Linux on an ordinary desktop or laptop PC and Linux on an Eee PC run the same executables. Windows and Windows Mobile do not, at least without full-scale emulation.
That's an issue of developer stupidity. It's been possible since the VC6/eVC3 era to build an executable that runs in both places. If/when subnotebooks become common, developers will discover how to exploit said revenue stream.
On the other hand, if you write serious enterprise class middleware there is nothing better and those frameworks you find 'icky' are 100% necessary. You simply CANNOT in any sane world replicate the large scale clustering, distributed transaction management, connectors, and resource management capabilities of a good J2EE server.
You know, there's a reason that Java disallows its use in life critical systems in the license. If you really think J2EE is the top of the line in those four topics, you need to do some research. There are in fact quite a few application systems with higher availability than J2EE. Unfortunately, the only one you're likely to have heard of is Erlang.
Php has its place, and it's easy to develop in, but if you can do everything you ever need to do in php, you have pretty simple needs.
It's funny, because other programmers say the same thing about Java. I mean really, what kind of language removes legitimate tools because they're too hard?
Oh, right. Java. (Think I'm kidding? Read their justification for removing MI.)
After January 31, 2009, the least resource-intensive version of the Windows operating system that continues to be available from Microsoft to the public will be Windows Vista
Well, the thing is, you're forgetting Windows Mobile, and the subnotebook vendors aren't. Windows already runs just fine on PocketPC, and OEM licenses for PocketPC are cheaper than they are for Vista. Incidentally, there's a good chance that that moratorium will be lifted; they suggested they were going to do that for Jan 1 2008, too. Meantime, Kernel 7 is less resource intensive than Vista, and even has a no-chrome mode; if the moratorium is lifted, XP may be available right up until 7.
You're right, there's a problem, but I think it's less severe than it's being painted in this thread.
Open Source has free and open standards inherently by its very nature.
No, it doesn't. Open source MP3 encoders/decoders still can't be used legally without paying a license fee to frauenhoffer, so there goes free. Open H.264 requires a byte-accurate implementation of the codec, so there goes open standards (perhaps you meant published?)
Part of the problem with Open Source goons is anything they like they call Open. Thus they never seem to understand the subtleties in the world around them. There are many ways for projects which are source-available to be both non-free and non-open. Many libraries in the wild are exactly that.
Propietary TENDS to have closed standards by its very nature
This is a false, unfounded assertion. The vast bulk of the protocols you use in your daily life came from corporate software or the government. Please open your eyes.
I think you're being a bit unjust to the physics community.
By suggesting they have standards, and that as such, this small group of Italians is disgusting by contrast?
but the model, which the paper states involves no gravitational physics concepts and has shown to be a valid model based on current data, shows the presence of Hawking radiation.
Yes, and the Vatican's model showed crystal spheres. Models can show wrong things. That's what makes it disgusting that these people are claiming to have observed something which is in fact only the result of a hypothetical.
That you built an argument for "sound evidence" on a sentence beginning "I believe" pretty much seals any chance I'll take you seriously. Let it go.
According a recent survey only about 50% of computer users do use AV software, the % of up-to-date AV software is even lower.
Please show me this survey that contradicts CERT by 35%.
According to afore mentioned survey, far less than 50% of computer users do use anti malware software.
Please show me this survey that contradicts CERT by 35%.
Anti malware isn't a AV issue.
That's funny, MBR viruses like this show up all over Norton's and Kaspersky's lists. Funny how the antivirus authors seem to disagree with you.
Most rootkits spread in a random way, and sooner or later they infect a honeypot run by an AV / anti malware vendor.
And this one doesn't. RTFA.
If a rootkit writer can't prevent the rootkit to infect a honeypot
And this if clause fails. RTFA.
So the rootkit writer wants to spread fast
Not this one. RTFA.
My Symantec AV updates itself once every day - as do most other AV packages
Meaning that the average deployment time to users is twelve hours. Or did you think that all those machines were connecting to Symantec at the same time? (Incidentally, Kaspersky is hourly, Macafee is every three hours, and F-Secure is every half hour. Maybe you should say fewer things like "most" if you don't actually know which ones don't work the way yours do.)
And the time between discovering a rootkit and writing a cure against it can take weeks
Yet if you'd bother to check, instead of guessing, you'd find that AV companies brag about how quickly they respond to any given threat as a sales tactic, and that the average response time to rootkits for most vendors is less than six hours. Kaspersky responded to this particular kit in two and a half.
Jesus, I get sick of people who do their argument based on assumptions and guesswork. Slashdot would be so much nicer a place if people like you had the good sense to be ashamed when caught this way.
You're guessing. Acting like you know someone else is wrong, when you don't, makes you look like an asshole.
I work at a University
As a janitor, maybe. People don't get university jobs of quality when they can't sort out the difference between "they're", "there" and "their".
and if college students are any indicator of what they're parents are doing
They aren't.
even with our best efforts to educate them
Given your surreal quality of language and your seeming unawareness that you're supposed to bring proof to the table when getting on the podium, I'm hoping that when you say "our efforts to educate" that you're taking credit for someone else's work.
