So don't use FreeBSD. Use Linux. Or eventually move to an OS that has really good thread support; even if it's not free, seems that there may be some performance benefits to be had....
You were attacking Solaris because you make unsupported allegations and make broad arguments from your alleged authority regarding Solaris without demonstration of the reality of your authority (only assertions of such). I conceded the point that Solaris as a desktop environment is difficult in many ways (examples: CDE sucks to configure, the scalability of Solaris as a whole causes low-end configs to suffer in interactive use), and you then proceed to attack me with straw assumptions about what I may or may not "like" which says quite enough about your bias.
If you can give a real and documented argument of how Linux is such an obviously superior database platform across the board as you assert it to be, I might respond again (as if you care, but there you have it). Otherwise, I presume you're just a well-written troll. Kudos on your writing ability.
Cuz right now planned obsolesence is what keeps them in the black...
I hardly see that. I have an 8 year old Saturn that shows very few signs of slowing down as long as I keep up the maintenance on it. What seems to keep the car companies in the black from my perspective is people who can't stand to have anything that's out of date (gotta have the latest & greatest), or who think that 0% interest is reason enough to go in debt even though your car has another 5-10 years in it.
Solaris does not particularly target the desktop user any longer, and hasn't seriously for a long time. So bitching about Solaris being "clunky" in that kind of usage (which is what it appears you're talking about, ditching Solaris on the desktop), is ludicrous.
Linux doesn't scale to any significant number of processors (oh, but you can set up a beowulf cluster of the damn things, gee, I can manage one box, or a dozen, good choice for all cases--which doesn't mean beowulf doesn't have it's necessary place, but it's not the be-all solution to scalability). This is a conscious design decision by the Junta (mostly kidding) that rules the Linux kernel. Solaris scales up to large numbers of CPUs (128 last time I cared to look at the specs, probably more today) very well, imnsho better than anyone else's Unix, also by conscious decision. Obviously this is going to cause more overhead, and a billion open source monkeys typing for a billion years aren't necessarily going to solve that problem, if you want to try using Solaris on a 2 CPU box.
So: get off the ideological petard before you lose your appendages. Use Linux for things Linux is good at, and use Solaris for things Solaris is good at, and leave Solaris x86 in its little niche where it belongs (teaching Solaris on cheap boxes or providing OS consistency in environments that think that it's important to have that).
Attacking Solaris as "clunky" just shows how much you are looking for something to attack. Get on with your life and do something productive instead.
So tell us again why everyone and their brother was screaming at us when we said we were putting x86 on indefinite hiatus (i.e. canning it) last year? There are a number of significant customers who use Solarix x86 to do real work, and there was a lot of hue and cry over that announcement; this was to correct that.
The real problem seems to me to be communication: someone should have done an impact study BEFORE that previous announcement, and either 1) made it clear that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place or 2) made it clear that nothing whatsoever would make it cost effective to continue. While I don't *know* that no one did such a study, behavior sure leads you to believe that they didn't.
Re:The Problem with CYA at eBay
on
Ebay vs. Musician
·
· Score: 3, Funny
the point was the dichotomy between not preventing abuses (which as you say ought not be a big deal; caveat emptor etc), but preventing someone from selling their own works.
They can't have it both ways. Either they are going to be watchdogs of copyright, or not.
dapcentral has information for their encoding practices, www.vcdhelp.com has a bunch of various stuff. So far I have not personally been able to apply all the information (it's pretty overwhelming, and I always get the feeling some key step is being left out), but obviously some people are based on the results at dapcentral.
From what I've seen, the quality of the MPEG has a lot to do with specific settings and filters. I've seen some *really bad* MPEGs of, say, Invader Zim floating around the net, and then I've seen some really good ones. (I mean image quality, feel free to have your own opinion of the content, but don't waste our time ranting about it here).
That's really cool, and indeed newsworthy. Woulda been nice if someone had pointed that out in the text of the article, since I don't bother to mouse over links in yet another duplicate story on slashdot just to figure out 'oh wait! that's USA Today!'
let's see. The only way to figure out that this was newsworthy was:
1) look at the links 2) note that USA Today was part of one of them.
