But I garantee you that the yellowish one is as safe as the other one. However, you may choose freely either one of them. Are you going to go with the yellowish water? You would be crazy.
Ok so Redhat is charging $149 for their spiffy new version of Linux. Fine. Unlike some I'm not under the influence of mind-altering ideologies. But that doesn't mean that I want to pay $149 for EVERY system I install it on. I'm THE Linux support for ASU's Fulton school of engineering, and we've got almost two hundred systems (that I know of) running one version of Linux or another.
You can pay the $149 once and install the disc on all 200 machines. Everything on the disc is licensed under the GPL. However the $149 covers a bunch of support including installation support and application support. You only get the support for one machine. You can't install it 200 times and make 200 support calls.
Again, I just cannot figure why we still persist with nuclear, oil, coal, with all the attendant problems (pollution, wars over oil, etc), when we could cover a small proportiion of the deserts of the world [electrosolar.co.uk] with solar cells
Solar cells are not a cost effective way to build a large-scale solar power plant. You're better off using mirrors to superheat water pipes, generating steam, driving a turbine/generator.
You're even better off building a tall chimney (100m or more) and using heat differentials to cause airflow across a turbine/generator. Cleaning mirrors is expensive.
Automated regression only proves that the specified tests that worked before still work. It doesn't find anything new or even test in a different, yet completely valid manner.
From the way the guy running it explained it, it works by using two lasers. When the two lasers intersect, it gets hot enough to create a small fracture in the crystal at the exact point of intersection.
Hrm. I wonder if you could get a transparent block that fluoresces where the lasers intersect. Then you'd be able to create moving 3D pictures with proper depth instead of the fake depth from bi-optical 3D screens.
The one thing Open Source lacks, and despite the holding back -- clearly needs, is structured testing. There is no real testing of Open Source. No Test Plans, no Test Matrices of test cases. Pre release versions are dumped to the public to use as they will in a blind, shotgun approach to testing. Exceptionally sloppy QA at best.
But why is that "sloppy QA"? I know the traditional way of doing QA was to do the QA in-house. The free software way is to let the second-tier developers (aka curious users) do the QA as well. The users can decide for themselves if they're willing to use potentially buggy software; effectively becoming "QA guinea pigs". Isn't that better than the Holy Programmer making that decision for them?
At any rate, your claim that all free software has no "real testing" is false. Perhaps some projects don't have adequate testing but GCC, XFree86 and Linux all have excellent automated regression test suites. Mozilla has an automated test suite that runs on every platform, every day, and even flags coders who submit buggy code. Some projects even use specialised benchmarking/testing software (eg, Polygraph for Squid).
I think the reality is that free software is leading the way in software testing.
Show of hands: who believes that Tony's business probably runs on pirated Microsoft products?
Tony Lawrence has, for the past 5 years, been the best source of unpaid SCO knowledge available. His website is a wealth of knowledge regarding OpenServer. On the rare occasions I've had to work with SCO the first website I loaded was Lawrence's because he will always have the answer. He would always clearly explain how SCO differed from other UNIX, how to enhance the basic SCO install with free software, etc.
And before somebody claims that Lawrence is a SCO apologist or shill, I doubt it. Lawrence has always struck me as an honest individual who has simply suffered for many years from the unusual syndrome of being a SCO enthusiast. He is to SCO what Alan Cox is to Linux: a benefactor who has spent an inordinate amount of his own time helping others with no expectation of reward. I daresay he is supremely saddened by the situation created by this new SCO management.
My recommendation to read Animal Farm is 100% appropriate, and I don't consider myself arrogant in the slightest for either recommending it or asking folks to think about which side their views align with the most. Anyone can open a book and skim its text; if you don't bother absorbing the lessons the book teaches you've wasted your time. If 90% of the folks here actually did read the book, I'd have to guess they either did not get the message or they didn't bother remembering it.
At first I thought you were slightly arrogant for presuming that another person hadn't read Animal Farm.
Now I think you're extremely arrogant for presuming that "90% of the folks here" didn't understand it.
In essence, they (the pigs in AF) become what they once considered the enemy (the humans in AF).
That is not the lesson I learnt from Animal Farm. I read a satirical story about the corrupt exploitation of collectivist ideals during the revolution. The pigs didn't "become what they once considered the enemy". The pigs were always the enemy. The story's brief is that the pigs used a revolution to increase their own power, and the other animals learnt the true nature of the pigs only after the totalitarian regime had already been established. The lesson is that corruption undermines the goal of revolution. The moral is that revolutionaries must remain alert as to the actions of their leaders, before and after the revolution, and be ready to oust corrupt leaders.
