The ACPI errors at the beginning make me think it is a HAL issue. Now, with Linux if I remember correctly the HAL is in the kernel and you can't just switch them out like you can in Windows, it's supposed to auto-detect the correct one. However, if you could get it to run in APIC mode instead of ACPI it would run, and probably fix the stdin (the drive access) error as well, as it's all tied together.
You'd want to find a way to get APIC back to ACPI though, because APIC won't let you use your multi-core processor to its fullest.
The one clearly shown to be false is that Linux works on more legacy hardware than Windows.
In fact, the Ubuntu repository servers were hacked because the version of Ubuntu they ran was very, very out of date. The reason they couldn't update it? Support for their hardware was dropped in the more recent updates.
The truth is, you can get -a- version of Linux to work on just about anything, but you cannot get the most recent version of Linux to work on everything without adding your own drivers and re-compiling the kernel. Oddly enough, Windows and OSX are the same way (though you don't get to re-compile those kernels, you don't need to). Huh, imagine that.
The next time someone tries to feed you the line of bull that Linux works with more hardware, just show them the list of printers compatible with Linux. Recognize that every single one of them works 100% with Windows. They'll tell you it's the manufacturer's fault for not writing drivers, right after they tell you drivers are unnecessary because it's all included in the kernel.
XP has had the "Roll Back Driver" feature since its release. It does exactly as you describe: it re-sets the driver to a previous version - which it obviously saves before it updates the driver. Also, assuming you left system restore turned on instead of disabling it like most "super users" (I use that term loosely, most are morons) do, then any major change, including driver installs, software updates, registry changes, etc. were fixable with the click of a button. In case you did damage that caused the PC to blue-screen on boot, it has the "Last known settings that worked" boot feature that takes care of most of those issues. If that fails, safe mode still works and a system restore can be run from there. Honestly, you really have to do some damage to kill a Windows PC with System Restore enabled.
Though I did manage to do that a couple of weeks ago, it was a first for me. I was pretty impressed with myself. Fortunately, I back up my PC.
If it feels responsive, it's no illusion. That's what "responsive" is: it reacts to your continued input even though it is busy doing something else.
Unresponsive OS's give you the "Spinning Hourglass of Doom" or the "Spinning Colorwheel of Death". Leopard has aimed to prevent this with what they call Grand Central Dispatch, and I'm sure Windows 7 has something similar. That's also the entire concept behind the.Net framework - it manages the threading and coding for you.
Did you read those financial statements? The stockholder's equity is down almost $1 billion, or 60%, since 2005. They have more debt than their balance now (which was not so just a few years ago), they lost their ass in 2006 (net loss of $500+ million), gained a little in 2007, and lost most of what they gained in 2008. They had a net loss of $57 million in 2008. Contrast that with 2007 where they had a net profit of $200 million. That's pretty tight with revenues of over $3 billion.
Did you read that financial statemnet at all? It's downright depressing. Did you read where the $40 million 2Q profit came from? They are cutting nearly $500 million out of their budget this year, and yet that has produced only $40 million in profit. Analysts aren't impressed, because revenues are down by 20% of the already low number they were anticipating.
What happens when they run out of things to cut? They've got $1 billion in debt and are only making $20-40 million a quarter. The belt is tight and getting tighter, things are not exactly going well at NYT.
Bleeding is the right word, they only look ok right now because they were hemorraging a few years ago.
You've never heard of Mozilla or Netscape, have you?
Netscape > Mozilla > Phoenix/Firebird > Firefox.
Mozilla was an offshoot of Netscape, which eventually folded leaving the Mozilla Organization behind, and the Mozilla browser became Firebird and then Firefox. Developement on the Mozilla browser itself began in 1998, which is when Netscape created the Mozilla Organization.
History man, history.
BTW, Netscape rocked until it sucked, Mozilla was the re-write (which was a stupid decision, if they had just fixed what was wrong with Netscape it would still be around, and probably be better and have a higher market share than FF), and it all went from there.
