It is all acting anyway, so what difference does it make if it is enhanced by music, sound effects, lighting effects, CGI, or Photoshop? Who cares? Do we complain when we hear those fake fight sounds? You do know that a fist hitting a face in real life doesn't make a loud "crack" sound, right? It is usually more of a dull thud. But that just doesn't go over very well on film. Hell, why not complain that the actors aren't really hitting each other!?
Now, if it were a documentary or something where I might expect to get something resembling reality, then I might be worried, but movies are all about fooling my mind into feeling (for the duration of the film) that they are real. Blood Diamond was a pretty good movie if you ask me. I love Jennifer Connelly, digital tears an all.
But the color temperature is still pretty harsh. I use the lights in select areas of my home, but not everywhere. Some places just demand warm lighting. I wonder how much is just what i've become used to though. Or if there is really an objective (that is, universal) preference for warm, incandescent lighting.
The day glorified program loaders (DOS isn't really much of an OS) become sentient is the day that... um... it is the day that programs get loaded without requesting them first.. or something. Seriously, I can't think of anything frightening about that scenerio. I mean, most DOS installations don't even have internet access. What is it going to do, infect all those floppy disks you use so often and spread around your basement?
Using multiple package formats is great idea, IMO.
That is until you find that all the apps you used alien to install break when you do apt-get dist-upgrade.
I dunno, I always found that the biggest advantage of using Linux was sticking to a single package system with all apps linked to a single (or small group) of repositories that are kept up to date and provide a relatively smooth upgrade path. Once you start installing packages from other distribution and compiling your own, things become a pain in the ass real quick. This is one of the reasons I always hated using proprietary *nix systems like Solaris (well, Solaris 6/7 anyway). You'd build this great system with all kinds of custom compiled packages (because the base system was virtually useless on its own) then 2 or 3 years later you just wept at the prospect of remembering all the obscure options you used to build stuff and all the interdependencies.
And then there are security updates. If you're not linked to a managed repository, you coudl easily end up with an out of date system that is full of security holes.
Hey, maybe you can use the head differential between the air conditioned inside and the out outdoors to generate eletricity!
Seriously though, I wonder what the limits are to this. Like, could you use this on solar panels (behind the solar cells) to suppliment the normal solar electricity generation? The cells only convert, what, 5% of the light to electricity. I'm sure the panels get hot. Hot enough to drive this new tech?
I'm not sure if it is new, but I've noticed that a lot of software vendors totally bloat the hardware requirements for their software. For example, our small college (300+ enrolled students) is looking to purchase PowerCampus. The "recommended" specs for this is like 4 servers, 3 database and one application, each with multiple RAID arrays. To a total of some 20+ disks. The actual data storage requirements are somewhere around 4 GB total. Though I'd be surprised if it was even that much. I mean, how much data can your store about several hundred students? What the fuck? I guess they just have a "one size fits all" approach to hardware recommendation, but geez. We're not talking about a high traffic website here. Just student data management. Maybe 5 staff on it at any given time and perhaps a few students hitting it now and then to check stuff.
I did find a "consolidated" recommendation and got it down to 2 servers. But they still wanted like 3 separate RAID arrays. I guess we can do whatever we want, but it makes me wonder if their software is any good (efficient/effective) with these kinds of specs.
Yeah, it is based on Microsoft, so what what you will about bloat, but this is just silly. I can only assume that other companies are doing stuff like this.... get a little cash and throw hardware at a solution and hope that preempts any performance problems.
Even if humans make the choice to be evil, God created the capacity for evil (or so a non-atheist would believe). He also supposedly created the rules for what is considered good or evil.
Right, the *potential* for evil was there, but as far as I can tell Adam and Even were the ones to bring it into actuality. Acording the Genesis, God created the world... and it was "good."
What I'm getting that a "natural" world, without good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, would appear to be the ideal situation. Why continue to encourage a world where good fights evil and everyone suffers for it?
The other major connection is that a "natural" world means a world without a purpose. A "natural" world means a world without right and wrong. Without good and evil.
But isn't that basically what Eden was?
God gives us a world where good people are good, bad people are evil, and there is a purpose for all of it.
No, God (according to Genesis) gave us a world with no good people and no bad people and no (as far as I can tell) purpose. Seems to me that *humans* were the ones who created such a world by disobeying God.
Of course, I don't believe any of that actually happened, but it makes for interesting mythology.
They hate the fact that evolution justifies everything they hate, from moral relativism to sexual promiscuity. Evolution is just the touchstone.
No, they hate the idea that evolution seems like it could justify those things. The fact is that evolutiton doesn't justify anything. It EXPLAINs things. There is a big difference. No scientific theory justifies. It merely explains. For example, If I say that humans are promiscious because such is an evolutionary advantage, that in no way justifies it. It just explains why some people might have an inclination to be promiscuous.