Can I now say that you "wasted your time" and you "didn't bother absorbing the book" because we disagree? Or can we just accept that different people learn different lessons.
If you can explain how that diversity benefits humans, I might listen. To me, 'old-growth' forest is a 'wasteland' of rotting trees that could otherwise have been used to benefit mankind.
I'm speechless. I can't even imagine that you're serious but apparently you are.
Again, I don't care if they destroy the soil for other crops. I don't care if some native fungus variety can't live in acidic soils. All I care about is that humans can reap a productive benefit from the land in a sustainable fashion.
I can't even begin to address this. Your unabashed avarice has me flabbergasted.
I'm reminded of a quote from the movie "Wall Street"... but I thought that was just fiction. I'm literally shocked that there are people who think that way in real life. I've never met anybody like you. I hope I never do.
Do you think inserting "*pause* sir *pause*" into an insult makes it more devastating? Imparts a little wit? I think it's rather stupid. It's right up there with "Bzzt, wrong".
And to those who are dismissing the article as flamebait and are telling folks to simply ignore it... I find interesting the fact you endorse this kind censorship and in the same breath advocate freedom.
It's not censorship to ignore something. Is a movie critic censoring a movie if they give it a bad review? People saying "nothing to see here" are giving their opinion. They are not censoring Rob's opinion.
I recommend you read Animal Farm some time and see which side of the farm you philosophically relate to the most.
I'd be very surprised if fewer than 90% of Slashdot readers have read Animal Farm. It's an extremely common book to read in high school. I think it's slightly arrogant the way that you phrased that recommendation.
I'm just wondering, why is this considered flamebait and why should it be ignored?
Because he invents 3 neat little groups and attempts to pigeon-hole all Linux enthusiasts into one of those groups. You've heard of a false dichotomy? This is a false trichotomy.
Imagine if I said that all analysts fall into one of three groups: well respected analysts who tell the truth about Linux being great, slightly ignorant analysts who mostly get it right about Linux being great, and paid shills from Microsoft who invent lies to discredit Linux. It's a troll, an obvious one, and one not worth defending.
So don't defend Enderle because he's doing the exact same thing.
In what way are they worse? What do 'old-growth' trees provide that fast-growing trees don't, besides nostalgia?
Habitats for animals. Plantation forests are notorious for being biological wastelands.
Also the fast growing trees that they use (typically pine) destroy the soil.
But you still miss the point. Plantation trees aren't planted for the long-term benefit of the forest. They are planted as a crop to be harvested when they are mature. Eventually the plantation trees are logged and there are no trees. Look at the timeline.
1970. Only 13 old-growth trees. Total: 13.
1980. Plants 87 pine trees. Total: 100.
2000. Harvests 13 old-growth trees and 87 pine trees. Total: 0.
You are pointing at the period 1980-2000 and saying "look, more trees". I'm pointing at the inevitable conclusion in 2000 and saying "look, zero trees".
The only way you can be right is if the loggers continually plant more trees, always compensating for those trees that they were logged. But that ignores two vital points. First, those trees that were planted will also be logged, so the timeline is simply stretched. Second, those 87 pine trees that were planted aren't the same thing as the 13 old-growth trees that were logged.
Would the US be better-off if we hunted buffalo instead of cattle?
First, you don't hunt cattle. Second, it'd be better off if you "hunted" neither (I'm not a vegetarian but the environmental impact of hunting is quite phenomenal). Third, yes it would be better if you "hunted" buffalo instead of cattle. Australia is faced with a similar problem. We introduced cattle and sheep into a country that wasn't prepared to cope with them. Their hooved feet are destroying the environment. We would be far better off eating kangaroos instead of cattle and sheep but social pressures (mostly English) prevent this from happening in large quantities.
This same logic applies to the relationship between paper and trees. If we stopped making paper from trees, there would be fewer trees. Eighty-seven percent of the trees that are used for manufacturing paper are planted for that purpose. That implies that for every 13 trees "saved" by paper recycling, there will be 87 that never get planted. This is why, contrary to popular belief, both the amount of forest land and the number of trees in this country have been increasing for the last 50 years. Increased demand for paper has led to more, not fewer, trees.
