I can understand that line of reasoning, but then wouldn't it follow that Foxconn and/or other mobo manufacturers would likely have committed the same, or very similar, error at some point in time prior to now? With the same, or very similar, results as far as Linux running on that hardware?
What I am hoping for, or wondering at least, is: has anyone any solid evidence that this (what Willy posits) is the case?
If not, then that would seem to make this a first-instance occurrence of what would seem to otherwise be a likely common 'bug'. With the number of years Linux has been running on mobo's, and the number of different mobo manufacturers, and as many highly technical eyeballs are on their Linux installs and hardware, you would think that someone would have had, and seen, a problem like this long ago.
If he is correct in what he writes, then it doesn't seem much like speculation.
Perhaps if someone else has linkage to a sound refutation of his claims, it would be a good thing to post here. I've seen comments that TheAlmightyCthulu's claims were 'debunked', but the comments didn't say where, or have links.
Yes, it's lame that it was broken but now it's fixed. One week is pretty quick for a BIOS revision spin. Maybe it's OK to cut them some slack on this one now.
The way I read it originally at the Ubuntu forum (and I haven't seen anything else since about this, so it may have been disproved) was that the BIOS was very proactive is determining whether or not Linux was to be running, and not just based on the BIOS-equivalent of a user agent string. If it was Linux, *then* the BIOS broke functionality.
If this is true, then to me it sounds like it took a week for them to remove code they put in on purpose, and replace it with what it should have been originally. That wouldn't be so good.
Either way - whether because of an honest mistake, or due to fear of the Streisand effect, I am glad that they responded so quickly, and look to be interested in building a bridge to the Ubuntu community, at least.
With only ~5.5 billion souls here now, how many thousands or tens of thousands die every day from lack of food or clean water, malnutrition, 'turf wars' over limited space or resources? Directly due to population pressures, how many eke out a bare existence, never rising, never even getting the opportunity to rise, to some level of an enlightened and fulfilling lifestyle in their time here?
So then how can *tripling* that number be a good thing, if we don't first make some radical changes in how things are being run on this planet?
Here's something really basic to remember about computer modeling: GI, GO.
Do you have a cite for that statement, or is that just your opinion?
Kidding, somewhat. The problem is not People, the problem is our cultural myth that tells us that we can take, take, take, that the Earth is here for us to Use and have 'dominion over', that we are Smart enough that we can stay ahead of the curve of declining natural resources, increasing amounts of disease, that we will survive just fine despite what we do to the overall ecosystem of our planet, this little blue ball of limited space and resources.
Get this: I am not a GW advocate. I am not an "eco freak". I think that if we aren't going to take the steps to have alternative energy like nuclear *now*, then we should be moving drills out to the Florida shelf and ANWAR. I have never liked Gore, and regard him as simply a political opportunist with his GW agenda (to wit: his lifestyle, vs what he espouses).
But I have always seen and understood that the root cause of all of these problems we have here on Earth is just *too many people*.
Recommended reading for you: "Ishmael", by Daniel Quinn. Incredible book, it'll perhaps help you to see things in a different light...
"...acknowledging the scientific reality that the Earth is getting warmer due to humanity."
How about instead let's acknowledge the elephant in the living room, and state the real nature of the problem: It's not 'people' that are the problem. It's the fact that there are *too many people* that is the problem.
Show me a politician, or a political propagandist, or almost anyone in fact, who won't dance around *that* Truth.
When are we going to put some kind of population control into place?
I was surprised, saddened, and almost sickened yesterday to find out that one of Microsoft's marketing slogans is something like "Technology for the next 5 billion..." The planet is already FUBAR with *this* 5+ billion - why make it easier for 'more'?
Oh, and BTW - one of my good friends here is a South African.
Actually, I should say used to be a South African.
You see, he surrendered his South African citizenship and became an American. No one forced him; it was solely his choice. Why? He seems to feel that there is a much better chance for him here in America, in the Deep South part of America, than back where he came from...
And Yes, my friend is a black man. Not that I care, but you might.
Also bear in mind that your incarceration rate for black people in the US today is 6 times higher than that of black people in South Africa during racial segregation. Why do you imprison generations of black people?
Straw man.
1) Wanna make declarative statements, and have them believed (or maybe believable)? Show us the numbers. Show us the cites. Where did you get these figures, and what are they?
