Yeah. And that's XML's fault how? Get a DTD and stick to it."
Well, actually, schema and RDF were supposed to address exactly that issue.
Schema is a replacement for DTD, because DTD has some subtle problems. RDF is actually for describing what's available on a service, not what's contained in one document; in a weird sort of way it's a conceptual parallel to the two for servers.
That all said, it's worth noting that XML considers its data type as a critical and un-removable part of the document. So, sure, you can use DTD, you can use Schema, you could use Relax-NG, whatever. The point is, the fault is the lack of an exchange standard, not a flaw in XML, and the exchange standard is the responsibility of the user.
That's not the end of the conversation, though. There are a number of cases where future communications and permutations simply can't be known, and in situations like that, the option of sticking to a single DTD simply doesn't exist.
This is a problem in the XML specification, because very few people read the W3C discussions that led to the standard's finalization (and, indeed, they shouldn't have to.) This is from XML's perspective considered a versionning issue, not a future-proofing issue; in theory the appropriate thing to do is to make your DTD available to versionning, and that's supposed to be the end of it. That's why doctypes require a version field and (although nobody ever checks it) a resource descriptor.
In theory at least, schema and RDF supply the means to handle semantic translation of data.
Like I told grandparent, this isn't a semantic issue. It's a shame people have begun to use the word to mean whatever's on their mind at the moment. Semantics have a very specific position within the context of web technologies: they are *solely* about interpreting data within context. Assuming a proper DTD, semantics are quite unnessecary. The semantic web is about making determinations which we typically suggest are the realm of humans. This is why I always use the bug (insect) and Bug (Volkswagon) example: it's really only about teaching the machine to tell specifically what we mean when we're dealing with homonyms, heteronyms, retronyms, metonyms, toponyms, and other things which may only be inferred from context.
The common example is that of a search engine. Google would be smarter if you could tell it you only wanted things about Champagne, the city, instead of the drink, the singer, the kind of wrestling or what have you. The semantic web is about that and only that problem. It has nothing to do with marking up a document for context, and indeed a well marked up document is far less needy of the semantic web.
That may be true, but I remember very clearly listening to Tim Berners Lee introducing the Semantic Web in Toronto back in '99, and the example he used of how the Semantic Web would work showed A being determined to be semantically the same as C because A and B were known to be equivalent, and B and C were known to be equivalent as well. So while it's technically correct to say that semantics has nothing to do with translation, the promise of the Semantic Web is that one is able to translate between ad hoc data types precisely because their semantics can be inferred.
You're confusing the semantic web and the ontological web. The former is the tool to support the discretion. The latter is the rule framework for actually performing the discretion. The W3C has a pretty good explanation of OWL on their page, and it's fairly common for the two topics to be wholly intertwined in discussion.
I won't comment on the effectiveness of schema and RDF in practice.
I will. Schema suck - they don't solve most of DTD's problems and cause a host of new ones in their wake. Prefer Relax-NG. RDF has potential, but we agree on that nobody uses it for anything genuinely interesting yet. We'll see whether they do in the long run; I'm of the opinion that it's not goin
Well, actually it's what XHTML is for - namespaces are just to prevent name conflicts, like namespaces in C++. Sure, XML is for custom markup, but Microformats are about embedding formats, not creating them. It's a subtle, and some would contend, pointless difference; that said, given what you said, I'm willing to bet you'll see the importance.
But, yes, you're right to point out that the buzzword web is reinventing yet another tool needlessly and badly.
This suffers from the same thing XML did. Remember when XML was going to revolutionize communication between computers by structuring everything consistently?
Yeah. It works when you use the same DTD, which was the promise. It's not XML's fault that you and your supplier can't get your ducks in a row. The purpose of XML is to provide a medium that two ends can use to standardize a communications format of their own design, while giving a regular form to said formats so that arbitrary formats could be supported by arbitrary tools. It fulfills this ideal quite well, as anyone even vaguely familiar with web standards knows. It is not meant to magically merge two inconsistent standards.
Then <lname> tripped over <lastname> which was crawling on the floor after being decked by <name last="Henry"/> who was rather pissed off after an argument with <name><last>Henry</last></name>
Yeah. And that's XML's fault how? Get a DTD and stick to it.
and the whole thing went down in a pile of flames
Yeah, essentially every office suite, database, most graphics editors, many layout programs, and quite a few games support XML. Jabber / Google Chat run on XML. The web is built on an SGML dialect, which is largely being converted into an XML dialect; XML is itself an SGML dialect. Web 2.0 (god I hate that name) is an outcropping of XML's parsability. XML is so useful that Microsoft was able to use it to ward Massachusettes' lawsuits off. The United Nations now releases their transcripts solely in XML. XML is now the second most pervasive data storage format on earth, after CSV/TSV, and it's gaining fast. (Don't bother saying SQL - it's an API, not a storage format.)