I don't have statistics
Obviously. That's what makes you acting like you know so funny.
but it's something I see daily
In your highly representative sample of several hundred individuals putting out tens of thousand dollars on tuition and booze without jobs? Yeah, that's definately a sane sample. You couldn't be in, like, the worst possible position to judge, or anything. Unlike you, I actually checked the numbers before I pretended to know shit. My numbers come from CERT, not some pompous lab jockey's imagination. Chances are they know a hell of a lot more about the matter than you do.
Regardless of that, even with your stats, that leaves 15% of internet users, or some 150 million, completely unprotected. That's a lot of credit cards
God, you're dumb. You seem to have completely missed the point of my post. Do us both a favor and don't reply to me again.
Huh? You're reading about this on Slashdot.
Actually, I've known about this for three weeks, since the first CERT notice was dispatched. Thanks for playing the "making arguments based on guesswork game"; try not to fail too hard on the way out of the TV studio, stupid.
That will happen to the same degree regardless of how many customers the virus authors take.
If only this had something to do with what I said, I might be able to mock it usefully.
Don't forget--botnet owners often sell out usage of their networks to many customers
Don't forget, Toyota makes their tires from synthetic rubber. (See how it feels when you say "don't forget, {thing that has nothing to do with it}? Not too pleasant, is it?)
This malware is very professionally written and produced. Which of course means it's not written for fun.
Why include this swipe at amateur software development?
I didn't read it that way at all. The way I read that was "the person who wrote this did so to create a tool for a specific purpose; their goal was not mischief or proving their skill, as is so common in this arena, but rather to create an exploit to make themselves rich."
Not all computer users use (up-to-date) anti-virus software
No, but about 85% of computer users do, and financial information is a question of hitting as many people as possible.
Even fewer computer users use (up-to-date) anti-malware software
This isn't worth saying seperately, and this is an AV issue.
And, even if computer users use both up-to-date anti-virus and anti-malware software, they will be vulnerable in the time frame between the release of the rootkit and the release of the anti-rootkit software upgrade that fights it
And since time and the physical universe stop forever when a rootkit gets defeated, it doesn't matter that they'll lose enormous amounts of money afterwards by being shut out afterwards.
in this time frame the rootkit writers will 'make' more money than most Slashdot users during their whole life
Since we're talking hours here, then if you really believe there's that rate of transfer (there isn't - the more you take per day, the higher the chance you get detected by other means) - then surely you can see why they'd want this door open for months instead of hours?
Honestly. Whoever modded that insightful wasn't thinking at all.
Put simply, it's expensive to provide 99.999%. You can buy it from quite a few places; it's not as if the market doesn't offer heavy duty hosting. Indeed, the gold standard isn't three nines, it's nine nines, something which is actually quite possible with site replication. If you want hosting like that, look for "carrier grade" hosting. It's quite easy to purchase in most parts of the country, and if you don't care whether or not it's local, it's no problem. I own a small piece of carrier grade in Boise, ID, and if you can get it in Boise, which isn't big enough to have an IKEA, a roller coaster or a professional sports team, then you can get it pretty much anywhere.
The fundamental premise of the article is based on the wrong-headed idea that you can't purchase this stuff. You can; you just have to be willing to pay for it. You have to have a lot of staff on-site to provide that kind of uptime. You have to have a very well developed infrastructure. You have to have redundant uplinks, redundant power generation, redundant location. You have to run a lot of complex software to deal with distributed statistics gathering, clustered database updates, idempotent change requests, safe synchronized calls. These things are famously difficult to implement and debug. That's a lot of engineer hours. It takes time. It takes hardware. It takes money.
That money has to come from somewhere. You want nine nines, you're paying through the nose to AT&T or Sprint. You want five nines, you're paying pretty steep into places like Pair and Akamai. You want three nines, you come to a dedicated or high-end VPS provider. You want one nine, you go to a large shared host.
Why is less than 99.9% uptime acceptable? Because some people don't care if their highschool writing portfolio goes down for ten minutes a day, and prefer only to pay five or ten dollars a month. Why is less than 99.9% uptime acceptable? Because not all problems need high end hosting. This is why people put up with free web page hosts and their ridiculous limitations and horrid advertising schemes.
Not everything needs the investments required to make reliability happen. Just do a little shopping; you'll see a gradient of quality, pricing, features and insurance. That gradient exists because not everyone needs the same thing, and not everyone wants to invest in telco-level uptime. Some people are more interested in provisioning. Some people are more interested in value. Some people are more interested in ease of maintenance. Some people are more interested in security. And, frankly, a whole lot of people just don't care.
No, because Baalzebub doesn't come from Greek or Latin, but rather from Akkadian, named for the god Ba'al. This is frequently mis-cited as the Hebrew word "Bel" meaning lord, owner or master; such is incorrect, as the Hebrew word is simply an importation of the name of the Akkadian god. The word means "Ba'al of the Flies," and would be interpreted much as we would interpret "Apollo of the Sun". Neither Greek nor Latin have anything to do with this, other than the frog-namers' inability to stick to one language when hacking together a word. Bufo is the only trace of either language involved.
