But it would take a LOT of skill to handle the character development, along with the angel attacks, along with the origin of NERV along with the ending.
And without that, the movie would probably be another Hollywood disaster. Just like the US version of Red Dwarf was.
NGE is complicated. If you broke it up and arranged it chronologically, it would be about Gendo on the mission that found the first angel which led to second impact which led to the development of the Evas which led to Yui's (Gendo's wife) death which led to Gendo hijacking the Human Instrumantality Project to re-unite him with his wife and being willing to sacrifice his son to do so.
Now, watch the series and compare Gendo's screen time with Shinji's. Shinji is the protagonist in the show. But everything happens because of Gendo.
I don't think Hollywood would be able to handle a story that complex. Instead, I think we'd get a standard boy-hero saves world movie.
I saw your post getting mod'ed up. That told me that there were idiots with mod points. So I title my post to annoy those idiots enough that they will use mod points pushing mine down. And it worked. Those idiots used up 2/5ths of their mod points here. Mission Accomplished.
Now, you had PREVIOUSLY stated, and let me quote you...
"...I just hadn't heard the whole story on DR DOS, and figured it'd be nice to know."
Now you claim....
"The DR-DOS thing, which I didn't know about (though I've heard of similar issues), is hardly important enough to be known by "anyone in the industry"."
So, you knew about it, but you didn't know about it.
Try to keep your story straight.
And it is important enough for anyone in this industry to have heard about. And there are NOT any "similar issues".
Unless you'd care to identify those "similar issues"?
You can claim it is trivia. But that doesn't make it so. Besides, you can't even keep straight what you claimed you knew, when you claimed you knew it and what you know claim you didn't know because it is "trivia".
Wow. And you also claimed to have worked for Netscape during that lawsuit. I would have thought that Microsoft's past anti-competitive actions would have been somewhat important to a current (then) anti-competitive case.
Again, try to keep your story straight.
Seeing as how there aren't any morons with mod points watching this thread, I won't waste any more time on it.
If we were discussing US history and you demanded that I provide a link showing that the US used to be a British colony, I'd think you were an idiot who didn't know anything about the subject.
Now you're trying to go from demanding a link on the DR-DOS stuff to claiming that you already knew about it.
If you already knew about it, why ask for a link?
Nope. You're an idiot who knows nothing about the subject and you got mod'ed up by other idiots with mod points. The same idiots who mod'ed me down. But that's how it goes sometimes.
The facts are that asked for a citation on the DR-DOS case. A case that SHOULD be well known to anyone with any background in this industry. -and- You asked for a citation on the Netscape vs Microsoft trial. That's even worse. EVERYONE should know about that. It was in all the papers and on all the news broadcasts.
It is my responsibility to support my points. That is true. -but- Back to the US history example. If you are so uninformed that I have to fill in basic facts for you, then whatever you might believe doesn't matter to me. You're an idiot just spouting off.
If you were discussing US history here, you'd have people demanding proof that the US used to be a British colony.
You are correct about their laws.
You are correct about documented instances of their treatment of women and girls.
Whether such can be said to apply to "all" of the "geeks" over there or not is meaningless to debate. Anyone can claim to not support what the "majority" supports. But very few of them oppose the majority enough to go to jail for their beliefs or to even risk social antagonism.
As long as those "geeks" are not personally throwing the stones at the women, or posting in their websites about how it is right that women should be treated that way, anyone can believe anything they want about what those "geeks" believe.
You're presenting facts, others are presenting what they believe those "geeks" believe. Both could be correct.
But people do respond to advertising. So why not limit the advertising of the stuff we know will make you fat and expand the advertising of stuff that is more healthy for you?
#1. No, DOS does NOT equal Windows. But Win95 was based on DOS 7. Check it out.
#2. You're reading/. and you don't know what google is? What's your IQ? 8? 7? Lower? www.google.com and put in DR-DOS and bogus and error message and windows. Or is that too hard for you?
