If X percent of your users have a given system, than only X percent of your whole system can go down.
Now, this would necessitate the use of open standard or at least multiplatform systems (e.g. StarOffice or *god forbid* pure HTML for word processing).
I don't see too much difficulty sharing documents with that type of issue in place.
An apache beta under NT did a better job than IIS and the real thing under linux is a joy. It will get much better soon, now that the thundering herd problem has been proven and killed.
It never got in for a couple reasons, the primary being that (ahem) the GGI DEVELOPERS weren't ready for it to go in. The second being that FB devices made it in. So, gee, now GGI is giving FB devices accelleration. What the hell's wrong with that?
FBI, U.S. Dept of Justice biannual studies...
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
on violent crime in the United States.
I trust them more than the CDC. The CDC may know a thing or two about the flu, but they are not in criminal justice.
It's very obvious you don't know how RAID 5 works.
First, yes it's an XOR (at least you got that right). However, reading takes just over x+1/x amount the time of reading from a RAID 1 set. Just over being the time it takes to do an XOR and comparison.
Writing, however, takes x+1/x amount the time as it takes to write to a true RAID 0 (aka striped, no parity) set. Again, the extra time is the time it takes to calculate the parity (XORing is very cheap, in fact, on the i386 set, xor ax,ax is faster than move ax,0).
RAID 0 is striping. In fact, RAID 0 will speed up writes and reads if it is implemented correctly. Many companies don't do this and simply create a volume set so the 2nd and later drives don't get written to until the first is full.
RAID 1 is mirroring. That means everything you write to drive 1 gets written to drive 2 and drive 3 and drive 4, etc. That's X copies getting written where X is equal to the number of drives.
RAID 5 is striping with striped parity. Unlike RAID 4 which places a bottleneck on the parity drive, RAID 5 spreads the parity across all drives. Parity calculation is often done very fast in hardware, like on those *hardware* RAID controllers.
Now you've just gotten almost an hour worth of CS lecture in 3 paragraphs. If I have to do that again, I'm going to bill you.
RAID 4 is the dog-ass-slow write performance because there is only one parity disk. RAID 5 is striped parity with the pairity bits hitting each disk. It is slightly slower than a single drive for writing, but significantly faster than mirrored drives (the slowest write of all RAID systems).
RAID 5 is the 2nd fastest reading system (losing only RAID 1 across an equal number of disks and, for example, 5 disk RAID 5 is basically equal reading to 4 disk RAID 1).
If you have hardware RAID like these servers, then you're not going to notice anything with write speed.
Sometimes it really is as simple as it looks.
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
media is innocent?: The arguement: "there is no evidence on the net or in the media".. what planet are those epole from. These people who make those arguements typically are not psychologists or have a damn degree on the topic. If they did they would know at that age 2-17 the child/kid is heavily influenced by the surroundings. If the media is guilty, then by that logic teen violence should be up dramatically. It isn't. Teen violence is at the lowest levels since the depression era (as in, lower than in the shiny, happy 1950's).
Why do you think they dress a certain way. Why do you think the trenchcoat mafia crap came from. They were glamorized by the mafia in the media, thought it was cool and wore trench coats after seeing a few movies with school violence. Thay wanted to fit in and be noticed so they tried to talk about violent acts to be cool and get noticed. When people laughed at them,since they were not respected they eventually got to the heads and went on a rampage.. Whatever. This is simply absurd. Again, I point out that there is less teen violence now. If violence is being glorified in movies and on TV, then why is violence DOWN?
media will never admit to that. They do nto want to get sued, like natural born killers did. They say "we only replicate real life".. really, I never saw that many things happen to a real person as I see on tv or video. No, but you realize it's entertainment. What a novel concept: teach a child the difference between movies and reality. Perhaps you should consider that next time.
Next time you watch tv count how may times you see a pro military image of a jet or tank, shooting, explosions, car chase, or fight, and tell me its not influencing anybody... If it's influencing people, then obviously it's influencing them not to commit violence. After all, teen violence is at its lowest levels since the depression era.
Unless you have some credentials to back that rather revisionist history up, please cease distributing it.
The other annoyance you forgot to mention was the lawsuit Microsoft placed on Stac for using undocumented features reverse engineered from doublespace. Woops, so much for the law protecting you from reverse engineering for compatibility.