Not to mention that if buying your innovation is the definition of treading water, then Google's pretty much the champ. They haven't done an original thing since PageRank. Google makes its fortune the same way Apple and Sony do: it takes ideas that other people made at modest quality, polishes the hell out of them, then pretends it invented the market.
Go on, just try to find one Google technology in the last eight years that has a drop of originality to it.
Mnesia is mostly a DHT for key-value pair lookups while hypertabe/bigtable support efficient primary key sorted range scans.
Pretty much every database on earth has key sorted ranges. Please be less of a noob. Go look up ondex_match_object.
For concurrent read/write/update, Mnesia requires explicit locking
No, it doesn't. It offers explicit locking, because it's been proven for decades that without it, you cannot have hard realtime queries, something that mnesia wanted to offer. You don't have to use that stuff at all; it's just there in case you need it.
Hypertable/bigtable doesn't need explicit locking for that, consistency and isolation is achieved through data versioning.
Every distributed ACID database, by definition, uses a local sixth form implementation under the hood; there is no other way to provide query durability. All given examples do this.
The most interesting feature here is time/history versioning for all the data, and efficient compression for such data.
Yeah, I remember the first time I read about that too, back when I was learning Oracle in the early 90s. Just because it's interesting to you doesn't mean it isn't implemented in other databases already.
Hypertable/bigtable is mostly for online analytics and storage of many versions of the entire web, Mnesia was built to support real-time lookups and data management for telecom apps tightly coupled with Erlang.
The real purpose of mnesia is distributed durability, so you're aware. They actually discuss it in the documentation which you obviously have never read. That said, I don't really care what the software is for: Mnesia can handle bigger datasets over more nodes in realtime, offers the user better control of which data is on which node, and has a much more flexible locational querying system. There's nothing you can do in Bigtable that you can't do in Mnesia, and the reverse is most certainly not true.
So, unless SQL is particularly important to you, this is a useless project. There's a reason Google's moving to Erlang so fast - they're discovering that a lot of the tools they've half-assed reinvented in Python already exist in Erlang in far more flexible fashions. This is nothing more than another map/reduce fiasco - a first generation solution to a problem that the internet adores because it's never seen any solution to the problem, but something which has been far better addressed in real industry for thirty or so years. If google would just quit stealing people from Microsoft, who makes application and system software, and start stealing people from AT&T and Ericsson, who make hard realtime system software, they'd find they wouldn't have to spend so much time poorly re-walking what's already been pathed.
If Google would just buy Bluetail already, things would start changing for the better, fast.
If you say Mnesia is a wheel, Hypertable/Bigtable would be a floating system for a hovercraft or maglev train.
Metaphors are only useful when they elucidate something specific. Mnesia is radically more powerful than hypertable; I suggest you spend less time at the altar and more at the library. Or, to put it in terms that apparently you will understand, you just tried to rub in my face how much more powerful your Geo is than my Technodrome.
You have done such a spectacularly poor job of making your case that all I can imagine as your reason to say something like that is:
You think mnesia doesn't have indices
You think Mnesia is manually locked
You think Mnesia isn't versionned
You think Bigtable can handle more physical storage than Mnesia
Of those, not only are you wrong on every count, but only the last is in any way something that someone who knows even the basics about distributed databases would even begin to consider. Doesn't support indices? Are you nuts? You really think there's a database that can't sort its contents?
Mnesia has been able to handle things far in excess of the numbers cited, and with far better control of placement, for more than a decade. So has KDB. Also Coral8. This wouldn't even be on the map if people didn't start drooling the second they heard "based on Google." When they find out it's unstable and in alpha?
I don't believe you. Academic text is not peppered with so many fallacies. I actually am an academic, and if you were in a department I ran, I'd have you up for tenure review. Part of being an academic means having a basic grasp of logic. You have displayed, in this most recent post alone, ad hominem, ad verecundiam, hasty generalization, fallacy of confabulation (if you're British you'll call that "anecdotal evidence"), unrepresentative sample, unverifiable source, speculative evidence, fishing for data, inductive fallacy, non-commutation, overwhelming exception, unrepresentative sample, the concorde fallacy, several fallacies of presumption, several straw men and a red herring.
There is just no way you're an academic. Maybe you're a college student. *Maybe*. Or hell, maybe you work at DeVry or the Zsa-Zsa Gabor School of Diesel Mechanics. But, I guarantee you are not tenured, nor are you a full professor. It's funny: programmers on IRC often insist they're software engineers, then get surprised and angry when I ask them what their engineering practice is, because they are so far from engineers that they don't even know it's illegal to call yourself an engineer in America without the certification they've never even heard of.
Similarly, I bet you have no idea why I think that if you don't have tenure, you're not an academic (or indeed that there are legal requirements for you to call yourself one.) Maybe you should try asking a lawyer, just for shits and giggles. You might find that just calling yourself an academic doesn't make it true.
Increased life expectancy of HIV+ patients has not come primarily from better treatment of opportunistic infections, as you suggest, but from increasingly sophisticated antiviral therapies targeted against the HIV virus itself. This is an important point.
