Meh. Buy Maxta. Marry it to Ontap. Wibble, wobble, pwn.
5591 posts • joined 31 May 2010
- ← Prev
- Next →
Re: @Someone Else
I am a left libertarian by nature. I believe strongly in civil and individual rights, but also that A) humans aren't rational actors and B) a truly free market is a myth. As such, I believe in a balance between "things the state should be doing" and "things individuals should be doing".
In my view, things like "a social safety net" and "public health care, education and emergency services" are exactly the sort of thing the state should be doing. Taking care of public utilities and natural monopolies. And I agree 100% that if you pay into that system for your whole life that it should be available to you if you need it.
But it is a form of mandatory insurance. This is because people are not rational actors. There are always those who will choose not to have insurance to cover their health care, education, vehicle, etc...then demand that society "do something" when they are injured/need to be retrained/get their vehicle smashed up. History has proven over and over that this group of people will never make a rational decision and, to be blunt, there is no reason for society to pick up the tab just because they're cheap bastards.
By the same token, the state has no business telling us what we can and cannot do about the overwhelming majority of crap that it has land-grabbed over the past 75 years. Who you can and can't sleep with? What the fuck? That is no business of the state.
Similarly, what religion you delude yourself with (or don't), or which piece of shiny crap you buy is nothing the state should be poking it's nose into. The list goes on.
Randian bullshit is a religion, no different from any other. It is not grounded in fact. It is filled with nothing more than faith. The idea that "people are rational actors", for example, has been disproven over and over and over and over again. Yet Randians demand that we base all our economic and social policy off of this lie.
This is no different than trying to use the state to enforce any other religion on people.
A proper nation is one governed by evidence-based legislation. Not religion. And the job of a government is to serve it's people. All it's people. Not just the few, not the elite. Not just the lucky, or the privileged or those who make exactly the right series of choices at every juncture in life.
All it's people.
That means that we must give up some amount of control over our income in order to collectively provide for our society. There is decades of evidence that this produces wealthier, healtiher, more stable nations than anarchism or Randianism.
Now, if you want anarchism, go to Somalia. They do it right there. If you want pure Randianism, try Kansas. The Christian Science Monitor has a truly fantastic look at the results of it's governor's pure Tea Party Randian governance here.
Short version: Randianism is based on faith and provably doesn't work. So a rational libertarian will study the evidence, find the points of minimum government required to achieve an optimally stable and universally beneficial society and then push to see that society built. One that intrudes the least necessary on the life of the individual, but provides for the whole of society.
Nations have gotten very close to perfecting this balance without ruinous economic hardship for the state or the individual. So it isn't impossible. But it requires reliance on evidence and not faith.
Randian bullshit. You spout religion that isn't backed by evidence. Remove government and you get warlords. Have a minimalistic government and you get chaebols: essentially corporately. They are all thoroughly corrupt.
Anarcho-capitalism is the religion of sociopaths unable to feel compassion for others. Nothing more.
"That's how "crony capitalism" works."
Crony capitalism is the inevitable result of any form of capitalism. Capitalism has failed as surely as communism did...and for the exact same fucking reasons.
"Be nice to Richard"
Always. He's fucking fantastic people. Without qualification, I'd be there for him, brother from another mother style. Doesn't mean we won't disagree about things from time to time.
Except...public cloud "doubters" never doubted this particular use case. Software was rewritten specifically to work with the public cloud, it is a definable, burstable workload, it runs as a batch (input workload, receive result, you don't need to be connected all day to it) and it has a definable cost.
That's completely different from taking a legacy "must be up 24/7" workload and tossing it into the public cloud. Especially one where the developer has no intention of (or can't, because they're out of business/lack skills/etc) rewriting the thing for the public cloud.
The public cloud is not "pay for what you use", it is "pay for what you provision". If you need to provision the workload to be available 24/7 then the public cloud is a terrible value for dollar. If you need to essentially run an HPC batch process, then it'll do you just fine.
Someone has been reading Otherland...
This is the single most rational and well explained overview of this whole mess yet published. Have a pint on me, Kieren, and my sincere apologies for the public pantsing the Randian religious types will now attempt on you.
^ What. The. Fuck. What the fucking fucking fuck. What the fucking fucks of almighty fuckety fucks.
Thanks for the info! I hope one day I might have the opportunity to toss it into my testlab and do a true shakedown review.
FX2 supports a much wider range of compute options than any other solution on the market
It's interesting you mention this as a selling feature. Currently, I do not see GPU support for the FX2, whereas I see this available in the Supermicro Twin Family. I even have a GPU FatTwin of my own, and will be doing a review on it here for The Register shortly. All the testing is done, I just have to write it.
Atom based Microservers
While not a part of the Twin Family officially, the MicroBlade series Supermicro punts is frequently considered a "close cousin", and offers the best density for Atom-based Microservers I've seen outside of a SeaMicro setup. (28 nodes in 6U or 784 nodes in a 42U rack.)
The Supermicro 2U Twin3 gets 8 Atom nodes into 2 U.
How does FX2 compare?
Ultra high density 2S Xeon (highest density 2S server i know of on the market - FC430 coming early next year)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you get 4x 2P servers into 2U, correct?