2) Current US population (just over 303 Million) is approx 6 times that of South Africa (just over 47 Million), so the relationship you claim exists (existed?) would seem to be merely statistical, assuming a roughly even amount of population growth in the two countries in the last (however many, we don't know your time frame) years.
3) "imprison generations of black people"? Pish and tosh, that's pure hyperbole. I grew up and live in the US, in the Deep South, in a county which is 70% black. Many of my friends are black, we (whites and blacks) smile at each other even if we aren't acquainted, are polite to each other in public and private, our community stands up together to issues which face us as such, etc etc so on and so forth. You are so far out here in your assumptions that it is sad.
If *anyone* here is guilty of "grossly incorrect statements", that would be YOU. I would add in the word "ignorant" to that statement as well.
Most interesting and sadly amusing, I find that a post attempting to point out some sort of bigotry on the part of Americans, is in fact a prime example of bigotry against Americans. Your slip is showing, ma'am.
Are the quotes in your post put their in order to signify that those are exact words spoken by Reiser? Or are those words simply representative of some supposition (yours or anothers...) about what Reiser may have been thinking?
If those words were spoken or written by Reiser, do you have the cites? If not, would you clarify that?
Just wondering. This has been an interesting case to follow, but I don't recall reading that he said those things, and would be interested in the facts, purely out of curiosity in the bizarre...
I live aboard a boat in America, and watched them shot off over water from my dock tonight. It's neat, the reflections...
I'm glad that some folks think of things like in TFA, but at the same time - some things should just be left pretty much as they are. Though the levels in that lake may have risen to 1000 times normal (and one of the sampling sites was next to and between the "Ignition site"), they were back to normal in 20-80 days:
After the fireworks displays, perchlorate concentrations decreased toward the background level within 20 to 80 days, with the rate of attenuation correlating to surface water temperature. Adsorption tests indicate that sediments underlying the water column have limited (~100 nmol/g) capacity to remove perchlorate via chemical adsorption. Microcosms showed comparatively rapid intrinsic perchlorate degradation in the absence of nitrate consistent with the observed disappearance of perchlorate from the study site. This suggests that at sites with appropriate biogeochemical conditions, natural attenuation may be an important factor affecting the fate of perchlorate following fireworks displays.
Some things are worth a little danger, and thus also a little caution, or life wouldn't be so much fun...
The topic of "rogue waves" has gotten much more interest in the past few years. They have been determined to be both larger and more prevalent than thought before. Perhaps Jason will complement the data from the EU mission to help with statistics, and maybe even predictions...
Good point, but they've basically _had to_ extend the dates, what, twice now? Since Vista has had such a stellar record since release (TIC), the demand and outcry for a continuance of support for XP from the general public, enterprise, and OEM's has forced them into extending the lifetime of XP years beyond what MS had initially intended. That was not at all how MS planned it, and/or hoped for it to be.
"No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy" - the enemy in this case being customers who have gotten wiser, and more cohesive in their protestations over MS dictating what it is that the customer needs, instead of vice versa (I hope).:)
MS *has* to do this because their latest OS release, well, in a word, sucks.
OTOH, Linux distros generally improve significantly with each new release, in fact so well and so quickly that supporting 12 year old tech just isn't feasible on any kind of large scale, especially when the upgrade path is so easy. Bonus - because of how Linux is designed, there isn't any need for you to run a 12 year old OS, either. There are always newer distros which run fine on really old hardware (Puppy, DSL, Antix, etc...).
I don't think that this "12 years of support" is a good comparison, there's really no basis for it that I can see. It's not like MS *wants* to do it... Instead, it's a fait accompli for them, or people will leave in droves, IMO.
"Security theater" - I like that, seems an accurate description for most of what passes as a measure to make things 'safe'...
Overall, I agree with you more than disagree. I see some of the same glaring lapses, and those are the things that make me think most of it *is* aptly described as "theater". We just have to hope that people in positions like that of your friend don't and won't waltz strangers/bad guys through what actual security there is.
And as CrazedSanity points out below, nukes don't even need to be in an airport (or any other specific target location) in order to make things really bad for a lot of folks, for a long time. Let's hope that the 'theater' is enough to forestall the bad guys who aren't competent enough to defeat it, and that the smart, and therefore potentially *really bad* guys get found and caught by some other measure...
1) It's a small airport, people know each other, and it's easier to see something or someone that would be unusual. Had you *not* been with your friend, much trouble would have ensued when you set off that alarm, heading out onto the tarmac.