So that's what passes for logic in America? Hint to the uneducated: the 87 trees that got planted, they get logged as well. No paper: 13 trees. Paper: 0 trees. Yet the author thinks Paper = More Trees.
Roy E. Cordato is Lundy Professor of Business Philosophy
A phone lines bandwidth is roughly 64kbps. If it was only 16kbps then your 56kbps modem wouldn't work.
The details are more interesting. Your PSTN line is analogue and the maximum bandwidth can range from from 28.8kbps (pair-gained copper) to 2Mbps (ASDL). The actual maximum depends on line characteristics like signal-to-noise (Shannon's Theorem comes into play).
But once your voicecall hits the exchange you are digitized at 8000 samples per second, 8-bits per sample. That means an effective bandwidth of 64kbps. The call is then transmitted across ISDN or a T-line (T1, T2, T3). The bandwidth there is also fixed at 64kbps per call.
But it gets even trickier. The call might be compressed to as little as 8kbps across trunks.
Buh? How is sending the message to CEOs that you don't share their values/priorities (not to mention that you have no experience in making line-item purchasing decisions, even to the extent of getting yourself a decent suit) supposed to convince them that you're worth listening to?
Because the CEO doesn't want somebody with the same values/priorities as he (or she) holds. The CEO is looking for somebody with different values and priorities. In other words, an engineer. The image you portray should be an engineer's image. That means casual slacks, polo shirt, comfortable leather shoes, sports jacket, shoulder length clean hair, etc. Yes, you should put effort into your appearance to make it clear that that you're serious, but a suit isn't appropriate.
I'm not saying I'm an MS-apologist, but shouldn't decisions based on taxpayer money usually be based on cost analysis?
The decision should in part be based on cost analysis but it should also consider immeasurable concepts like freedom and liberty and fairness.
The government isn't a business. They are your representatives. They are the legislators. They are the executive. They are the police. They are the judges. They are the cleaners. They are the social workers. The government comprises all the people who work for you, the taxpayers.
So any decision the government makes has to consider more than pure dollars and cents. They have an entire country to think about, both now and for the future. One of your representatives has decided that free software has non-tangible but long-term benefits to the country. I can't disagree: it's exactly what people like RMS and organisations like the FSF have been saying for nearly 2 decades.
Congratulations to the USA for recognising the social benefits of free software.
Slashdot commentors: Please realize that many people who visit Slashdot are from countries where English is not the native language. It is VERY likely that they won't understand a subtle joke.
Most Americans can't understand a subtle joke either.
Though I suppose you could argue that most Americans don't speak English.
So (playing Devil's Advocate here), it's not okay for one corporation to deny an artist his or her dues, but it is okay for thousands of people to do so, a bit at a time?
Let me play it a different way. Should penalties for copyright infringement be determined purely by the act, or by the intent, or by the actual damages incurred?
A few years ago, when Napster was under fire from RIAA lawyers it seemed to me that everybody on Slashdot thought it was awful that poor Napster was sued. After all, it was the users of the P2P network that committed crimes, not Napster.
Here we are in 2003, almost 4 years later and it seems people got what they wanted. But now there's something wrong with RIAA doing exactly what people called for... So is the real answer that RIAA should just lay down and die? I doubt it will ever do so. It's a dog eat dog world.
There are 500,000 registered Slashdot readers. A popular story receives 1000 posts, if that. So when you say "everybody on Slashdot thought it was awful that poor Napster was sued" what you really mean is "the 0.2% of people doing the talking".
I thought Napster got what was coming to them but I didn't care enough to say anything back then. People typically only write about stuff they care about.
How many posts are you going waste trying to tell me what my point was?
One post is all I need... yours. That's why I keep quoting it back at you.
That is, the Pledge of Allegiance will (and should always) continue to include the phrase "under god." NO matter what you do, the original is sitll the original -- you can't change it.
It's pretty hard for you to rewrite history when I have cut-and-paste.
And again, oh reading-comprehension-challenged one, no matter how many times you ignorantly insist otherwise, that was not my point -- my point was that we need a godless version, and whether or not the original was or was not godless doesn't change that.
No it wasn't. Your point was that the original version contained the phrase "under god" and that it shouldn't be changed.
That is, the Pledge of Allegiance will (and should always) continue to include the phrase "under god." NO matter what you do, the original is sitll the original -- you can't change it.
But it looks like you're improving because despite the superfluous ranting, at least you now acknowledge your mistake.