#3. What's your IQ? 6? 5? Still lower? Again, check out google.com
Prove it? Don't you stay current with the industry? That's a real question. Do YOU know what is happening in the industry? I'm not going to trade posts with someone who will demand citations for every point I make that SHOULD be common knowledge amongst ANYONE with ANY familiarity with the background.
#1. You DID NOT KNOW about MS's bogus error message with DR-DOS. That may be understandable.
#2. You DID NOT KNOW about MS's trial regarding monopoly violations against Netscape. That is NOT understandable.
With #1 and #2, I don't think you know ANYTHING about this industry.
Combine that with your inability to utilize google to perform any RESEARCH on the subject and I think that you're a TROLL and that/. has some very stupid people with mod points.
"And the Apache vs. IIS argument is a bit silly - Apache isn't Linux, and IIS isn't Windows."
That's right. But IIS only runs on Windows. Yet IIS is still exploited more often than Apache. Despite IIS have less marketshare than Apache.
That portion was addressed to the parent's "If OSX, Linux, or whatever else were on top, do you honestly think there would be less vulnerabilities? I don't." statement.
I was showing that in a situation where an Open Source product had MORE MARKETSHARE than Microsoft's product, the Open Source product STILL HAD FEWER EXPLOITS.
So, why would anyone believe that if Linux had more desktop marketshare than Windows that Linux would have as many exploits as Windows?
"So no, there is no way to prove that Linux would be more secure."
Proof ONLY exists in mathematics.
I'm stating that IF Linux had more marketshare than Windows, THEN there would still be FEWER exploits for Linux than for Windows.
Exactly as is seen when comparing Apache with IIS.
"Writing an exploit for both is too hard for these script kiddies - there are two pieces to the puzzle - easiest screw with the most effect. That's Windows right now."
Nice try. You substituted "most effect" for "marketshare".
So, something with the "most effect" could still have lower marketshare.
Just as we see in the Apache vs IIS comparision that I made.
Oh, but that supports my position and contradicts your previous position.
#1. Microsoft WAS handed their monopoly. From IBM. Back when IBM licensed MS-DOS for the IBM PC.
#2. Check the DR-DOS history. See how Microsoft used bogus "error" messages against competitors.
#3. Check the Netscape trial. See how Microsoft used OEM contracts against competitors.
DUH! Did you MISS the part where Microsoft was found GUILTY of ILLEGAL LEVERAGING their MONOPOLY?
Yes, if Linux gained more desktop space there WOULD BE FEWER VULNERABILITIES. Just take a look at how much market share Apache has and compare the market share to web server vulnerablities that have been exploited. Specifically, how many IIS servers have been exploited.
And you WOULD make the news IF your exploit/virus/trojan/whatever could hit BOTH Windows and Linux boxes.
Get real. If all the factors were equal, we'd see a LOT more Apache exploits. There are over TWICE as many Apache sites as there are IIS sites.
Your beliefs do not seem to coincide with the facts of the real world.
There will be the first "Year of the Linux Desktop" (YotLD) in 2004, when corporations and various governments START to deploy Linux desktops.
2005 will be the YotLD when even more corporations and governments deploy Linux desktops because they see the savings that the 2004 crowd are getting.
2006 will be the YotLD when more home users start to migrate to Linux because they're using it at work AND the game manufacturers ship Linux versions along with the Windows versions.
2007 will be the YotLD....
2008 will be the YotLD...
2009...
2010 will be the YotLD when just about everyone is running Linux desktops or on whatever they use to do whatever it is they do then.
The few messages that get through that trigger the black hole effect.
The majority of the messages would stay on the sender's server and have to be dealt with by that admin.
Besides, this SHOULD hamper the sender's server as it tries again and again and again to connect to your server (which refuses every connection). All those unsuccessful threads will show down how much spam can be sent for a given time frame from that server.
Once you've established that some site is spamming you, it would be nice to have your server automatically NOT respond to ANY more traffic from that site for a variable length of time (1-10 minutes).
I wouldn't recommend dropping it forever, but it most likely an open-relay or spam-friendly ISP. Why even accept connections (and let them eat up your bandwidth) with their crap?