2) You are in the presence of the operations manager. He's told *someone* who you are, and why you are there. Perhaps that has been checked out, or they were already aware of it. (Your words:"...have only the word of my friend that I have no ill intentions." imply he has told someone who you are...)
3) You didn't see them look up when you went thru the detector, but I'd wager they'd looked already, saw him, and that's why they exhibited no reaction *that you could detect* to an alarm going off.
4) You aren't carrying any baggage or other object which could be used to hide/carry explosives/weapons. You probably aren't going to destroy an entire airliner and/or kill everyone aboard it with your bare hands (after all, they can see that you aren't Chuck Norris or Bruce Schneier;) ).
I don't think that this compares to you boarding a flight at a major airport along with several hundred other souls, the same as any anonymous stranger. It does show a lack of probable "proper procedure" and likely lax attitudes at your local airport, but what does (fill in name of terrorist organization here) care about blowing up a little airport? They would get some headlines, but for the effort, a better target would be selected, one which would likely further their objectives.
Also, were I one of their planners, I would leave the 'little' airports alone. That helps ensure an easier-going mindset out 'in the sticks', which could be helpful when moving terror agents around...
The breast milk type stuff is stupid enough on it's own, and largely the "security" measures that are all-too rampant in this country the past few years are for show IMO, but I don't think that this story you relate is highly illustrative of that, necessarily.
This was no troll. My ire is directed at the RIAA, and at the shabby excuse for 'justice' that has been meted out by our court system in regards to their BS claims. I'm tired of hearing about yet another way they are fscking people over...
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for pointing that out, Captain Obvious... :rolleyes:
I can understand that line of reasoning, but then wouldn't it follow that Foxconn and/or other mobo manufacturers would likely have committed the same, or very similar, error at some point in time prior to now? With the same, or very similar, results as far as Linux running on that hardware?
What I am hoping for, or wondering at least, is: has anyone any solid evidence that this (what Willy posits) is the case?
If not, then that would seem to make this a first-instance occurrence of what would seem to otherwise be a likely common 'bug'. With the number of years Linux has been running on mobo's, and the number of different mobo manufacturers, and as many highly technical eyeballs are on their Linux installs and hardware, you would think that someone would have had, and seen, a problem like this long ago.
Thanks for the clarification. If I had a Mod point, I'd give it to you. :)
(Hint, hint, Mods...)
Willy - Take a look at what the original poster at Ubuntu forums said:
Ubuntu forum thread. Starts at post #114.
If he is correct in what he writes, then it doesn't seem much like speculation.
Perhaps if someone else has linkage to a sound refutation of his claims, it would be a good thing to post here. I've seen comments that TheAlmightyCthulu's claims were 'debunked', but the comments didn't say where, or have links.
Yes, it's lame that it was broken but now it's fixed. One week is pretty quick for a BIOS revision spin. Maybe it's OK to cut them some slack on this one now.
The way I read it originally at the Ubuntu forum (and I haven't seen anything else since about this, so it may have been disproved) was that the BIOS was very proactive is determining whether or not Linux was to be running, and not just based on the BIOS-equivalent of a user agent string. If it was Linux, *then* the BIOS broke functionality.
If this is true, then to me it sounds like it took a week for them to remove code they put in on purpose, and replace it with what it should have been originally. That wouldn't be so good.
Either way - whether because of an honest mistake, or due to fear of the Streisand effect, I am glad that they responded so quickly, and look to be interested in building a bridge to the Ubuntu community, at least.
Mod parent up.
With only ~5.5 billion souls here now, how many thousands or tens of thousands die every day from lack of food or clean water, malnutrition, 'turf wars' over limited space or resources? Directly due to population pressures, how many eke out a bare existence, never rising, never even getting the opportunity to rise, to some level of an enlightened and fulfilling lifestyle in their time here?
So then how can *tripling* that number be a good thing, if we don't first make some radical changes in how things are being run on this planet?
Here's something really basic to remember about computer modeling: GI, GO.
Do you have a cite for that statement, or is that just your opinion?
Kidding, somewhat. The problem is not People, the problem is our cultural myth that tells us that we can take, take, take, that the Earth is here for us to Use and have 'dominion over', that we are Smart enough that we can stay ahead of the curve of declining natural resources, increasing amounts of disease, that we will survive just fine despite what we do to the overall ecosystem of our planet, this little blue ball of limited space and resources.
