Re: Fair cop?
Every switch vendor on the planet makes that a marketing item. Supermicro, Dell, etc.
See Oracle v Google for that whole "you can't use our APIs" thing. How'd that work out for Oracle, hmm?
6206 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Every switch vendor on the planet makes that a marketing item. Supermicro, Dell, etc.
See Oracle v Google for that whole "you can't use our APIs" thing. How'd that work out for Oracle, hmm?
Canada doesn't have Europe telling us what we can't and can't do either. In fact, we usually have America trying to do that.
We still chose the metric system, like rational people.
"Errm... Yes, the Prods _do_ own a whole country. Several, actually. With names like 'England', 'Norway', 'Sweden', 'the Netherlands', a whole bunch of others... "
With the exception of England and Australia - which are pretty goddamned fucked up - those other nations are strongly secular. Protestants may be the majority belief, but they are nowhere near being able to simply dictate policy. They are not "owned" by any religion, just as the US is not.
"What, you thought that Muslims and fundie Xians had a monopoly on religious fervour? Read up on the life of, oh, Francis Drake."
No. What I said was that currently, today, fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Protestants are the biggest threat. Various groups in the past have done their share of horrors. That's not the point. I'm not singling out a religion and saying "death to this religion".
To be perfectly frank, I'm against all religion; the flavour in question doesn't matter.
No, what I am saying here by pointing the finger squarely at radical Protestants is "know your enemy". And make no mistake, they are the fucking enemy. Just as much as radical Muslims are. We need to understand them if we are to beat them...and we must counter the threat they pose before it's too late.
By this I mean socially ostracizing the radical and fundamentalist beliefs and actions. Shunning literalist interpretations of any sacred text. Teaching critical thinking to everyone, and doing so at every possible opportunity.
Take the oxygen away form these people. Identify vulnerable groups and get to them with education and the tools required to resist charlatans and preachers of all kinds. Help people be at peace with themselves without requiring a violent fundamentalist telling them what to do.
Better yet, making teaching religion to children under the age of 18 illegal, and enforce that law.
If we want to fight the real source of violence in our society we need to put resources into it. That means fundamentalist religion as much as it does gangs. It means fighting poverty and providing education. It means removing the reason for people to want to fight and running down those who champion fighting anyways.
Drive the crazy out into the open, then get them into hospital and get them help. Don't let them be caught up by madmen with a book and twisted into weapons.
And that means looking where we don't want to look. At the religions of the "good guys". At the violence we do to ourselves, not just what people of different skin colour, or dress, or whatever adhere to.
Know your enemy. Even if the enemy is you.
"Consider it this way: if you have $100 to spend will you spend all $100 on a general anti-religion (or anti-dogma) stance, or will you spend $10 on Christianity, $10 on Judaism, $20 on Islam, and $70 on religion (or dogma) generally?"
None of the above. I'd put all $100 into anti-extremism. Encouraging a culture where we question authority, teach critical thinking and make extremism socially unacceptable. Whether that extremism be in the form of Randian economic asshattery, unbridled Nationalism or caustic religious fuckwittery.
Treat the disease, not the symptom. Radical protestants and radical Muslims are merely catchpoints for crazies. What we need to do is give these people no acceptable place to hide. If they're that far gone they need to be in hospital. It shouldn't be acceptable for them to claim "religion" and have a get-out-of-Arkham-free card.
Your problem is that you feel targeting specific religions is acceptable. It's really not. It will just create resentment and martyrs and more problems down the road. If you must target religions, you target them all equally. By the same token, however, know your enemy. Learn about them, and know how to tailor your propaganda and education so that you can slowly make their messages clearly anti-social and massively reduce the influx of people willing to champion their cause.
It's psychological warfare, mate. Do go making new enemies whilst fighting the ones you already have.
Sure, but by the same token the problem isn't "Muslims", it's a small subset of "batshit crazy whacko Muslims."
The issue here is that in both cases - Muslims and Protestants - there exist at the present time a bunch of really hard-core extremist beliefs being espoused by charismatic leaders and forming their own organized micro religions. At the present time they are the biggest threat.
I am perfectly aware that the majority of Protestants are completely loony tunes (disregarding the who "they believe in a sky fairy" part for the moment; that's actually somewhat normal, sadly.) I am equally aware that the majority of Muslims are not blood thirsty whack jobs.