There'd be a problem with some sites like earthlink which seem to send me lots of spam at irregular intervals, but that's why a few minutes of "time out" should be enough to stop them. The mail will sit on their servers and their admins can deal with it.
TCO does NOT include migration costs (initial training and porting apps). (These are important factors and need to be addressed in the Return On Investment (ROI) calculations.)
TCO is NOT applicable between companies UNLESS they are practically identical (same number of techs with the same training managing the same number of servers with the same OS's running the same apps (not similar apps, the same apps) for the same number of users, connected in the same fashion (wireless, wired, VPN'd in, etc) using the same desktop OS, etc).
Usually, TCO will come down to human maintenance (and floor space, cooling, etc) and licensing costs.
Neither Migration Costs nor TCO take into account money lost when the server is DOWN!
Microsoft usually does the following: #1. Incorrectly includes training for other products as TCO instead of Migration.
#2. With #1., they do NOT include training on Microsoft products (assumes people already know it).
#3. Ends the "period" prior to the NEXT round of license expenses.
The Migration Costs (plus) the annual TCO (minus) downtime savings = $$$ You have to get from ROI.
TCO is MEANINGLESS when used by itself. -and- TCO is usually calculated incorrectly anyway.
The REAL issue with Open Source is the MIGRATION COST because so many people have apps that they depend upon that must be ported.
Which is why Microsoft does tries to confuse the issue with bogus TCO claims.
If you focus on the MIGRATION COSTS, you can handle them in smaller chunks over a longer period of time. Bit by bit, move your systems over to Open Source based servers and services.
That's the fun with statistics. You can slice them anyway you want to get the results you want.
So, there is a segment of the market that uses IIS more than Apache. Should we argue with that? Why?
Now, despite all those "amateurs" that are putting Apache on the Internet, Apache still has fewer worms, exploits, etc than IIS.
Which tells you that all those "amateurs" are: #1. Better qualified than those non-amateurs running IIS. #2. Running a better product. or #3. Just plain lucky, over and over and over again.
If you want to see what cars are popular, then why measure how much they carry each day?
If you calculate traffic, you slant the figures towards sites that do upload/download.
I think one of the *BSD's has the record for amount FTP'd in a 24-hour period. But if you're measuring HTTP traffic, that wouldn't be checked.
Nor all the rsync sites.
If you're looking for better stats, you should measure the number of unique connections and divide by the number of servers in that farm. That would give you a users-per-server number. But you'll never find out how many servers are in some of those farms.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be simple.
Put all the apps that they would use for work in a folder on their desktop.
Also, have all those apps open when they first log in.
When they log out, save all the information about those apps so they will appear EXACTLY THE SAME when the user logs in again.
Then, have the items that the user is ALLOWED to change in a different folder. Like backgrounds and themes and sounds and junk like that.
Everything else is locked down.
The user info is saved to a server so any machine that the user logs into will have the exact same desktop as the last machine.
This is VERY hard with Windows (unless you're running a Citrix desktop). But it should be very easy with Linux (all apps served from the servers).
I important part is getting them connected to the apps they need, seemlessly and reliably. Every time, every machine.
All the end user should NEED to know about the computer is how to turn it on and where the blinken lights are that show that it IS turned on.
Everything else should be covered by training on the applications that the company uses.
But it would take a LOT of skill to handle the character development, along with the angel attacks, along with the origin of NERV along with the ending.
And without that, the movie would probably be another Hollywood disaster. Just like the US version of Red Dwarf was.
NGE is complicated. If you broke it up and arranged it chronologically, it would be about Gendo on the mission that found the first angel which led to second impact which led to the development of the Evas which led to Yui's (Gendo's wife) death which led to Gendo hijacking the Human Instrumantality Project to re-unite him with his wife and being willing to sacrifice his son to do so.
Now, watch the series and compare Gendo's screen time with Shinji's. Shinji is the protagonist in the show. But everything happens because of Gendo.
I don't think Hollywood would be able to handle a story that complex. Instead, I think we'd get a standard boy-hero saves world movie.