Get this: I am not a GW advocate. I am not an "eco freak". I think that if we aren't going to take the steps to have alternative energy like nuclear *now*, then we should be moving drills out to the Florida shelf and ANWAR. I have never liked Gore, and regard him as simply a political opportunist with his GW agenda (to wit: his lifestyle, vs what he espouses).
But I have always seen and understood that the root cause of all of these problems we have here on Earth is just *too many people*.
Recommended reading for you: "Ishmael", by Daniel Quinn. Incredible book, it'll perhaps help you to see things in a different light...
I am 42 years old, and due to a conscious choice I made when I was in High School - I don't have any kids, thank you.
Some people *do* walk their talk...
"...acknowledging the scientific reality that the Earth is getting warmer due to humanity."
/}
How about instead let's acknowledge the elephant in the living room, and state the real nature of the problem:
It's not 'people' that are the problem. It's the fact that there are *too many people* that is the problem.
Show me a politician, or a political propagandist, or almost anyone in fact, who won't dance around *that* Truth.
When are we going to put some kind of population control into place?
I was surprised, saddened, and almost sickened yesterday to find out that one of Microsoft's marketing slogans is something like "Technology for the next 5 billion..." The planet is already FUBAR with *this* 5+ billion - why make it easier for 'more'?
Sigh {rant off
Oh...
um, oops...
I for one welcome...
Bah.
Oh, and BTW - one of my good friends here is a South African.
Actually, I should say used to be a South African.
You see, he surrendered his South African citizenship and became an American. No one forced him; it was solely his choice. Why? He seems to feel that there is a much better chance for him here in America, in the Deep South part of America, than back where he came from...
And Yes, my friend is a black man. Not that I care, but you might.
Also bear in mind that your incarceration rate for black people in the US today is 6 times higher than that of black people in South Africa during racial segregation. Why do you imprison generations of black people?
Straw man.
1) Wanna make declarative statements, and have them believed (or maybe believable)? Show us the numbers. Show us the cites. Where did you get these figures, and what are they?
2) Current US population (just over 303 Million) is approx 6 times that of South Africa (just over 47 Million), so the relationship you claim exists (existed?) would seem to be merely statistical, assuming a roughly even amount of population growth in the two countries in the last (however many, we don't know your time frame) years.
3) "imprison generations of black people"? Pish and tosh, that's pure hyperbole. I grew up and live in the US, in the Deep South, in a county which is 70% black. Many of my friends are black, we (whites and blacks) smile at each other even if we aren't acquainted, are polite to each other in public and private, our community stands up together to issues which face us as such, etc etc so on and so forth. You are so far out here in your assumptions that it is sad.
If *anyone* here is guilty of "grossly incorrect statements", that would be YOU. I would add in the word "ignorant" to that statement as well.
Most interesting and sadly amusing, I find that a post attempting to point out some sort of bigotry on the part of Americans, is in fact a prime example of bigotry against Americans. Your slip is showing, ma'am.
Are the quotes in your post put their in order to signify that those are exact words spoken by Reiser?
Or are those words simply representative of some supposition (yours or anothers...) about what Reiser may have been thinking?
If those words were spoken or written by Reiser, do you have the cites? If not, would you clarify that?
Just wondering. This has been an interesting case to follow, but I don't recall reading that he said those things, and would be interested in the facts, purely out of curiosity in the bizarre...
And the one thing that won't change:
6. Profit
While No, the projectiles are rarely (if ever?) shot off on horizontal trajectories here, I don't think that is because of the reasons you claim.
;)
More likely, says Occam, it is because if you shoot them *up*, then more people can see them - which is, after all, the fireworks raison d'etre...
I live aboard a boat in America, and watched them shot off over water from my dock tonight. It's neat, the reflections...
I'm glad that some folks think of things like in TFA, but at the same time - some things should just be left pretty much as they are. Though the levels in that lake may have risen to 1000 times normal (and one of the sampling sites was next to and between the "Ignition site"), they were back to normal in 20-80 days:
After the fireworks displays, perchlorate concentrations decreased toward the background level within 20 to 80 days, with the rate of attenuation correlating to surface water temperature. Adsorption tests indicate that sediments underlying the water column have limited (~100 nmol/g) capacity to remove perchlorate via chemical adsorption. Microcosms showed comparatively rapid intrinsic perchlorate degradation in the absence of nitrate consistent with the observed disappearance of perchlorate from the study site. This suggests that at sites with appropriate biogeochemical conditions, natural attenuation may be an important factor affecting the fate of perchlorate following fireworks displays.
