Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Vaidhyanathan, Oregon, Opteron
'It would become impossible to have Open Source implementations of key pieces of the infrastructure. This would be harmful, perhaps fatal, to the grand plans of those who want to deploy Web services everywhere,' Bray is reported as saying, in XML Industry Newsletter ."
Waiting for the low-power version. Jethro writes "Ace's hardware Opteron review was a very interesting read which shows some real Java webserver benchmarks on SUSE and Debian Linux, and real world database performance in MySQL and MS SQL server 2000. A lot better than those synthetic mysql benchmarks that Tom's hardware served up."
And Distinguished Hero writes "[H]ardocp.com ([H]ardNews 1oth Edition) is reporting that the Opteron processor does not actually have an integrated dual channel controller. This explains why all the Opteron reviews only used a single channel configuration. While the integrated memory controlled is not dual channel, it can be bypassed by an external (Northbridge) memory controller connected to the processor via the HyperTransport bus."
One more: EconolineCrush writes "Yesterday's Opteron launch gave us all glimpse at AMD's new 64-bit platform, but the Opteron is a server and workstation chip that will be out of reach for the majority of consumers. AMD's upcoming Athlon 64, however, will bring 64-bit computing to the desktop. Drawing heavily from what we've seen of the Opteron's performance thus far, Tech-Report has posted its thoughts on what it will take for the Athlon 64 to succeed. It's an interesting read for anyone salivating at the thought of an affordable 64-bit desktop platform."
Ma'am, can you please ask those anarchists in the carrels to pipe down a bit? BrianWCarver writes "Readers may recall a Slashdot interview with Siva Vaidhyanathan, Professor at NYU, and author of Copyrights and Copywrongs. Vaidhyanathan is working on a new book, The Anarchist in the Library, and was interviewed on the blog, Eyeteeth. This is a brilliant and amazing interview where Vaidhyanathan discusses how creative communities share, the DMCA, the American industrial production of culture, the USA Patriot Act, the importance of libraries and librarians, and the policies of the FCC. It is a must-read for those who care about the future of creative and democratic culture."
Technically, Oregon is not Washington. Daniel Phillips is among the many folks who have been following the progress of a bill in Oregon (HB 2892) to encourage open source software, and he points out this Register story (picked up from NewsForge, actually), writing "Apparently, moving Oregon's open source bill forward comes down to convincing the house speaker."
Reader PotatoHead fleshes that out just a bit: " Despite reports detailing the demise of HB 2982, this bill continues to be a topic at the Oregon Legislature. We have broad support for HB 2892, but need everyone to continue showing support in the form of your phone calls, e-mails, faxes and snail-mail to your Oregon Representatives. We have the attention of the Oregon Legislature in a pretty big way and need to keep up the good work if HB 2892 is to move forward against the constant efforts of the usual industry lobbyists. If you don't already know, here is how you contact your representative. Please take a moment --right now-- and show your support for HB 2982. Every contact matters as we continue to move forward with HB 2892!"
Sir, can you direct me to the nearest buggy whip store so I can beat this dead horse? If $98 billion seems to you a bit much for the music cartel to charge students for even the most indiscriminant file swapping, you may be interested in following the chilling effects that it generates, too: PL_2003 writes "A follow up on a previous slashdot article. It really seems like the recording industry is determined to continue its fight.Check this NYTimes article (free reg. required). My Take: Couldn't they use their brains for a better business model?"
OK, here are the rules ... Grub (mentioned previously) is apparently causing consternation among many webmasters. Though they claim the client honors robots.txt , it seems that only the central servers check it (and don't honor it properly) and that grub clients don't don't check it at all. Ooops.
Time to round up and segregate the arrogant. jtheory writes "There's an AP story today here on Yahoo news) that the Justice department has dropped its probe into the recommendation policy of a Texas Tech bio professor. It's encouraging that all he had to do to stop the investigation was make some very minor changes in his policy, but it's still horrifying to me that he got into trouble in the first place. Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? Would they ignore animal research results, etc?"
The various motherboard photos seem to indicate that their are DIMM sockets to accomodate 128-bit memory. I would hope that the various benchmarks have been done with this configuration, since it obviously increases the memory bandwidth considerably.
Reference: page 15 of the AMD Opteron Processor data sheet, AMD document 23932 rev 3.00 dated April 2003.
When these college kids graduate, go onto careers of their own they will be in the position to BUY music rather then spend time searching and downloading it off the current hot p2p app. But will they be interested anymore?