I saw your post getting mod'ed up. That told me that there were idiots with mod points. So I title my post to annoy those idiots enough that they will use mod points pushing mine down. And it worked. Those idiots used up 2/5ths of their mod points here. Mission Accomplished.
Now, you had PREVIOUSLY stated, and let me quote you...
"...I just hadn't heard the whole story on DR DOS, and figured it'd be nice to know."
Now you claim....
"The DR-DOS thing, which I didn't know about (though I've heard of similar issues), is hardly important enough to be known by "anyone in the industry"."
So, you knew about it, but you didn't know about it.
Try to keep your story straight.
And it is important enough for anyone in this industry to have heard about. And there are NOT any "similar issues".
Unless you'd care to identify those "similar issues"?
You can claim it is trivia. But that doesn't make it so. Besides, you can't even keep straight what you claimed you knew, when you claimed you knew it and what you know claim you didn't know because it is "trivia".
Wow. And you also claimed to have worked for Netscape during that lawsuit. I would have thought that Microsoft's past anti-competitive actions would have been somewhat important to a current (then) anti-competitive case.
Again, try to keep your story straight.
Seeing as how there aren't any morons with mod points watching this thread, I won't waste any more time on it.
You should really read the moderator's guide.
If we were discussing US history and you demanded that I provide a link showing that the US used to be a British colony, I'd think you were an idiot who didn't know anything about the subject.
Now you're trying to go from demanding a link on the DR-DOS stuff to claiming that you already knew about it.
If you already knew about it, why ask for a link?
Nope. You're an idiot who knows nothing about the subject and you got mod'ed up by other idiots with mod points. The same idiots who mod'ed me down. But that's how it goes sometimes.
The facts are that asked for a citation on the DR-DOS case. A case that SHOULD be well known to anyone with any background in this industry.
-and-
You asked for a citation on the Netscape vs Microsoft trial. That's even worse. EVERYONE should know about that. It was in all the papers and on all the news broadcasts.
It is my responsibility to support my points. That is true.
-but-
Back to the US history example. If you are so uninformed that I have to fill in basic facts for you, then whatever you might believe doesn't matter to me. You're an idiot just spouting off.
In the same position as the name "Ray" and "Kate" is the "name" "Eva 01" on a different drawing.
If you were discussing US history here, you'd have people demanding proof that the US used to be a British colony.
You are correct about their laws.
You are correct about documented instances of their treatment of women and girls.
Whether such can be said to apply to "all" of the "geeks" over there or not is meaningless to debate. Anyone can claim to not support what the "majority" supports. But very few of them oppose the majority enough to go to jail for their beliefs or to even risk social antagonism.
As long as those "geeks" are not personally throwing the stones at the women, or posting in their websites about how it is right that women should be treated that way, anyone can believe anything they want about what those "geeks" believe.
You're presenting facts, others are presenting what they believe those "geeks" believe. Both could be correct.
On one side, you have their rulers, backed by the US military.
On a different side, you have the anti-US fundamentalists.
On a different side, you have pro-Democracy.
On a different side....
Opposing the rulers can get you labeled as an anti-US "terrorist" or an Islamic fundamentalist anti-US "terrorist" or just anti-government criminal.
Think about what the US's official reaction would be if these geeks decided to oppose the government.
But people do respond to advertising. So why not limit the advertising of the stuff we know will make you fat and expand the advertising of stuff that is more healthy for you?
"It's not a question of whether Linux vs. Windows on security is arguable or not, just whether it can be proven."
It can never be "proven" because there is no way to know that every possible bug has been found.
All that can be shown is statistical evidence.
#1. No, DOS does NOT equal Windows. But Win95 was based on DOS 7. Check it out.
/. and you don't know what google is? What's your IQ? 8? 7? Lower? www.google.com and put in DR-DOS and bogus and error message and windows. Or is that too hard for you?
/. has some very stupid people with mod points.
#2. You're reading
#3. What's your IQ? 6? 5? Still lower? Again, check out google.com
Prove it? Don't you stay current with the industry? That's a real question. Do YOU know what is happening in the industry? I'm not going to trade posts with someone who will demand citations for every point I make that SHOULD be common knowledge amongst ANYONE with ANY familiarity with the background.
