Well, you run Dockers in VMs in practice, since that's what the cloud is - a place to rent VMs. So you end up with a host with one or more VMs, each with one or more Docker containers. But what I find neat is your containers don't have to care about the VMs - you can run more in larger VMs, fewer in smaller VMs, and homogenize everything that way. Which is great if you're using something like EC2 Spot to get whatever VM is cheapest that day, but now you don't care at all whether it's 1000 8-core VMs or 2000 4-core or whatever, as long as the total power is about the same. Makes for a very cheap supercomputer.
You know this is a "news for nerds" site, right, not a place for fans of geeky TV shows?
If you want to run some distributed service on a bunch of servers, all these acronyms should be known to you. Docker is somewhat new, and is a clever idea for a container that's lighter weight than a VM running in a hypervisor, but gives some of the same benefits: a "cooked" software install - a snapshot with everything you need installed, not a blank space where you have to run installers - and some degree of isolation/jailing between containers.
So, for example, if you have some distributed number-crunching modeling application you wrote, with a bunch of complicated dependencies, the old way was to make a VM image that's ready to go and deploy that image 10000 times in the cloud, but is has to be compatible with the specific server offerings you're renting (number of CPUs, amount of memory, etc). Docker is a further layer of abstraction, so you instead create a Docker container, have the same no-install ease of use, but have more flexibility in how you provision 10000 instances for a few hours to run your job.
Docker is also handy for other lightweight server tasks where you want to mix and match processes without installers running.
That's a myth. It cost a lot, since you have to pay a civilian quite a bit to go into a hostile area to do engineering (and engineers made quite a premium in the area even in peacetime), but e.g. Haliburton earnings were unimpressive (I bought the stock, hoping the conspiracy theorists were on to something, but it seems they were merely on something).
There were warehouses of chemical weapons in Iraq before Gulf War 2 - everyone knew about them, the UN inspectors went to those warehouses first, inventoried them, and sealed them. Saddam was supposed to have destroyed those weapons, by treaty, but that wasn't the point of contention as they were pretty old by then, some left over from the Iran-Iraq war (some even US-made), and likely not useful. We were looking for newly made chemical weapons.
The baffling thing is: why weren't these chemical weapons destroyed in the 10 years we were in Iraq? That makes no sense at all to me. WTF? So now ISIS has a warehouse or two of Iraqi chemical weapons. We went to war partially to prevent just that - terrorists getting WMDs not because Saddam was selling them directly, but because shit happens. Well, shit happened. What were we doing for 10 years following going into Iraq for the stated purpose of destroying these WMDs?
Fortunately, they may all be so old that they're only a danger to ISIS. It's really any WMDs made more recently that are a threat. If Saddam actually had a weapons program active soon before the war, the weapons likely ended up in Syria - certainly Iraqi military convoys carrying something crossed into Syria in the weeks before we attacked - but ISIS is strong in Syria too. Guess we'll find out soon enough.
There's no gamma from this sort of fusion, unless they're somehow getting H+D fusion, which would be a neat trick. It's all about the fast neutrons. Shielding against low energy neutrons isn't hard, and you get relatively little radioactive waste as a result - quite clean by the standards of industrial processes. Shielding against high-energy neutrons is hard, and you can easily get hot byproducts.
If they're successfully extracting the tritium before it can fuse, this would be an amazing process, but color me skeptical, as no one even has even demonstrated energy-positive fusion yet, let alone the tricky bit of pulling the tritium out. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, so it's a minor radiation hazard itself, but one that there are good industrial processes for - the stuff is valuable.
Note that the longer the half-life on anything radioactive, the less you need to care about it. The only danger from long-lived radioactive waste is from the few isotopes that are biologically active - like cobalt IIRC. Even quite low levels of radioactivity can be bad if the radioactive molecules are incorporated into your cell structure. But such isotopes are quite rare, unless you're a mad scientist making them on purpose, and most long-lived radioactive waste can be handled like any other industrial waste.