Silly me, I expect the text, not the links, to be what's newsworthy in any given front page article. The links are simply supporting information and details.
Since I didn't see anything newsworthy in the text: 'Janis Ian thinks the RIAA is full of shit. Still.' what exactly was supposed to motivate me to look at the links?
So Jack: if the distributor doesn't want me to download the music, but the creator of the music does, who's got control? Wait, you think that if the creator signed that excessive contract s/he doesn't have any say? That'd be legit, if the RIAA didn't have an effective monopoly on contracts; if there was somewhere for the creator to turn where they could get their music to the mass audience effectively without the draconian contracts. The Internet has the capability to become that alternative, but the RIAA is doing everything they can to stop it.
Might have made sense for the editor or submitter to POINT THAT OUT then, don't ya think? Because GOD KNOWS that Janice Ian quated saying the same things again is not something I really am going to bother go checking all the links on, just in case it's something new.
So, I guess all I have to do in order to get a submission finally accepted is resubmit a rehash of something that already made the front page half a dozen times then.
Don't get me wrong, I dig Janis Ian and her stand on this issue, but geez, can't we find some news that's actually NEW?
Except that the case is that he did have that conversation and was refused the lower price. So. perhaps SWA will rethink things and do what you suggest, in which case they aren't violating the ADA in spirit, as they were previously.
I have to say I'm a fence sitter on this myself. I think that ruling that the web is "not a place..." is a huge setback for equivalence of laws in cyberspace. That's something that I think is important. As long as we treat the web as "a special case", we will be supporting the same mindset that thinks applying an ancient and accepted business model to the web is novel and patentable.
On the other hand, I do think that making a blanket judgement that all websites must be ADA compliant, or even all commercial websites, given the mom-n-pop nature of a lot of commercial websites, would be disastrous for the economy of the web. It's already hard enough to make money online unless you're a spammer or selling porn.
hm....that sounds like an interesting thing. ADA compliant porn sites....
And this is the biggest real problem I see with their plan. At least they appear to have picked a way remote state where it won't be so cut-n-dried easy to encourage anyone who doesn't like it to leave.
Exactly. Which part of the statement that the government exists to protect individuals from force and from fraud did the original poster not understand? In defense, the military is all about protecting from force.
No need to flame you. Seems to me that there are obvious benefits from vaccination that it would be ridiculously stupid to just outright ignore. Work with your doctor, read about which types of immunizations seem to be high risk, break up the shots so the kid's system isn't trying to deal with half a dozen different antigens at the same time, etc. Take precautions, but don't just stuff your head back into the sand.
Slashdot Mirror
So don't use FreeBSD. Use Linux. Or eventually move to an OS that has really good thread support; even if it's not free, seems that there may be some performance benefits to be had....
I am tempted daily by women, booze & drugs, but my wife makes sure that she follows through with her promises. :).
If you can give a real and documented argument of how Linux is such an obviously superior database platform across the board as you assert it to be, I might respond again (as if you care, but there you have it). Otherwise, I presume you're just a well-written troll. Kudos on your writing ability.
I hardly see that. I have an 8 year old Saturn that shows very few signs of slowing down as long as I keep up the maintenance on it. What seems to keep the car companies in the black from my perspective is people who can't stand to have anything that's out of date (gotta have the latest & greatest), or who think that 0% interest is reason enough to go in debt even though your car has another 5-10 years in it.
I'm glad you aren't serious about working in a real IT shop.
Linux doesn't scale to any significant number of processors (oh, but you can set up a beowulf cluster of the damn things, gee, I can manage one box, or a dozen, good choice for all cases--which doesn't mean beowulf doesn't have it's necessary place, but it's not the be-all solution to scalability). This is a conscious design decision by the Junta (mostly kidding) that rules the Linux kernel. Solaris scales up to large numbers of CPUs (128 last time I cared to look at the specs, probably more today) very well, imnsho better than anyone else's Unix, also by conscious decision. Obviously this is going to cause more overhead, and a billion open source monkeys typing for a billion years aren't necessarily going to solve that problem, if you want to try using Solaris on a 2 CPU box.