Both the 2U Twin2 and the 2U Twin Pro (as well, I think the 2U Twin Pro2) have been achieving that density for some time. With dual 10Gbase-T and heft storage per node, if that's what you want, all included.
If you've crammed more Xeons into 2U with enough room for disks and RAM, hurray! I'd love to know more!
4S Xeon (FC830 coming early next year)
This is something I wish Supermicro did.
DAS storage in much higher capacity (comparing 2.5") and configurability than any other "twin" type of solution (enables scaling from 8 to 48 drives per server). We built FX2 to play well in the world of centralized SAN/NAS storage, but we optimized it around the new storage paradigms which are built around internal & external DAS (vSAN, shared nothing, scale out database, Exchange, Microsoft Windows Storage Spaces...).
Are you claiming you have put 48 drives physically into 2U? If so, I am impressed. Supermicro's TwinPro only manages to get 24 drives into 2U, albeit, that is also whilst cramming 4 compute nodes into the same space.
Even Supermicro's Storage Bridge Bay stuff (basically two nodes with a shared backplane to two-port SAS drives for roll-your-own SAS) is 24 2.5" in 2U.
The closest I can come to 48 physical drives in 2U within the Supermicro world is the 6047R-E1R72L2K which is 72 3.5" drives in 4U, or about 36 3.5" drives in 2U.
That makes me wonder, what drives size is that 48 drives? Even at 2.5", I physically don't understand how you put that many drives into 2U and still have room for a computer.
I'd love to learn more, some day. It looks like Dell has some interestingly competitive offerings with it's FX2 line. I guess price will tell...and whether the inevitable premium is justified by the management tools, software shipped and the higher build quality of items like the rail kits.
Cheers, and congrats on bringing to market something that legitimately qualifies as "nerd porn".
The difference between Supermicro Twin series and Dell FX2 is like a cheap version of an Android Phone and an elegant design of Apple iPhone 6 (FX in this case).
That's typically the way Dell versus Supermicro works, yep.
First of all there is no IO Aggregation of networking in Twin series. A huge upside of using FX2 with 10Gb networking already switched inside the system for all cases of server sleds. A big opex and capex savings.
A huge advantage of the Twin series is that there is no networking aggregation, thus it is a "dumb" (and hence cheap chassis). My understanding is that he FX is a little bit more like someone took the blade concept but reinvented it into a Twin form factor.
The sleds are all serviceable from the front like any rack servers. Not from the hot aisle like in case of twin series.
Supermicro Twin series have both front and rear I/O for every configuration I am aware of.
Management is truly converged for all Storage, Networking and Compute. Just give it a shot. There is no comparison.
Supermicro provides just raw hardware. Management is IPMI via the BMC. That's it. It's very bare bones. I'd love to see what Dell offers in terms of management that goes beyond this, but their PR is well night impenetrable.
A lot of PCIe slots and can be assigned depending on the workload needs to appropriate compute in case storage is used in other sleds
if you take a look at the Caesium cluster in my lab, I think you'll see it is based on the F627G2-F73PT+ Fat Twin. This comes with many PCI-E slots, and in fact two of the four nodes in Caesium currently contain nVidia GRID cards.
Storage density is industry leading with still keeping the full Hot swappability and High Availability
I have to debate this claim, sir. Pleas see Supermicro's Twin family page. They have Compute, GPU, Storage Heavy and even Hadoop-specialised members of the Twin family. I strongly doubt you're going to cram more disks per node into something than Supermicro have achieved...though I'd be quite pleased to be wrong.
Very cost effective SSD density and performance is finally in servers with still keeping 2U formfactor with full serviceability and upto 8 x 2S High end XEON CPU
Again, very standard stuff with Supermicro. Been around for ages in the Twin line.
BTW, I don't work at Dell but glad to see a very innovative and game changing product launched by a company. Getting the best of all worlds in one design- Blades, Racks and Converged Infrastructure while eliminating most of the negative aspects from those. Wait till HP, Lenovo and Supermicro types will be copying the design. But I am sure there so many patents on this by Dell that others will have to watch out!
Actually, this looks very much like Dell copied the Supermicro Fat Twin, refined it, added layers of "luxury" that can drive up the margins and basically created a solution that competes with the already fourth or fifth generation Supermicro Twin line but for companies less willing to work with bare-bones, stripped down gear.
I admit this is a required and desired niche, but I will require quite a bit of convincing to believe that it qualifies as "game changing". I say this mostly because I personally am on my second generation of Fat Twin, and I see most of the benefits you've described already. That makes this iterative, not revolutionary.
I am, however, entirely happy to be proven wrong.
Dell reimagines the Supermicro Twin series. Cool.
Both the Liberals and the NDP are committed to doing withdrawing from the TPP. While I don't believe that those in charge are exactly trustworthy, several of their minions (the ones who actually run things) are. My discussions with them directly have been remarkably productive.
I believe either party would be adequate to our requirements regarding the TPP. Though personally, I believe the Liberals have the more rational overall economic policy, so I'll be choosing them.
The TPP has until Steven Harper and his conservative fuck brigade are removed from office next year. At that point the TPP negotiations will be cancelled by the winning government as Canada withdraws.
Re: Here we go again.
And? Do you think I find it shocking that Tim Worstall believes that a minimum wage is a good thing? Right now, today you cannot replace everyone with robots. So you need to keep the populace this this side of revolt if you want to adequately exploit them enough to massively increase the wealth of the 1%.