#gamergators are just gamers. Most gamers (myself included) give approximately 0 fucks about gender issues, feminism in gaming, or any of that BS and just wish the SJWs would be noisy somewhere else and let us get back to gaming. But it sure would be nice to have game review site that reviewed games on their merits as games, not on whether it's the kind of games one is "supposed to" like, and especially not based on whether the game is from the game company the reviewer is currently sleeping with someone from, or renting an apartment from, or the like.
Now I feel a burning need to re-install Duke Nukem Forever and play it through again. I blame you for this Ratzo - the blood of triple-breasted aliens will be on your hands.
Great links. If this is deuterium-deuterium fusion, I'm baffled why it isn't crazy radioactive. You get two reactions from that, one of which makes Helium and a neutron, the other makes Tritium and Hydrogen. Deuterium-Tritium fusion makes a very energetic neutron.
The neutron from the D-D reaction carries ~2.5 MeV, which isn't that hard to stop (though the reactor is so small - wonder if that includes shielding). The neutron from the D-T reaction, however, is ~14 MeV which is a real problem. Have they found a way to extract all the tritium before it can fuse? That would be neat (and hopefully drive down the price of Tritium gun sights).
I'm pretty sure that's not why I think Obama is a terrible president. I'm pretty sure that's why I won't vote for Hillary. I'm pretty sure my stance on immigration has nothing to do with race ("favor people with college degrees - give them all greencards before any of the lettuce pickers"). I'm pretty sure my opposition to ISIS, and their self-declared freedom to rape any non-believer, isn't because I'm sexist.
And on and on. But rationality doesn't matter, People use a list of proscribed leftist beliefs as tribal identification, and anyone who diverts from rightthink in any way can only be a racists sexist Nazi, because they're clearly out-tribe and unpeople!
Well, you've clearly decided all gamers are evil. Whatever makes you happy. That was the mainstream view for most of gaming's history after all - from the moral panic over D&D, to the various attempts to outlaw violent video games, you fit right in.
As John Scalzi put it: "Face it dudes: "Gamergate" is a toxic thing. You can't say you support (it) WITHOUT explicitly standing with those who hate and harass women."
It's this sort of utter bullshit that offends me. I hear it constantly from the left - all arguments are ad-hominum. "If you disagree, you can only be a racist." "If you disagree, you can only be sexist." "If you disagree, you must be a Nazi". And on and on like that for decades.
And then discussion sites ban all discussion of the issue. It's the most frequent leftist argument of all: "I'm right because SHUT UP".
4chan and Reddit was a knock-on effect. Both sites heavily censored discussion of gamergate in the early days, choosing themselves to side with the gaming publications and ban all discussion of their ethics.
you think Motor Trend has a published, formal ethics policy?
I'd bet all the large car mags do - if a reporter had a significant financial stake in a particular manufacturer, for example, that would matter to the editor. I remember when Car&Driver was accused every month of being a wholly-owned subsidiary of one Japanese brand or another (for daring to point out that the Japanese cars were, well, better), and was pretty uptight about ensuring there was no truth to the regular accusations.
I'm sorry, but the whole "journalistic ethics" gamergate complaint seems to me to be a way to give cover to some very ugly and unseemly sentiment.
Possibly. There's certainly ugly sentiment - longtime gamers are quite upset about the longtime prejudice against them, about being stereotyped, about being told they're no good or their games are no good. This was just another Jack Thompson event, and people are still pretty bitter about the original.
Oh, I agree. It's very clear the concept of a fantasy RPG is not any more appealing to men than women. It was also the case that in the early D&D scene, gaming groups were often filled with such socially mal-adjusted gamers that women stayed away - but games like EQ offered the FRPG without the horrible company. Fortunately, the PnP RPG gaming scene has changed since then as well.
