I'm surprised that over the past year or two, in all the furor over real cloning, that nobody has looked a decade or two into the past.
There was a claim and book, "In His Image" written by someone who claimed to have performed human cloning. Don't remember the year, but the name "David Rorvik" was attached to it. Don't know if it was the father, son, or author.
Perhaps we should remember that architecture and implementation are two different things. What the Internet was designed for, and how we have implemented it can be two very different things. Don't forget that it was also designed as an 'end-to-end' dumb (dumb in the good sense) transport, and there are very powerful (and rich) forces that want to change that to make it smart and preferential.
Let's imagine that you have a new feature that doesn't exactly play with Microsoft's strategic direction of the week. You're frozen out.
Really, that's the issue, here. Who's in the driver's seat. If you're *just* DirectX, then Microsoft is in the driver's seat, and you're maybe in the passenger's seat or back seat, but maybe you're back in the trunk or the trailer. Right now ATI and nVidia get to ride in the car with the driver, and they have some say about the hardware features that DirectX expresses.
Playing nicely with OpenGL and Open Source gives graphics makers a chance to differentiate their product. Maybe it's an extension, not OpenGL base, but at least OpenGL has the extension mechanism, and you're not petitioning Microsoft to grant your feature. Open source is not even a bad move, for some niche products, since many of those run on Unix/Linux, anyway.
Of course a graphics maker must play ball with Microsoft these days. But there are good business reasons to also keep a finger in the Open Source corner, too.
So the 717 is a little bigger than the Embraer that I've flown in. Embraer has made big inroads into the markets I seem to fly in. Pretty much the entire Concourse D at Cleveland Hopkins appears to run them - little "Express Jets."
The flights where I've been on Embraer have been pretty well packed, too. So I wouldn't mind seeing something a little bigger on those runs.
I'm still not sure about, "They don't compete in the same markets." Seems to me the 717 is just a cut bigger.
Last Summer my daughter and I flew from the Northeast to Utah. We took a small regional jet to Cleveland, a 737 to Phoenix, and forgot-which-jet to Salt Lake. I was surprised to see a 737 in a long-haul role.
I agree that the Boeing plan looks reasonable for today's market. But I thought the transonic thing looked pretty neat, too. I guess it wouldn't have been as cheap to operate.
Remember the Aston Martin in the James Bond movies, Goldfinger and Thunderball? The one with oil slicks, ejection seat, machine guns, rotating license plates, and all that stuff?
They actually built one, and within legal limits, all of the doodads worked.
By the time they were done, the car was so heavy, and the engine so much smaller to make room, that...
Can you explain the ETOPS thing further? With no further information, I'd presume that you're talking about the amount of time you can fly on one engine?
As to the 717/MD-95, haven't seen one. I've flown on MD-80s, if that's any reference point. Recently most of my flights have been on a 50-seat jet made in South America by Embraer. (sp?)
This seems a bit odd in light of recent moves away from hub/spoke routes toward regional routes. Some pundits have been citing over-reliance on hub/spoke to be part of the major airlines' financial problems. I live off the main track, and flying anywhere used to involve getting to a hub, first. For the past several years, flying anywhere has involved taking a regional jet, either directly to my destination, or to transfer at a non-major-hub airport.
Most of my recent flights have been on a 50-seat jet build in South America. Prior to that, I remember going to/from major hubs on much bigger planes, largely empty. It makes me wonder about the real economy of coming up with an airplane family that starts at 555 seats. IMHO, "eating low" in the airline chain is the way to go.
The new Boeing plane looked interesting in this respect, though I suspect pursuit of greater operating economy is more important than the speed. As someone else mentioned, delays at airports are more important than airspeed to the total travel time.
Re:Pretend this works well, for a moment...
on
Got Sleep?
·
· Score: 1
I absolutely agree. If I were in a foxhole, I'd want this.
The problem would be keeping it out of the civil sector. As a society, we have a hard time, "Just saying No!"
Pretend this works well, for a moment...
on
Got Sleep?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Do we really want it to? Do you really want another 8 hours of your life to become that available? Who gets that time, you or your employer?
For arguement, let's pretend for a moment that the sleep you miss is taken directly off of your lifetime. Use a drug and skip sleep for a year, take 1/3 year off of your life.
Is your employer in a position to demand that you shorten your life in order to meet a schedule? What's appropriate compensation?
I might not mind not needing to sleep, if the time gained were mine. But somehow I don't think things would work out that way.
AFAIK, the screensavers in xscreensaver don't burn anything in, because they keep things moving enough.
But if we're going to gripe about pollution, Big Oil, and the like, we should be using DPMS. It's not tightly linked to APM or ACPI, or other power-saving features. It's right there in X.