As an aside, if you were somewhat insane and thought the drive letter structure was just the bee's knees, you could easilly re-create it in Linux, or at least something that looks at it.
When installing linux, simply call the root partition C:\, or C\ if that is not kosher. Then in your terminal you can set up the -really- old school C\> prompt.
Boot partition is mounted to \boot, though you could change that if you wanted.
Linux maps to folders - actually Windows does too, they just came up with the special folder names of A-Z, which they called "drive letters", back in the DOS days, with the prompt being whatever you wanted, but the default was C:\>. C: designated the drive letter the media was mounted to, and \ designating the root of the drive. Linux just does \ and calls it good.
You can mount a drive to a folder in Windows too if you want, it's just not the default way of doing it (for Windows), and I don't think you'll get it to work for the boot partition. Drive letters are ingrained into Windows.
Yes, Imagex supports XP SP3 just fine. It's the automated distribution tools that do not work, for XP to use an image with more than one PC you still need to use sysprep and a custom install setup. The automated tools work with Vista up.
Imagex.exe will make an image of any hard drive or subset of any hard drive that windows can read.
What the GP was talking about was building a WinPE disk (WAIK will help you do that much for XP, pretty easy too), booting into it, and using imagex to image the drive, then formatting the drive and applying the image you just made back to the drive. Depending on how big your hard drive is, the whole process should not take more than a half hour or less, imagex is surprisingly quick. Just be sure you don't try to store your image file on the same drive you format, or you will have erased your image in the process.
I'm also not 100% convinced this process will remove a rootkit either, as a rootkit simply ties into a critical system file, which would be copied by imagex. He may be right though, and it wouldn't hurt anything as long as you don't make the mistake I just warned you about.
All phones manufactured in the US since 2000 have GPS in them, it is required by law for 911 tracking purposes.
It also never turns off, though you can "disable", which basically just tells the cell phone company to stop monitoring the signal it is continuing to send out.
The whole point was to do this without any sort of hacking, it's all off the shelf parts that a 3rd grade teacher could put together. It was the whole point of the exercise.
How many juries have you been on to corroborate that outlandish claim?
Most people understand that CSI is TV and not real, and most people are what juries are made up of. Even so, actual evidence is introduced and the judge regulates what is and is not admissable. Judges certainly know that CSI is just TV and not real, as they deal with what is real every day.
It is very unlikely for CSI style evidence to make it into a courtroom. Furthermore, if an "expert" got on the stand and made ridiculous claim that was patently false, the defense simply brings in their own witness to punch massive holes in the insurance company's expert witness, and if it is an outright lie the witness could end up receiving jail time in addition to massive fines.
No, at best you can get an expert to fudge the truth, or find one who is simply wrong without intentionally lying (which is a weak expert witness, btw). Faking a video that has the car crash, along with six weeks of mundain video would be a pretty tall order without leaving tons of evidence behind. Lack of such evidence would put the assertion low on the totem pole as far as good evidence goes.
Lol you've never been involved in a court case, have you?
Saying "what if he made it up" with absolutely no evidence to back that up does not introduce any doubt at all. People are smart enough to think "Is there any evidence he made it up? No? Ok, it's probably real then."
All someone has to do is ask themselves which scenario is more plausible: Guy sets up camera in car for just such an occasion, or Guy manages to engineer from scratch a video that even the top special effects guys in the film industry can't manage yet. Hmmm... I wonder which they'll pick?
Claims that have no basis in reality are dismissed out of hand. Claims that have a basis in reality are carefully considered, and may still be dismissed as being implausible without more evidence.
He lied in the middle of a sexual harassment case about ever previously having sex with other employees. That was certainly material to the case, and had he been successful there was a good chance Jones would have lost.