But even that as an explanation it is sketchy. I can think of a lot of reasons why promiscuity would be an evolutionary disadvantage. Sexuually transmitted disease being the big one. Also, children aren't going to survive as well without a stable family (at least back in the day) The most reliable and safest way to have many children (and have them survive) is to be monogamous (or nearly so) and have a single partner who churns out the babies. At least that is one way of looking at it.
So ultimately that are even mistaken about evolution's supposed moral implications.
That's the problem with Creationism. You just can't tell which is satire and which is th real deal.
I did take the time to sit through the whole thing, and I find the ending conclusion most interesting. Is this guy claiming that Bush, a supposed evangelical Christian, is the anti-christ holding a position at the supposed center of all evil in the world? Normally these creationist try to show how scientists are evil, but this guy went right for the current whitehouse occupants. WTF? Makes me believe that it might be satire. But who knows.
You're free to stick your head in the sand and ignore risks, but some industries (such as banking) don't have that option.
But first you have to identify the risks. The real problem (as far as bandwidth goes) with having lots of telecommuters is the business 'net connection, not the 'net as a whole. So it comes down to individual businesses, not some kind of global public scare that the internet will "choke." Just some people won't have very good access to the office because the office wasn't prepared. But I would be much more worried about how telecommuting will affect business in general. Like a lot of jobs really can't be done effectively from home. I mean, telecommuting is fine if all you normally do is edit documents and stay on the phone. But some people actually have to get around the office and meet with other people, deliver items, do manual labor, etc.
If we assume that they will, for the most part, actually be, WORKING at home, how much bandwidth do people need? Copy a couple Word documents over the VPN? POP their email ever 2 minutes? These things are are NOTHING compared to things like Bittorrent during peak hours.
I keep seeing comments like this getting modded up and the question I want to ask is: How do you know?
How do I know what? That telcommuters don't use much bandwidth? Maybe because I support them? Because I know what they do over the VPN. Even Terminal Services/Citrix doesn't use that much. At least compared to bittorrent. Also, it is local traffic. So none of it goes very far outside local ISPs who often have peering agreement and/or are hosted in teh same facilities anyway.
We're talking about the gobs of data that normally flies around corporate LANs and never sees the outside world.
Usage pattern change when your connection is limited to broadband. In many cases people would just use Terminal Services or Citrix or the like. While not ideal as far as bandwidth usage goes, it also isn't a 'net killer. Again, not as bad as bittorrent. If the 'net can handle current peak usage, I'm confident that it coudl handle whatever telecommuters could throw at it.
Do you have hard numbers (or even vague estimates) on how many people will be working from home? On how much data will be involved? Because if you do, please share it with us.
Give me one good reason to care. Seriously, i have not heard a single realistic reason why I should even care about lots of telecommuters besides what it would take for me to support them all on our organization's dual T1s. Because THAT is going to be your bottleneck.
As for the Government stepping in... the health of the internet is considered a National Security issue. If there's a nation wide pandemic, I have no doubts that the Feds will be telling the telcos (and everyone else) what to do & the telcos won't have much choice in listening.
Having worked for an ISP, I can tell you that they are not shy about taking measure of their own without the need for the government to step in. But again, I don't think we're talking about anything realistic. So...
I'd be much more worried about things like news sites from people trying to get updates on a pandemic. There are a lot of more important things to worry about in the case of a pandemic than the speed of your porn access.
So assuming that people do, for the most part, actually working from home, in what way does accessing the corporate VPN in Portland, OR (20 miles from home) to do work affect anyone in Australia? What is this huge bandwidth hog? What do telecommuters do that is such a strain on global bandwidth?
What makes you think that people just stop using the internet at work? I watch YouTube every now and then from work and I do have any Australians calling me up and complaining that they can't get their lonelygirl15 fix. Come on. The Internet is much more resilient than that.
The only problem I can think of is people all trying to get flu news all at once. Might be a big strain on news sites similar to what we saw on 9/11/01.
Wait, so they are assuming that people won't actually work from home and instead watch YouTube all day long? How exactly would it be different than 6pm when everyone really watch YouTube and download Bittorrent virtually all at once? Why does working from home suddenly equal unsustainable 'net where other peak usage times work out just fine?
If we assume that they will, for the most part, actually be, WORKING at home, how much bandwidth do people need? Copy a couple Word documents over the VPN? POP their email ever 2 minutes? These things are are NOTHING compared to things like Bittorrent during peak hours.