There are pragmatic reasons for 1%ers to keep their cattle adequately fed: otherwise there will be no cattle for them to dine upon.
But the instant that the masses are no longer needed, I fully expect him to making the case for pushing the 99% into a fucking furnace so that they can be burned for fuel to power the robots that are now the "cattle" of the 1%.
He honestly believes in trickle down economics. That makes him not only wrong, but horribly, dangerously wrong. And the fact that he has repeatedly rationalized away the suffering of billions makes him a Bad Man, at least in my books.
But then, I don't envision myself as a 1%er. Not now, not ever. Maybe if I mentally associated myself with an elite that was better than "the muck that eats itself" down there at the bottom, I would be capable of such callous pomposity too.
Sorry mate, I'll stick with social democracy. Market economics have fucking failed us, just as outright communism has. And for the exact same reasons: inability to regulate disproportionate human greed. Cronyism is inevitable in any economic system. Corruption is inevitable in any economic system. So what matters is not how to make the rich richer, but how to root out corruption and end it.
That includes the corruption of the masses. Sometimes, there are realities we don't want to accept, but absolutely need to. Climate change, for example. Ozone depletion. Thalidomide, Asbestos, etc.
You don't simply let "market forces" handle these issues. You don't let grocers continue along using led-poisoned Chinese foods. You regulate. You police. You enforce the needs of the many on the corrupt and excessively greedy few.
You realize that extremes of anything - especially greed - are bad for everyone.
Worstall appears through all his writings to view humans as just slightly less than chattel. Their value to be determined by society as a monetary figure and if producing goods returns higher revenues than the cost of murdered people, then clearly this is perfectly acceptable social policy.
Worse, he's a dramatic short termist. He seems to have zero problem with corporations offloading costs onto society as externalities, from pollution to climate change, and well far worse.
I am not claiming that right now we need Bene Gesserit levels of multi-generational planning, but we absolutely do need to take into account the fact that short trermism has caused some massive problems, and that this is continuing to occur.
What's more, he seems to believe that if you can hoodwink the majority of people - or at least, the majority of people who can find enough voter ID to vote - into something that makes it okay. Ignore the past couple hundred years of research into group dynamics, psychological manipulation coercion leverage, decision exhaustion and more. Just brush it all under the rug.
The fact that large corporations and governments have the ability to functionally render us incapable of making rational decisions at will is to be ignored, just like the externalities of corporate excess.
Maybe you worship at the alter of the philosophy that social change should only occur if it economically benefits those in power, or that we should be content with having significantly less than those who work significantly less than we do.
I honestly and truly believe individuals who hew to that philosophy are incapable of human emotions like sympathy or empathy. I consider people incapable of sympathy or empathy to be bad people.
Unfortunately, you are unlikely to understand that. If you're anything like the rest of his milled acolytes you won't understand the concept of "shades of grey". You will see a world as "equality of opportunity" or "equality of outcome" and never be able to understand that there are points in between.
Most people, I think, would be satisfied with a rough approximation of both. If we all had more or less the same opportunities and social structures existed to ensure that we more or less ended up in the same place we'd be good. If you work harder you get more. But the gap between the hardest working and those who hardly work shouldn't be nearly so egregious as it is today.
What's more, "working hard" doesn't ensure that you end up on the top of the heap today. Nor does "making the right choices" regarding education, etc. Luck plays a huge part. Who you know, being in the right place at the right time, who your parents were. Where and when you were born.
We don't have social constructs today to level these advantages. Not remotely. We have people literally slaving away and dying young with broken bodies and lungs full of fuck-knows-what living in the same city as the 18th generation of dilettante fops who've never worked a day in their lives but have more money than the deities themselves.
In Worstall's world, that's okay, so long as that's what the market demands. Because he believes in trickle down economics, that pure market capitalism can win and all the other Randian fairy tales.
Well I don't. Rand is a modern day L. Ron Hubbard; founder of a religion, not sound economic policy. Buying into Randian bullshit is economics by faith. Not evidence. It's a profound failure to learn from human history. To take human motivations and behaviors into account and to accept the influence of existing power structures and how they will distort and thwart any attempt at a free market.
Rand's bullshit is even more utopian than Marx's.
Humans are not rational actors. They're barely adults most of the time. But those in power must be, because we have reached to critical crossroads in our evolution as a species.
1) We have the ability to produce all the basic necessities of life for everyone across the globe in a highly automated fashion that requires virtually zero human input. Arguments about "machines replacing our jobs won't affect society in the long haul, because it already happened during the industrial revolution and we're still here" are bullshit.
The industrial revolution automated the basic necessities of life. Now we're automating not merely things which are not necessities, we're so far down that road that we're automating leisure. That's a fundemental change. We absolutely do run the risk of running out of things for the humans to do that will add economic value, and within our lifetime.
2) We have the capability to radically alter the planet on a global scale. We are engaged right now in the largest geoengineering experiments in human history. To my knowledge only two of about 100 different examples have ever gone well. Yet we proceed to alter the planet's basic capacity to support human life at international scale without much in the way of regulation, oversight, or international cooperation. Short termist economic models that focus on the profit of the few and ignore the needs of the many are irrational in the face of not only the power we wield as a species, but the shocking callousness with which we wield it.