So 90% market share is a monopoly? What about in a very small industry, that cannot support more than a couple of companies? Or in a brand new market that has as yet only one producer? Or in the case of a company whose competition is grossly incompetent? None of these standards can be written into law in a reasonable way. That is my point: basing law on the concept of "monopoly" is extremely arbitrary and makes the system ripe for abuse. Next time you quote me, please include everything I say which is relevant to the discussion. I said: The only way to define ANYTHING as a monopoly is through market share coupled with market pressure the company can exert. Microsoft has a 90-percent marketshare of the desktop systems (where the case is being tried). They have enormous capability to basically draft new standards for the market and have them become de facto standards You left out the bold part. Yes, the law is inexact. It should be trivial to prove that a company is grossly incompetent. In fact, all Microsoft has to do is show how it is truely innovating. It isn't. It buys out companies and integrates, but does not innovate.
On rights not being revoked by the majority
uh? The rights of corporations are? I certainly don't think so. And you're correct. The problem is Microsoft blatantly violated several sections of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. They are being punished for violation of the law.
As for the marriage example, you are right that limited liability makes the marriage different from a corporation. But I don't think that this is the least bit relevant to the question of whether it has rights. You brought up a stupid analogy and I called you on it. What's the problem?
The argument I have heard (yours may be different) is that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights. No, they have whatever rights the government chooses to give them since they are only entities in the eyes of the governing. A corporation isn't a tangible "thing" or self-conscious entity. It is a legal twist. That is all.
This applies equally to marriages. It applies to marriages but not to the participants of a marriage. There is a difference. Just because you incorporate your business doesn't mean you give up your rights as a person. You, in fact, gain several legal protections.
And if you don't believe that married couple have joint property, then why is there always a lengthy procedure during a divorce to decide who-gets-what? If the property was seperate, they could go their seperate ways immediately. I didn't say that. I said the "marriage" doesn't own any property. The two people who partake in marriage still own the property under a specific legal ownership description. There is a fundamental difference that should be clear from the above wording.
I don't remember for sure if this is the argument you made. If you were making a different argument, please correct me. But the essential feature of a corporation in terms of rights--that it is a ficticious entity comprised of more than one individual--applies equally to both marriages and corporations. I don't see what the connection is between limited liability and the lack of rights of corporations. No, again, it doesn't. You are confusing the legal entity of a corporation with the rights of the two people who have made a legal contract called marriage.
The people in a marriage gain some specific rights in return for the contract they have undertaken. If they break the contract, i.e. by annual or divorce, they lose those rights. Very simple. Marriage does not create a legal entity. It allows Mary to speak on behalf of John in some specific circumstances, but the union MaryAndJohn does not exist. MaryAndJohn is not a specific legal entity. Mary is a legal entity. John is a legal entity. Mary and John together gain some benefits from the government.
Contrast this to corporations where Ybox Corp is a legal entity. Ybox Corp can be sued as an entity (Mary and John can be sued together, but you cannot sue the entity MaryAndJohn). Ybox Corp shields its owners from damage (MaryAndJohn provides no protection to either member). Ybox Corp is not a natural entity (Mary and John both exist independent of whether or not the government gives them a slip of paper saying they're married), nor is it made up of natural entities (it is owned by them, but that is a different issue). Ybox Corp is a governmental construct.
Yes, it must be shown the consumer was harmed. HOWEVER, all remedies go to helping competitors under the assumption that more competitors is better for the consumer.
With Applixware (non-GPL), the RedBaron WWW browser (non-GPL and dead because of it), and Metro-X (non-GPL and not that much better than XFree). You are talking future tense, and I maintain that RedHat has already crossed this line, of releasing other-than-public-software. And they're contributing to GNOME for the hell of it and releasing the code under the (L)GPL as fits. You seem to forget that all the commercial distributers do similar things, just RedHat is the biggest one and the one most (currently) dedicated towards doing things the (L)GPLed way.
And this is not a problem? It is a very bad thing to arbitrarily deprive a company of its rights because their market share is too high. "Monopoly" is a very fuzzy concept. Technically, Microsoft does not have a monopoly, it has a number of competitors. The only way to define MS as a monopoly is to define some market share threshhold, but then we are using demographics to decide companies' rights, which is a very scary concept. The only way to define ANYTHING as a monopoly is through market share coupled with market pressure the company can exert. Microsoft has a 90-percent marketshare of the desktop systems (where the case is being tried). They have enormous capability to basically draft new standards for the market and have them become de facto standards
So what? If I were to invent an immortality pill and a transporter, would I lose my rights? I could live 140 years, I could be on 5 continents nearly simultaneously, and you couldn't keep me in jail. And this is a problem for everyone else. There is now, no way to punish you for violation of others rights.