Exactly what is your definition of "going down in flames" ?
and the whole thing went down in a pile of flames and is now relegated to being a 2MB configuration parsing library to embrace and extend "option=value".
Uh, TinyXML has a footprint of 40k, champ. Also, that's not what "embrace and extend" means.
So now why is this "vevent" class special, and who decided it would be "vevent" and not "scheduledevent" or "calendarevent" or "microsoftcalendarhassomethingforyoutodotoday"?
What a surprise, the guy who couldn't standardize on a DTD now fails to understand other format standardizations. Read the article, champ. It's not SlashDot's job to read for you, and this one's honestly pretty simple. Indeed, the specific purpose of microformats is to address your whining, but you don't see the point. Cough.
Clearly as a human I can look at "dtstart" and think about it and realize that this means the starting date, but how does a computer know this?
Er, by supporting a specific microformat. Are you putting in effort to be dense? It's the same way they support iCal, or MS Word files, or in fact any format at all, ever.
If the "semantic web" is going to take off, then we need semantics, and pronto.
This has nothing to do with the semantic web. You want to drop another? Ontological Web Language sounds important too. Use that one more often: fewer people will see through you.
God forbid the computer would have just one blank and assume that if you're billing Medicare then the number in the blank is probably a Medicare ID.
Yes, I'm sure the people billing Medicare who aren't using Medicare IDs will be greatly amused that your application just fails for them. Why is it that I don't believe you had much to do with the design of the system?
What's important in standardizing in semantics is identifying everywhere where things are identical and reusing semantics whenever possible.
"Semantics" aren't reusable. They're not arbitrarily applied. Please stop using words you fail to understand. Not every markup of data is semantic, even if the markup means something. Semantics are the work of understanding context, not identifying relations
I do like the idea of being able to move XML around without having to parse to view the basic file in a formatted fashion. So, you're mixing HTML with a tag. Again, SO WHAT? But what about the encapsulated text, what's the point?
To make things application parsable. Try reading the article before complaining that you don't see the point.
If you're going to use a viewer eventually
If you'd bother to read the article, which is about comparing one application parsable format (iCal) to the new microformat, you'd understand that the web is moving towards human-readable things being software-readable too.
(because you have the encapsulated text)
That's like referring to a car as a pile of steel and glass: it completely ignores the purpose of something in favor of describing its construction. You might as well refer to a database as a large string of bytes, then complain that it's not solely focussed on human readability either.
use a viewer
Most of us would like to be able to use more than a web browser, by now. Try stepping out of the early 90s. The air's better up here.
This would only help in reading the actual data
Or machine parsing.
but not in bug fixing
Well, that isn't the point at all, so oh well. 'Course, since it's machine parsable, it actually would be quite a bit easier to find markup errors (which aren't the same as bugs.) So even though that's not the point, you're still wrong.
because the XML is that much more unreadable.
Er, XHTML is an XML dialect. The difference between XML and XHTML/HTML, unless you're dealing with XSL or XPath, is negligable. Thanks for pretending to know things you don't, though; it always makes for entertaining reading.
Moderators: informative means "gives us new information we didn't previously have." The moderation you were looking for was insightful, except of course that parent isn't that either.
Where are you going to find a $1000 chassis that fits 48 drives?
A 3U chassis that handles 11 drives is currently $140 on PriceWatch. Do the math.
As far as I know (and could be wrong) SATA is not an external bus
And, in fact, you are. First hit for external SATA. Rule of thumb: when saying something you don't actually know, it is no longer appropriate to say "I could be wrong." Now, you just check. By the by, I own a SIIG SATA card with both internal and external plugs. It cost me a whopping $45 at Fry's.
The SATA cards you mentioned would have to run outside of the box to another unless you find that 48 drive chassis I mentioned.
Never run a datacenter, have we?
There are limitations to the SATA cabling you're not taking into account.
Yeah, cabling arbitrary lengths of drives together has been easy since SCSI2 Fast Ultrawide. What you do is use seperate cables every few drives. Magic.
Also add a couple more power supplies on here for each of the boxes that hold you drives.
Depending on the drives, you can expect 48 drives to cost between 600-700 watts. There are 1000w power supplies sitting in your local CompUSA right now.
Cooling is also an issue that tier 1 vendors model very seriously before they put together a kit.
Cooling is a problem for CPUs primarily, not drives. Cooling large blocks of drives is relatively easy.
Most home baked kits have either dangerous hotspots that effect reliability or are overcooled which wastes money.
