I still think of the freebsd server with just under 13 years of uptime when I killed it. No one can explain the rush of happiness that comes with issuing a shutdown command.
I tried powering it back online afterwards. It did not power back on.
I remember the days when theregister could be considered good newsource.
Did the author need to crank out an "article" before the weekend?
This has been talked about for decades. It's not going to happen. The entire range is unusable at the networking core level, even if you magically had an OS that accepted it.
You can't tweak IPv4 any more. Accept the fact that while IPv6 may seem scary to some, it's the way we _must_ move.
Vmware products are quite good at scale and support enterprise features that a casual user won't need/cant use.
Virtualbox is designed to be ran on a machine that is already running a desktop OS. It is designed to extend a machine. This is great for a developer.
Vmware/ESXI is a bare metal hypervisor that IS the OS.It effectively partitions a computer hardware and is incredibly stable/secure. This also allows it to do fancy powerful network and storage features directly that an app inside windows/linux/mac can't do.
LoB apps are certified & supported on vmware products. Like the payroll systems you get paid with? If it's running on virtualbox and it does something weird, you're probably not getting paid that week. If it's on Vmware, you better believe you can call people to have it solved asap.
The article is about use in an enterprise. An enterprise runs professional/enterprise/ltsc versions which do NOT steer you to the cloud - what data sovereignty concerns have you seen in those editions of windows/server? They've gone through a lot of pains to ensure those concerns are taken care of for enterprises/governments so i'm curious the ones you think they missed.
You can make the argument for their consumer editions sure, but that's a different product with different features, different price point for different users.
Make sense, rich people would have an easier time to immigrate.
But how many of this dozen are here on TFW like you're suggesting?
I'm doubtful that it's TFW that are buying the properties you're concerned with, especially since they're still at the mercy of PR/work authorization laws that could make them leave the country at any time.
It _could_ happen, but that would be pretty exceptional.
You want to complain about foreigners making house prices too high for you, you do you. Just be accurate in your complaints.
> Businesses underpay and when they can't find people willing to impoverish themselves to work for them, they apply to the government to bring in "temporary foreign workers" - for things like fast food restaurant workers not essential business, keeping the wages down.
> Temporary foreign workers and international students in canada are allowed to buy housing, so aside from renting the rich ones who make it here actually buy up properties for their family offshore.
If they're being paid so little, I don't see how they could possibly afford to buy any properties. I've only known a few, but they all send the majority of the money back home instead.
This feels very fear mongering on TFWs and not grounded in facts.
In those 2 examples, they have nothing to do with WEF's goal as far as I can tell.
In fact, Indian Brahmin would seem to contradict with WEF's supposed goals.
wrt Mexican cartels, I'm not sure how that fits into the original narrative of WEF - do Mexican cartels work for the WEF? I've never heard this theory before.
I don't see why any of the groups mentioned would submit themselves to endgoals WEF is supposedly aiming for. I'm skeptical why they would.
> its not even trying to hide any of this, you can still find it on the web
> this was the goal of Lenin and Trotsky - complete destruction of the idea of the individual person
You're right UN Agenda 21 _is_ available on the web. Have you actually read it - or have you only read opinions on it?
I have read it and I think you're taking a VERY big leap of faith to connect the dots this way.
If they're trying to destroy the idea of the individual person, what is the end goal? ie. 2023 you say they're going to destroy the idea of the individual person. 2030 they succeed. 2035 ?????
> They can totally do it and there is nothing people can do about it, so they don't even have to hide that much.
All the "theories" I've seen conveniently forget about China & India - the world's largest population by a long shot. How does these conspiracy of WEF impact them?
Until I see something that doesn't have a "me" complex as the main reasoning I'm going to dismiss it.
I asked a friend who just left med school. He laughed and said yes there's lots of evidence supporting this in his profession alone. He suggested you pick up a copy of "Principles of Transgender Medicine and Surgery" ISBN 1138857009 which was a required for one of his courses. It has hundreds of references by MDs,PHDs and the like on the medical side alone.
He did agree that quantity is not quality and recommended to use "Directory of Open Access Journals" to access a large amount of peer reviewed research that does establish the science.
You should contact everyone referenced in the book/research papers and let them know they're incorrect.
Having an open mind to learn more information is not a weakness.I work in data science adjacent and it's fascinating to see new information being uncovered all the time that does fill in missing information about everything we know - or don't know.
>No there isn't. There isn't any science behind this to begin with.
Sorry I didn't realize you were an expert in this topic, but you must have slept through the lessons of SRY gene (one of the many topics that touch on this).
>That is what science has taught us.
Er, no. While you may believe what you wish, the scientific AND medical AND psychological community disagrees with your assertion. There's more research happening into it in the past 10 years than in the past 100 years with some interesting research. Unfortunately people are operating off 50+ years of knowledge handed down in elementary schools or via religion. I don't expect this is an area of study for you, so that's probably why you're not aware of these advances. At one point in time people thought the earth was flat or that people were only righthanded. I'm glad to part of the scientific community that embraces increasing knowledge regardless of how it challenges preconcieved notions. That's what science is.
Regardless, your claims relating to Lysenko are extremely hyperbolic at best - for either group in the comparison.
I'm surprised that this was an exhibit in the first place tbh with that limited information. My comments were related to the hyperbolic comparison OP did.
Trans people exist. Full Stop. Anything more than a 5 min scan of our history and scientific back to recorded times show they do exist. And there's lots of research being done today that was not done decades ago when people started to formulate their opinions. We obviously don't know everything yet but like I mentioned I expect in 50 years a lot of questions will be put to rest.
> There's no objective and empirical measurement to support anyone's claim of an alternative gender identity. Choosing to believe such claims, and then acting upon them (e.g. by housing males in women's prisons, letting males compete in women's sports, etc.) is an ideological stance.
^-- That also is an ideological stance whether you intend it or not. I don't believe the harm in the claims. The amount of people that are affected by your 2 examples seems to be in the hundreds, maybe thousands world wide so I'm perplexed why people spend so much time worrying about such edge cases.
That feels quite controlling and oppressive and I expect you would hate others to do the same to you.
What I don't understand is how this personally affects you, and why this matters so much to yourself. Were you in a prison with a trans person? Did a trans person beat you in a swimming competition last night? What did a trans person do to you?
Gender identity is something that is nuanced and complex. I'm not looking for an argument but I would invite you to think of the opposite:
- What is the proof that this person is not what they claim of? (ie, what ideology of yours makes you convinced of this?). This ties into deeply philosophical questions - what makes you "you"? Do you have a conscience? A soul? Is your brain the source of your identity or is your loins? Does your loins control your brain and thus your existence?
But on a more direct reply - anthropology has made some significant discoveries about the history of people - including trans people. I would encourage you to look into that for more information - assuming you wish to learn more about the subject.
There's lots of information out there, and more is being discovered every day so it's very useful to keep your eyes open on evidence - and not personal beliefs.
That's ... a pretty inflammatory and dismissive point of view.
There's lots of evidence going back to egyptian times supporting the science behind this. Unfortunately most people only see the surface level sound bites thrown out in the media and make up their mind based on that - or what their own religion has pushed forward.
I suspect that fifty years from now we will have built on all the existing knowledge (including historical) and have a more refined understanding put together.
You'd really hope that's the same logic used when someone doesn't support something too.
Rarely are people's opinions that well informed unfortunately.