For now, however, the extremist elements of both collections of micro-religions are attracting a disproportionate amount of crazies and causing disproportionate amounts of harm.
I'm afraid I don't see how. I correctly and rationally took issue with the implicit assumption that we would all know local abbreviations for things like "state names" or - as was the context in question - "political shortcuts relevant only to Americans".
I have no idea why that was any bearing on the inability of some Brit to grok proper english. "The company caved to demands" is something that - at at quick check in my fairly well populated international chat rooms - folks from .in, .us, .ca, .nz, .au and .za all got without question. Bonus element, they also got that "caved in" means "the damned thing falls on you."
Which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the inability to understand the reference is some isolated quirk of Britishness. It's not a "local colloquialism". It's recognized usage by the bulk of the international community that speaks this language.
That we should basically ignore the haplessness of the minority in this case in no way contradicts my previous dislike of using regional-only abbreviations with the expectation that the rest of the world will understand them.
Maybe you should check your meds mate. Nationalism is a disease. Are you entirely certain yours is under adequate control?
"Bottom-line, Canadians speak very strange "variants" of languages, if you ask me."
Must disagree completely. It's you lot that can't speak our languages properly. We're the correct, normal ones. You're the creepy ones what gets the words wrong and have the bizarre spellings.
No doot aboot it, eh?
Aye, but we don't have the resources to fight all battles at the same time. Sort out the most dangerous of the lot first. Then move on.
I have easily read it at least 100 times, cover to cover in the course of my 14 years of religious schooling. I signed the petition with alacrity.
Perhaps, sir, your presumptions are in error. I submit that those who dislike the bible do so because of their familiarity with it. Otherwise, why care?
Yaaarrrrr, I be joining ye scurvy dogs! Ramen!
@Denarius: Religion is a lie, regardless of what deity you choose to worship. Materialist religions absolutely can be crazy arsebags too. Look at the Randians, or the Sceintologists. They've both done some horrible things in the name of their beliefs.
Compassion and decency towards your fellow man is not the province of religion, and certainly not the province of only one particular religion. It's just what the majority of people do by default.
Unfortunately, the world is run by the "squeaky wheel", and they are almost universally extremist asshats out to do as much harm as humanly possible, all to frequently in the name of fuzzy sky fairy. Whether that sky fairy be the god of Abraham, the invisible hand of the market or anything else, it's nothing but harming others to fill some void in yourself that your desperately clung to beliefs have been unable to fulfill.
This world will not improve until we make radical religion - all of it - socially unacceptable. Critical thinking and evidence-based science are the only rational means to govern ourselves and our societies.
Dogmatic adherence to any belief results in nothing more than violent immorality in the name of an individual's faith. There is nothing more dishonorable than killing in the name of "god" or "the invisible hand of the market" or Buddha, or...
If you want to kill a man, be honest about why. Be honest with him, with yourself, with others.
"I am killing you because I want your stuff" or "I am killing you because what you say angers me" or "I am killing you because I am angry all the time and I am hoping this will make the voices stop for a while" at least have a shred of honour. "God says so" is bullshit. Bullshit of the highest order.
And that applies just as much to "god hates homosexuals" or "god says shun rape victims" or "god says get a job, ya bum".
Take some fucking responsibility for your own beliefs and your own actions. If you're going to be an asshole, don't hide behind a sky fairy that doesn't exist. if your actions make you so ashamed you need metaphysical permission then don't perform those actions. Learn to walk the fuck away and let others live their lives.
God is never a reason. God is nothing more than an excuse. Now, then, and forevermore.
You're an idiot.
The issue isn't "which version of bullshit hocus pocus is believed", it's extremists and evangelists of any religion.
In the case of certain sects of the Muslim population, there is a sad truth that many of the religious leaders are encouraging radicalization and violence. Just like with extremist Protestant groups. Both of these need to be targeted for deletion. That fact that you kill in Jesus' name rather than Muhammad's doesn't make you any more righteous. You both need to be stopped.
We're fortunate that today very, very few Catholics are radicalizing people and pushing them to violence. Historically, they've been among the worse of the worst. If Catholics can move more towards a moderate, accepting religion then that's good for a huge chunk of the planet.
Unfortunately, Protestants and Muslims are both a massive problem. Too easily are whackos attracted to these religions, because they are fundamentalist and literalist in their interpretation of the scrawlings of the relevant madmen.