Worst case scenero is that ISPs are forced to throttle certain types of traffic that is labeled superfluous so as to provide accceptable service for other things. I know it isn't an ideal situation, but geez, the 'net'll survive! What is this talk about governments stepping in?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. It is neither wicked nor retro. It is just plain ol' boring DOS. Barely any different now than it was in 1981.
-matthew
The DOS virus is still around. People still use it. So it must be sentient! It takes sentience for such a piece of crap to survive so long!
-matthew
Photoshopping will make you go blind!
-matthew
It is all acting anyway, so what difference does it make if it is enhanced by music, sound effects, lighting effects, CGI, or Photoshop? Who cares? Do we complain when we hear those fake fight sounds? You do know that a fist hitting a face in real life doesn't make a loud "crack" sound, right? It is usually more of a dull thud. But that just doesn't go over very well on film. Hell, why not complain that the actors aren't really hitting each other!?
Now, if it were a documentary or something where I might expect to get something resembling reality, then I might be worried, but movies are all about fooling my mind into feeling (for the duration of the film) that they are real. Blood Diamond was a pretty good movie if you ask me. I love Jennifer Connelly, digital tears an all.
-matthew
But the color temperature is still pretty harsh. I use the lights in select areas of my home, but not everywhere. Some places just demand warm lighting. I wonder how much is just what i've become used to though. Or if there is really an objective (that is, universal) preference for warm, incandescent lighting.
-matthew
The day glorified program loaders (DOS isn't really much of an OS) become sentient is the day that... um... it is the day that programs get loaded without requesting them first.. or something. Seriously, I can't think of anything frightening about that scenerio. I mean, most DOS installations don't even have internet access. What is it going to do, infect all those floppy disks you use so often and spread around your basement?
Dude! Totally! And then you can run Wordperfect 5 at blazing speeds!
There's retro... there's wicked... and then there's DOS.
-matthew
That is until you find that all the apps you used alien to install break when you do apt-get dist-upgrade.
I dunno, I always found that the biggest advantage of using Linux was sticking to a single package system with all apps linked to a single (or small group) of repositories that are kept up to date and provide a relatively smooth upgrade path. Once you start installing packages from other distribution and compiling your own, things become a pain in the ass real quick. This is one of the reasons I always hated using proprietary *nix systems like Solaris (well, Solaris 6/7 anyway). You'd build this great system with all kinds of custom compiled packages (because the base system was virtually useless on its own) then 2 or 3 years later you just wept at the prospect of remembering all the obscure options you used to build stuff and all the interdependencies.
And then there are security updates. If you're not linked to a managed repository, you coudl easily end up with an out of date system that is full of security holes.
-matthew
Sounds like the trip would be long enough to EVOLVE a species suited to space travel. We just have to encourage LOTS of procreation.
-matthew
Hey, maybe you can use the head differential between the air conditioned inside and the out outdoors to generate eletricity!
Seriously though, I wonder what the limits are to this. Like, could you use this on solar panels (behind the solar cells) to suppliment the normal solar electricity generation? The cells only convert, what, 5% of the light to electricity. I'm sure the panels get hot. Hot enough to drive this new tech?
-matthew
I'm not sure if it is new, but I've noticed that a lot of software vendors totally bloat the hardware requirements for their software. For example, our small college (300+ enrolled students) is looking to purchase PowerCampus. The "recommended" specs for this is like 4 servers, 3 database and one application, each with multiple RAID arrays. To a total of some 20+ disks. The actual data storage requirements are somewhere around 4 GB total. Though I'd be surprised if it was even that much. I mean, how much data can your store about several hundred students? What the fuck? I guess they just have a "one size fits all" approach to hardware recommendation, but geez. We're not talking about a high traffic website here. Just student data management. Maybe 5 staff on it at any given time and perhaps a few students hitting it now and then to check stuff.
I did find a "consolidated" recommendation and got it down to 2 servers. But they still wanted like 3 separate RAID arrays. I guess we can do whatever we want, but it makes me wonder if their software is any good (efficient/effective) with these kinds of specs.
Yeah, it is based on Microsoft, so what what you will about bloat, but this is just silly. I can only assume that other companies are doing stuff like this.... get a little cash and throw hardware at a solution and hope that preempts any performance problems.
-matthew
Right, the *potential* for evil was there, but as far as I can tell Adam and Even were the ones to bring it into actuality. Acording the Genesis, God created the world... and it was "good."
What I'm getting that a "natural" world, without good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, would appear to be the ideal situation. Why continue to encourage a world where good fights evil and everyone suffers for it?
-matthew
But isn't that basically what Eden was?
No, God (according to Genesis) gave us a world with no good people and no bad people and no (as far as I can tell) purpose. Seems to me that *humans* were the ones who created such a world by disobeying God.