#1. You DID NOT KNOW about MS's bogus error message with DR-DOS. That may be understandable.
#2. You DID NOT KNOW about MS's trial regarding monopoly violations against Netscape. That is NOT understandable.
With #1 and #2, I don't think you know ANYTHING about this industry.
Combine that with your inability to utilize google to perform any RESEARCH on the subject and I think that you're a TROLL and that
"And the Apache vs. IIS argument is a bit silly - Apache isn't Linux, and IIS isn't Windows."
That's right. But IIS only runs on Windows. Yet IIS is still exploited more often than Apache. Despite IIS have less marketshare than Apache.
That portion was addressed to the parent's "If OSX, Linux, or whatever else were on top, do you honestly think there would be less vulnerabilities? I don't." statement.
I was showing that in a situation where an Open Source product had MORE MARKETSHARE than Microsoft's product, the Open Source product STILL HAD FEWER EXPLOITS.
So, why would anyone believe that if Linux had more desktop marketshare than Windows that Linux would have as many exploits as Windows?
"So no, there is no way to prove that Linux would be more secure."
Proof ONLY exists in mathematics.
I'm stating that IF Linux had more marketshare than Windows, THEN there would still be FEWER exploits for Linux than for Windows.
Exactly as is seen when comparing Apache with IIS.
"Writing an exploit for both is too hard for these script kiddies - there are two pieces to the puzzle - easiest screw with the most effect. That's Windows right now."
Nice try. You substituted "most effect" for "marketshare".
So, something with the "most effect" could still have lower marketshare.
Just as we see in the Apache vs IIS comparision that I made.
Oh, but that supports my position and contradicts your previous position.
Seems that you lose. Too bad.
I said that IIS has MORE problems even though IIS has LESS marketshare.
#1. Microsoft WAS handed their monopoly. From IBM. Back when IBM licensed MS-DOS for the IBM PC.
#2. Check the DR-DOS history. See how Microsoft used bogus "error" messages against competitors.
#3. Check the Netscape trial. See how Microsoft used OEM contracts against competitors.
DUH! Did you MISS the part where Microsoft was found GUILTY of ILLEGAL LEVERAGING their MONOPOLY?
Yes, if Linux gained more desktop space there WOULD BE FEWER VULNERABILITIES. Just take a look at how much market share Apache has and compare the market share to web server vulnerablities that have been exploited. Specifically, how many IIS servers have been exploited.
And you WOULD make the news IF your exploit/virus/trojan/whatever could hit BOTH Windows and Linux boxes.
Get real. If all the factors were equal, we'd see a LOT more Apache exploits. There are over TWICE as many Apache sites as there are IIS sites.
Your beliefs do not seem to coincide with the facts of the real world.
There will be the first "Year of the Linux Desktop" (YotLD) in 2004, when corporations and various governments START to deploy Linux desktops.
....
...
2005 will be the YotLD when even more corporations and governments deploy Linux desktops because they see the savings that the 2004 crowd are getting.
2006 will be the YotLD when more home users start to migrate to Linux because they're using it at work AND the game manufacturers ship Linux versions along with the Windows versions.
2007 will be the YotLD
2008 will be the YotLD...
2009
2010 will be the YotLD when just about everyone is running Linux desktops or on whatever they use to do whatever it is they do then.
The few messages that get through that trigger the black hole effect.
The majority of the messages would stay on the sender's server and have to be dealt with by that admin.
Besides, this SHOULD hamper the sender's server as it tries again and again and again to connect to your server (which refuses every connection). All those unsuccessful threads will show down how much spam can be sent for a given time frame from that server.
Once you've established that some site is spamming you, it would be nice to have your server automatically NOT respond to ANY more traffic from that site for a variable length of time (1-10 minutes).
I wouldn't recommend dropping it forever, but it most likely an open-relay or spam-friendly ISP. Why even accept connections (and let them eat up your bandwidth) with their crap?