It was not lying about smoking pot that got him in trouble, it was lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky in the middle of a sexual harassment lawsuit. Whether or not he had sex with other employees was an important point in the case, and he had good reason to lie about it.
That is perjury, it was the basis of his contempt of court citations, and it was the basis of his impeachment. The reason he voluntarily gave up his Arkansas law license for 5 years was as part of an agreement to drop the investigation into the perjury charge.
I'm really not sure how anyone can say it isn't perjury, as all the evidence says otherwise.
I the impeachment may have turned into a witch hunt, but perjury is a very, very serious offense, and the last person in the world who should get away with perjury is the President of the United States.
Just going by the Wikipedia definition, mind you, but according to it the matter simply needs to be material to the judicial proceeding. I.e. lying about your age is not perjury, unless your age is a key element in the case. Then it is perjury.
As it was a sexual harassment case and Clinton having sexual relations with other employees is evidence that he had done such things in the past, Clinton had good reason to lie about it as it could influence the outcome of the case.
It was, therefore, purjery. He was cited with contempt of court for it, but he eventually made a deal with the independant counsel whereby he agreed to suspend his Arkansas law license for five years in order to end the investigation. The IC dropped the investigation, and Clinton ended up being suspended from the US Supreme Court bar as an automatic result of the Arkansas suspension.
Jones's case was dismissed because she failed to show damages, but Clinton ended up settling for $850,000 to avoid further appeals.
I've heard someone make the claim that if you understand your research well enough you should be able to accurately describe it to a layman in three sentences or less.
I don't know who said that, but that makes no sense at all. The whole point of technical jargon is to reduce the size of the explanations. A physicist can explain something to another physicist in 3 sentances that would take six pages of explanation for a layman to understand. That's because they both speak the language, and the funky words pack a lot of meaning.
The fact is, for a layman to understand any subject that relies on substantial jargon to explain concisely, it is going to take a lot of explanation, and in some cases may not be possible without years of study first. That's why researchers have to go to school for years and years to understand this stuff.
What they may have meant was that you should be able to come up with some analogy or metaphor that a layman can relate to, and therefor get the basic concept on a very shallow level. That's great, if you're good at coming up with analogies and mataphors, but not being able to explain something to someone with a vastly different understanding of the subject matter does not mean you don't understand it.
Anyway I agree with most of your post, practicing such skills would definitely help scientists relate their informaton to the masses. The ability to distill your knowledge into terms that are easy to understand is a halmark of a great teacher. The reason we consider such people great teachers is because the ability is not common. Most people cannot put their ideas on paper in a meaningful way, regardless of how well they understand it. That does not mean they will be able to relate it to someone who does not understand other elements of their field.
You do realize that climate models span hundreds of years, right? Some even move into the thousands. Small changes add up to massive changes over time.
It's like this, say you want to make a straight line along a 100 foot wall, but all you have is a tape measure 1-foot long bubble level with a 1 foot long straight edge. So you measure up 5 feet from the floor and use your level to make a straight, 1 foot line. You then repeat that 1 foot line 99 more times until you get to the other end of the wall.
Chances are you will be off by a foot or more when you get to the end when you measure it again. Why? Because the one foot level is nowhere near accurate enough to create a line that long, being off by a millimeter or two can translate into several feet down the line.
Same with climate change, if the models are off by 1/2 of 1% to start with, then a model going out 100 years will be completely unreliable. You could easily end up with a 50/50 shot that the model is correct enough to do anything with. Not good odds.
Slashdot Mirror
The ACPI errors at the beginning make me think it is a HAL issue. Now, with Linux if I remember correctly the HAL is in the kernel and you can't just switch them out like you can in Windows, it's supposed to auto-detect the correct one. However, if you could get it to run in APIC mode instead of ACPI it would run, and probably fix the stdin (the drive access) error as well, as it's all tied together.
You'd want to find a way to get APIC back to ACPI though, because APIC won't let you use your multi-core processor to its fullest.