I was wrong about the "original" pledge including god.
Slashdot Mirror
And the clear water might be *shudder* Budweiser.
SCO's share prices?
You can pay the $149 once and install the disc on all 200 machines. Everything on the disc is licensed under the GPL. However the $149 covers a bunch of support including installation support and application support. You only get the support for one machine. You can't install it 200 times and make 200 support calls.
Solar cells are not a cost effective way to build a large-scale solar power plant. You're better off using mirrors to superheat water pipes, generating steam, driving a turbine/generator.
You're even better off building a tall chimney (100m or more) and using heat differentials to cause airflow across a turbine/generator. Cleaning mirrors is expensive.
Neither do test plans.
Hrm. I wonder if you could get a transparent block that fluoresces where the lasers intersect. Then you'd be able to create moving 3D pictures with proper depth instead of the fake depth from bi-optical 3D screens.
But why is that "sloppy QA"? I know the traditional way of doing QA was to do the QA in-house. The free software way is to let the second-tier developers (aka curious users) do the QA as well. The users can decide for themselves if they're willing to use potentially buggy software; effectively becoming "QA guinea pigs". Isn't that better than the Holy Programmer making that decision for them?
At any rate, your claim that all free software has no "real testing" is false. Perhaps some projects don't have adequate testing but GCC, XFree86 and Linux all have excellent automated regression test suites. Mozilla has an automated test suite that runs on every platform, every day, and even flags coders who submit buggy code. Some projects even use specialised benchmarking/testing software (eg, Polygraph for Squid).
I think the reality is that free software is leading the way in software testing.
Tony Lawrence has, for the past 5 years, been the best source of unpaid SCO knowledge available. His website is a wealth of knowledge regarding OpenServer. On the rare occasions I've had to work with SCO the first website I loaded was Lawrence's because he will always have the answer. He would always clearly explain how SCO differed from other UNIX, how to enhance the basic SCO install with free software, etc.
And before somebody claims that Lawrence is a SCO apologist or shill, I doubt it. Lawrence has always struck me as an honest individual who has simply suffered for many years from the unusual syndrome of being a SCO enthusiast. He is to SCO what Alan Cox is to Linux: a benefactor who has spent an inordinate amount of his own time helping others with no expectation of reward. I daresay he is supremely saddened by the situation created by this new SCO management.
At first I thought you were slightly arrogant for presuming that another person hadn't read Animal Farm.
Now I think you're extremely arrogant for presuming that "90% of the folks here" didn't understand it.
That is not the lesson I learnt from Animal Farm. I read a satirical story about the corrupt exploitation of collectivist ideals during the revolution. The pigs didn't "become what they once considered the enemy". The pigs were always the enemy. The story's brief is that the pigs used a revolution to increase their own power, and the other animals learnt the true nature of the pigs only after the totalitarian regime had already been established. The lesson is that corruption undermines the goal of revolution. The moral is that revolutionaries must remain alert as to the actions of their leaders, before and after the revolution, and be ready to oust corrupt leaders.
Can I now say that you "wasted your time" and you "didn't bother absorbing the book" because we disagree? Or can we just accept that different people learn different lessons.
I'm speechless. I can't even imagine that you're serious but apparently you are.
I can't even begin to address this. Your unabashed avarice has me flabbergasted.
I'm reminded of a quote from the movie "Wall Street"... but I thought that was just fiction. I'm literally shocked that there are people who think that way in real life. I've never met anybody like you. I hope I never do.
Do you think inserting "*pause* sir *pause*" into an insult makes it more devastating? Imparts a little wit? I think it's rather stupid. It's right up there with "Bzzt, wrong".
Why not just say "You're a zealot"?
It's not censorship to ignore something. Is a movie critic censoring a movie if they give it a bad review? People saying "nothing to see here" are giving their opinion. They are not censoring Rob's opinion.
I'd be very surprised if fewer than 90% of Slashdot readers have read Animal Farm. It's an extremely common book to read in high school. I think it's slightly arrogant the way that you phrased that recommendation.
Because he invents 3 neat little groups and attempts to pigeon-hole all Linux enthusiasts into one of those groups. You've heard of a false dichotomy? This is a false trichotomy.
Imagine if I said that all analysts fall into one of three groups: well respected analysts who tell the truth about Linux being great, slightly ignorant analysts who mostly get it right about Linux being great, and paid shills from Microsoft who invent lies to discredit Linux. It's a troll, an obvious one, and one not worth defending.