This is a reasonable, understandable misapprehension. Almost all of the real work, the difficult work, goes into impeding the development, reproduction and mutation of the virus. However, in 1996 they had to redefine criteria for when someone had gone from systemic to syndromic because the old criteria had become reversible: the original AZT triple cocktail allowed successful enough manipulation of viral load that viral load was no longer an acceptable watermark.
Yes, all of the important work is against HIV. However, it's important to remember that you need to look at these in the way you do logarithm coefficients and denominators: smaller is bigger. The important bit here is that these are always expressed as ratios (for reasons that are extremely significant statistically.) When the disease sets your life expectancy to 12 years, and the syndrome to four years, and both get moved back by (say) three years, the difference with regards to the syndrome is much bigger. Increasing life expectancy really is a question of ratios, not linear measurements. When you push the syndrome back two years, then syndromic death another two, it is appropriate to say that the bulk of the progress has been made against the syndrome because the ratio of prior to post expectancies is so much larger.
Incidentally, you'll find that we've actually made a lot more practical headway in the post-syndromic situation; syndrome used to mean that you were dead in a matter of weeks, and now the median is up around four or five years. (If you look it up, you'll find that the literature says syndrome life expectancy is nine months; that's because the overwhelming bulk of AIDS patients are in areas and demographics that have no adequate responses to syndrome, and that includes about two thirds of the sick US population.)
The germane bit is there still isn't really that much we can do about the disease. Are the cocktails potent? Yes, but they're really just slowing down the progress of the work that becomes important during syndrome, namely the destruction of the immune system (through false amines, globulin res
Sorry, no. Those people are sero-active. It's called seroconversion because the blood has been converted from contaminated to non-contaminated (the word is old enough that we thought disease in the blood was the only place they were carried; there was no reason to change the word once we woke up to tissue infection.)
I would love it if you would cite reference when calling me wrong. That'd make it seem a lot less... absurd.
Nope. Maybe you should read what they said. The 20-60% figure spans the EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. It was 20% towards the end of the century. I wouldn't have called you out on the made up data if you had cited the paper last time; now it makes sense, since the two numbers are A HUNDRED YEARS APART. Me, I wasn't giving numbers from centuries ago.
Maybe it is written in the 'incorrect' way because its easier to understand.
No, the way it's written isn't incorrect, because it regards a time frame. You just cut off half of what they said, because you were too lazy to read the thing you googled up. The error isn't in the NIH paper. The error was that you only copied half of the germane text, apparently without even bothering to understand it.
38% per week doesn't mean much to most people, 'correct' or not.
Bullshit.
Ok, so someone who died in 1816 tried to vaccinate, disease gone by the late 1970's. That sounds like an effort spanning the 19th and 20th centuries to me.
Oh sure, two disconnected events mean that the second one started at the first one. You're hard to talk to when you spend this little time paying attention to the material you're sourcing or whatever people are saying to you; I already explained this.
But the question remains, those people who died from the opportunistic infections, would have lived longer if not for HIV? If yes, then I believe that HIV is responsible for their death.
Yep. And that's why it factors into their morbidity rate. (Not their mortality rate, though.)
You obviously feel differently
No I don't. You just seem to be 100% unable to understand what I said. Believe it or not, something can be important and still only apply to one phrase but not the other.
However, the CDC would agree with me in that HIV/AIDS is a cause of death.
Nobody ever said it wasn't. I said it didn't have a mortality rate. That you can't sort out the difference between those two things after it's been explained to you makes me wonder why I'm bothering to respond at all. If and when you sort out that "deaths due to" != "mortality rate", let me know. They're citing the morbidity rate. THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. Jesus I hate repeating myself.
I admit, not 100%, but a fairly high percentage.
And yet it's the morbidity rate you've now found, not the mortality rate, and even so, even now that you've been caught making up data and calling other people wrong on it, even now you can't see anything wrong with what you said.
I'm starting to suspect you're a compulsive liar. Anyone else would be apologizing right now.
You appearantly also have some pent-up hatred towards wikipedia which you are bringing out against me.
Oh, get off the cross. All I said was "please don't cite this untrustworthy source." There's no hatred involved, and none of my reaction to you inventing data and then calling me wrong based on your lie has anything to do with Wikipedia. You didn't get that data there. Quit blaming your being caught in a lie on someone else's non-existant hatred of a website.
I've cited my sources
You cited 0 sources in the prior post. That you've started now, after you were caught lying, is unimportant. That your sources don't back you up in any way is just icing on the cake.
Please go away. I'm not interested in why you think it's my fault that you got caught making shit up, nor am I interested in your complete and damning inability to read.
Drunk driving isn't dangerous--it's drunk CRASHING that's dangerous. You can make these arguments about anything.
Quite right. In order to avoid such arguments, we have seperate terms, one including and one excluding related incidents. This is all specifically contextual to the study of human disease, remember, so the ability to include or exclude related issues is actually pretty important. Sometimes you want them, sometimes you don't, and you need to be clear about which one you're discussing. (Incidentally, drunk driving isn't a disease, but I'll assume you meant alcohol abuse, which is, and under that context your argument is quite correct.)