There are a lot of myths like that.
The one clearly shown to be false is that Linux works on more legacy hardware than Windows.
In fact, the Ubuntu repository servers were hacked because the version of Ubuntu they ran was very, very out of date. The reason they couldn't update it? Support for their hardware was dropped in the more recent updates.
The truth is, you can get -a- version of Linux to work on just about anything, but you cannot get the most recent version of Linux to work on everything without adding your own drivers and re-compiling the kernel. Oddly enough, Windows and OSX are the same way (though you don't get to re-compile those kernels, you don't need to). Huh, imagine that.
The next time someone tries to feed you the line of bull that Linux works with more hardware, just show them the list of printers compatible with Linux. Recognize that every single one of them works 100% with Windows. They'll tell you it's the manufacturer's fault for not writing drivers, right after they tell you drivers are unnecessary because it's all included in the kernel.
XP has had the "Roll Back Driver" feature since its release. It does exactly as you describe: it re-sets the driver to a previous version - which it obviously saves before it updates the driver. Also, assuming you left system restore turned on instead of disabling it like most "super users" (I use that term loosely, most are morons) do, then any major change, including driver installs, software updates, registry changes, etc. were fixable with the click of a button. In case you did damage that caused the PC to blue-screen on boot, it has the "Last known settings that worked" boot feature that takes care of most of those issues. If that fails, safe mode still works and a system restore can be run from there. Honestly, you really have to do some damage to kill a Windows PC with System Restore enabled.
Though I did manage to do that a couple of weeks ago, it was a first for me. I was pretty impressed with myself. Fortunately, I back up my PC.
Brain fart, threading and memory, obviously not coding.
If it feels responsive, it's no illusion. That's what "responsive" is: it reacts to your continued input even though it is busy doing something else.
Unresponsive OS's give you the "Spinning Hourglass of Doom" or the "Spinning Colorwheel of Death". Leopard has aimed to prevent this with what they call Grand Central Dispatch, and I'm sure Windows 7 has something similar. That's also the entire concept behind the .Net framework - it manages the threading and coding for you.
Yeah, It's such a good business strategy; I've totally got my bank by the balls by holding over negative 100 thousand dollars over their heads.
Give me a few years and I'll own that place!
No dependancy so long as you pronounce it correctly. ;)
Did you read those financial statements? The stockholder's equity is down almost $1 billion, or 60%, since 2005. They have more debt than their balance now (which was not so just a few years ago), they lost their ass in 2006 (net loss of $500+ million), gained a little in 2007, and lost most of what they gained in 2008. They had a net loss of $57 million in 2008. Contrast that with 2007 where they had a net profit of $200 million. That's pretty tight with revenues of over $3 billion.
Did you read that financial statemnet at all? It's downright depressing. Did you read where the $40 million 2Q profit came from? They are cutting nearly $500 million out of their budget this year, and yet that has produced only $40 million in profit. Analysts aren't impressed, because revenues are down by 20% of the already low number they were anticipating.
What happens when they run out of things to cut? They've got $1 billion in debt and are only making $20-40 million a quarter. The belt is tight and getting tighter, things are not exactly going well at NYT.
Bleeding is the right word, they only look ok right now because they were hemorraging a few years ago.
You've never heard of Mozilla or Netscape, have you?
Netscape > Mozilla > Phoenix/Firebird > Firefox.
Mozilla was an offshoot of Netscape, which eventually folded leaving the Mozilla Organization behind, and the Mozilla browser became Firebird and then Firefox. Developement on the Mozilla browser itself began in 1998, which is when Netscape created the Mozilla Organization.
History man, history.
BTW, Netscape rocked until it sucked, Mozilla was the re-write (which was a stupid decision, if they had just fixed what was wrong with Netscape it would still be around, and probably be better and have a higher market share than FF), and it all went from there.
Yup, they're "too big to fail", while the rest of us are "too small to succeed".
