Re: So.. They are going to release IIS as a standalone app?
A) Prove "Besides, it's cheaper to license and has a lower TCO in most uses than say Red Hat or SUSE" is true.
B) Prove it's cheaper than using instances of RedHat for Dev/Test but CentOS for production
C) Prove it's cheaper than CentOS front to back.
Don't rush, I'll wait...
A huge chunk of those SharePoint licenses were SBS. Which Microsoft murdered. And now you get SharePoint for free with Office 365...not that many people use it.
Re: Yup, got this particular T-shirt
Nyet. Chrome comes up with a completely WTF location that has nothing at all to do with the tags. Not the point in the XML where the closing tags should be, not the beginning where the hyperlink tag starts. What chrome reports as a location is disconnected from reality and utterly baffling.
With this lot, neutrality doesn't matter. If you aren't fellating Microsoft you're absolutely against them. There is a pack of absolutely rabid anti-open-source types that occupy the comments, and I'm sorry if I inaccurately lumped you in with them. I think it's fairly easy to understand why I did.
Really, however, it's this comment that does it: But why go to so much trouble trying to pin this (in the reader's mind's eye) on MS - by the headline which strongly suggests the problem will lie with yet another DOCX issue and by "the most famous example" which is still pretty obscure to be honest - when what you are really up against is an OfficeLibre Write bug?
10 points for style but minus a couple of hundred for mendacity.
You outright accuse of my lying by somehow attempting to "pin this" on Microsoft. What the fuck? The article in no way attempts to "pin this" on Microsoft. There's absolutely nothing in that article at all that says "Microsoft Word is bad" or "LibreOffice is better". I mention - in the article and in the comments - that Word and LibreOffice can both give rise to errors where you might care about this kind of fix...and I go to some length to discuss the different ways it can occur, with examples using each product.
It doesn't really get much more neutral than that. Yes, the error I personally experienced was with LibreOffice writer, but that is completely irrelevant; the error class can be caused by multiple products, and thus mentioning that - with examples - is in the public good.
Yet you come out and accuse me of lying to people and somehow trying to "blame" Microsoft. So yeah, you know what? You get lumped in with the batshit-crazy Anonymous Coward and LDS as "rabidly and irrationally pro-Microsoft", to the point where I can't - and won't - take anything you have to say seriously. There's no neutrality or objectivity present in what you said there, there's a massive assumption followed by an attack.
The majority of people who read this article didn't walk away with a "Trevor was trying to blame this on Microsoft" vibe in any way shape or form. Some folks, however, see monsters where none exist. I've no time, patience, or respect for them.
I don't feel the need to "imply" Microsoft - or anyone else - is at fault for things. If I think Microsoft fucked up, I say so openly. If I think LibreOffice is better and you should buy that, then I say so. There's no pussyfooting around.
Comments like Are you saying that after all the fuss of "don't use crappy Microsoft, use our better alternative" responding to an article in which I did not in any way shape or form recommend one product over the other would seem to indicate that you fall into the "you didn't fellate Microsoft, you're obviously an evil, open source economy destroying wretch" camp.
So no, sir, I don't accept your "neutral tone" argument. You waltzed in here an accused me of lying. When I said "bullshit", you doubled down. Maybe you aren't rabidly pro-Microsoft, but your presentation was in no way a "neutral tone". If you come in guns blazing, don't get all shocked and shaken if'n I fire back.
Re: Costs? (@Pen-y-gors)
Platinum group metals are rarely mined specifically for the platinum group metals. They are recovered as part of "tailings processing" for a more mundane - but far more profitable - metal. You don't mine for platinum. You mine for copper, and post-process the wastes to get your few extra bucks of profit per tonne by pulling out platinum group metals, gold and a few other odds and ends.
In fact, until we discovered a use for them, platinum group metals were often discarded when they were dug up from gold mines. A great example of this is the Barkerville gold rush in BC, Canada. Some slaves would collect platinum group nuggets because they were pretty, but often left them behind. Years later, when the old camps were reexamined, containers full of platinum were found, left behind as they weren't worth anything, even to the slaves...tens of millions at today's prices.
Re: Solaris clone
Yeah, but Oracle doesn't have to buy Red Hat in order to ruin it.
Feels a bit like a false flag op. You'd think a professional hacker would be better at social engineering bits.
That said, I would counter that same argument by stating that the
computer I use to post on Internet forums is not the one I use for work.
T,FTFY. 2001 says hi, it has some technology that can make this a lot easier for you.
Re: company directors owe fiduciary duties to deal with the company's assets in an honest way
"...therefore you would presumably consider it honest behaviour to steal everything and blow it all on Champagne and strippers, provided that you first announce that's what you're about to do?"
If you announce to the shareholders at the next AGM that you intend to take all of FY 2015's profits and blow them on champagne and strippers they are then properly informed and have the option to vote you out. If they do not, then taking all of FY 2015's profits and blowing them on champagne and strippers isn't "stealing" at all.
You laid out a business plan. It was voted on. You enacted it. There is no law that says your business plans have to make sense, only that they can't break the law.
I could not, for example, blow FY 2015's profits on champagne and hookers, unless I was in a jurisdiction where prostitution was legal and both the jurisdictions of my company HQ and my primary personal residence did not have laws against my engaging sexual services for hire while outside those jurisdictions. (Some places will send you to jail for being a john if they find you you engaged hookers in another country, etc.)
However, I could indeed blow those profits on champagne and strippers, because I can easily find a jurisdiction where strippers are legal, and I know of no jurisdiction that will prosecute you for engaging their services while in another jurisdiction.
Next item on the agenda: our marketing plan for FY 2015 is to invite all prospective clients to our champagne and strippers binges to experience first hand our next-generation community-building techniques. With this bold new plan we hope to be able to drive greater revenue by ensuring potential clients understand how an excess of champagne and strippers can create company loyalty.
This brings us to a voting item. The FY 2015 business plan is to spend all profits on champagne and strippers. All opposed: <crickets>. All in favour: "me!". Motion passes.
Re: UEM, LAYERING, ASSESSMENT, MONITORING, ACCELERATION should be included
There is going to be more than one Webinar. There has to be. The 1 hour basic infrastructure webinar turned into 1:45 minutes and we couldn't even get into user virutalisation, profiling, etc. This is a huge topic.
Re: What OS for Apollo
That doesn't make any sense! There's an anonymous coward here that assures us all on a regular basis that Windows dominates the server market and is installed on way more servers than Linux could dream of! Surely this would be reflected in the supercomputer racket with Microsoft's overwhelming presence?
Otherwise Anonymous Cowards on the internet might not be telling the truth about everything! Egads!
http://www.pcworld.com/article/239634/how_to_speed_up_windows_7_installs_with_slipstreaming_and_usb.html. Hope that helps you in the future.
- Crawling from the Wreckage Want a more fuel efficient car? Then redesign it – here's how
- Review Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
- Human spaceships dodge ALIEN BODY skimming Mars
- Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
- Downrange Are you a gun owner? Let us in OR ELSE, say Blighty's top cops