Mind you that I'm not saying one should ignore those concerns. What I'm saying is that the grandparent poster used the terminology that suggests such concerns are excluded. All I was doing was pointing out a failure to use correct terminology.
How is death even defined anyway, and how reliably can cause of death be determined?
Death is defined as the cessation of systemic action. When your heart stops, you're dead. People can currently be brought back from death for several hours, depending on the nature of the cause. In context with regards to the mortality and morbidity rate, people who are brought back are not counted, and people whose cause of death is undefined or suspect are not counted. What defines suspect is a judgement call with well defined guidelines, and carried out by an ME; when they're pretty sure the cause of death is X, they don't count it, but when there's no question, such as a fencepost through the neck or a pound and a half rock of crack stuck in their sinuses, they count it.
If you're going to bitch someone out, you should at least be sure that what you're saying is valid, not just that it accurately describes what it says in your textbook.
I am certain. It's held out in hospitals dozens of times a day. Don't confuse that you don't know these things with that I don't. I just don't write a textbook every time I make a comment to someone. When you explain to someone that they've used an inappropriate sort or container, do you start with a basic introduction to rate of change, or do you just say "you should use a hash table because blah" ?
You're being unreasonable in that you want for my comment to a third party who fancies themselves familiar with things to be appropriate to you at a completely different level of sophistication. He'll know what I meant. If I had wanted to talk to you, I'd have spoken at your level, to be frank. I'm sure you'll take that as an insult, but you shouldn't. If you were standing in a room with a mechanic, talking to a guy who built his own hot rod, you wouldn't step forward in the middle and say "I'm sorry, mister Mechanic, but (simple mistake 1) and (simple mistake 2), so you should be certain that your explanation of the carbuerator timing is valid, not just that it accurately describes what it says in your textbook."
Here's a hint, jackass: those textbooks are based on hundreds of years of real world experience. Get off the real world vs academia cross; it's tremendously arrogant and ill informed.
Hell, there are two known people who have sero-converted so far (meaning their immune system fought back and won, and they're not even carriers anymore.)
That's not what seroconverted means.
Yes, it is. Did you intend on filling in an alternative explanation, or did you just really want to catch me being wrong, and decide to invent something? Seroconversion is the successful and final production of antibodies through the DA system in response to a foreign antigen. Once your immune system wins, you have seroconverted.
Why would you believe that was wrong? That's what every medical dictionary I own says, to varying degrees of accuracy. That's what the clas
Heart attacks have no mortality, since it's the arrhythmias or heart failure that go along with them.
No, now you're just drawing absurdist conclusions for the fun of it. Cut it out; you're confusing people. The issue is whether the syndrome causes death directly, or predisposes the patient to pick up other deadly syndromes. There's no significant difference between heart attacks and the mechanism by which they function, but there's a pretty big difference between diabetes and heart attacks. Other things lead to heart attacks too. We're not just subdividing something until it gets down to the fundamental mechanic of action; rather we're recognizing that the heart attack that comes from diabetes is a distinct thing from the diabetes itself. That's why not all diabetics have heart attacks, and why not all people with heart attacks are diabetic.
So AIDS does have a mortality rate, and that rate is zero? By that logic, diabetes has no associated mortality, it's just the heart attacks and strokes that go along with it.
Wrong. Diabetes kills directly during diabetic shock and insulin shock. However, you are correct to point out that the secondary effects of diabetes, such as heart attack and stroke, are frequently the fatal concern. It's a huge difference in the case of HIV: the HIV virus doesn't actually do anything particularly bad to the body, other than to take out its defenses against other things. That's why AIDS patients get horrible diseases that nobody else gets, like Kaposi's Sarcoma, which a healthy human can just stop in its tracks.
But yes, look, you're forgetting context. I was talking to someone who thought they were being clinically precise (and citing likelihood ranges of 3:1). When someone like that starts using terminology like mortality rate, then there are very specific rules attached; that's what that terminology is for. Mortality rate never includes related syndromes. If it did, alcohol abuse's mortality rate would be a lot higher - right now it's just things like poisoning, cirrhotic liver, induced epilepsy (epilepsy is a syndrome, not a disease, and can result not only from biological factors but also from damage from alcohol or benzodiazaprene use), polyneuropathy and so on. We do not, however, count pancreatitis: although alcohol's effect on the pancreas makes it more susceptible, to the point where pancreatitis is very likely, it's not actually a direct result of the alcoholism. Pancreatitis is generally an opportunistic infection, and so someone (say) on the space station would not be vulnerable. Similarly, the mortality rate for alcohol abuse doesn't include car accidents, bar fights or risk behavior.
Am I saying these things shouldn't be counted? No: certainly not. But it's important for people to be able to discuss with or without related factors, depending on intentional context. Mortality rate is without related factors. Morbidity rate is with external factors.
So yes, you're right. Diabetes' mortality rate is much lower than its morbidity rate, due to related considerations such as heart attack, stroke and other descendant complications. It's really just a question of grandparent poster using phrases such as "mortality rate" of whose implications he was unaware.