But seriously, the rights of corporations are not new rights, and they do not literally lie with the corporation, since the corporation is not a physical entity. The rights of a corporation are only an extension of the rights of its members. Nothing more, nothing less. Wrong again, bucko. The rights of a corporation have to be less than the rights of a citizen. This is because, in the USofA (where Microsoft is incorporated), the rights of the individuals are not supposed to be revolked merely at the whim of the majority.
Not the legal status of a person. Look at marriage. A marriage has many of the characteristics of a corporation: special tax laws, joint property, the ability to be on two continents at once, etc. Does this mean that a marriage is a "ficticious entity" that cannot own property or have free speech rights? If a couple is arrested for something, does the court have an unlimited right to fine them, since their property is owned by a "ficticious entity?" The issue is exactly the same. The same arguments can be made about churches, schools, governments, social clubs, universities, unions, etc. Groups get their right from the rights of the individuals who make up that group. Actually, that is blatantly false. The closest thing marriage is to any business enterprise is that of a partnership. The property is owned by each member of the marriage whereas in a corporation members (i.e. stockholders) are generally immune from having their personal assets seized in the event of bankrupcy. Contrast this to a partnership or marriage where the members can be directly sued and fined by the courts and forced to pay out of their own pocket. The remainder of your rant about marriage being like a corporation is equally off-base.
The only other thing you came remotely close to was that governments get their rights by what the citizens give them. This is always true, but sometimes the "giving" involves force.
Microsoft is being charged with abuse of a monopoly. The primary case is being built on the Navigator/Internet Explorer issue because that is the most obvious.
Microsoft is in a monopoly position. Netscape came to the field and was making roughly eighty percent of their money off Netscape Navigator. Microsoft, by the internal e-mail statements of head operational officers, wanted to destroy Netscape. Their method for doing so was to dump Internet Explorer on the public and choke Netscape's browser revenues. This is illegal. It's called product dumping and most of the U.S. was furious when Japan did that to us. It's no different here except the dumper is the poster boy for American Capitalism.
An older PC Week article had a showdown between several web servers. On CGI, Apache on RH Linux beat everyone but Apache on a dual processor Solaris box. The problem was, the PC Week guys couldn't figure out how to compile the kernel for multi-processors (actually useful for CGI rather than plain static pages). Static pages, the RH/Apache solution performed almost identical to IIS.
Slashdot Mirror
Using age as a disqualifier?
Someone who's 50 has a chance to have 30+ years experience in the field. Let's see you, hot shot 25 year old, have 30 years experience.
Same situation, really.
Woops, got that wrong. :)
If X percent of your users have a given system, than only X percent of your whole system can go down.
Now, this would necessitate the use of open standard or at least multiplatform systems (e.g. StarOffice or *god forbid* pure HTML for word processing).
I don't see too much difficulty sharing documents with that type of issue in place.
An apache beta under NT did a better job than IIS and the real thing under linux is a joy.
It will get much better soon, now that the thundering herd problem has been proven and killed.
If I am wrong, it should be trivial to correct me. No one has.
You lose.
It never got in for a couple reasons, the primary being that (ahem) the GGI DEVELOPERS weren't ready for it to go in. The second being that FB devices made it in. So, gee, now GGI is giving FB devices accelleration. What the hell's wrong with that?
I trust them more than the CDC. The CDC may know a thing or two about the flu, but they are not in criminal justice.
It's very obvious you don't know how RAID 5 works.
First, yes it's an XOR (at least you got that right). However, reading takes just over x+1/x amount the time of reading from a RAID 1 set. Just over being the time it takes to do an XOR and comparison.
Writing, however, takes x+1/x amount the time as it takes to write to a true RAID 0 (aka striped, no parity) set. Again, the extra time is the time it takes to calculate the parity (XORing is very cheap, in fact, on the i386 set, xor ax,ax is faster than move ax,0).
So, again, what was that?
RAID 0 is striping. In fact, RAID 0 will speed up writes and reads if it is implemented correctly. Many companies don't do this and simply create a volume set so the 2nd and later drives don't get written to until the first is full.
RAID 1 is mirroring. That means everything you write to drive 1 gets written to drive 2 and drive 3 and drive 4, etc. That's X copies getting written where X is equal to the number of drives.
RAID 5 is striping with striped parity. Unlike RAID 4 which places a bottleneck on the parity drive, RAID 5 spreads the parity across all drives. Parity calculation is often done very fast in hardware, like on those *hardware* RAID controllers.
Now you've just gotten almost an hour worth of CS lecture in 3 paragraphs. If I have to do that again, I'm going to bill you.
They had a god-awefully small StartServers and MaxServers line as well as a MaxSpareServers 1. They also ran apache out of inetd.
They did *NOT* tune apache upward.
Each disk you throw in slows your writing down a lot. Not so with RAID 5.