So yes, I call our Randian economics as little more than the religion of true sociopaths. I call for evidence based legislation at all levels. When rationalizations for doing something can work equally well when you substitute "god" with "the market" you shouldn't be in a position to have influence over anyone.
Re: Human jobs replaced by Robots
The purpose of hte 99% is to be burned as fuel to keep the robots running.
Re: Here we go again.
go and read a few Tim Worstall articles
Why would I voluntarily waste my time reading about how the 1% are never wrong and, ethically, the 99% should be happy with being rendered into glue?
You go on, pretend you'll be a 1%er one day. I'll stand with the many, not the few.
Quark: I want you to try something for me. Take a sip of this.
Elim Garak: What is it?
Quark: A human drink. It's called root beer.
Elim Garak: [unwilling] Uh, I don't know...
Quark: Come on, aren't you just a little bit curious?
[Garak sighs, takes a sip and gags]
Quark: What do you think?
Elim Garak: It's *vile*!
Quark: I know. It's so bubbly, and cloying, and *happy*.
Elim Garak: Just like the Federation.
Quark: But you know what's really frightening? If you drink enough of it, you begin to *like* it.
Elim Garak: It's insidious!
Quark: *Just* like the Federation.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one.
The needs of the few (or the one) outweigh the desires of the many.
The desires of the many outweigh the desires of the few (or the one).
Funny how it's always considered okay to behave in a prejudiced fashion against whites, males and very especially white males, but attempting to treat everyone as equal is somehow evil.
Where is the justice in telling me I must pay for the sins of other people's forefathers? Hmm? If you want me to judge you based on who you are, with no regard to skin colour, gender, etc...I demand that you also judge me with no regard to my skin colour, gender, etc.
What? That's a problem for you? Too hard? Get bent.
Re: Security for boring people then
Let me get this straight... You do something "out of your norm", and
your phone says nothis is reported to your every allied government so that they can investigate...
Imagine, for a moment, that a device existed that could access the full spectrum of human knowledge and relay that using vocal communication. Sort of like a quite friend who's really good at pub quizzes.
Imagine the device is backed by an ethical company who understand security well enough that the device is secure, both from hackers, and the NSA. Imagine you could trust the company not to transmit irrelevant conversation - anything not beginning with the word Echo, or whatever name you've ascribed to it - and that you could trust them not to mine that information to use it against you... or indeed use it for anything at all other than this explicit service.
Taking all that into account, I'd buy one. I'm just not going to buy one from any of the current crop of corporates, and from that they should draw their own conclusions.
You're naive. Dangerously so. No matter how ethical the company is, if they have any American legal attack surface whatsoever then they will be forced to give the keys to the kingdom over the NSA. Even to rewrite their application, if need be.
No company with an American legal attack surface can be trusted ever again.
"Good luck putting the entire breadth of human knowledge on your local hard drive."
why do I need the breadth of human knowledge just to play an MP3 on my NAS?
Re: NASA is right.
Clearly you're an American.
"Similarly, I don't see Microsoft as wholly hostile to the wider market."
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Microsoft is "mobile first, cloud first". This means "give us your subscription money". No, you can't own things. No you can't extract maximum value for dollar. No, small businesses can't be profitable. The bully will beat you up by the bike racks unless you hand over your lunch money today, tomorrow and every day, forever.
But if you pay real attention, it's not just the end customer Microsoft is hostile do. It may be "mobile first, cloud first", but it's "customers last, partners last, developers last and staff last". Everyone that isn't forking over a subscription is an unperson. This is Microsoft.
And in an age where hardware will gleefully give you ten solid years of service life, and for 80% of businesses there is absolutely no reason to upgrade every two or three years, that absolutely is "hostile to the wider market".
Re: Still playing favourites
Only the top 1% ever matter. Don't you follow American politics?
Re: This is someone
"The problem is that there may be fuzzy borders between responsible and irresponsible use of substances. There can be no doubt that drug or alcohol addiction is a problem to the user, but much more to the surroundings. So there are arguments for restrictions on use and availability of recreational drugs in order to protect the innocent. Drug use is not a purely personal matter."
Bullshit. You equate use with addiction. You are wrong. Responsible use is where substance use occurs without addiction and without detrimental effects to others.
Responsible drug use absolutely is a personal matter, and your puritan philosophies will not change that.
Re: This is someone
Cannabis can affect people with certain mental disorders very badly. It doesn't affect the majority of people badly at all...unless you abuse it. This is where calibrating safe doses for the average person comes in, as well as proper labelling so that people who have certain conditions don't take it.
Dextromethorpan is a cough supressant. Harmless at prescribed doses to the overwhelming majority of people and available as an over-the-counter substance. Yet if you combine it with an SSRI or SNRI ( or $deity help you, both, as in Effexor) then Very Bad Things can happen. In Canada, our pharmacists hand over the stuff, because they are told to look up your existing prescriptions to make sure there are no known interactions with your existing drugs. It is over the counter; there is nothing to stop them from selling it to you, but they do their jobs and the system works.
Cannabis can be - and should be - handled the same way. (Actually, I argue that THC should be purified and offered as an inhalant, but that's another discussion for another day.) When used in moderation by normal people, cannabis is fine. It offers consequences no worse than a squillion other substances we take without question.