That's common when people try to act like they know things they don't.
It's fantastic that you cleared everything up... but regrettable you couldn't do so without showing so much discontented bitterness.
I live by an extended, metaphoric interpretation of the whorf sapir hypothesis. The whorf sapir hypothesis suggests that the terms in which one is able to speak are determined by the languages available to the mind for framing thought, that thought is actually a direct function of language expression. My uninformed position likens this to structured programming: it gets a hell of a lot closer to the nature of things when you stop looking at just the imperative concerns, and start folding in things like actionable concerns (functional programming,) contextually inbuilt data (object orientation and declarative programming) and range exclusion inferential analysis (backtracking search a la prolog.)
It's relatively easy for me to say that I believe that misuse of language, and its concommitant blurring of expressive ability, makes people stupider according to the whorf sapir hypothesis; that's relatively easy to understand, whether or not one agrees with me. However, I believe that information poisoning has exactly the same effect, in a broader sense, since information poisoning carries over to other contexts. In my mind, I am standing here, defending your brain. It's not bitterness - it's vengeance.
And I don't know why you think it's discontented. I quite enjoy red barroning my way around the cerebellar skies.
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny, because other programmers say the same thing about Java. I mean really, what kind of language removes legitimate tools because they're too hard?
Oh, right. Java. (Think I'm kidding? Read their justification for removing MI.)
You're right, there's a problem, but I think it's less severe than it's being painted in this thread.
Part of the problem with Open Source goons is anything they like they call Open. Thus they never seem to understand the subtleties in the world around them. There are many ways for projects which are source-available to be both non-free and non-open. Many libraries in the wild are exactly that.This is a false, unfounded assertion. The vast bulk of the protocols you use in your daily life came from corporate software or the government. Please open your eyes.
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen anyone say on slashdot, including trolls, and I've been here for more than a decade.
Congratulations: you're the first slashdotter to genuinely disappoint me in more than a year.
That you built an argument for "sound evidence" on a sentence beginning "I believe" pretty much seals any chance I'll take you seriously. Let it go.
Jesus, I get sick of people who do their argument based on assumptions and guesswork. Slashdot would be so much nicer a place if people like you had the good sense to be ashamed when caught this way.
Don't bother replying. It won't get read.
Honestly. Whoever modded that insightful wasn't thinking at all.
Put simply, it's expensive to provide 99.999%. You can buy it from quite a few places; it's not as if the market doesn't offer heavy duty hosting. Indeed, the gold standard isn't three nines, it's nine nines, something which is actually quite possible with site replication. If you want hosting like that, look for "carrier grade" hosting. It's quite easy to purchase in most parts of the country, and if you don't care whether or not it's local, it's no problem. I own a small piece of carrier grade in Boise, ID, and if you can get it in Boise, which isn't big enough to have an IKEA, a roller coaster or a professional sports team, then you can get it pretty much anywhere.
The fundamental premise of the article is based on the wrong-headed idea that you can't purchase this stuff. You can; you just have to be willing to pay for it. You have to have a lot of staff on-site to provide that kind of uptime. You have to have a very well developed infrastructure. You have to have redundant uplinks, redundant power generation, redundant location. You have to run a lot of complex software to deal with distributed statistics gathering, clustered database updates, idempotent change requests, safe synchronized calls. These things are famously difficult to implement and debug. That's a lot of engineer hours. It takes time. It takes hardware. It takes money.
That money has to come from somewhere. You want nine nines, you're paying through the nose to AT&T or Sprint. You want five nines, you're paying pretty steep into places like Pair and Akamai. You want three nines, you come to a dedicated or high-end VPS provider. You want one nine, you go to a large shared host.
Why is less than 99.9% uptime acceptable? Because some people don't care if their highschool writing portfolio goes down for ten minutes a day, and prefer only to pay five or ten dollars a month. Why is less than 99.9% uptime acceptable? Because not all problems need high end hosting. This is why people put up with free web page hosts and their ridiculous limitations and horrid advertising schemes.
Not everything needs the investments required to make reliability happen. Just do a little shopping; you'll see a gradient of quality, pricing, features and insurance. That gradient exists because not everyone needs the same thing, and not everyone wants to invest in telco-level uptime. Some people are more interested in provisioning. Some people are more interested in value. Some people are more interested in ease of maintenance. Some people are more interested in security. And, frankly, a whole lot of people just don't care.
No, because Baalzebub doesn't come from Greek or Latin, but rather from Akkadian, named for the god Ba'al. This is frequently mis-cited as the Hebrew word "Bel" meaning lord, owner or master; such is incorrect, as the Hebrew word is simply an importation of the name of the Akkadian god. The word means "Ba'al of the Flies," and would be interpreted much as we would interpret "Apollo of the Sun". Neither Greek nor Latin have anything to do with this, other than the frog-namers' inability to stick to one language when hacking together a word. Bufo is the only trace of either language involved.