So: get off the ideological petard before you lose your appendages. Use Linux for things Linux is good at, and use Solaris for things Solaris is good at, and leave Solaris x86 in its little niche where it belongs (teaching Solaris on cheap boxes or providing OS consistency in environments that think that it's important to have that).
Attacking Solaris as "clunky" just shows how much you are looking for something to attack. Get on with your life and do something productive instead.
So tell us again why everyone and their brother was screaming at us when we said we were putting x86 on indefinite hiatus (i.e. canning it) last year? There are a number of significant customers who use Solarix x86 to do real work, and there was a lot of hue and cry over that announcement; this was to correct that.
The real problem seems to me to be communication: someone should have done an impact study BEFORE that previous announcement, and either 1) made it clear that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place or 2) made it clear that nothing whatsoever would make it cost effective to continue. While I don't *know* that no one did such a study, behavior sure leads you to believe that they didn't.
"beware the leopard"
Hell, I don't care if people have bad taste. The real kicker is this search. What the hell do they think they're doing?
They can't have it both ways. Either they are going to be watchdogs of copyright, or not.
dapcentral has information for their encoding practices, www.vcdhelp.com has a bunch of various stuff. So far I have not personally been able to apply all the information (it's pretty overwhelming, and I always get the feeling some key step is being left out), but obviously some people are based on the results at dapcentral.
From what I've seen, the quality of the MPEG has a lot to do with specific settings and filters. I've seen some *really bad* MPEGs of, say, Invader Zim floating around the net, and then I've seen some really good ones. (I mean image quality, feel free to have your own opinion of the content, but don't waste our time ranting about it here).
That's really cool, and indeed newsworthy. Woulda been nice if someone had pointed that out in the text of the article, since I don't bother to mouse over links in yet another duplicate story on slashdot just to figure out 'oh wait! that's USA Today!'
1) look at the links
2) note that USA Today was part of one of them.
Silly me, I expect the text, not the links, to be what's newsworthy in any given front page article. The links are simply supporting information and details.
Since I didn't see anything newsworthy in the text: 'Janis Ian thinks the RIAA is full of shit. Still.' what exactly was supposed to motivate me to look at the links?
So Jack: if the distributor doesn't want me to download the music, but the creator of the music does, who's got control? Wait, you think that if the creator signed that excessive contract s/he doesn't have any say? That'd be legit, if the RIAA didn't have an effective monopoly on contracts; if there was somewhere for the creator to turn where they could get their music to the mass audience effectively without the draconian contracts. The Internet has the capability to become that alternative, but the RIAA is doing everything they can to stop it.
Might have made sense for the editor or submitter to POINT THAT OUT then, don't ya think? Because GOD KNOWS that Janice Ian quated saying the same things again is not something I really am going to bother go checking all the links on, just in case it's something new.
Don't get me wrong, I dig Janis Ian and her stand on this issue, but geez, can't we find some news that's actually NEW?
Except that the case is that he did have that conversation and was refused the lower price. So. perhaps SWA will rethink things and do what you suggest, in which case they aren't violating the ADA in spirit, as they were previously.
On the other hand, I do think that making a blanket judgement that all websites must be ADA compliant, or even all commercial websites, given the mom-n-pop nature of a lot of commercial websites, would be disastrous for the economy of the web. It's already hard enough to make money online unless you're a spammer or selling porn.
hm....that sounds like an interesting thing. ADA compliant porn sites....
And this is the biggest real problem I see with their plan. At least they appear to have picked a way remote state where it won't be so cut-n-dried easy to encourage anyone who doesn't like it to leave.
Exactly. Which part of the statement that the government exists to protect individuals from force and from fraud did the original poster not understand? In defense, the military is all about protecting from force.
You might just as well cite flyer posting as "commerce" and "post no bills" signs and laws as interfering with commerce.
spam does not propagate any of thoes things, and is in it's one-way nature not any kind of exchange.
No need to flame you. Seems to me that there are obvious benefits from vaccination that it would be ridiculously stupid to just outright ignore. Work with your doctor, read about which types of immunizations seem to be high risk, break up the shots so the kid's system isn't trying to deal with half a dozen different antigens at the same time, etc. Take precautions, but don't just stuff your head back into the sand.
Since when is SPAM "commerce"?