RAID 4 is the dog-ass-slow write performance because there is only one parity disk. RAID 5 is striped parity with the pairity bits hitting each disk. It is slightly slower than a single drive for writing, but significantly faster than mirrored drives (the slowest write of all RAID systems).
RAID 5 is the 2nd fastest reading system (losing only RAID 1 across an equal number of disks and, for example, 5 disk RAID 5 is basically equal reading to 4 disk RAID 1).
If you have hardware RAID like these servers, then you're not going to notice anything with write speed.
The arguement: "there is no evidence on the net or in the media".. what planet are those epole from. These people who make those arguements typically are not psychologists or have a damn degree on the topic. If they did they would know at that age 2-17 the child/kid is heavily influenced by the surroundings.
If the media is guilty, then by that logic teen violence should be up dramatically. It isn't. Teen violence is at the lowest levels since the depression era (as in, lower than in the shiny, happy 1950's).
Why do you think they dress a certain way. Why do you think the trenchcoat mafia crap came from. ,since they were not respected they eventually got to the heads and went on a rampage..
They were glamorized by the mafia in the media, thought it was cool and wore trench coats after seeing a few movies with school violence. Thay wanted to fit in and be noticed so they tried to talk about violent acts to be cool and get noticed. When people laughed at them
Whatever. This is simply absurd. Again, I point out that there is less teen violence now. If violence is being glorified in movies and on TV, then why is violence DOWN?
media will never admit to that. They do nto want to get sued, like natural born killers did. They say "we only replicate real life".. really, I never saw that many things happen to a real person as I see on tv or video.
No, but you realize it's entertainment. What a novel concept: teach a child the difference between movies and reality. Perhaps you should consider that next time.
Next time you watch tv count how may times you see a pro military image of a jet or tank, shooting, explosions, car chase, or fight, and tell me its not influencing anybody...
If it's influencing people, then obviously it's influencing them not to commit violence. After all, teen violence is at its lowest levels since the depression era.
Unless you have some credentials to back that rather revisionist history up, please cease distributing it.
The other annoyance you forgot to mention was the lawsuit Microsoft placed on Stac for using undocumented features reverse engineered from doublespace. Woops, so much for the law protecting you from reverse engineering for compatibility.
So 90% market share is a monopoly? What about in a very small industry, that cannot support more than a couple of companies? Or in a brand new market that has as yet only one producer? Or in the case of a company whose competition is grossly incompetent? None of these standards can be written into law in a reasonable way. That is my point: basing law on the concept of "monopoly" is extremely arbitrary and makes the system ripe for abuse.
Next time you quote me, please include everything I say which is relevant to the discussion. I said:
The only way to define ANYTHING as a monopoly is through market share coupled with market pressure the company can exert. Microsoft has a 90-percent marketshare of the desktop systems (where the case is being tried). They have enormous capability to basically draft new standards for the market and have them become de facto standards
You left out the bold part. Yes, the law is inexact. It should be trivial to prove that a company is grossly incompetent. In fact, all Microsoft has to do is show how it is truely innovating. It isn't. It buys out companies and integrates, but does not innovate.
On rights not being revoked by the majority
uh? The rights of corporations are? I certainly don't think so.
And you're correct. The problem is Microsoft blatantly violated several sections of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. They are being punished for violation of the law.
As for the marriage example, you are right that limited liability makes the marriage different from a corporation. But I don't think that this is the least bit relevant to the question of whether it has rights.
You brought up a stupid analogy and I called you on it. What's the problem?
The argument I have heard (yours may be different) is that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights.
No, they have whatever rights the government chooses to give them since they are only entities in the eyes of the governing. A corporation isn't a tangible "thing" or self-conscious entity. It is a legal twist. That is all.
This applies equally to marriages.
It applies to marriages but not to the participants of a marriage. There is a difference. Just because you incorporate your business doesn't mean you give up your rights as a person. You, in fact, gain several legal protections.
And if you don't believe that married couple have joint property, then why is there always a lengthy procedure during a divorce to decide who-gets-what? If the property was seperate, they could go their seperate ways immediately.
I didn't say that. I said the "marriage" doesn't own any property. The two people who partake in marriage still own the property under a specific legal ownership description. There is a fundamental difference that should be clear from the above wording.
I don't remember for sure if this is the argument you made. If you were making a different argument, please correct me. But the essential feature of a corporation in terms of rights--that it is a ficticious entity comprised of more than one individual--applies equally to both marriages and corporations. I don't see what the connection is between limited liability and the lack of rights of corporations.