Some things are worth a little danger, and thus also a little caution, or life wouldn't be so much fun...
...this is interesting, to say the least.
:)
The topic of "rogue waves" has gotten much more interest in the past few years. They have been determined to be both larger and more prevalent than thought before. Perhaps Jason will complement the data from the EU mission to help with statistics, and maybe even predictions...
One can hope.
Come on /. - you can do better than *that*!!!
;D
Good point, but they've basically _had to_ extend the dates, what, twice now? Since Vista has had such a stellar record since release (TIC), the demand and outcry for a continuance of support for XP from the general public, enterprise, and OEM's has forced them into extending the lifetime of XP years beyond what MS had initially intended. That was not at all how MS planned it, and/or hoped for it to be.
:)
"No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy" - the enemy in this case being customers who have gotten wiser, and more cohesive in their protestations over MS dictating what it is that the customer needs, instead of vice versa (I hope).
MS *has* to do this because their latest OS release, well, in a word, sucks.
OTOH, Linux distros generally improve significantly with each new release, in fact so well and so quickly that supporting 12 year old tech just isn't feasible on any kind of large scale, especially when the upgrade path is so easy. Bonus - because of how Linux is designed, there isn't any need for you to run a 12 year old OS, either. There are always newer distros which run fine on really old hardware (Puppy, DSL, Antix, etc...).
I don't think that this "12 years of support" is a good comparison, there's really no basis for it that I can see. It's not like MS *wants* to do it... Instead, it's a fait accompli for them, or people will leave in droves, IMO.
"Security theater" - I like that, seems an accurate description for most of what passes as a measure to make things 'safe'...
Overall, I agree with you more than disagree. I see some of the same glaring lapses, and those are the things that make me think most of it *is* aptly described as "theater". We just have to hope that people in positions like that of your friend don't and won't waltz strangers/bad guys through what actual security there is.
And as CrazedSanity points out below, nukes don't even need to be in an airport (or any other specific target location) in order to make things really bad for a lot of folks, for a long time. Let's hope that the 'theater' is enough to forestall the bad guys who aren't competent enough to defeat it, and that the smart, and therefore potentially *really bad* guys get found and caught by some other measure...
Well, look at it this way:
;) ).
:)
1) It's a small airport, people know each other, and it's easier to see something or someone that would be unusual. Had you *not* been with your friend, much trouble would have ensued when you set off that alarm, heading out onto the tarmac.
2) You are in the presence of the operations manager. He's told *someone* who you are, and why you are there. Perhaps that has been checked out, or they were already aware of it. (Your words:"...have only the word of my friend that I have no ill intentions." imply he has told someone who you are...)
3) You didn't see them look up when you went thru the detector, but I'd wager they'd looked already, saw him, and that's why they exhibited no reaction *that you could detect* to an alarm going off.
4) You aren't carrying any baggage or other object which could be used to hide/carry explosives/weapons. You probably aren't going to destroy an entire airliner and/or kill everyone aboard it with your bare hands (after all, they can see that you aren't Chuck Norris or Bruce Schneier
I don't think that this compares to you boarding a flight at a major airport along with several hundred other souls, the same as any anonymous stranger. It does show a lack of probable "proper procedure" and likely lax attitudes at your local airport, but what does (fill in name of terrorist organization here) care about blowing up a little airport? They would get some headlines, but for the effort, a better target would be selected, one which would likely further their objectives.
Also, were I one of their planners, I would leave the 'little' airports alone. That helps ensure an easier-going mindset out 'in the sticks', which could be helpful when moving terror agents around...
The breast milk type stuff is stupid enough on it's own, and largely the "security" measures that are all-too rampant in this country the past few years are for show IMO, but I don't think that this story you relate is highly illustrative of that, necessarily.
Just saying...
This was no troll. My ire is directed at the RIAA, and at the shabby excuse for 'justice' that has been meted out by our court system in regards to their BS claims. I'm tired of hearing about yet another way they are fscking people over...
How about tag this story with "fuckoffalready".
Sorry for the language, but I'm just tired of the RIAA shit. It has gone on too long, and is *ridiculous*...
I listen to "free" internet radio stations (those which feature indie artists) and get the names of bands I like from there.
RadioTower
GarageBand
Live365