1) Affect, not effect. 2) Cooling a 48-drive box is going to cost less electricity than running a single CPU. These people put down a thousand bucks a month just for the privelege of being in a controlled room. Let's have a sense of scale for things, please: fans just aren't that much power.
You should also keep your drives mounted with dampening to avoid vibrations from each other which can cause early drive failure.
Wow, so you get wide mountings, and put silicone glue in for the inner rails. That's gonna cost like two dollars in caulking and maybe ten in rails and screws. Next?
There's more to this than simply buying parts.
Not really.
The problem with using it for NAS storage is that Solaris has historically been pretty slow compared to NetApp.
Er, speed is one of Solaris' big selling points, if you'd actually look before announcing.
ZFS could improve the score here with simplified administration if anyone actually understood how it worked.
Yeah, uh, ZFS takes like five minutes to set up. It's trivially simple. Why would you pretend otherwise? Have you even touched it?
It's not that we don't want to be dependant on foreigners for anything. It's that everyone who has oil except Canada, Russia and the UK abuses it dramatically, and if oil gets cut off, we're screwed.
Why do you think we're handing 1/8 of our economy to the Middle East and Venezuela? It's because we don't have a choice!
Just because we're marginalizing the silly ones, like animal feces, which have a theoretical limit of less than two percent of the national power consumption with a resultant sulfur output comparable to six times our current car fleet, doesn't mean we're marginalizing all of them.
Water is good.
Water power tends to come primarily from large scale renewable resources like waterfalls, where the ecosystem is easily maintained by branch diversion and limiting. Water power can provide a tremendous amount of power, and has more than a century of proven stability, safety and maintainability (the Hoover dam, Niagara falls, Anwar, and so on.)
Wind is bad.
Wind has an unacceptable impact on local wildlife, the manufacturing costs for large blade generators are higher than the resultant power output, the maintenance costs are absurdly high, the generation is not reliable, the power output is not high enough to be worth mention, and there are questions about possible impact on weather patterns.
Nuclear is good.
Whereas nuclear has several safety concerns, especially now that international situations are stepping up large-destruction terrorism, it actually has a better safety record than any other form of power besides hydro even after you consider the staggering cost of fault, and newer designs like pebble bed reactors are actually quite an improvement over the massive installations we're used to considering. Nuclear can now be buried unmanned, and developed in small, cheap packages suitable for small towns and well suited to reducing the loss to transmission resistance.
Better coal is bad.
Coal's emissions are unacceptable even in modern designs, and coal mining continues to be one of the most dangerous jobs on Earth.
Land geothermal is good.
There isn't any life around volcanoes to screw up, and we can do land geothermal in single-column deep mines. Geothermal is more predictable than essentially any other power source in near-term imaginable technology, and can be achieved with technologies that have built up remarkable reliability in other forms of industry. The initial deployment cost is very high, but the long term payoffs are more than worth it.
Ocean geothermal is bad.
Ocean thermals come in the form of large-scale small temperature gradient exploitation, which screws with a remarkably large ecology, or from oceanic geothermal vents, which have a tremendous importance to the gas exchange, thermal trends, and complex ecologies which have built up around them.
Fusion is great.
It's just too hard right now. We're getting close - some reactors, starting with ITER, are now break-even, just not by enough to justify the cost. We're maybe 15-20 years from realistic deployment.
Cow flop is stupid.
Volume. Environmental side-effects. Sulfur and methane emission. Ecologically unsound farm placement. It's just wrong from every direction that isn't "omg it's not oil."
by paying an extra 1.6 cent/kwhr... I am almost completely green for $120 a year.
Wow, when did the Amish hit slashdot? Given a 200w power supply consumes 144kWh/mo assuming a 30-day month, that's $28/year for the PC alone. If you honestly think you're running a truck and a house on four and a quarter modest PCs' worth of power, then you need to replace your calculator. Apparently it's getting bad results on all the low voltage.
(Don't even try to tell me it's a margin issue. I'm measuring margin size. $120 margin / 144 * 12 * (365.25/360) is the margin size.)
For a sense of scale, at this margin, the average air conditioner will consume about $270 per year. A Toyota Prius gets about 10 kilowatt hours per gallon of gasoline (search for "500w of battery drain"), and the government says it gets 55 mpg, so even if your pickup was actually an efficient car, your 1.6 cent per kilowatt hour margin will consume (10/55)*1.6 = 0.18 kilowatt hours per mile. The government cites national gas price averages every Monday, which yesterday was $2.97. Therefore, you will burn $120 of margin in (12000 / 0.1818 / 297.3) = 221.99 miles. This means that if you have no power drain at all in your house - you don't even have anything plugged in and turned off - then you drive on average 0.6077 miles per day. Most people drive more than that just getting to the grocery store twice a month.