In the case of the protestants, we're quite lucky that most of them live in the middle of the goddamned desert and simply ferment a hatred of their federal government and shoot people who come on their land. It could be a lot worse. Sometimes - all too often, in fact, - it is worse.
The protestants don't own a whole country. They are tempered by their fellow citizens. But more than enough times they have pushed for unholy havoc to be wrought on their religious rivals.
Sadly, the Muslim radicals have more power at the moment. That makes them a more immediate threat...but it is only the immediacy of the treat that is different. Given enough time, the fringe Protestants will be riding on tanks killing the non-believers too.
Any religion that views killing those who are different as not only okay, but justified needs to be brought to an end. Fortunately, it's typically the radical elements of a religion that believe that...not the mainstream.
Unfortunately, making a dent in the fact that people believe in s ridiculous sky fairy at all is taking forever. We need to push back against all religion. The fewer people who believe in sky fairies of any kind, the fewer will become radicalized on the name of one of them.
Instead, let's teach compassion, acceptance and critical thinking. If you want to believe in a religion, that's fine...up to a point. You can believe lies if you wish, but the instant you advocate - or attempt - the restriction of the rights of others in the name of your religion, the rights to advocate and practice your religion need to end.
Regardless of whether the sky fairy you worship is Jesus, Mohammad, Yaweh, or Barney the motherfucking dinosaur.
In Canada, "caved in" means "the damned thing collapsed on top of you. Conversely, in Canada "caved" is a colloquialism for "acceded to the demands of the plaintants."
@Nate: honestly, chances are it's a vsync issue. I hate the same problem with "twitch" games for a while, until I forced vsync at the video card. Headaches went away.
Then I discovered I liked simpler games anyways (CoH, Gratuitous Space Battles, FTL, Space Pirates and Zombies, etc.) Something about 2D games makes it easier to disconnect after 15 minutes and go do something productive. Not because of headaches, but because they're more...episodic?
Well, except Civ. One...more...turn...
"Events for which the Church of Rome were the moral and intellectual foundation"
Except that - in modern times at least - it's not the Catholics that are the problem. It's extremist protestants. And I can think of (of the top of my head) at least 300 people whoa re now dead because of extremist protestants wigging the fuck out about their religion (or the perceived lack of it/inadequacy of it in others). And that's just my memory, without Google, and confined to North America.
That's not even touching organized religious warfare, driving people to suicide (thanks, Westboro Baptist Church!), or getting into far more controversial topics like "babies who died from neglect because they were born to mothers who shouldn't have been having kids, but didn't use contraception because God." Or how about "babies who died en masse due to starvation/AIDS because an entire fucking continent has been hoodwinked into no contraception because God."
You know, I'm going to go waaaaaaaaaay out on a limb here and say "deaths/rapes due to GTA influence" are way the hell lower than atrocities committed in the name of God. And that's just the Christian god. Let's not open the can of worms that is "the Abrahamic sky fairy is really the same sky fairy for a number of religions"...
You can change human nature if you just boss them around hard enough? News to me.
...but violence against men is okay, eh? I guess that makes sense. Men are "disposable", after all. And not deserving of actual equality with the same rights as women.
Violence against women is obviously special and different. I see it all now...
Credit where it's due, however. The CRTC did ultimately block the Telus/Bell merger. We aren't as far gone as those to the south. Yet.
Can't disagree. Vendor bugs happen in all hardware and software. But there's something quite a bit useful to the ability to "push button, receive known good configuration". I don't see why that can't be built into, for example, some form of IPMI enterprise management software for Supermicro...it just hasn't to date.
Oh, been up and down that one. No effect. Same with "are you using vmxnet3 virtual NICs" and every other standard item. It's not the offloading. It's not chimney. It's not anything obvious. It's the damned drivers.
If ever anyone wanted to know what elements of "vendor fingerpointing instead of actually working to solve the problem" drive me mad, Intel/VMware over this issue makes Trevor something something...
Amen. O've lost enoufh customers to them. OCZ's name is worse than mud. Mud I can at least use as a building material.
Then you don't get out enough.
VMware: look up "PEX and Nutanix". Or really, any sales strategy involving a VMware partner that has a successful product.
Google: Oh, let me count the ways in which they have actively tried to sabotage the competition. But let's start with a discussion about Android restrictions, shall we?