I think it was different in the 90s. Certainly Sony set out to write an MMO for teen male gamers, to judge by their artwork and such, and it's not like they did no market research. But it's just as clear they mis-judged it, and I suspect that it you looked as pre-EQ MMOs, not games in general, that the demographics were there from the earliest roots, in pre-internet AOL and CompuServe multiplayer RPGs, and in The Realm Online (the first internet "MUD with pictures").
Because Netflix is something like 1/3rd of internet traffic. If you haven't worked on a standards committee this might not be obvious, but the point of a standard is to document what the big players are doing, so that the little guys can interoperate. It's a descriptive, not proscriptive, process. A standard that the major players don't actually follow is worthless, and a failure of the committee.
It's simple not the role or purpose of a standards committee to spout stuff like "we won't standardize X because we feel that X is bad". Heck, the ISO rules probably prohibit that sort of thing.
But HTML5 will in no way create more DRM than there would otherwise have been - all it does is recognize that that this is a common thing done over the web, and provide a standard way of doing it, albeit as a sort of plug-in architecture. Moving the DRM out of a large, exploitable general-purpose framework like Flash or Silverlight, and into a well-defined (and contained) DRM module is a solid win.
Yep, the rottenness in game journalism isn't about any one journalist, but about the high frequency of conflicts of interest: almost no "gaming" publication even has a formal ethics policy to rule that out in the first place (while e.g. every major newspaper does).
I've never seen any rage against female gamers. That's certainly not what "gamergate" was/is about: game journalism. Feminist (not necessarily female) journalists were the target of their ire.
Gender-issues aside for the moment, game journalism is rotten - financial and/or romantic relationships between game journalists and games publishers is normal. I hope that doesn't get lost in the noise about misogyny - even by the falling statanrds of journalism generally, blatant conflicts of interests are uncool.
I was amazed to learn, 10+ years ago, that the biggest demographic playing Everquest was middle-aged women, far more such gamers than teen males. From some chats with players (limited sample size, to be sure), there was a lot of appeal in having a social outlet outside the norm, where it was OK to be a geeky woman, with no social stigma in discussing geeky stuff in EQ chat (this was before there was anything cool about geeks).
EQ was fairly bad at putting the female characters in "slut-mail" (seriously, plate mail with a thong) and other design choices focused on teen males, but apparently that was a small downside in comparison.
throwing a few bucks there way now and then count?
I bought a copy of the Mozilla browser once. Remember when?
It's all going to suck once all browsers are fully DRM complaint
Nothing will be worse for browsers being able to play Netflix crap like Flash or Silverlight. Flash especially needs to die the death.
I use Chrome, with all the DoNotTrackMe and Disconnect and Privacy Badger and https everywhere extensions enabled, am I still doing any favors for Google?
Pretty sure Chrome always sends every URL you type to Google, though it would be neat if you could disable that (in IE and FF you turn off the features that warn you of well-known attack sites). There are chromium ports that claim to be entirely evil-free, but I haven't looked into them as I just don't like Chrome's UI (or the recent FF). They might be great.
All ideals are imaginary. It's great to strive for ideals, but you can't say things are getting worse because we're not meeting some ideal we have met. The realistic goal is incremental progress towards an ideal.
If you paid more attention to state legislatures, you'd be in a never-ending state of panic. There's no end of absolutely crazy crap proposed, and the state congrescritters seemingly oblivious to it, because it has no chance of ever going anywhere. That's the entire point of democracy, after all: the freedom to propose fringe ideas, to succeed or fail on the whim of the majority. It's absolutely the worst possible system of government (except for everything else that's ever been tried).
But it's not particularly alarming when there's a "hearing" on some stupid BS. Think of it as a safety blow-off valve for crazy.
I just hope Pale Moon starts keeping more current. Recent IEs are pretty good, but naturally Windows-only. I'm trying to live a Google-free life, so Chrome is out.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't that be "too tired compilation"?