(I actually did the math as one big equation, to get around rounding error. If you do it yourself based on my averages above, you're gonna see 0.586. I didn't feel like writing out everything to 20 places.)
Yeah, dude, you're a bastion of cheap green energy. Time to check your numbers.
Yeah, hi. 1992 is on the phone. They said you need to shut off the portal, because their power bill is stratospheric. (Either that, or this is the subtlest Keanu Reeves joke 3v4r.)
The reason you're not working for a scientific paper is that you guess about techniques being identical and pooh pooh them based on said guesses. A bayesian filter is a very specific mathematical technique. This isn't actually very similar at all, other than that it's being used towards the same end.
Perhaps in the future you could know something about two algorithms before declaring them identical. Just a thought.
Er, I think it's just people who don't think spam is a big deal and are amused by the several million dollars a year of revenue it generates. You act like they're organ-leggers.
British English != Middle English. Although I wouldn't say it's exactly common, 'whilst' is an acceptable substitute for 'while' in the UK.
Only among people who are fantastically bad at English. Your Queen figured this out four hundred years ago. Time for you to catch up. (By the by, don't confuse "common error" with "acceptable substitute." They're not the same thing.)
If you are going to call me dumb for trusting the hundreds of complaints I've seen online that Paypal makes its contact information is hard to find, then you are a fucking asshole.
No, I'm calling you dumb for announcing something you don't know as fact. There's a pretty big difference.
It's so easy to slam other people, isn't it
Yes. Like, one could call someone a fucking asshole for pointing out their stupidity. The difference between you doing it and my doing it is that I am pointing out you spreading disinformation, and you're throwing a tantrum for being caught telling falsehoods.
when you're hiding behind that anonymous user name?
What anonymous username? My name is John Haugeland. I live in San Diego. If you follow the link in my signature, you can easily get my address and home phone number from the resume on my website.
Then again, finding information doesn't seem to be your strong suit, and claiming it's not there when it is seems to be a pattern for you, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
You wouldn't call me stupid if you actually knew me
Yes, I would.
unless trusting other people is stupid now.
Trusting people isn't stupid. Reporting things you don't know as fact, however, is. There's a difference.
Things change, and apparently this is one of them
No, it isn't. PayPal has been easy to contact since day one. It was their original selling point.
but the fact that people on the Internet can be assholes when completely uncalled for hasn't
Haven't read your own post yet, have you?
Fuck you, and have an awful day. It goes both ways, but to use an old saying, you started it.
Right, it's my fault you're posting lies to slashdot, and flipping out like a ten year old when you're caught being full of it.
Let me guess: the USPTO granted a patent on a "device used to capture energy from wind, thereby generating forward motion of the attached vehicle" despite thousands of years' worth of prior art concerning this thing called a "sail?"
Nope. Nobody made any such statement. I'm sure you're going to scream "omg it was just a joke" next.
Someone should patent unfunny, so that we can sue you off of SlashDot.
Plus, the only time you see the boat (yes, I said boat, not ship) moving with any significant speed, you can't see the rear, so it's safe to assume that its engine is assisting.
Plus, the only time we see you posting, we can't see your facts, so it's safe to assume you're full of crap.
There's a big difference between guessing and being insightful.
Based, of course, on your deep familiarity with FBI procedures, which is why you correctly pointed out that the FBI isn't even the right bureau for this. Announcing your own guesses as probable outcomes just makes you look dense. Learn from this.
Of course I refuse since there's no way for me to authenticate them first - and that leaves them a bit stumped.
Generally the easiest way to handle this is as follows:
"Yeah, I'd love to, but I don't give out personal data to incoming calls. If you'll give me your extension, I will happily call the 1-800 number on my card and ask to be transferred back to you, at which point I will know you really are an officer of the bank and give the information requested. Thanks for understanding."
Bank officers understand, and will happily do as you ask.
What I find funny about this is that it's spoofs supposedly sent by a company notoriously hard to contact by phone. Anyone who has ever tried to contact Paypal about anything would know this. (Of course, the average user doesn't, which is probably what they count on).
It is trivially easy to contact PayPal by phone. I had a harder time reaching Sony than I did PayPal.
The first google hit for phone number site:paypal.com leads to a help page with a link. That link points to a second help page with the phone number and hours of operation printed clear as day. Typing phone number in PayPal's help system leads to the exact same page. When you contact them, the wait is usually less than three minutes. The phone operators open with a first name and a company ID code, and the system immediately forwards you to an automated quality survey after about one in three calls you make.
Every paypal page has a block of links at the bottom. In the dead center of that block, there is a link that says "contact us." If you click that, you are taken to this page, which has three headers: help by email, help by phone and merchant support. If you then hit "help by phone," you are taken to this page, where one of their half-dozen free support lines is printed clear as day.