No, again, it doesn't. You are confusing the legal entity of a corporation with the rights of the two people who have made a legal contract called marriage.
The people in a marriage gain some specific rights in return for the contract they have undertaken. If they break the contract, i.e. by annual or divorce, they lose those rights. Very simple. Marriage does not create a legal entity. It allows Mary to speak on behalf of John in some specific circumstances, but the union MaryAndJohn does not exist. MaryAndJohn is not a specific legal entity. Mary is a legal entity. John is a legal entity. Mary and John together gain some benefits from the government.
Contrast this to corporations where Ybox Corp is a legal entity. Ybox Corp can be sued as an entity (Mary and John can be sued together, but you cannot sue the entity MaryAndJohn). Ybox Corp shields its owners from damage (MaryAndJohn provides no protection to either member). Ybox Corp is not a natural entity (Mary and John both exist independent of whether or not the government gives them a slip of paper saying they're married), nor is it made up of natural entities (it is owned by them, but that is a different issue). Ybox Corp is a governmental construct.
Yes, it must be shown the consumer was harmed. HOWEVER, all remedies go to helping competitors under the assumption that more competitors is better for the consumer.
With Applixware (non-GPL), the RedBaron WWW browser (non-GPL and dead because of it), and Metro-X (non-GPL and not that much better than XFree).
You are talking future tense, and I maintain that RedHat has already crossed this line, of releasing other-than-public-software.
And they're contributing to GNOME for the hell of it and releasing the code under the (L)GPL as fits. You seem to forget that all the commercial distributers do similar things, just RedHat is the biggest one and the one most (currently) dedicated towards doing things the (L)GPLed way.
The purpose of Anti-Trust Law is to help competitors with the belief that a thriving competition will help consumers.
The only way to define ANYTHING as a monopoly is through market share coupled with market pressure the company can exert. Microsoft has a 90-percent marketshare of the desktop systems (where the case is being tried). They have enormous capability to basically draft new standards for the market and have them become de facto standards
So what? If I were to invent an immortality pill and a transporter, would I lose my rights? I could live 140 years, I could be on 5 continents nearly simultaneously, and you couldn't keep me in jail.
And this is a problem for everyone else. There is now, no way to punish you for violation of others rights.
But seriously, the rights of corporations are not new rights, and they do not literally lie with the corporation, since the corporation is not a physical entity. The rights of a corporation are only an extension of the rights of its members. Nothing more, nothing less.
Wrong again, bucko. The rights of a corporation have to be less than the rights of a citizen. This is because, in the USofA (where Microsoft is incorporated), the rights of the individuals are not supposed to be revolked merely at the whim of the majority.
Not the legal status of a person. Look at marriage. A marriage has many of the characteristics of a corporation: special tax laws, joint property, the ability to be on two continents at once, etc. Does this mean that a marriage is a "ficticious entity" that cannot own property or have free speech rights? If a couple is arrested for something, does the court have an unlimited right to fine them, since their property is owned by a "ficticious entity?" The issue is exactly the same. The same arguments can be made about churches, schools, governments, social clubs, universities, unions, etc. Groups get their right from the rights of the individuals who make up that group.
Actually, that is blatantly false. The closest thing marriage is to any business enterprise is that of a partnership. The property is owned by each member of the marriage whereas in a corporation members (i.e. stockholders) are generally immune from having their personal assets seized in the event of bankrupcy. Contrast this to a partnership or marriage where the members can be directly sued and fined by the courts and forced to pay out of their own pocket. The remainder of your rant about marriage being like a corporation is equally off-base.
The only other thing you came remotely close to was that governments get their rights by what the citizens give them. This is always true, but sometimes the "giving" involves force.
Abusing it is not.
Microsoft is being charged with abuse of a monopoly. The primary case is being built on the Navigator/Internet Explorer issue because that is the most obvious.
Microsoft is in a monopoly position. Netscape came to the field and was making roughly eighty percent of their money off Netscape Navigator. Microsoft, by the internal e-mail statements of head operational officers, wanted to destroy Netscape. Their method for doing so was to dump Internet Explorer on the public and choke Netscape's browser revenues. This is illegal. It's called product dumping and most of the U.S. was furious when Japan did that to us. It's no different here except the dumper is the poster boy for American Capitalism.
Just remember your words should you be on the creation end of a parody.
(Ben from IWE)
An older PC Week article had a showdown between several web servers. On CGI, Apache on RH Linux beat everyone but Apache on a dual processor Solaris box. The problem was, the PC Week guys couldn't figure out how to compile the kernel for multi-processors (actually useful for CGI rather than plain static pages). Static pages, the RH/Apache solution performed almost identical to IIS.