There'd be a problem with some sites like earthlink which seem to send me lots of spam at irregular intervals, but that's why a few minutes of "time out" should be enough to stop them. The mail will sit on their servers and their admins can deal with it.
But having a division at IBM running on Linux mean a lot more than all the talk in the world.
And how IBM deals with those Windows apps will help their customers determine whether migrating is the right idea right now.
If IBM won't switch off of Windows, that doesn't inspire much confidence in their customers.
And sales is all about confidence.
Even if they only have one or two divisions or sub-divisions running on it, they will find out EXACTLY what the benefits and deficiencies are.
It's easier to sell something to someone if you already use and prefer the product.
TCO does NOT include migration costs (initial training and porting apps). (These are important factors and need to be addressed in the Return On Investment (ROI) calculations.)
TCO is NOT applicable between companies UNLESS they are practically identical (same number of techs with the same training managing the same number of servers with the same OS's running the same apps (not similar apps, the same apps) for the same number of users, connected in the same fashion (wireless, wired, VPN'd in, etc) using the same desktop OS, etc).
Usually, TCO will come down to human maintenance (and floor space, cooling, etc) and licensing costs.
Neither Migration Costs nor TCO take into account money lost when the server is DOWN!
Microsoft usually does the following:
#1. Incorrectly includes training for other products as TCO instead of Migration.
#2. With #1., they do NOT include training on Microsoft products (assumes people already know it).
#3. Ends the "period" prior to the NEXT round of license expenses.
The Migration Costs (plus) the annual TCO (minus) downtime savings = $$$ You have to get from ROI.
TCO is MEANINGLESS when used by itself.
-and-
TCO is usually calculated incorrectly anyway.
The REAL issue with Open Source is the MIGRATION COST because so many people have apps that they depend upon that must be ported.
Which is why Microsoft does tries to confuse the issue with bogus TCO claims.
If you focus on the MIGRATION COSTS, you can handle them in smaller chunks over a longer period of time. Bit by bit, move your systems over to Open Source based servers and services.
If the laptops contain a certain chip, why not label the laptop as containing that chip?
Why label the laptop in such a way as to give the impression that it contains a different chip?
If they labeled them correctly, none of the expenses you mentioned would occure.
WHY do they have a problem with labeling the equipment CORRECTLY?
WHY even play this kind of game when you should KNOW that you'll annoy some of your customers with it?
Leaving aside all their claims...
Why not label it with what it actually contains?
Is there some reason for them to label it that way?
I can see how people would be upset when what they purchased does NOT contain what it seems to have claimed on the package.
Is there some reason to risk annoying your customers when you could just label your product so that they CLEARLY understand what it contains?
That's the fun with statistics. You can slice them anyway you want to get the results you want.
So, there is a segment of the market that uses IIS more than Apache. Should we argue with that? Why?
Now, despite all those "amateurs" that are putting Apache on the Internet, Apache still has fewer worms, exploits, etc than IIS.
Which tells you that all those "amateurs" are:
#1. Better qualified than those non-amateurs running IIS.
#2. Running a better product.
or
#3. Just plain lucky, over and over and over again.
If you want to see what cars are popular, then why measure how much they carry each day?
If you calculate traffic, you slant the figures towards sites that do upload/download.
I think one of the *BSD's has the record for amount FTP'd in a 24-hour period. But if you're measuring HTTP traffic, that wouldn't be checked.
Nor all the rsync sites.
If you're looking for better stats, you should measure the number of unique connections and divide by the number of servers in that farm. That would give you a users-per-server number. But you'll never find out how many servers are in some of those farms.
Talk up something you have absolutely no funding for.
Then, when your opponents hold the White House, you can yap about how THEY killed this project.
I think the Democrats should get behind this project 100% but that they should demand that funding for it be specified and earmarked.
We can't pay for a moon/Mars trip without funding and we don't get the funding without taxes.
If the taxes won't support it, then we can't do it until we get some more taxes.
I know many people will not read the documentation so I'm posting it here.
You need module-init-tools with the 2.6.x series.