If you're actually so dumb that you can't find this information on your own, here's a helping hand: 1 (402) 935-2050 . That line is open 18 hours a day (14 on the weekends.)
The only people who have trouble contacting PayPal are the dunces who hear it's hard and never try. Generally, they're the same dolts who announce to SlashDot how difficult something is that they've never tried, immediately after making some smarmy comment about how other people didn't try. If you really struggle too hard to use a simple help system, you need to get the hell off of your high horse talking about how lazy and ill informed other people are, and maybe just go to the mirror store.
Maybe in ten years you'll realize you were talking about yourself the whole time.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. And that's XML's fault how? Get a DTD and stick to it."
Well, actually, schema and RDF were supposed to address exactly that issue.
Schema is a replacement for DTD, because DTD has some subtle problems. RDF is actually for describing what's available on a service, not what's contained in one document; in a weird sort of way it's a conceptual parallel to the two for servers.
That all said, it's worth noting that XML considers its data type as a critical and un-removable part of the document. So, sure, you can use DTD, you can use Schema, you could use Relax-NG, whatever. The point is, the fault is the lack of an exchange standard, not a flaw in XML, and the exchange standard is the responsibility of the user.
That's not the end of the conversation, though. There are a number of cases where future communications and permutations simply can't be known, and in situations like that, the option of sticking to a single DTD simply doesn't exist.
This is a problem in the XML specification, because very few people read the W3C discussions that led to the standard's finalization (and, indeed, they shouldn't have to.) This is from XML's perspective considered a versionning issue, not a future-proofing issue; in theory the appropriate thing to do is to make your DTD available to versionning, and that's supposed to be the end of it. That's why doctypes require a version field and (although nobody ever checks it) a resource descriptor.
In theory at least, schema and RDF supply the means to handle semantic translation of data.
Like I told grandparent, this isn't a semantic issue. It's a shame people have begun to use the word to mean whatever's on their mind at the moment. Semantics have a very specific position within the context of web technologies: they are *solely* about interpreting data within context. Assuming a proper DTD, semantics are quite unnessecary. The semantic web is about making determinations which we typically suggest are the realm of humans. This is why I always use the bug (insect) and Bug (Volkswagon) example: it's really only about teaching the machine to tell specifically what we mean when we're dealing with homonyms, heteronyms, retronyms, metonyms, toponyms, and other things which may only be inferred from context.
The common example is that of a search engine. Google would be smarter if you could tell it you only wanted things about Champagne, the city, instead of the drink, the singer, the kind of wrestling or what have you. The semantic web is about that and only that problem. It has nothing to do with marking up a document for context, and indeed a well marked up document is far less needy of the semantic web.
That may be true, but I remember very clearly listening to Tim Berners Lee introducing the Semantic Web in Toronto back in '99, and the example he used of how the Semantic Web would work showed A being determined to be semantically the same as C because A and B were known to be equivalent, and B and C were known to be equivalent as well. So while it's technically correct to say that semantics has nothing to do with translation, the promise of the Semantic Web is that one is able to translate between ad hoc data types precisely because their semantics can be inferred.
You're confusing the semantic web and the ontological web. The former is the tool to support the discretion. The latter is the rule framework for actually performing the discretion. The W3C has a pretty good explanation of OWL on their page, and it's fairly common for the two topics to be wholly intertwined in discussion.
I won't comment on the effectiveness of schema and RDF in practice.
I will. Schema suck - they don't solve most of DTD's problems and cause a host of new ones in their wake. Prefer Relax-NG. RDF has potential, but we agree on that nobody uses it for anything genuinely interesting yet. We'll see whether they do in the long run; I'm of the opinion that it's not goin
Well, actually it's what XHTML is for - namespaces are just to prevent name conflicts, like namespaces in C++. Sure, XML is for custom markup, but Microformats are about embedding formats, not creating them. It's a subtle, and some would contend, pointless difference; that said, given what you said, I'm willing to bet you'll see the importance.
But, yes, you're right to point out that the buzzword web is reinventing yet another tool needlessly and badly.
This suffers from the same thing XML did. Remember when XML was going to revolutionize communication between computers by structuring everything consistently?
Yeah. It works when you use the same DTD, which was the promise. It's not XML's fault that you and your supplier can't get your ducks in a row. The purpose of XML is to provide a medium that two ends can use to standardize a communications format of their own design, while giving a regular form to said formats so that arbitrary formats could be supported by arbitrary tools. It fulfills this ideal quite well, as anyone even vaguely familiar with web standards knows. It is not meant to magically merge two inconsistent standards.