Why would the record industry want to constantly go after their own best customers and future customers? Im no longer in college myself, don't buy much music anymore cause I prefer 80s music. I do buy a ton of DVDs though. The reaso nbeing there is great value in DVDs. I get superior picture quality and sound, a nice keep case, art work, special features, comentaries, interactive content, all for $14-$21.
If the record industry could offer such great content at a reasonable price, sales would skyrocket.
Instead they charge far too much for far too little, and on top of it, they constantly attack their own customers with threats and lawsuits and bullshit like CDs that wont play on their computer. Then they lobby for laws that punish not just music pirates but all people who wish to use the internet without restrictions. It's really quite amazing how a group of billionaires can be so ass backwards.
Im hoping their is a major backlash from the millions of students in this country.
I don't think it's right to exclude someone from medical practice just because they don't ascribe to the theory of evolution. They're still capable of observation and understanding the scientific process, perhaps even more so than those who blindly adhere to a theory because they keep their minds open to the possibility that it is wrong. Science isn't about religious prejudice.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Right. For example, it would be completely beyond the pail were a state-run university to require that medical students believe in... medicine.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? Would they ignore animal research results, etc?"
How exactly do you make that connection between Creationism and ignoring animal research? I hate to break it to you, but the people who typically believe that animals should not be researched upon are the ones who believe they evolved (and thus, are no differnt from humans and deserve the same treatment). Creationism by its very nature puts humans above and beyond other animals, and thus animals are to be utilized by humans.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
I completely agree. I'm not a creationist, but I fully support their right to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they don't shove it down my throat.
I work with plenty of devout Hindus, and their beliefs are complete foreign to me (don't eat cows because they are sacred animals, they believe in not just one god, but many different gods, etc). Personally, I don't subscribe to any of it, but that's just my own personal belief, they are completely free to believe whatever they want, and who knows, they could be right and I could be wrong!
Why is it that creationists are so looked down upon, but other religions that, for example, believe that the world is sitting on an elephant that is sitting on a turtle are okay? Is it because it is expected that white people in North America should know better, but non-whites are free to believe whatever they want?!? That to me seems at the very least bigotted.
Very slippery.
I would have to say that I don't care what my doctor's beliefs are... As long as his/her beliefs do not affect the job. Someone can freely believe that the world was created 5000 years ago, that dinosaurs never existed, and that there is no such thing as evolution; yet still believe enough of modern biological thinking to believe in germs, virii, and assorted other medical beliefs.
But, the moment that a persons beliefs interfere with scientific thinking (such as denying the existence of germs,) then I have a problem.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
However much of a troll that was, I think I need to intervene: how can you call an Indian a "sand nigger"? There is little to no sand in India. You could call an Arab a "sand nigger" (not condoning it, just saying that iwould make sense), but certainly not an Indian. They are very different. Maybe a Pakistani, but that name is certainly Hindi/Sanskrit and he's from India and certainly not near any sand. If you're going to do racial slurs, at least do them right.
This guy has written many high quality scientific papers, he does a lot of work on Cosmology, and yet he was a devout 7th Day Adventist - and therefore believed in creation.
Didn't seem to interfere with his work.
The reason is, if someone deliberately ignores data about the real world in favor of a story they believe their religion demands, they may apply that "methodology" to medicine as well. Would you want someone who believes disease is caused by bad humours or demons to be your doctor? Creationists generally do accept the germ theory of disease, but it's the same idea. If their religion contradicts what is actually wrong with a patient, they'll be a dangerous doctor.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
I just want to take a moment to comment on Grub. In the original story we heard,
"People who choose to download and run the client will assist in building the Web's largest, most accurate database of URLs."
Already I find myself rolling my eyes.
Then I click through to the site. Aha. I will volunteer my machine on a non-profit basis for a for-profit company. This is just like distributed.net and SETI? Give me a break, these guys were bought out by Looksmart, a paid for placement ad company.
Google didn't succeed by getting slashdot editors to post stories saying they are building the most useful search engine out there, they succeeded by actually building it.
I just hope grub keeps the fools who want to regulate google away. Google succeeded because they didn't have to listen to self-important analysts.
The issue I believe is that strict creationists (emphasis on strict) refuse in many instances to believe the very tenets that make modern medicine and other sciences possible.
Here's an idea. you want to be a programmer but, you don't believe in Arabic numerals. I leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.