Well, you run Dockers in VMs in practice, since that's what the cloud is - a place to rent VMs. So you end up with a host with one or more VMs, each with one or more Docker containers. But what I find neat is your containers don't have to care about the VMs - you can run more in larger VMs, fewer in smaller VMs, and homogenize everything that way. Which is great if you're using something like EC2 Spot to get whatever VM is cheapest that day, but now you don't care at all whether it's 1000 8-core VMs or 2000 4-core or whatever, as long as the total power is about the same. Makes for a very cheap supercomputer.
If there were 30 ISPs to chose from, would you give any fucks that 2 of them had decided not to compete? You're fixated on the wrong problem
You know this is a "news for nerds" site, right, not a place for fans of geeky TV shows?
If you want to run some distributed service on a bunch of servers, all these acronyms should be known to you. Docker is somewhat new, and is a clever idea for a container that's lighter weight than a VM running in a hypervisor, but gives some of the same benefits: a "cooked" software install - a snapshot with everything you need installed, not a blank space where you have to run installers - and some degree of isolation/jailing between containers.
So, for example, if you have some distributed number-crunching modeling application you wrote, with a bunch of complicated dependencies, the old way was to make a VM image that's ready to go and deploy that image 10000 times in the cloud, but is has to be compatible with the specific server offerings you're renting (number of CPUs, amount of memory, etc). Docker is a further layer of abstraction, so you instead create a Docker container, have the same no-install ease of use, but have more flexibility in how you provision 10000 instances for a few hours to run your job.
Docker is also handy for other lightweight server tasks where you want to mix and match processes without installers running.
That's a myth. It cost a lot, since you have to pay a civilian quite a bit to go into a hostile area to do engineering (and engineers made quite a premium in the area even in peacetime), but e.g. Haliburton earnings were unimpressive (I bought the stock, hoping the conspiracy theorists were on to something, but it seems they were merely on something).
There were warehouses of chemical weapons in Iraq before Gulf War 2 - everyone knew about them, the UN inspectors went to those warehouses first, inventoried them, and sealed them. Saddam was supposed to have destroyed those weapons, by treaty, but that wasn't the point of contention as they were pretty old by then, some left over from the Iran-Iraq war (some even US-made), and likely not useful. We were looking for newly made chemical weapons.
The baffling thing is: why weren't these chemical weapons destroyed in the 10 years we were in Iraq? That makes no sense at all to me. WTF? So now ISIS has a warehouse or two of Iraqi chemical weapons. We went to war partially to prevent just that - terrorists getting WMDs not because Saddam was selling them directly, but because shit happens. Well, shit happened. What were we doing for 10 years following going into Iraq for the stated purpose of destroying these WMDs?
Fortunately, they may all be so old that they're only a danger to ISIS. It's really any WMDs made more recently that are a threat. If Saddam actually had a weapons program active soon before the war, the weapons likely ended up in Syria - certainly Iraqi military convoys carrying something crossed into Syria in the weeks before we attacked - but ISIS is strong in Syria too. Guess we'll find out soon enough.
There's no gamma from this sort of fusion, unless they're somehow getting H+D fusion, which would be a neat trick. It's all about the fast neutrons. Shielding against low energy neutrons isn't hard, and you get relatively little radioactive waste as a result - quite clean by the standards of industrial processes. Shielding against high-energy neutrons is hard, and you can easily get hot byproducts.
If they're successfully extracting the tritium before it can fuse, this would be an amazing process, but color me skeptical, as no one even has even demonstrated energy-positive fusion yet, let alone the tricky bit of pulling the tritium out. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, so it's a minor radiation hazard itself, but one that there are good industrial processes for - the stuff is valuable.
Note that the longer the half-life on anything radioactive, the less you need to care about it. The only danger from long-lived radioactive waste is from the few isotopes that are biologically active - like cobalt IIRC. Even quite low levels of radioactivity can be bad if the radioactive molecules are incorporated into your cell structure. But such isotopes are quite rare, unless you're a mad scientist making them on purpose, and most long-lived radioactive waste can be handled like any other industrial waste.