Are there potential tradeoffs? Sure. Does that mean than an adult should not be allowed to make those choices for themselves? No. The tradeoffs of cannabis are far, far less likely to affect others than hundreds of other substances we all consume every day.
In Canada, we do have over the counter access to codeine. Oddly enough, we aren't all stoned out of our minds 24/7, even though I promise you there's enough codeine in my house to get you fucking baked for an entire week. It seems that my nation is filled with people who can handle this particular opiate responsibly, and stick to low doses.
That doesn't mean I advocate allowing heroin in the wild. It does mean that "all drugs are not the same" and that you need to open your mind a little.
Amphetamines are another story altogether. They have a completely different effect on people with ADHD than those who don't. Significantly different brain chemistries means that we ADHD folks process the drugs differently and that we don't tend to get addicted to them, or experience the other very bizarre side effects that "normals" report.
Does that mean amphetamines should be available over the counter? No...or, at least, not all of them. Very low doses of certain amphetamines could actually be a good thing. Better for "normal" people than hammering caffeine pills to get a pick me up. But only in low doses, and only certain amphetamines.
The rest should be prescription only, handed out to those who have ADHD and carefully monitoring the patient to ensure that the diagnosis of ADHD is correct, and the drugs won't interact badly. There are probably a whole bunch of amphetamines that shouldn't be offered, even as prescriptions, because they interact badly with all individuals.
And what about cocaine? It's certainly no heroin. Heroin is way, way more addictive and dangerous. Yet it becomes addictive at doses much lower than, for example, marijuana.
Marijuana has to be consumed in such high doses to be addictive that you will experience other, far more negative effects long before you get to the point of addiction. If you are willing to live with those effects just stay high 24/7, you're already at the point that you're A) not normal and B) need institutional help.
Cocaine can deliver addiction at doses low enough that you don't fuck yourself up completely. That said, it can also be used responsibly to deliver a mild high that is pleasant and non-addictive. So, should cocaine be banned? Or merely heavily regulated? It is the drug I don't have a quick answer for.
Acetaminophen is far more dangerous to the average person than marijuana and probably more dangerous than cocaine, and yet acetaminophen is given out like ****ing candy. Ibuprofin doesn't come with big warning labels that say "abuse will cause stomach ulcers". And that's before we get into abuse of glucose, fructose or processed carbohydrates!
If your problem with a substance is that people use it some of the time to feel good, then fuck you. Who the hell are you to tell me - or anyone else - how they can or can't feel, or how they may go about feeling that way?
A ban on driving under the influence? By all means. That's sane, rational and matters because it affects other people. But if I want to sit in the comfort of my own home and get high, having planned my week around it so that I have nowhere to go and have an emergency taxi fund in case something does come up...who the hell are you to tell me no?
Most people are perfectly capable of consuming mildly psychoactive substances responsibly.
There are some substances so powerful that nobody can be considered capable of consuming responsibly.
There are some people who will consume any substance irresponsibly.
Out job, as citizens and as a society is to find a way to intervene as little as possible with the responsible consumption of mildly psychoactive substances as possible while helping those people who abuse any substance, no matter how powerful. It is also our job to rationally separate substances that can be consumed responsibly by the average person from those that can't.
If you don't like that other people consume a substance they are capable of consuming responsibly then it is you right to voice your opinion in that regard. It isn't your right to force your beliefs and desires on others.
Your rights end exactly at the point where they interfere with the rights of others. That's the hard part for puritans and control freaks to understand, and to live with.
No substance should be banned unless it can be scientifically proven that the average person is incapable of consuming it responsibly. Period.
More to the point, we need to offer help to those who find themselves unable to consume any substance responsibly. From cocaine to herion, from glucose to carbohydrates.
Sadly, it seems that far too many people will rush to judgement for certain substances not based on logic, rationality or science...but because their belief system says that people should not experience joy or pleasure. That we should all work, suffer, experience misery and then die.
Well, there is no god and there is no afterlife. So anyone who believes in that particular bit of fuckery can get bent. Life is what you make of it, and none of us should be dedicating ourselves to making others miserable. There's nothing wrong with a good joint now and again, when consumed responsibly...and I'll go to actual war if you come for my caffeine.
You've been warned.
Re: This is someone
Heroin is one of the most addictive substances known. It has been scientifically proven to be so, and it has known chemical pathways that cause physiological addiction. As such, it should be controlled.
Compare this to marijuana whose addictive properties are so vastly overblown that it's insane. There is basically no science to support physiological addiction in the overwhelming majority of humans. There is no rational reason for this substance to be restricted.
Similarly, small doses of morphine or large doses of codeine have been proven to be physiologically addictive. But in small doses, many populations (such as Canada) have proven that they are perfectly capable of self regulating codeine.
Codeine should be an over-the-counter offering dispensed by a pharmacist without the need of a prescription. The pharmacist can ensure that no large amounts are provided and that individuals purchasing the substance are aware of how to manage it properly.
Just because some substances are known to cause physiological addiction does not mean that we lock up all substances which cause psychological addiction in a small group of individuals.