-
Why is it that creationists are so looked down upon, but other religions that, for example, believe that the world is sitting on an elephant that is sitting on a turtle are okay? Is it because it is expected that white people in North America should know better, but non-whites are free to believe whatever they want?!? That to me seems at the very least bigotted.
Or maybe because those who believe the world is sitting on an elephant on a turtle aren't making nuisances of themselves. I haven't heard turtle believers arguing loudly and often in front of legislatures that we need to throw out all of the astronomy and geology books. Incidentally, biology isn't the only science on the creationists' shit list; even physics would have to be...ah....modified to not state inconvienient facts.
This isn't Western bigotry. If large numbers of turtle believers in our midsts were doing their damndest to drag us back to the 14th century, they'd be looked down on too. Every culture on this planet has problems with religious luddites. The creationists just happen to be ours.
That's simply not true. There are scientists out there, who are not "creationists" who don't believe in biological macroevolution. They don't disbelieve it because of religious dogma. Here's one example: there are many biological constructs that are complex to the point that intermediate steps would not be beneficial to the organism. Now I realize there is effort underway to explain such constructs, but that is one example of the type of scientific thinking that one can use to argue against biological macroevolution. You may want to look into the theory of "intelligent design".
Pure flamebait, but I'll respond anyway. I've had plenty of doctor's that I know were Christians. Now, I don't know if they believed in evolution or not, but they were extremely caring and knowledgable doctors who took care of me and my family. And as for prayer, I know there has been at least one recent study that was showing that prayer does have affect on health. I believe it was in Wired. I unfortunately don't have the link, nor the time right now to look it up.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Can you name one?
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
The people under discussion get their ideas on cosmology and the origins and history of the earth from their church, or the ICR, or their parents, and rarely directly from the Bible although they'll claim this is the case. They refuse to accept that science is a valid source of knowledge, and they feel threatened by it, because they don't believe their religion could be true if it's possible to gain knowledge directly from nature, rather than from God. They often confuse astronomy with evolution. They are rarely informed about the evidence for any scientific theory, least of all evolution. They have no business practicing medicine.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
The prices for the Opteron chips seem reasonable, and the nforce3 and new VIA chipsets should make it possible to build reasonably priced motherboards -- so why would the Opteron be out of reach for power-hungry computer users?
Just because it says 'server' on the box the chip comes in?
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
And btw, there are many many instances where evolution results in something that is not only not useful but quite deadly, think dwarfism, progeria, etc... and other genetic mutations. It is not relevant whether or not any particular biological construct is immediately useful or detrimental, only whether the organism as a whole manages to survive. Evolution is not a neat, quick, or orderly process.
Prayer, like placebos, are all in the mind so your study is irrelevant to the discussion if it does not detail the type of people which these prayers are helpful for. Never mind the fact that you cannot do a proper scientific experiment without a control group. What are you going to do, tell the religious people in the control group that they cannot pray for themselves?
What punishment is there for not honoring it?
Instead there should be a technological solution, rather than a legal or social solution (the current solution, I believe, is social).
The answer? Look to Slashdot. Create artificial "delays" in access times. Slashdot has 2 minutes between posts and 20 seconds between clicking "Reply" and "Submit".
The web sites could have an artificial 2- or 3-second delay between accesses, so for instance if a "robot" was scanning the site it would experience slow-downs. And it could increase the delay upon multiple accesses, by (say) 1 second each access within the limit, so that the spider would end up taking a very long time to get each page.
This would require no change in laws, or in "social" behavior to punish the spiders. People generally don't click on a new link that quickly anyway (they tend to read some of the page before clicking on a link on that page), so this would be very non-intrusive for regular users but would slow down a spider.
Of course, then the spiders would be written such that they scan multiple sites, so a slowdown on one (or every) site wouldn't slow the spider down much. But that's the price we pay for putting information on the internet.
I seriously think the practice of using "robots.txt" is silly.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I know there has been at least one recent study that was showing that prayer does have affect on health.
The placebo effect. Psych 101, boy. And it doesn't work if someone else prays for you, only if *you* pray for you. God has nothing to do with it.
Of course, if you can produce a empirical, scientific study published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal supporting the idea that prayer affects the health of others, please do so.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
But that is the very definition of evoluion. Any change in the allele frequency of a population over time is evolution. "Species" is a useful concept for taxonomy but has little meaning at the genetic level. In addition, your claim "evolution on the otherhand would have generated a new species" gets it backward, evolution needn't necessarily do any such thing: evolution does not imply speciation. Rather, speciation implies evolution.