Not to mention that if buying your innovation is the definition of treading water, then Google's pretty much the champ. They haven't done an original thing since PageRank. Google makes its fortune the same way Apple and Sony do: it takes ideas that other people made at modest quality, polishes the hell out of them, then pretends it invented the market.
Go on, just try to find one Google technology in the last eight years that has a drop of originality to it.
So, unless SQL is particularly important to you, this is a useless project. There's a reason Google's moving to Erlang so fast - they're discovering that a lot of the tools they've half-assed reinvented in Python already exist in Erlang in far more flexible fashions. This is nothing more than another map/reduce fiasco - a first generation solution to a problem that the internet adores because it's never seen any solution to the problem, but something which has been far better addressed in real industry for thirty or so years. If google would just quit stealing people from Microsoft, who makes application and system software, and start stealing people from AT&T and Ericsson, who make hard realtime system software, they'd find they wouldn't have to spend so much time poorly re-walking what's already been pathed.
If Google would just buy Bluetail already, things would start changing for the better, fast.Metaphors are only useful when they elucidate something specific. Mnesia is radically more powerful than hypertable; I suggest you spend less time at the altar and more at the library. Or, to put it in terms that apparently you will understand, you just tried to rub in my face how much more powerful your Geo is than my Technodrome.
You have done such a spectacularly poor job of making your case that all I can imagine as your reason to say something like that is:
- You think mnesia doesn't have indices
- You think Mnesia is manually locked
- You think Mnesia isn't versionned
- You think Bigtable can handle more physical storage than Mnesia
Of those, not only are you wrong on every count, but only the last is in any way something that someone who knows even the basics about distributed databases would even begin to consider. Doesn't support indices? Are you nuts? You really think there's a database that can't sort its contents?Unbelievable.
Then you've never checked. Mnesia is in real world use on tables in the petabytes.
Mnesia has been able to handle things far in excess of the numbers cited, and with far better control of placement, for more than a decade. So has KDB. Also Coral8. This wouldn't even be on the map if people didn't start drooling the second they heard "based on Google." When they find out it's unstable and in alpha?
Yawn.
I don't believe you. Academic text is not peppered with so many fallacies. I actually am an academic, and if you were in a department I ran, I'd have you up for tenure review. Part of being an academic means having a basic grasp of logic. You have displayed, in this most recent post alone, ad hominem, ad verecundiam, hasty generalization, fallacy of confabulation (if you're British you'll call that "anecdotal evidence"), unrepresentative sample, unverifiable source, speculative evidence, fishing for data, inductive fallacy, non-commutation, overwhelming exception, unrepresentative sample, the concorde fallacy, several fallacies of presumption, several straw men and a red herring.
There is just no way you're an academic. Maybe you're a college student. *Maybe*. Or hell, maybe you work at DeVry or the Zsa-Zsa Gabor School of Diesel Mechanics. But, I guarantee you are not tenured, nor are you a full professor. It's funny: programmers on IRC often insist they're software engineers, then get surprised and angry when I ask them what their engineering practice is, because they are so far from engineers that they don't even know it's illegal to call yourself an engineer in America without the certification they've never even heard of.
Similarly, I bet you have no idea why I think that if you don't have tenure, you're not an academic (or indeed that there are legal requirements for you to call yourself one.) Maybe you should try asking a lawyer, just for shits and giggles. You might find that just calling yourself an academic doesn't make it true.
This is a reasonable, understandable misapprehension. Almost all of the real work, the difficult work, goes into impeding the development, reproduction and mutation of the virus. However, in 1996 they had to redefine criteria for when someone had gone from systemic to syndromic because the old criteria had become reversible: the original AZT triple cocktail allowed successful enough manipulation of viral load that viral load was no longer an acceptable watermark.
Yes, all of the important work is against HIV. However, it's important to remember that you need to look at these in the way you do logarithm coefficients and denominators: smaller is bigger. The important bit here is that these are always expressed as ratios (for reasons that are extremely significant statistically.) When the disease sets your life expectancy to 12 years, and the syndrome to four years, and both get moved back by (say) three years, the difference with regards to the syndrome is much bigger. Increasing life expectancy really is a question of ratios, not linear measurements. When you push the syndrome back two years, then syndromic death another two, it is appropriate to say that the bulk of the progress has been made against the syndrome because the ratio of prior to post expectancies is so much larger.
Incidentally, you'll find that we've actually made a lot more practical headway in the post-syndromic situation; syndrome used to mean that you were dead in a matter of weeks, and now the median is up around four or five years. (If you look it up, you'll find that the literature says syndrome life expectancy is nine months; that's because the overwhelming bulk of AIDS patients are in areas and demographics that have no adequate responses to syndrome, and that includes about two thirds of the sick US population.)
The germane bit is there still isn't really that much we can do about the disease. Are the cocktails potent? Yes, but they're really just slowing down the progress of the work that becomes important during syndrome, namely the destruction of the immune system (through false amines, globulin res
Sorry, no. Those people are sero-active. It's called seroconversion because the blood has been converted from contaminated to non-contaminated (the word is old enough that we thought disease in the blood was the only place they were carried; there was no reason to change the word once we woke up to tissue infection.)
... absurd.