Not all psychoactive substances are bad, and nothing other than a puritan outlook on life says that they are. Caffeine is a psychoactive substance. It's one that is responsible for some of the most complex interactions of which we are aware. Alcohol is a psychoactive substance that the overwhelming majority of people are able to handle responsibly. Glucose and Fructose are psychoactive substances that most people cannot handle responsibly, but they're available to children in fucking flavours.
Check your biases. You are wrong about drugs. You don't understand that science and you are reacting emotionally and irrationally.
The way to deal with drugs is from a scientific and psychosocial standpoint. Prohibition should not be the default for any substance. Study which produces scientific evidence is what needs to be used to define the classification of psychoactive substances. Not some protestant ideal that every person should be continually miserable for the duration of their entire lives.
By all means, lock up heroin. But there's not rational reason to lock up marijuana or codeine (in small doses). By all means lock away glucose and fructose, but come for my coffee and there will be fucking blood in the gutters. I promise you that.
With the exception of certain highly addictive substances - like heroin - mere availability does not lead people to abuse them. And if someone is driven to the point that they will abuse lightly psychoactive substances like marijuana, caffeine or small doses of codeine then those same people will find anything, like an aerosol can or gasoline fumes to abuse.
The problems with those people is not substance availability. There is something in their lives driving them to abuse. And, quite frankly, I'd rather have people who are driven to abuse a substance getting smashed on stupid quantities of weed than I would having them fuck themselves up on gasoline or aerosol. I've seen what the latter does and it's not pretty.
There are always going to be people who need to escape reality. They should have relatively safe options for doing so. Things - like marijuana - which can provide the escape, but don't fuck you up so completely that you will never be able to recover.
It also frees up resources to go after things like heroin which absolutely are problems. To everyone. You don't need to "abuse" heroin. It is so addictive that primary exposure is enough.
But that distinction seems lost on you. The concept that there are some substances - dextromethropan hydrobormide or loperamide, for example - that you need to actively abuse to truly fuck yourself up. These are substances which have beneficial effects at low to moderate doses, but which can be abused by dedicated individuals to be every bit as dangerous as heroin, if not more so.
That class of substances - and here I place marijuana, caffiene and at the extreme edge of the classification, alcohol - should not be prohibited. The good they do far outweighs the harm. The majority of people can handle these substances without abuse, and it is our choice what we do with our own bodies and minds.
That leaves a limited number of substances - like heroin - which need to be locked up for the public good. But there are not that many substances in this category.
If you're truly a cop then you would do well to learn the above, internalize is and even champion it. Maybe - just maybe - if you weren't trying to create a police state so that you could "protect" us by keeping us all in fucking bubble wrap you'd find people hate you and yours less...and will even work with you to help create a better society.
It is attitudes like yours that foster an "us" versus "them" attitude and lead to wasting hundreds of billions of dollars hunting down and incarcerating those who do no harm. All of which does nothing but pull precious resources away from hunting those who are doing harm.
And for what? Your inability to understand science? Your unwillingness to see a differentiation or gradation in the effects of various substances? Your belief that that classification system of your corrupt government or the words of the religious leaders and corporations that control it can be trusted?
You want to help society? Shut down the companies putting sugar and high-fructose corn syrup into everything we eat. Legalize marijuana. Force a mandatory review of all substances currently classified as restricted or banned with only hard science allowed to drive the new classification. Ban religious interference of any kind from government; their self-flagellating piousness should in no way affect how rational people run their lives.
Until you're willing to work towards that, you're just an empty suit. The enforcement arm of a series of bad laws written by worse people for the express purpose not of helping the milled masses, but of making us live our lives according to the designs of those who cannot stand anything - or anyone - outside their control.
Re: This is someone
Bullshit, There are plenty of drugs that fall into this category, but plenty that don't as well. Marijuana is a great example of a drug that the overwhelming majority of people are able to consume without abusing it. For that matter, so is codine.
The problem is that some people abuse any substance they can find. That's not because those substances are inherently addictive: there are only a few hundred of substances that truly ought to be banned/prescription only due to physiological addictive properties. The issue is that we have no means of helping those with psychological addictions. Banning the substances hasn't helped, and it will never help. Finding a way to treat the psychological need to substance abuse is the key.
Sadly, the there are still people who honestly believe prohibition works. They're idiots.
Re: 'right wing'?
I suggest you study the history of fascism before throwing around the term. There is a huge difference between Facism as it is defined, facism as it has been used in history, and fascism as the term is often used. It's an extremely left-leaning philosphy.
You are wrong.
Re: 'right wing'?
" but today any family values are a step in the right direction"
My family values are very different from yours, obviously. So why are yours "a step in the right direction"? What makes your values better than mine? Jeebus? The little childrens? You're the boss and the kinds should listen to you, damn it?
The only family value that matters is as follows: teach the next generation critical thinking.
That's it. It is the only thing that should be passed on. Let the next generation discover their own values and shape their own world.
We've fucked it up enough already as is.
Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above
"Look at a map bellend. See much affordability near Mayfair?
No place near the bay area that has affordable housing? Oakland doesn't exist then? Santa Clara a blank spot for you? Sacramento not a place anymore? Hell, within 50 miles you can get as far out as San Jose.... which is the mayfair equaivalent of commuting from Luton to Mayfair. Not unreasonable - I know because that is my daily commute."
if you'd actually read my comments, you yontz, you'd have realized that I already discussed Oakland and San Jose as well as all points in between. They don't offer affordable housing. Especially not once the cost of transit is factored in. This is what I am trying to explain to you but you cannot seem to understand.