So don't defend Enderle because he's doing the exact same thing.
Habitats for animals. Plantation forests are notorious for being biological wastelands.
Also the fast growing trees that they use (typically pine) destroy the soil.
But you still miss the point. Plantation trees aren't planted for the long-term benefit of the forest. They are planted as a crop to be harvested when they are mature. Eventually the plantation trees are logged and there are no trees. Look at the timeline.
You are pointing at the period 1980-2000 and saying "look, more trees". I'm pointing at the inevitable conclusion in 2000 and saying "look, zero trees".
The only way you can be right is if the loggers continually plant more trees, always compensating for those trees that they were logged. But that ignores two vital points. First, those trees that were planted will also be logged, so the timeline is simply stretched. Second, those 87 pine trees that were planted aren't the same thing as the 13 old-growth trees that were logged.
First, you don't hunt cattle. Second, it'd be better off if you "hunted" neither (I'm not a vegetarian but the environmental impact of hunting is quite phenomenal). Third, yes it would be better if you "hunted" buffalo instead of cattle. Australia is faced with a similar problem. We introduced cattle and sheep into a country that wasn't prepared to cope with them. Their hooved feet are destroying the environment. We would be far better off eating kangaroos instead of cattle and sheep but social pressures (mostly English) prevent this from happening in large quantities.
It's a mistake to think that a natural forest has to "pay" for anyone, even governments.
The number of old-growth trees is reduced to 0. Plantation trees are hardly the same thing.
I wear nothing but a smile.
So that's what passes for logic in America? Hint to the uneducated: the 87 trees that got planted, they get logged as well. No paper: 13 trees. Paper: 0 trees. Yet the author thinks Paper = More Trees.
Ahh... a f@#king arts student. That says it all.
A phone lines bandwidth is roughly 64kbps. If it was only 16kbps then your 56kbps modem wouldn't work.
The details are more interesting. Your PSTN line is analogue and the maximum bandwidth can range from from 28.8kbps (pair-gained copper) to 2Mbps (ASDL). The actual maximum depends on line characteristics like signal-to-noise (Shannon's Theorem comes into play).
But once your voicecall hits the exchange you are digitized at 8000 samples per second, 8-bits per sample. That means an effective bandwidth of 64kbps. The call is then transmitted across ISDN or a T-line (T1, T2, T3). The bandwidth there is also fixed at 64kbps per call.
But it gets even trickier. The call might be compressed to as little as 8kbps across trunks.
Because the CEO doesn't want somebody with the same values/priorities as he (or she) holds. The CEO is looking for somebody with different values and priorities. In other words, an engineer. The image you portray should be an engineer's image. That means casual slacks, polo shirt, comfortable leather shoes, sports jacket, shoulder length clean hair, etc. Yes, you should put effort into your appearance to make it clear that that you're serious, but a suit isn't appropriate.
The decision should in part be based on cost analysis but it should also consider immeasurable concepts like freedom and liberty and fairness.
The government isn't a business. They are your representatives. They are the legislators. They are the executive. They are the police. They are the judges. They are the cleaners. They are the social workers. The government comprises all the people who work for you, the taxpayers.
So any decision the government makes has to consider more than pure dollars and cents. They have an entire country to think about, both now and for the future. One of your representatives has decided that free software has non-tangible but long-term benefits to the country. I can't disagree: it's exactly what people like RMS and organisations like the FSF have been saying for nearly 2 decades.
Congratulations to the USA for recognising the social benefits of free software.
Most Americans can't understand a subtle joke either.
Though I suppose you could argue that most Americans don't speak English.
Let me play it a different way. Should penalties for copyright infringement be determined purely by the act, or by the intent, or by the actual damages incurred?
There are 500,000 registered Slashdot readers. A popular story receives 1000 posts, if that. So when you say "everybody on Slashdot thought it was awful that poor Napster was sued" what you really mean is "the 0.2% of people doing the talking". I thought Napster got what was coming to them but I didn't care enough to say anything back then. People typically only write about stuff they care about.
One post is all I need... yours. That's why I keep quoting it back at you.
It's pretty hard for you to rewrite history when I have cut-and-paste.
No it wasn't. Your point was that the original version contained the phrase "under god" and that it shouldn't be changed.
But it looks like you're improving because despite the superfluous ranting, at least you now acknowledge your mistake.
There you go. That wasn't so hard, now was it.
Have a nice day.