Of course, I don't believe any of that actually happened, but it makes for interesting mythology.
-matthew
No, they hate the idea that evolution seems like it could justify those things. The fact is that evolutiton doesn't justify anything. It EXPLAINs things. There is a big difference. No scientific theory justifies. It merely explains. For example, If I say that humans are promiscious because such is an evolutionary advantage, that in no way justifies it. It just explains why some people might have an inclination to be promiscuous.
But even that as an explanation it is sketchy. I can think of a lot of reasons why promiscuity would be an evolutionary disadvantage. Sexuually transmitted disease being the big one. Also, children aren't going to survive as well without a stable family (at least back in the day) The most reliable and safest way to have many children (and have them survive) is to be monogamous (or nearly so) and have a single partner who churns out the babies. At least that is one way of looking at it.
So ultimately that are even mistaken about evolution's supposed moral implications.
-matthew
Sure, but a hand in the bush is better than a firm grip on the neck of a chicken.
That's the problem with Creationism. You just can't tell which is satire and which is th real deal.
I did take the time to sit through the whole thing, and I find the ending conclusion most interesting. Is this guy claiming that Bush, a supposed evangelical Christian, is the anti-christ holding a position at the supposed center of all evil in the world? Normally these creationist try to show how scientists are evil, but this guy went right for the current whitehouse occupants. WTF? Makes me believe that it might be satire. But who knows.
-matthew
You can catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar.
But it is monopoly money!
I think in this case "stealthy" means that nobody has really heard of them before and nobody seems to care.
-matthew
Actually, the real measurements are fuckton and metric fucktons. See: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=met ric+fuckton
-matthew
But first you have to identify the risks. The real problem (as far as bandwidth goes) with having lots of telecommuters is the business 'net connection, not the 'net as a whole. So it comes down to individual businesses, not some kind of global public scare that the internet will "choke." Just some people won't have very good access to the office because the office wasn't prepared. But I would be much more worried about how telecommuting will affect business in general. Like a lot of jobs really can't be done effectively from home. I mean, telecommuting is fine if all you normally do is edit documents and stay on the phone. But some people actually have to get around the office and meet with other people, deliver items, do manual labor, etc.
-matthew
How do I know what? That telcommuters don't use much bandwidth? Maybe because I support them? Because I know what they do over the VPN. Even Terminal Services/Citrix doesn't use that much. At least compared to bittorrent. Also, it is local traffic. So none of it goes very far outside local ISPs who often have peering agreement and/or are hosted in teh same facilities anyway.
Usage pattern change when your connection is limited to broadband. In many cases people would just use Terminal Services or Citrix or the like. While not ideal as far as bandwidth usage goes, it also isn't a 'net killer. Again, not as bad as bittorrent. If the 'net can handle current peak usage, I'm confident that it coudl handle whatever telecommuters could throw at it.
Give me one good reason to care. Seriously, i have not heard a single realistic reason why I should even care about lots of telecommuters besides what it would take for me to support them all on our organization's dual T1s. Because THAT is going to be your bottleneck.
Having worked for an ISP, I can tell you that they are not shy about taking measure of their own without the need for the government to step in. But again, I don't think we're talking about anything realistic. So...
I'd be much more worried about things like news sites from people trying to get updates on a pandemic. There are a lot of more important things to worry about in the case of a pandemic than the speed of your porn access.
-matthew
Err, 'do not have'
So assuming that people do, for the most part, actually working from home, in what way does accessing the corporate VPN in Portland, OR (20 miles from home) to do work affect anyone in Australia? What is this huge bandwidth hog? What do telecommuters do that is such a strain on global bandwidth?
What makes you think that people just stop using the internet at work? I watch YouTube every now and then from work and I do have any Australians calling me up and complaining that they can't get their lonelygirl15 fix. Come on. The Internet is much more resilient than that.
The only problem I can think of is people all trying to get flu news all at once. Might be a big strain on news sites similar to what we saw on 9/11/01.
-matthew
Wait, so they are assuming that people won't actually work from home and instead watch YouTube all day long? How exactly would it be different than 6pm when everyone really watch YouTube and download Bittorrent virtually all at once? Why does working from home suddenly equal unsustainable 'net where other peak usage times work out just fine?
If we assume that they will, for the most part, actually be, WORKING at home, how much bandwidth do people need? Copy a couple Word documents over the VPN? POP their email ever 2 minutes? These things are are NOTHING compared to things like Bittorrent during peak hours.
Worst case scenero is that ISPs are forced to throttle certain types of traffic that is labeled superfluous so as to provide accceptable service for other things. I know it isn't an ideal situation, but geez, the 'net'll survive! What is this talk about governments stepping in?
-matthew