Gotta love the government, creating oportunities (for the already super-rich) at every turn!
As an aside, if you were somewhat insane and thought the drive letter structure was just the bee's knees, you could easilly re-create it in Linux, or at least something that looks at it.
When installing linux, simply call the root partition C:\, or C\ if that is not kosher. Then in your terminal you can set up the -really- old school C\> prompt.
Yah, the "C" drive on a Linux box is \.
Boot partition is mounted to \boot, though you could change that if you wanted.
Linux maps to folders - actually Windows does too, they just came up with the special folder names of A-Z, which they called "drive letters", back in the DOS days, with the prompt being whatever you wanted, but the default was C:\>. C: designated the drive letter the media was mounted to, and \ designating the root of the drive. Linux just does \ and calls it good.
You can mount a drive to a folder in Windows too if you want, it's just not the default way of doing it (for Windows), and I don't think you'll get it to work for the boot partition. Drive letters are ingrained into Windows.
No no, I'm pretty sure he inserted the rule himself.
Yes, Imagex supports XP SP3 just fine. It's the automated distribution tools that do not work, for XP to use an image with more than one PC you still need to use sysprep and a custom install setup. The automated tools work with Vista up.
Imagex.exe will make an image of any hard drive or subset of any hard drive that windows can read.
What the GP was talking about was building a WinPE disk (WAIK will help you do that much for XP, pretty easy too), booting into it, and using imagex to image the drive, then formatting the drive and applying the image you just made back to the drive. Depending on how big your hard drive is, the whole process should not take more than a half hour or less, imagex is surprisingly quick. Just be sure you don't try to store your image file on the same drive you format, or you will have erased your image in the process.
I'm also not 100% convinced this process will remove a rootkit either, as a rootkit simply ties into a critical system file, which would be copied by imagex. He may be right though, and it wouldn't hurt anything as long as you don't make the mistake I just warned you about.
Hrmmm... Preview is my friend.
All phones manufactured in the US since 2000 have GPS in them, it is required by law for 911 tracking purposes.
It also never turns off, though you can "disable", which basically just tells the cell phone company to stop monitoring the signal it is continuing to send out.
The cheapest phone that will allow you to use GPS tracking services (which tend to require extra software on the phone) like Instamapper is the Motorola iDEN pre-paid phone, which can be had for $40 at any Target or Best Buy.
You were saying?
Journalists exaggerate?
You're surprised?
The point is that nobody really cares all that much about what you do, as the web industry does not revolve around you.
And far beyond the scope of the project.
The whole point was to do this without any sort of hacking, it's all off the shelf parts that a 3rd grade teacher could put together. It was the whole point of the exercise.
How many juries have you been on to corroborate that outlandish claim?
Most people understand that CSI is TV and not real, and most people are what juries are made up of. Even so, actual evidence is introduced and the judge regulates what is and is not admissable. Judges certainly know that CSI is just TV and not real, as they deal with what is real every day.
It is very unlikely for CSI style evidence to make it into a courtroom. Furthermore, if an "expert" got on the stand and made ridiculous claim that was patently false, the defense simply brings in their own witness to punch massive holes in the insurance company's expert witness, and if it is an outright lie the witness could end up receiving jail time in addition to massive fines.
No, at best you can get an expert to fudge the truth, or find one who is simply wrong without intentionally lying (which is a weak expert witness, btw). Faking a video that has the car crash, along with six weeks of mundain video would be a pretty tall order without leaving tons of evidence behind. Lack of such evidence would put the assertion low on the totem pole as far as good evidence goes.
Lol you've never been involved in a court case, have you?
Saying "what if he made it up" with absolutely no evidence to back that up does not introduce any doubt at all. People are smart enough to think "Is there any evidence he made it up? No? Ok, it's probably real then."
All someone has to do is ask themselves which scenario is more plausible: Guy sets up camera in car for just such an occasion, or Guy manages to engineer from scratch a video that even the top special effects guys in the film industry can't manage yet. Hmmm... I wonder which they'll pick?