Your experience is non cognate with this locale.
"The well staffed coffee shops, bars, newsagents all disagree with you. Just because you feel entitled to better than you can afford does not mean you can't afford to live in the bay area. Grow the fuck up and stop having a tantrum."
What well staffed coffee shops, bars and newsagents? As a general rule, they struggle to find staff they can afford and regularly go out of business. The SF bay area is regularly hurting for the sort of "menial labour" businesses that keep the world spinning. It's a regular source of complaint from the entitled fuckbag community, however, they're not willing to pay any extra so wages can be "living wages".
"Me?! You're the one desperate to create victims and blame everyone for their misfortune. 60,000 USD is not the earnings of a lazy man. Nor does it mean you can't afford to live in the bay area. The average salary in retail is less than half that amount, and quelle suprise, they all have a place to live!"
No, they don't all have a place to live. The average bay area retail wage is higher - much higher - than 30K. And they often live 4-to-a-closet in damned near third-world conditions. A single guy making 60k won't be able to afford his own place, and if he can't get a roommate then he's fucked. If he ends up homeless even for a little while, he'll probably never get a roommate and then he's trapped in a position where he can't afford a place to live but is making what would be decent money elsewhere.
It is clear to me you understand fucking nothing about the bay area.
"And you're an idiot, with no knowledge of finance. Hopefully you don't actually do anything with computers, because you wouldn't be safe with them. Better for us all if you stick to drawing pictures in powerpoint."
I'm an idiot because I don't assume every single metro area is the same? Because I learn about the areas under discussion, their quirks, foibles and differentiations and then apply logic, rational though, statistics and research to my arguments?
Wow. Let me hope you never have anything to do with computers. You'll just thunder along assuming every single business is the same, and put well more than half of them out of business through overwhelming incompetence born of aught but your own arrogant hubris.
Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above
How, exactly, are the people making only minimum wage working at your gas stations supposed to afford to house themselves in SF, you arrogant ponce? The underclass is larger than the privileged one, but there's only enough housing for the privileged.
Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above
"There's plenty of people have jobs in Mayfair that can't afford to live there. Most of them in fact. What they do, and I realise this concept will fill you with horror, is they get a bus between where they work and where they can afford to live."
Bus from fucking where, you entitled prick? There's no place in the bay area that has affordable housing. There's no place for them to go, and commute from.
"You'll find that more than half the people working in the City do the same: I am one of them, because I too cannot afford to live in Mayfair, Hampstead, Wapping etc. So blow that "out your ass: you know not of what you speak.""
Except that SF isn't London, senor douchecanoe. It's SF. There are no other places to live. Oakland is prohibitively expensive. Jan Jose is prohibitively expensive. So is literally every single scrap of land in between. Having very recently spend a truly abhorrent amount of time helping a friend of mine who does make $100K find a place to live, I've got a damned good idea of what's there. And if you make less than $60K/year you won't find anything to live in. Not even a fucking closet with a bathroom shared with 7 other tenements.
Even at $100k/year the dude managed to get a place that was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 600 sq ft. And he pays more in rent for that than I do on my overpriced mortgage for my 1200 sq ft house that has a 450 sq ft basement!
Maybe you should remove your head from your ass and realise that your personal experience is not not cognate with that of the rest of the western world.
"There's no we. You may ascribe those things to people down on their luck, but that's a you issue, I certainly don't agree with you."
Funny, everything you write positively drips of victim blaming. It's their fault, they're lazy, if only there were more like you...etc. Fell fuck you in the face with a bronzed goat covered in acid. Sideways.
"You're coming across as a sanctimonious bellend. You should work on that."
You're coming across as an entitled elitist fuckbag with all the empathy, sympathy and personality of a necrotic testicle hair. I'd say you should work on that, but really, I'd rather you just never interacted with another human being ever again so that your poisonous views on social dynamics aren't spread.
You're a bad person.
Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above
There are plenty of people in the SF bay area that have jobs and cannot find a place to live. Maybe if you weren't so full of yourself you'd be assed to go meet some. I have, and sock and fucking horror they aren't stupid, drug addicted or any of the other things we ascribe to people down on their luck. They are in a bad way, they can't make ends meet and they do things like live in a car or under a bridge despite bringing home what would be a reasonable salary in my city.
So blow it out your ass: you know not of what you speak.
Re: Means nothing
An FTSE 100 company has enough lawyers that they don't need to fear governments or their own customers. They don't have to do the right thing, and never do unless absolutely forced. They do whatever it is that gets the executives the best perks, period.
All you've proven is that Microsoft's sales teams are the most willing and able to bribe. FTSE 100 companies will gladly break every law there is to break until the fines rise to the point that executive salaries are impacted more than the perks provide.
None of which matters to anyone except Americans. American legal attack surface = NOPE.
Openstack is the future because Openstack allows local and regional providers to run clouds that have zero American legal attack surface. And they can do so without being utterly fucking ruined by Microsoft, who is desperately trying to put and SPs that might actually be able to compete with Azure out of business.