#gamergators are just gamers. Most gamers (myself included) give approximately 0 fucks about gender issues, feminism in gaming, or any of that BS and just wish the SJWs would be noisy somewhere else and let us get back to gaming. But it sure would be nice to have game review site that reviewed games on their merits as games, not on whether it's the kind of games one is "supposed to" like, and especially not based on whether the game is from the game company the reviewer is currently sleeping with someone from, or renting an apartment from, or the like.
Now I feel a burning need to re-install Duke Nukem Forever and play it through again. I blame you for this Ratzo - the blood of triple-breasted aliens will be on your hands.
Great links. If this is deuterium-deuterium fusion, I'm baffled why it isn't crazy radioactive. You get two reactions from that, one of which makes Helium and a neutron, the other makes Tritium and Hydrogen. Deuterium-Tritium fusion makes a very energetic neutron.
The neutron from the D-D reaction carries ~2.5 MeV, which isn't that hard to stop (though the reactor is so small - wonder if that includes shielding). The neutron from the D-T reaction, however, is ~14 MeV which is a real problem. Have they found a way to extract all the tritium before it can fuse? That would be neat (and hopefully drive down the price of Tritium gun sights).
I'm pretty sure that's not why I think Obama is a terrible president. I'm pretty sure that's why I won't vote for Hillary. I'm pretty sure my stance on immigration has nothing to do with race ("favor people with college degrees - give them all greencards before any of the lettuce pickers"). I'm pretty sure my opposition to ISIS, and their self-declared freedom to rape any non-believer, isn't because I'm sexist.
And on and on. But rationality doesn't matter, People use a list of proscribed leftist beliefs as tribal identification, and anyone who diverts from rightthink in any way can only be a racists sexist Nazi, because they're clearly out-tribe and unpeople!
Well, you've clearly decided all gamers are evil. Whatever makes you happy. That was the mainstream view for most of gaming's history after all - from the moral panic over D&D, to the various attempts to outlaw violent video games, you fit right in.
As John Scalzi put it: "Face it dudes: "Gamergate" is a toxic thing. You can't say you support (it) WITHOUT explicitly standing with those who hate and harass women."
It's this sort of utter bullshit that offends me. I hear it constantly from the left - all arguments are ad-hominum. "If you disagree, you can only be a racist." "If you disagree, you can only be sexist." "If you disagree, you must be a Nazi". And on and on like that for decades.
And then discussion sites ban all discussion of the issue. It's the most frequent leftist argument of all: "I'm right because SHUT UP".
4chan and Reddit was a knock-on effect. Both sites heavily censored discussion of gamergate in the early days, choosing themselves to side with the gaming publications and ban all discussion of their ethics.
you think Motor Trend has a published, formal ethics policy?
I'd bet all the large car mags do - if a reporter had a significant financial stake in a particular manufacturer, for example, that would matter to the editor. I remember when Car&Driver was accused every month of being a wholly-owned subsidiary of one Japanese brand or another (for daring to point out that the Japanese cars were, well, better), and was pretty uptight about ensuring there was no truth to the regular accusations.
I'm sorry, but the whole "journalistic ethics" gamergate complaint seems to me to be a way to give cover to some very ugly and unseemly sentiment.
Possibly. There's certainly ugly sentiment - longtime gamers are quite upset about the longtime prejudice against them, about being stereotyped, about being told they're no good or their games are no good. This was just another Jack Thompson event, and people are still pretty bitter about the original.
Oh, I agree. It's very clear the concept of a fantasy RPG is not any more appealing to men than women. It was also the case that in the early D&D scene, gaming groups were often filled with such socially mal-adjusted gamers that women stayed away - but games like EQ offered the FRPG without the horrible company. Fortunately, the PnP RPG gaming scene has changed since then as well.