Claims that have no basis in reality are dismissed out of hand. Claims that have a basis in reality are carefully considered, and may still be dismissed as being implausible without more evidence.
He lied in the middle of a sexual harassment case about ever previously having sex with other employees. That was certainly material to the case, and had he been successful there was a good chance Jones would have lost.
It was not lying about smoking pot that got him in trouble, it was lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky in the middle of a sexual harassment lawsuit. Whether or not he had sex with other employees was an important point in the case, and he had good reason to lie about it.
That is perjury, it was the basis of his contempt of court citations, and it was the basis of his impeachment. The reason he voluntarily gave up his Arkansas law license for 5 years was as part of an agreement to drop the investigation into the perjury charge.
I'm really not sure how anyone can say it isn't perjury, as all the evidence says otherwise.
I the impeachment may have turned into a witch hunt, but perjury is a very, very serious offense, and the last person in the world who should get away with perjury is the President of the United States.
Just going by the Wikipedia definition, mind you, but according to it the matter simply needs to be material to the judicial proceeding. I.e. lying about your age is not perjury, unless your age is a key element in the case. Then it is perjury.
As it was a sexual harassment case and Clinton having sexual relations with other employees is evidence that he had done such things in the past, Clinton had good reason to lie about it as it could influence the outcome of the case.
It was, therefore, purjery. He was cited with contempt of court for it, but he eventually made a deal with the independant counsel whereby he agreed to suspend his Arkansas law license for five years in order to end the investigation. The IC dropped the investigation, and Clinton ended up being suspended from the US Supreme Court bar as an automatic result of the Arkansas suspension.
Jones's case was dismissed because she failed to show damages, but Clinton ended up settling for $850,000 to avoid further appeals.
I've heard someone make the claim that if you understand your research well enough you should be able to accurately describe it to a layman in three sentences or less.
I don't know who said that, but that makes no sense at all. The whole point of technical jargon is to reduce the size of the explanations. A physicist can explain something to another physicist in 3 sentances that would take six pages of explanation for a layman to understand. That's because they both speak the language, and the funky words pack a lot of meaning.
The fact is, for a layman to understand any subject that relies on substantial jargon to explain concisely, it is going to take a lot of explanation, and in some cases may not be possible without years of study first. That's why researchers have to go to school for years and years to understand this stuff.
What they may have meant was that you should be able to come up with some analogy or metaphor that a layman can relate to, and therefor get the basic concept on a very shallow level. That's great, if you're good at coming up with analogies and mataphors, but not being able to explain something to someone with a vastly different understanding of the subject matter does not mean you don't understand it.
Anyway I agree with most of your post, practicing such skills would definitely help scientists relate their informaton to the masses. The ability to distill your knowledge into terms that are easy to understand is a halmark of a great teacher. The reason we consider such people great teachers is because the ability is not common. Most people cannot put their ideas on paper in a meaningful way, regardless of how well they understand it. That does not mean they will be able to relate it to someone who does not understand other elements of their field.
You do realize that climate models span hundreds of years, right? Some even move into the thousands. Small changes add up to massive changes over time.
It's like this, say you want to make a straight line along a 100 foot wall, but all you have is a tape measure 1-foot long bubble level with a 1 foot long straight edge. So you measure up 5 feet from the floor and use your level to make a straight, 1 foot line. You then repeat that 1 foot line 99 more times until you get to the other end of the wall.
Chances are you will be off by a foot or more when you get to the end when you measure it again. Why? Because the one foot level is nowhere near accurate enough to create a line that long, being off by a millimeter or two can translate into several feet down the line.
Same with climate change, if the models are off by 1/2 of 1% to start with, then a model going out 100 years will be completely unreliable. You could easily end up with a 50/50 shot that the model is correct enough to do anything with. Not good odds.