Then <lname> tripped over <lastname> which was crawling on the floor after being decked by <name last="Henry"/> who was rather pissed off after an argument with <name><last>Henry</last></name>
Yeah. And that's XML's fault how? Get a DTD and stick to it.
and the whole thing went down in a pile of flames
Yeah, essentially every office suite, database, most graphics editors, many layout programs, and quite a few games support XML. Jabber / Google Chat run on XML. The web is built on an SGML dialect, which is largely being converted into an XML dialect; XML is itself an SGML dialect. Web 2.0 (god I hate that name) is an outcropping of XML's parsability. XML is so useful that Microsoft was able to use it to ward Massachusettes' lawsuits off. The United Nations now releases their transcripts solely in XML. XML is now the second most pervasive data storage format on earth, after CSV/TSV, and it's gaining fast. (Don't bother saying SQL - it's an API, not a storage format.)
Exactly what is your definition of "going down in flames" ?
and the whole thing went down in a pile of flames and is now relegated to being a 2MB configuration parsing library to embrace and extend "option=value".
Uh, TinyXML has a footprint of 40k, champ. Also, that's not what "embrace and extend" means.
So now why is this "vevent" class special, and who decided it would be "vevent" and not "scheduledevent" or "calendarevent" or "microsoftcalendarhassomethingforyoutodotoday"?
What a surprise, the guy who couldn't standardize on a DTD now fails to understand other format standardizations. Read the article, champ. It's not SlashDot's job to read for you, and this one's honestly pretty simple. Indeed, the specific purpose of microformats is to address your whining, but you don't see the point. Cough.
Clearly as a human I can look at "dtstart" and think about it and realize that this means the starting date, but how does a computer know this?
Er, by supporting a specific microformat. Are you putting in effort to be dense? It's the same way they support iCal, or MS Word files, or in fact any format at all, ever.
If the "semantic web" is going to take off, then we need semantics, and pronto.
This has nothing to do with the semantic web. You want to drop another? Ontological Web Language sounds important too. Use that one more often: fewer people will see through you.
God forbid the computer would have just one blank and assume that if you're billing Medicare then the number in the blank is probably a Medicare ID.
Yes, I'm sure the people billing Medicare who aren't using Medicare IDs will be greatly amused that your application just fails for them. Why is it that I don't believe you had much to do with the design of the system?
What's important in standardizing in semantics is identifying everywhere where things are identical and reusing semantics whenever possible.
"Semantics" aren't reusable. They're not arbitrarily applied. Please stop using words you fail to understand. Not every markup of data is semantic, even if the markup means something. Semantics are the work of understanding context, not identifying relations
I love it when the LISP community pretends they invented things they didn't, and that it's going to lead to LISP being in places it'll never be.
It's even better when they can't spell simple words like extraordinarily.
I do like the idea of being able to move XML around without having to parse to view the basic file in a formatted fashion. So, you're mixing HTML with a tag. Again, SO WHAT? But what about the encapsulated text, what's the point?
To make things application parsable. Try reading the article before complaining that you don't see the point.
If you're going to use a viewer eventually
If you'd bother to read the article, which is about comparing one application parsable format (iCal) to the new microformat, you'd understand that the web is moving towards human-readable things being software-readable too.
(because you have the encapsulated text)
That's like referring to a car as a pile of steel and glass: it completely ignores the purpose of something in favor of describing its construction. You might as well refer to a database as a large string of bytes, then complain that it's not solely focussed on human readability either.
use a viewer
Most of us would like to be able to use more than a web browser, by now. Try stepping out of the early 90s. The air's better up here.
This would only help in reading the actual data
Or machine parsing.
but not in bug fixing
Well, that isn't the point at all, so oh well. 'Course, since it's machine parsable, it actually would be quite a bit easier to find markup errors (which aren't the same as bugs.) So even though that's not the point, you're still wrong.
because the XML is that much more unreadable.
Er, XHTML is an XML dialect. The difference between XML and XHTML/HTML, unless you're dealing with XSL or XPath, is negligable. Thanks for pretending to know things you don't, though; it always makes for entertaining reading.
Moderators: informative means "gives us new information we didn't previously have." The moderation you were looking for was insightful, except of course that parent isn't that either.
It was all done 20 years before the web existed, as SGML. But thanks for playing.
Where are you going to find a $1000 chassis that fits 48 drives?
A 3U chassis that handles 11 drives is currently $140 on PriceWatch. Do the math.
As far as I know (and could be wrong) SATA is not an external bus
And, in fact, you are. First hit for external SATA. Rule of thumb: when saying something you don't actually know, it is no longer appropriate to say "I could be wrong." Now, you just check. By the by, I own a SIIG SATA card with both internal and external plugs. It cost me a whopping $45 at Fry's.