I would love it if you would cite reference when calling me wrong. That'd make it seem a lot less
I'm starting to suspect you're a compulsive liar. Anyone else would be apologizing right now.Oh, get off the cross. All I said was "please don't cite this untrustworthy source." There's no hatred involved, and none of my reaction to you inventing data and then calling me wrong based on your lie has anything to do with Wikipedia. You didn't get that data there. Quit blaming your being caught in a lie on someone else's non-existant hatred of a website.You cited 0 sources in the prior post. That you've started now, after you were caught lying, is unimportant. That your sources don't back you up in any way is just icing on the cake.
Please go away. I'm not interested in why you think it's my fault that you got caught making shit up, nor am I interested in your complete and damning inability to read.
Quite right. In order to avoid such arguments, we have seperate terms, one including and one excluding related incidents. This is all specifically contextual to the study of human disease, remember, so the ability to include or exclude related issues is actually pretty important. Sometimes you want them, sometimes you don't, and you need to be clear about which one you're discussing. (Incidentally, drunk driving isn't a disease, but I'll assume you meant alcohol abuse, which is, and under that context your argument is quite correct.)
Mind you that I'm not saying one should ignore those concerns. What I'm saying is that the grandparent poster used the terminology that suggests such concerns are excluded. All I was doing was pointing out a failure to use correct terminology.
Death is defined as the cessation of systemic action. When your heart stops, you're dead. People can currently be brought back from death for several hours, depending on the nature of the cause. In context with regards to the mortality and morbidity rate, people who are brought back are not counted, and people whose cause of death is undefined or suspect are not counted. What defines suspect is a judgement call with well defined guidelines, and carried out by an ME; when they're pretty sure the cause of death is X, they don't count it, but when there's no question, such as a fencepost through the neck or a pound and a half rock of crack stuck in their sinuses, they count it.
I am certain. It's held out in hospitals dozens of times a day. Don't confuse that you don't know these things with that I don't. I just don't write a textbook every time I make a comment to someone. When you explain to someone that they've used an inappropriate sort or container, do you start with a basic introduction to rate of change, or do you just say "you should use a hash table because blah" ?
You're being unreasonable in that you want for my comment to a third party who fancies themselves familiar with things to be appropriate to you at a completely different level of sophistication. He'll know what I meant. If I had wanted to talk to you, I'd have spoken at your level, to be frank. I'm sure you'll take that as an insult, but you shouldn't. If you were standing in a room with a mechanic, talking to a guy who built his own hot rod, you wouldn't step forward in the middle and say "I'm sorry, mister Mechanic, but (simple mistake 1) and (simple mistake 2), so you should be certain that your explanation of the carbuerator timing is valid, not just that it accurately describes what it says in your textbook."
Here's a hint, jackass: those textbooks are based on hundreds of years of real world experience. Get off the real world vs academia cross; it's tremendously arrogant and ill informed.
Yes, it is. Did you intend on filling in an alternative explanation, or did you just really want to catch me being wrong, and decide to invent something? Seroconversion is the successful and final production of antibodies through the DA system in response to a foreign antigen. Once your immune system wins, you have seroconverted.
Why would you believe that was wrong? That's what every medical dictionary I own says, to varying degrees of accuracy. That's what the clas
But yes, look, you're forgetting context. I was talking to someone who thought they were being clinically precise (and citing likelihood ranges of 3:1). When someone like that starts using terminology like mortality rate, then there are very specific rules attached; that's what that terminology is for. Mortality rate never includes related syndromes. If it did, alcohol abuse's mortality rate would be a lot higher - right now it's just things like poisoning, cirrhotic liver, induced epilepsy (epilepsy is a syndrome, not a disease, and can result not only from biological factors but also from damage from alcohol or benzodiazaprene use), polyneuropathy and so on. We do not, however, count pancreatitis: although alcohol's effect on the pancreas makes it more susceptible, to the point where pancreatitis is very likely, it's not actually a direct result of the alcoholism. Pancreatitis is generally an opportunistic infection, and so someone (say) on the space station would not be vulnerable. Similarly, the mortality rate for alcohol abuse doesn't include car accidents, bar fights or risk behavior.
Am I saying these things shouldn't be counted? No: certainly not. But it's important for people to be able to discuss with or without related factors, depending on intentional context. Mortality rate is without related factors. Morbidity rate is with external factors.
So yes, you're right. Diabetes' mortality rate is much lower than its morbidity rate, due to related considerations such as heart attack, stroke and other descendant complications. It's really just a question of grandparent poster using phrases such as "mortality rate" of whose implications he was unaware.
That's common when people try to act like they know things they don't.
It's relatively easy for me to say that I believe that misuse of language, and its concommitant blurring of expressive ability, makes people stupider according to the whorf sapir hypothesis; that's relatively easy to understand, whether or not one agrees with me. However, I believe that information poisoning has exactly the same effect, in a broader sense, since information poisoning carries over to other contexts. In my mind, I am standing here, defending your brain. It's not bitterness - it's vengeance.
And I don't know why you think it's discontented. I quite enjoy red barroning my way around the cerebellar skies.