An additional quibble, as you seem to be reading straight from the Creationist playbook: the moth example is not an argument for evolution, but an example often cited (because it's much easier for laymen to visualize than the active-site kinetics of CPSase III in X. laevis, say). Selecting this or that oft-cited example and pounding on it makes for good rhetoric but as scientific discussion goes it's like using "Macgruder the Friendly Computer" to debate cryptographic algorithms.
No, because anyone who puts dogma before logic is not going to be very good at using deductive reasoning in a critical situation if their dogma gets in the way (say a mother is dying due to rejection problems with a fetus and the only way to save her is removal of the fetus and it is too young to survive outside the mother, what does the person do? logic dictates that you remove the fetus because it will die anyways if the mother dies but I have been told stories by a doctor friend of mine of colleagues refusing based on personal beliefs that reject abortion in any case and saying things like "if the lord want her to survive she will and it will save the unborn life"). I don't think that religious people in general would make bad doctors, quite the opposite, but those who are so embroiled in their faith as to reject logic are.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
By definition, Creationist science does not use (in fact deny's) methodological naturalism. To explain... Accepted science requires that one only rely on what one can test with no recourse to a supernatural explanation... One can still believe in the supernatural, but for the sake of science everybody has agreed to play by the same set of rules, methodological naturalism.
Creationsist (and inteligent design believers) do not play by these rules, hence they are not in the business of science.
What you have described is what I call the "religion of science" and is as much a departure from strict empiricism as any religion. Which is perhaps why many anthropologists call Science a sort of religion. My own feeling is that by denying that scientific theories are rooted in philosophical assumptions is at best naive, and at worst self-delusional.
Many may fault me from quoting such an old book, but I think "Physics and Philosophy" by Werner Heisenberg (yes, that Heisenberg!) is well worth referring to, Heisenberg (and for that matter Einstein wrote on this as well) held that a set of data does not imply a single correct scientific explenation. Instead, valid scientific theory arises from the combination of data and pre-existing philosophical assumptions which inform the interpretation of this data.
Scientists put a great deal of faith in the idea that eventually the discussion will settle on the Truth about a certain theory, but this hasn't happened. Instead every scientist brings to the table a unique set of assumptions which inform their interpretation of the data and so the discussion continues. For example we have seen a fierce debate rage over nearly a century regarding the nature of wave-like behavior of electrons. That debate has changed many times, but has never gone away. At heart-- how can an electron interfere with itself and still strike a target as a single particle? Many people have different ideas (including many which place an almost supernatural power on such things as observation or consciousness).
In fact, the neoplatonist, while admitting to the supernatural in a sort of empiricist manner, probably has more in common with the scientist than with the creationist because the former two place a great deal of importance on dialogue and intellectual search, while I think that most people are content with ignorant faith.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This guy either does not support the bill, or has not really investigated the issue. His office needs a few more phone calls. Lets make sure he gets them.
You all must remember, the process is fluid. There are many ways this bill can continue to move through the legislature.
If this is something we *really* want, and they understand that, then the bill stands a chance. They can move any issue they want to in any number of ways. If this were a sweetheart bill, you can bet it would find a way to move through the house. This bill can too.
The Oregon Legislature is getting a lot of calls and mail on this, and we need to keep it up.
Basically, we have money on one side and political creedence on the other. If enough people continue to remain involved, it remains harder to quietly kill the bill.
The issue of Open Source is alive in the Legislature right now. Getting a work session is important because the objections can be ironed out.
By making Open Source and Open Standards an issue, we at least bring awareness of the problems to a level that is hard any other way.
Just keep your perspective. The other bills died as quickly as the headlines went up. This one is still around with support in the Legislature. That is a WIN, not a loss by any measure!
If you have called, you might wait a day and ask for an update. Its another reason to call and the type of thing that demands a response which clearly shows interest.
Preparing responses takes time. Ask good questions, who when why how? That way a simple form letter does not cover the issue well enough to be considered a response.
If you get a form letter, make a quick phone call. You will get an answer and a chance to take someones time. That matters.
Representitives who simply say it's over do not support the bill. This does not mean it's over, it means you can stop calling now.
Don't do that.
This is what the lobbyists want. They want it because that keeps the status quo.
Take a good look at who opposes the bill. All those companies consider this a direct threat to one of their largest customers; namely, the state of Oregon.
Here is what I got from my Rep. (Encouraging.)