The SATA cards you mentioned would have to run outside of the box to another unless you find that 48 drive chassis I mentioned.
Never run a datacenter, have we?
There are limitations to the SATA cabling you're not taking into account.
Yeah, cabling arbitrary lengths of drives together has been easy since SCSI2 Fast Ultrawide. What you do is use seperate cables every few drives. Magic.
Also add a couple more power supplies on here for each of the boxes that hold you drives.
Depending on the drives, you can expect 48 drives to cost between 600-700 watts. There are 1000w power supplies sitting in your local CompUSA right now.
Cooling is also an issue that tier 1 vendors model very seriously before they put together a kit.
Cooling is a problem for CPUs primarily, not drives. Cooling large blocks of drives is relatively easy.
Most home baked kits have either dangerous hotspots that effect reliability or are overcooled which wastes money.
1) Affect, not effect.
2) Cooling a 48-drive box is going to cost less electricity than running a single CPU. These people put down a thousand bucks a month just for the privelege of being in a controlled room. Let's have a sense of scale for things, please: fans just aren't that much power.
You should also keep your drives mounted with dampening to avoid vibrations from each other which can cause early drive failure.
Wow, so you get wide mountings, and put silicone glue in for the inner rails. That's gonna cost like two dollars in caulking and maybe ten in rails and screws. Next?
There's more to this than simply buying parts.
Not really.
The problem with using it for NAS storage is that Solaris has historically been pretty slow compared to NetApp.
Er, speed is one of Solaris' big selling points, if you'd actually look before announcing.
ZFS could improve the score here with simplified administration if anyone actually understood how it worked.
Yeah, uh, ZFS takes like five minutes to set up. It's trivially simple. Why would you pretend otherwise? Have you even touched it?
It's not that we don't want to be dependant on foreigners for anything. It's that everyone who has oil except Canada, Russia and the UK abuses it dramatically, and if oil gets cut off, we're screwed.
Why do you think we're handing 1/8 of our economy to the Middle East and Venezuela? It's because we don't have a choice!
Does that help?
by paying an extra 1.6 cent/kwhr ... I am almost completely green for $120 a year.
Wow, when did the Amish hit slashdot? Given a 200w power supply consumes 144kWh/mo assuming a 30-day month, that's $28/year for the PC alone. If you honestly think you're running a truck and a house on four and a quarter modest PCs' worth of power, then you need to replace your calculator. Apparently it's getting bad results on all the low voltage.
(Don't even try to tell me it's a margin issue. I'm measuring margin size. $120 margin / 144 * 12 * (365.25/360) is the margin size.)
For a sense of scale, at this margin, the average air conditioner will consume about $270 per year. A Toyota Prius gets about 10 kilowatt hours per gallon of gasoline (search for "500w of battery drain"), and the government says it gets 55 mpg, so even if your pickup was actually an efficient car, your 1.6 cent per kilowatt hour margin will consume (10/55)*1.6 = 0.18 kilowatt hours per mile. The government cites national gas price averages every Monday, which yesterday was $2.97. Therefore, you will burn $120 of margin in (12000 / 0.1818 / 297.3) = 221.99 miles. This means that if you have no power drain at all in your house - you don't even have anything plugged in and turned off - then you drive on average 0.6077 miles per day. Most people drive more than that just getting to the grocery store twice a month.
(I actually did the math as one big equation, to get around rounding error. If you do it yourself based on my averages above, you're gonna see 0.586. I didn't feel like writing out everything to 20 places.)
Yeah, dude, you're a bastion of cheap green energy. Time to check your numbers.
One supposes it's from the porn and penis enlarging cream, though one is led to wonder whether smacking the monkey for an iPod is a disease vector.
Yeah, hi. 1992 is on the phone. They said you need to shut off the portal, because their power bill is stratospheric. (Either that, or this is the subtlest Keanu Reeves joke 3v4r.)
The reason you're not working for a scientific paper is that you guess about techniques being identical and pooh pooh them based on said guesses. A bayesian filter is a very specific mathematical technique. This isn't actually very similar at all, other than that it's being used towards the same end.
Perhaps in the future you could know something about two algorithms before declaring them identical. Just a thought.
Er, I think it's just people who don't think spam is a big deal and are amused by the several million dollars a year of revenue it generates. You act like they're organ-leggers.
What they call their constitution is actually a block of codified law. Their equivalent to the US Constitution is called the Magna Carta.
That's not what irony means, you low grade Piquepaille douchebag.
British English != Middle English. Although I wouldn't say it's exactly common, 'whilst' is an acceptable substitute for 'while' in the UK.
Only among people who are fantastically bad at English. Your Queen figured this out four hundred years ago. Time for you to catch up. (By the by, don't confuse "common error" with "acceptable substitute." They're not the same thing.)