Be honest with yourself here, mate: do you see "Dave's Apache Highmem Config, Optimised for 50,000 user Wordpress installs including OOB integration with Cloudflare and automated Dropbox Backups" ever coming to the Microsoft Store? Really?
Because that's exactly the sort of package that makes Docker attractive. And it's exactly the sort of package I have a hard time believing will show up in Microsoft's App Store.
Sysadmins can't do anything about it. Every major new tech that comes out with a significant ease of use change means fewer sysadmins are required than were before. That's why ease of use matters; it gets rid of the need for priests to tend the temple and allows a single contracted janitorial team to handle hundreds of companies as they do their rounds every night.
If you're looking for "how can docker make me, as an Ops guy, better off" the chances are that it won't. Oh, if you master it, you could probably become a "containerization consultant" and be one of the janitors tending multiple businesses, but since it is the equivalent of moving from "having to carefully manage each install of each app separately" to "click install in the app store", it removes a lot of why you might need to be there.
And that, right there, is why it is valuable to business. Unfortunately, in this instance, "good for the business" is "bad for the ops guys".
RedHat are any better? VMware? Oracle? Google?
Not a lot of honour amongst IT companies.
Think of Docker as being "Steam for enterprise applications and web development platforms" and you might begin to grok what it's bringing to the table. Stop thinking of things in terms of "I'm a sysadmin with a strong ops background who can figure this out if you pay me" and start thinking of it from the standpoint of business owners and developers who don't want to have to pay ops guys at all.
I gotta be honest when I say I can't picture actually using IIS in production. I just can't. Apache is ground into my bones. I've redone those configs so many times that I don't even need the comments in httpd.conf anymore.
That said, I have seen what httpd.conf does to newbies. It's about what IIS does to me. So whenever I picture starting Apache from scratch I imagine someone asking me to take all my websites and move them to IIS. Then I quickly think of something else before that becomes a desire to self-harm.
Don't forget OpenIndianna. Or BSD Jails. Or Virtuozzo. Or OpenVZ. Or Rocket. Or...
Just because you have a containerization tech doesn't mean you have momentum, hype, a community, backing, industry support, an "app store", community input to that "app store", cloud provider adoption, etc. etc. etc.
That makes Docker quantitatively as well as qualitatively different from any of the other containerization techs that have gone before. Technology doesn't matter here nearly so much as politics, damned politics and "moolah, moolah, moolah, moo-la-haaaaaaaaaaa..."
Parallels has virty tech, they aren't a threat to VMware. Virtualbox is groovy, nobody runs a large datacenter on it. Solairs/OpenIndianna/Illuminos jails are awesome and even have enterprise support...but there isn't a heck of a lot of cloud provider adoption, hype or community support.
That isn't to say it couldn't happen. It's just that these are projects by engineers, for engineers. And that means they likely won't succeed where the marketdroids and moneymen walk.
"In the playground there's a possibility that at least some of the others who see bullying may point out that it's not a particularly nice thing to do."
What the hell playgrounds were you a part of as a kid? I sumbit that what you suggest is fantastically rare.
Quite the converse, in fact: while kids will never stick up for another that is being bullied, the Internet is full of White Knights who will appear out of a portal and fire back at cyber-bullies with both barrels.
@Khaptain your mother smelt of elderberries.
God doesn't exist. Rights granted by a non-extant entity are irrelevant. Thus the "god-given" right to view a website, or to track someone are non-extant. The rights are as they have been defined in various documents, starting with the UDHR and ending with local bylaws.
"Maybe the risk of a network outage is as costly as you claim to that company,"
They're damned high for almost any company.
"but the risks of on-premise data storage and computing are also considerable."
No, they're not. Are you sure you understand how storage works? Because we're really quite good at it by now.
"Not long from now that same insurer will demand draconic and auditable standardized measures to be taken on your 'own' systems to even consider giving you coverage."
Already do. No problem. Well, actually, that're not draconic at all. They're fairly well thought out standardized tests that can be easily seen off by getting a member of CIPS to sign off on it. Just like having a professional accountant sign off on your books is required, so to can getting a legally recognized professional IT practitioner to sign off on your IT designs be required.
What's wrong with that? I'd need the same thing if I were using the almighty American Public Cloud...except that it would be 10x as expensive and far less likely to pass muster, due to the nature of single points of failure in the American Public Cloud Computing model that are completely beyond my control.