Dear Mr. Potatohead,
Thank you for your email in support of HB 2892. Rep. Dingfelder supports
the concept of this bill and realizes the cost savings that it would
bring about. At present, the bill is undergoing a few amendments so I am
unable to commit to her vote for the bill until the final versions come
out. However, my guess is that she will support it. I have passed along
your comments to her. In addition, I will place a copy of your email in
the bill file. This will assure that she again sees your comments prior
to voting on the bill on the house floor.
Thanks for taking the time to contact our office regarding this issue.
The representative greatly appreciates your input! Please feel free to
contact out office at any time we can be of assistance to you.
Sincerly,
(!?!)
Legislative Assistant to Rep. Jackie Dingfelder
House District 45
(Phone)
Blogging because I can...
I don't believe that one species can evolve into another. It has not yet been demonstrated, nor will it ever.
Actually, it has.
It has not been demonstrated, nor will it ever be, that this is how a given species in the world today came about. (unless time machines are invented) This may or may not be relevant.
Creationism is hard to argue for around here, and it's great that you've chosen to do so, but arguing with false statements does not help.
Banging on a tree is a good method to get the insect inhabitants out. It works marvelously for termites and ants. Don't believe me? Try it sometime on a bees nest.
I'm sure you've seen videos of monkeys hanging out, they are nearly always doing one thing in particular, picking fleas/ticks off of each other. Humans don't have the same difficulty becuase fleas have a hard time hanging onto hairless beasts.
Why does a giraffe have a long neck? Because thats where the leaves are. There are many reasons for walking upright, most notably it frees your hands up. I've seen videos of monkeys walking around holding something in one hand. It's rather awkward looking. Carry any more and you have to walk upright.
I am not listing this as proof of anything, the fact is that there are many possible reasons for your questions. It doesn't seem like you've looked very hard for answers.
When you say that no one can describe how the evolution of any creature has occured (which is false), I'm sure you really meant to say that no one can describe how even the simplest microbe was created from non-living material. That is a much more difficult question and the theory of evolution does not hinge on this question.
Evolution is not equivalent to random motion. I've also heard this as "tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747". Evolution has a selection process and you do not start from scratch, you always build on what came before you. If evolution was only random, then it would be like browinian motion, it would never make any progress in any particular direction.
Also the burden of proof probably would not matter to you. If I told you which book to read that would prove evolution to you, would you read it? Have you ever read anything about evolution that was not written by a religous person?
I think it does affect your ability to study or understand because you do not look for "why" since you assume the answer to "why" is because god made it that way. Have you ever honestly tried to research why a woodpecker would begin banging its head on things? You have already assumed that certain aspects of this world are beyond your grasp as a non-god being. That type of attitude clearly shows that you will never have the level of understanding of other people who are going to try, even if it takes them their whole lives to understand the world around them.
This is still the case, except you have to remove the references to God. People are still exploring the beauty of the world with all its intricacies. Speak for yourself, I do not think I am nothing, I will continue to try to create something that will last forever. If the only people who are affected by what I have done in this world are my future children, then that will have been enough to make it all worthwhileWhat about comparing things that are in the same level?
MySQL doesn't do as much as MS SQL Server, forcing much logic onto the application and not scaling as well. The valid comparision would have been PostgreSQL.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin
Right, so that is why the Dixie Chicks have recieved death threats?
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Come on Slashdot, you can do better than this.
How is Siva Vaidyanathan any more difficult than Norman Schwarzkopf, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Condaleeza Rice?
I expect disparaging condescension from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Not here.
Magnus.
The rise in tolerance of unbelievable points of view, moreover their impact on policy in the US, is incredibly disturbing.
From the Republican Senators (the racist/homophobe), Ashcroft's prayer meetings, Ashcroft's draping a nude statue w/ a drape (!), bush's "faith based" BS... etc etc etc.
The seperation between church and state, and the ability for people to understand that ALL these things are instances of Fundemental (Reconstructionist even) Christian goals/acts/efforts is very scary.
Even Bush believes God is on his side in Iraq - you'd think someone in his position, a leader of a secular USA, wouldnt be a delluded cultist.
From that article above:
One in three American Christians call themselves evangelicals and many evangelicals believe the second coming of Christ will occur in the Middle East after a titanic battle with the anti-Christ.
Does the president believe he is playing a part in the final events of Armageddon?
If true, it is an alarming thought.
But he would not be alone, as 59% of all Americans believe that what is written in the Bible's Book of Revelation will come to pass.