If you are going to call me dumb for trusting the hundreds of complaints I've seen online that Paypal makes its contact information is hard to find, then you are a fucking asshole.
No, I'm calling you dumb for announcing something you don't know as fact. There's a pretty big difference.
It's so easy to slam other people, isn't it
Yes. Like, one could call someone a fucking asshole for pointing out their stupidity. The difference between you doing it and my doing it is that I am pointing out you spreading disinformation, and you're throwing a tantrum for being caught telling falsehoods.
when you're hiding behind that anonymous user name?
What anonymous username? My name is John Haugeland. I live in San Diego. If you follow the link in my signature, you can easily get my address and home phone number from the resume on my website.
Then again, finding information doesn't seem to be your strong suit, and claiming it's not there when it is seems to be a pattern for you, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
You wouldn't call me stupid if you actually knew me
Yes, I would.
unless trusting other people is stupid now.
Trusting people isn't stupid. Reporting things you don't know as fact, however, is. There's a difference.
Things change, and apparently this is one of them
No, it isn't. PayPal has been easy to contact since day one. It was their original selling point.
but the fact that people on the Internet can be assholes when completely uncalled for hasn't
Haven't read your own post yet, have you?
Fuck you, and have an awful day. It goes both ways, but to use an old saying, you started it.
Right, it's my fault you're posting lies to slashdot, and flipping out like a ten year old when you're caught being full of it.
Let me guess: the USPTO granted a patent on a "device used to capture energy from wind, thereby generating forward motion of the attached vehicle" despite thousands of years' worth of prior art concerning this thing called a "sail?"
Nope. Nobody made any such statement. I'm sure you're going to scream "omg it was just a joke" next.
Someone should patent unfunny, so that we can sue you off of SlashDot.
No I didn't RTFA
Obviously.
Plus, the only time you see the boat (yes, I said boat, not ship) moving with any significant speed, you can't see the rear, so it's safe to assume that its engine is assisting.
Plus, the only time we see you posting, we can't see your facts, so it's safe to assume you're full of crap.
There's a big difference between guessing and being insightful.
Any self-respecting company now days has an 800 number for you to call. Paypal HAS an 800 number printed on their webpage somewhere
No, they don't. PayPal's customer service number is in area code 402. Please don't make statements without verifying them first.
Anyone with half a brain would go "A long distance number? what kind of BS is this?"
I guess that means you have half a brain, then.
Based, of course, on your deep familiarity with FBI procedures, which is why you correctly pointed out that the FBI isn't even the right bureau for this. Announcing your own guesses as probable outcomes just makes you look dense. Learn from this.
Of course I refuse since there's no way for me to authenticate them first - and that leaves them a bit stumped.
Generally the easiest way to handle this is as follows:
"Yeah, I'd love to, but I don't give out personal data to incoming calls. If you'll give me your extension, I will happily call the 1-800 number on my card and ask to be transferred back to you, at which point I will know you really are an officer of the bank and give the information requested. Thanks for understanding."
Bank officers understand, and will happily do as you ask.
Obviously, what he meant was in the context of a phone-start scam. What you should have heard was "... if you didn't initiate contact yourself."
What I find funny about this is that it's spoofs supposedly sent by a company notoriously hard to contact by phone. Anyone who has ever tried to contact Paypal about anything would know this. (Of course, the average user doesn't, which is probably what they count on).
It is trivially easy to contact PayPal by phone. I had a harder time reaching Sony than I did PayPal.
The first google hit for phone number site:paypal.com leads to a help page with a link. That link points to a second help page with the phone number and hours of operation printed clear as day. Typing phone number in PayPal's help system leads to the exact same page. When you contact them, the wait is usually less than three minutes. The phone operators open with a first name and a company ID code, and the system immediately forwards you to an automated quality survey after about one in three calls you make.
Every paypal page has a block of links at the bottom. In the dead center of that block, there is a link that says "contact us." If you click that, you are taken to this page, which has three headers: help by email, help by phone and merchant support. If you then hit "help by phone," you are taken to this page, where one of their half-dozen free support lines is printed clear as day.
If you're actually so dumb that you can't find this information on your own, here's a helping hand: 1 (402) 935-2050 . That line is open 18 hours a day (14 on the weekends.)
The only people who have trouble contacting PayPal are the dunces who hear it's hard and never try. Generally, they're the same dolts who announce to SlashDot how difficult something is that they've never tried, immediately after making some smarmy comment about how other people didn't try. If you really struggle too hard to use a simple help system, you need to get the hell off of your high horse talking about how lazy and ill informed other people are, and maybe just go to the mirror store.
Maybe in ten years you'll realize you were talking about yourself the whole time.