"That will make the comparison more balanced I expect, even without the already high costs of local solutions."
Actually, it usually means the unreliable and ridiculously expensive public cloud solutions go down in flames. And speaking of flames, I think you'd be surprised at what local tech can take.
Baaaahhh. Baaaaaahhhhh. Baaaaah.
You can fight with diplomacy, logic, rationality and compassion. With the exception of the most extreme of extremists it usually works.
Please, do explain why private actions that harm noone should be prohibited, hmm?
Why should I be subject to your morality? Just who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do? Why should I comply? Why shouldn't you be made to comply with my morality instead?
"Just like sexual assault, rape, and other exploitative or sexual crimes against a person, it is both bad form and highly prejudicial to engage in even the tiniest amount of victim-blaming. In cases were there is doubt, the jury should return a Not Guilty verdict, and that would include situations where the only evidence of wrongdoing is hearsay or conflicting accounts lacking in any evidence that will given credibility to one side or the other."
I agree that victim blaming is bad. By the same token, I don't have any faith whatsoever that a jury will return a verdict of Not Guilty if a fellow is not guilty. What's more, merely being accused of such crimes can ruin someone's life. And there absolutely, 100% are vicious, mean-spirited harpies out there who will drag a man down to hell for some imagined slight. I can introduce you to a few, if you'd like. The results of their hell-hatched plans of ruination are mighty tales in and of themselves.
It's funny, you never read in the newspaper about the guy let out of jail after 3 months when new evidence comes to light if the reason he was banged up was supposed spousal abuse. But if a guy is found not guilty, well, he's hounded by the press ad aeternum and presumed to be "guilty, but let off via the old boys' club."
When sex or sexuality is involved, justice is anything but blind.
"Banning abortion? What? People think killing babies is wrong? How backward is that!"
Potential babies aren't babies yet. And it's pretty goddamned backwards to ban abortion. Question for you: do you give a fuck about the "precious little baby" once it has exited the woman's vagina, or do you only care about it while it is part of a woman's body? If you do care about the "precious little baby" after it has exited a woman's vagina, I assume you're in full support then of universal health care, the welfare state, free post-secondary education, employment insurance and other means and measures to ensure a happy and productive life for all members of society?
If you are not, please explain why not, starting with why a potential baby merits more concern than an actual living, breathing human being?
"Teaching an alternative theory of the origins of life on earth? Ah yes, that's just like beheading people who oppose your rule and hiding half the population under tent-clothes while the other half can do as they wish."
I'm glad we're able to come to an agreement about just how completely fucked up beyond all repair suppressing scientific knowledge is, especially when it is done in the name of a false god. One amongst hundreds of other false gods that madmen have dreamt up over the centuries.
Keep up the good work!
"How much more civilised we are, sending our armies off to foreign lands where they can wreak havoc on them undeserving heathens, killing them, so that they don't have to endure the dreadful atrocities their leaders inflict on them."
Well, seems both sides to this argument engage in this particular bit of fuckwittery. Though, I daresay, the Islamics have claimed far fewer western scalps than we've managed to kill of them. Over a million in Iraw, was it? And how many in Afghanistan? Pakistan? Syria?
Hmm...I think I'm going to go with "we're a bunch of peckerheads too".
Until you commented here, I'd never even heard of it, to be perfectly honest. I guess I'll add it to my list of things to investigate in 2015...
Hi, maybe I can help some.
I think the answer to your question is "either/or". For the VCs - and typically most founders - "suceed" in the market means "have a profitable exit". That exit can be IPO, or it can be acquisition. But the point is that you get 5-10x out what you put in (time or money wise, where time is calculated at what you could command working full time for someone else.)
Remember that most founders don't stay with their "baby" past the contractual period after acquisition. They have their money, and they're going to go roll the dice one more time and try to make another startup, get more money.
The thing you have to remember is that the people who start SV startups chafe under the rules and restraints of big business. They want to be free to innovate, make their own choices...and mistakes. The startup life is a lifestyle as much as anything. It's about the freedom as much as the money.
So for VCs, all that matters is the money, but for execs the money is the means to the end of going back and doing it all over again.
Funnily enough, I am working on an article about exactly that.
Agree 100%. Containers are useful to small businesses. But they can't give up the benefits of hypervisors either. They'll be deploying containers inside VMs almost exclusively. Best of both worlds!