"Mobile first, cloud first"...but customers, partners, and staff last Judging from Microsoft's half-hearted change of heart regarding VDI we might see a pivot on this attitude in about 8 years,..after the competition has started to really make a serious dent and very solid real-world alternatives are available for cheap and easy off-the-shelf consumption.
Microsoft may well make billions on it's cloud, but there is a hard upper limit on it's growth. One imposed by it's own decisions and it's inability to recognize the need to build trust. A loaded gun pointed at your head coupled with a demand for $500 per user per month to unlock all the goodies isn't the way to build that trust.
While still official best practice, the Rule of 17 hasn't been required for some time. It's only maintained because "that's the way it has always been done". A common touchstone for EMC admins that doesn't require them to face unwanted change.
More important though was understanding why the Rule of 17 existed, and how those selfsame principles apply beyond just EMC's storage line. Especially as we move into a commodity hardware world.
The "language" might be archaic and odd, but it persists for a reason. Part of that is the practitioners, but part of it is that the specific use cases pass into history while the terminology comes to represent a generic theoretical concept.
LASER used to mean "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation". You don't need to know that to use a laser. You absolutely do if you want to design or build a laser.
The same, I think, goes for things like "the Rule of 17". The Rule of 17 encompasses power distribution, pathing, etc. Redundancy, in essence, and guaranteeing it at all points. It is a concept critical to the design of storage, and anyone proposing to design storage needs to know about it so as to learn from the mistakes of others.
Should you have to know about this if you buy a widget off the shelf? No. That's just using your laser. But if you intend to roll your own - see user-definable server SANs, etc - then you absolutely should know your history...and all of it's odd terminology, too.
Re: The bell end factor
"Consent" is what is obtained by EULAs or by having "we will record you" stamped on a sign in a disused lavatory guarded by an aging cougar with too much makeup.
"Explicit permission" is what most people would think of as "consent" which means "actually getting their permission in written or verbal form"
"Enthusiastic participation" is the new California barrier that men have to meet to ensure that the women they're sleeping with aren't being raped. It hasn't really been well defined yet.
The legal definition of "consent" shouldn't be enough for anything any more. "Explicit permission" is a far better standard.
Re: Does that mean...?
It means "we set the price too high, but we want our beloved partners to eat the cost on this. After we take over all their customer relationships and strip them of any possibility for future profitability, of course."
So let me add in a great big fuck you to Microsoft. Their true colours are finally revealed; they view their partners with just as much contempt as their end customers and their own staff.
Re: All good
Some people's "wishes" are unconscionable. Your rights end at the exact point where they interfere with the rights of someone else. You do not have the religious, or fear-based right to remove my rights. Period.
And I'll die to defend that, if I have to. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
"at least one man argued that a lot of the internet is just plain wrong - obscene, fraudulent, seditious..., and it should be stopped."
I believe religion is just plain wrong. I'll give up the internet if we all outlaw religion. I think living in a world where religion is a crime but we don't have the internet is probably going to result in more peace than a world in which the internet is monitored but you can do fucking anything in the name of Jesus.
Oh, what's that? Religion is somehow "good", and the internet is "bad"? Who the fuck said you get to judge? My opinion's as valid as yours, or "that one man".
Put up or shut up, eh?
That's a great big bucket of nope.
Re: flight time
"You get about 6 minutes flight time."
I rest my case.
Tervor, I know you can't restrain yourself BUT, Many are sick and tired of the "in your face" attitudes of the pro bigotry or bigot people that can't seem to keep their PERSONAL proclivities to themselves. It's being arrogant, pushy, obnoxious, boasting, prideful
(the sin) etc to constantly push your argument even when no one is really objecting except you can't see they aren't. People like you see a "skeleton in every closet" when all many of us conservatives have said is we don't want to be a part of it.
I believe the above statement has been modified to reflect the beliefs and values of the majority.
My name is Trevor, not Tervor.
Also, for the record: "prideful (the sin)" would seem to indicate you believe in a sky fairy. Probably the christian one. Your sky fairy doesn't exist. Your religion offends me. I request and require that you not only not practice it in front of me but that you refrain from pushing your religion on myself, or anyone else in my presence.
Your rights at the point where they interfere with the rights of others. It is my firm belief that attempts to "convert" others to your belief system is an infringement upon the rights of others. It is coercion to believe a lie that teaches hate.
Gayness isn't a choice. You are born gay. It is genetic. Your belief doesn't change the facts. Reality doesn't give a fuck what you believe. Someone being gay isn't a choice. They should not be restrained from discussing who and what they are. They should not be required to defend, hide or conceal who or what they are because it offends bigots who believe something other than reality.
Your religion is a choice. A highly offensive, hateful choice that leads to nothing other that bigotry and - dare I say it - evil. If you want to practice it behind closed doors, that's fine, but keep it the fuck away from good people, you monster.
You do not have the "religious right" to be a bigoted fuckbag. You have the right to believe whatever you want in private. If you want to have a parade about your religion, go right a head. Stand up a nightclub dedicated to people from your religion, cool. But you don't get to use it as an excuse for hate, or brainwashing, or attempting to restrict and restrain others.
Your religion is evil. Being gay is not. We have to put up with you by law, but make no mistake, bigots and their beliefs are not welcome in civilized society.
- ← Prev
- Next →