I think it was different in the 90s. Certainly Sony set out to write an MMO for teen male gamers, to judge by their artwork and such, and it's not like they did no market research. But it's just as clear they mis-judged it, and I suspect that it you looked as pre-EQ MMOs, not games in general, that the demographics were there from the earliest roots, in pre-internet AOL and CompuServe multiplayer RPGs, and in The Realm Online (the first internet "MUD with pictures").
Because Netflix is something like 1/3rd of internet traffic. If you haven't worked on a standards committee this might not be obvious, but the point of a standard is to document what the big players are doing, so that the little guys can interoperate. It's a descriptive, not proscriptive, process. A standard that the major players don't actually follow is worthless, and a failure of the committee.
It's simple not the role or purpose of a standards committee to spout stuff like "we won't standardize X because we feel that X is bad". Heck, the ISO rules probably prohibit that sort of thing.
But HTML5 will in no way create more DRM than there would otherwise have been - all it does is recognize that that this is a common thing done over the web, and provide a standard way of doing it, albeit as a sort of plug-in architecture. Moving the DRM out of a large, exploitable general-purpose framework like Flash or Silverlight, and into a well-defined (and contained) DRM module is a solid win.
Yep, the rottenness in game journalism isn't about any one journalist, but about the high frequency of conflicts of interest: almost no "gaming" publication even has a formal ethics policy to rule that out in the first place (while e.g. every major newspaper does).
I've never seen any rage against female gamers. That's certainly not what "gamergate" was/is about: game journalism. Feminist (not necessarily female) journalists were the target of their ire.
Gender-issues aside for the moment, game journalism is rotten - financial and/or romantic relationships between game journalists and games publishers is normal. I hope that doesn't get lost in the noise about misogyny - even by the falling statanrds of journalism generally, blatant conflicts of interests are uncool.
I was amazed to learn, 10+ years ago, that the biggest demographic playing Everquest was middle-aged women, far more such gamers than teen males. From some chats with players (limited sample size, to be sure), there was a lot of appeal in having a social outlet outside the norm, where it was OK to be a geeky woman, with no social stigma in discussing geeky stuff in EQ chat (this was before there was anything cool about geeks).
EQ was fairly bad at putting the female characters in "slut-mail" (seriously, plate mail with a thong) and other design choices focused on teen males, but apparently that was a small downside in comparison.
Grrr. "play Netflix without crap". Can't seem to type today.
throwing a few bucks there way now and then count?
I bought a copy of the Mozilla browser once. Remember when?
It's all going to suck once all browsers are fully DRM complaint
Nothing will be worse for browsers being able to play Netflix crap like Flash or Silverlight. Flash especially needs to die the death.
I use Chrome, with all the DoNotTrackMe and Disconnect and Privacy Badger and https everywhere extensions enabled, am I still doing any favors for Google?
Pretty sure Chrome always sends every URL you type to Google, though it would be neat if you could disable that (in IE and FF you turn off the features that warn you of well-known attack sites). There are chromium ports that claim to be entirely evil-free, but I haven't looked into them as I just don't like Chrome's UI (or the recent FF). They might be great.
Gah! "Ideal we have never met".
All ideals are imaginary. It's great to strive for ideals, but you can't say things are getting worse because we're not meeting some ideal we have met. The realistic goal is incremental progress towards an ideal.
If you paid more attention to state legislatures, you'd be in a never-ending state of panic. There's no end of absolutely crazy crap proposed, and the state congrescritters seemingly oblivious to it, because it has no chance of ever going anywhere. That's the entire point of democracy, after all: the freedom to propose fringe ideas, to succeed or fail on the whim of the majority. It's absolutely the worst possible system of government (except for everything else that's ever been tried).
But it's not particularly alarming when there's a "hearing" on some stupid BS. Think of it as a safety blow-off valve for crazy.
I just hope Pale Moon starts keeping more current. Recent IEs are pretty good, but naturally Windows-only. I'm trying to live a Google-free life, so Chrome is out.