Only those who are dedicated at a religious level will be deploying to metal. They need/want every erg of efficiency possible. SMBs aren't in it for the efficiency; they need ease of use way more than efficiency.
By "array" I typically mean SAN and NAS. DAS stuff is usually not called an array. It's just called DAS. (Or JBOD). It's a separate thing. It's usually many more disks than you'll find in a server SAN, but it's not shared across multiple systems...or at least not enough systems to make more than a two or three node cluster.
DAS is a very Microsoft thing, at least where virtualization is involved. I know it's still a thing for those few running workloads on metal, but only Microsoft really thinks it's remotely viable for hosts with hypervisors on them. But, hey, it's Microsoft. Being trapped 15 years in the past is quite an advancement for them.
I...I don't think you understand how these work? Especially how they're installed in enterprises.
As a general rule, enterprises used to buy hardware dedicated to a specific project or workload. Each DB had it's own SAN, it's own servers, etc. But then we found that this was spectacularly inefficient and led to massive underutilisation of resources. Private clouds - or at least virtualisation setups that were closeish - began to become the order of the day.
Resources began to be purchased and pooled based on cumulative predicted need, not based on the individual project or workload. Now the question has become "how best to maintain these sorts of environments."
Something like a Nutanix or VSAN cluster rarely goes beyond 16 nodes, sometimes to 32. You get multiple clusters in a virtual datacenter. You are highly unlikely to have nodes in the cluster that are different speeds/capabilities because clusters tend to live and die as a group. We've seen that even in non-VSAN clusters thus far. Clusters are born, they live and they die as one.
But in the rare instance where clustered are mixed - I run a mixed cluster myself - sysadmins can simply tell workloads to keep the copies on "like" nodes. If you have PCI-E storage on nodes A-D and only SAS storage on nodes E-H, then you can "segregate" the cluster into two.
In theory, you could end up with a workload split along the storage plane, but only if you'd lost enough of one type of node that rebuilding would cause it to put the second copy on the other class of node. As soon as you've repaired the server sin question, policies would take over and make sure your workloads go where they are supposed to.
If your assertion is somehow that server SANs are unable to support SQL or OLTP workloads, well...you're just wrong. You're wronger than wrong.
Believe it or not, server SANs have been around long enough to evolve to handle the concept of diversity in workloads...and to handle workloads that are as demanding as anything you could throw at a traditional SAN. Indeed, I'd challenge a traditional SAN to keep up with the all-flash server SANs. The MCS setups in particular are utterly spectacular.
expanded on his cloud strategy to get Microsoft apps on every internet-equipped device on the planet.
"Talk about making pigs fly. Does anyone in their right mind even remotely think that this is doable?"
"Does you leccy meter that sends your reading to the mothership need a Word Interface? Does it even need to run Windows of any shape or form? Does it need an SQLServer Client or even client access to CRM, BizTalk or any other MS product?"
No, but it probably could report it's data back to Azure, or run a little Microsoft Research-developed micro OS (they have a couple) that are efficient, small, and designed for embedded devices. I think one of them even runs in less than 2MB of RAM.
"My current smart meter does not. I know that it runs Linux."
"Does he think that every Router on the planet is going to have some MS software in it?"
Why couldn't it?
"The list of area where MS will fail is very long."
I can say this about (almost) every OS or software company, if we're being honest.
"Perhaps he should become a Politician. They always promise stuff that is clearly impossible to deliver (if you have half a working brain that is) but they make great sound-bites don't they?"
He's the CEO of one of hte most important corporations on the planet. He is a politician, now.
So...anyone with a genetic predisposition towards any of a number of different diseases will pay more to live? Anyone who is poorer (and thus can only afford bulk processed foods that aren't good for us) will pay more to live? Anyone who has had an accident (I can give you a list of people who have had spectacularly costly - read: millions of dollars and counting - worth of medical issues due to being hit by a drunk driver) will pay more to live?
You can't control your genetics. Poverty is a vicious circle that very, very few escape from. Lots of things can happen to you where you have absolutely zero control or ability to prevent them.
And we're going to place people at a disadvantage because of this people for this? There is a thin line here between medical insurance tracking bracelets and eugenics. It's maybe a slower process to use the bracelets, but the end result is the same: pushing those who are "impure" into a position of significant disadvantage such that they will eventually just die off.