For my example, in/etc/X11/xdm/Xsetup_0 I've added the lines: "/usr/X11R6/bin/xset s noblank s 200 60" "/usr/X11R6/bin/xset dpms 300 1800 2400"
The first line puts the good old X screensaver into action, and the second line handles DPMS. The three DPMS numbers are the times when progressive power savings kick in. By having these lines in the xdm configuration, you get the screensaving features even at the xdm or gdm login. (Gdm symlinks to Xsetup_0, I don't know about kdm.) By the time the third powersaving mode kicks in, your tube uses about as much current as a night light.
The flipside of burn-in is cathode poisoning. That happens, or happened, when the tube is blanked, but still active. I don't know if it's still a problem with modern tubes. But it takes so little to avoid, why not. That's why I kick the X screensaver in, and turn off blanking.
Then please help educate me, because I seem to have either amused or ticked off a fair number of people.
I'll admit I'm not an admin, except on my home LAN. But I am an early adopter, and was on the ground floor for the planning over a decade ago when our site began migrating from mainframes to workstations. We're now somewhere in the 5000 (SWAG, probably an underestimate) systems on the site lan, with probably 1/4 of those getting IP through DHCP, the rest static. So I don't see capacity being the problem.
One set of problems comes with department moves, and the coordination between physical and IP frequently gets messed up. That's what prompted my DHCP suggestion, because it sure could help around here at those times. I also know that what I suggest could lead to some large MACIP tables, but some admins like (anal?) control and this is one mechanism.
But I have no experience whatsoever in (probably heterogeneous) co-location. I'd assume you get floor space, electricity, an IP range, basic external DNS, and some form of bandwidth, either in the form of one/multiple ethernet or something more exotic that plugs into a router. Beyond that, I don't know what services you get from the data center and what you provide in your own square footage. If you're on your own in that floorspace, and if you're a small operator, then maybe it does start to look like my home LAN, just in a bigger room.
So help with a clue. I'm not about to quit my day job for it, and you'll probably say that's a good thing. Though anonymous, you're the most polite response. Generally, if someone clueless comes into my haunts asking obviously ignorant questions about chip design, I try to be polite. (Unless of course they're asking to get their homework done for them.)
He wants to change IP numbers on a bunch of servers. You can serve static IP out of a DHCP server using MACIP mapping. That way you can accomplish a subnet-wide IP change from a single administration point. It confines the problem of changing IP numbers to DHCP/DNS servers. Others touched on the DNS side, I felt that the DHCP side had something to offer in simplifying his job.
Use DHCP for server addresses instead of static IP.
Even though my home network is only a two, sometimes three machines, I administer IP addresses through DHCP. The server has a static IP, everything else gets its IP served from DHCP, with a static MACIP mapping. My DNS is on the same machine.
For your situation, switch the machines to DHCP at the old location, and have everything running. You would need a temporary machine to act as the DHCP/DNS machine at the new location. When you move your machines, they should simply come up. Watch out for hardcoded IPs in other configs.
I presume your servers are on a DMZ, and you could arrange one machine as a DHCP/DNS server. Heck, a WalMart $200 box could more than do the job.
More disturbing is a later paragraph in the article...
"It is troubling for enforcement of the (criminal provisions of the) DMCA," said Evan Cox, an attorney with the San Francisco firm of Covington & Burlington. "This was the kind of case that the DMCA was meant to prevent. If this enforcement led to a not guilty verdict, you have to wonder what would lead to a successful case."
Gee, I didn't know the DMCA was meant to control the way lawful purchasers use their own property. I thought it was meant to prevent unlawful copying. Weren't there even those statements by the DMCA framers that they weren't meaning to take steps toward universal pay-per-view?
As a docking facility/point-of-departure, the ISS is *terrible*. Its inclination is so high that it's tough to get loads there and back, and subsequent exit/entry insertions are off the plane of the ecliptic, so you've got to correct there, too.
If you want a good old toy, my wife says...
on
Low Tech Toys?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Try a locally-owned toy store, or toy catalogs such as Hearthsong. The Vermont Country Store catalog also has some "old" toys.
Pick a toy, any toy. Take the toy out of the box. Play with the box.
Then there were the times your parents got a major appliance, and you got a really big box you could play inside, instead of play with. Or the time a friend's father brought home a telephone-booth box.
We're all distracted by the side issue, here. It's not piracy vs shoplifting, or anything like that.
The simple fact is that the Internet has made the current business model of music publishing and distribution obsolete.
That's not to say that we don't need music stores, or that we don't need the RIAA. (Snicker if you like, but they do have a role to play, and it may well be more then the pre/de-emphasis curve for vinyl recording.) It's the business model, plain and simple. They have three prime roles: studio work (recording/mixing, etc), promotion, and distribution.
Studio work is diminishing, because the declining cost of technology brings it to an ever-increasing number of people. Basement and garage studios abound, and it goes uphill from there. Sure there's a lot of drek, but there's some good stuff, too. But this isn't the big issue.
Promotion is one big issue. The big labels really work on the STAR. For the most part, they are able to pick a random artist, shove them into airtime with music and videos, and make them a STAR. Then they sit back and harvest cash. The rest of those people who want to make music are a 'cost of doing business' to be minimized, albeit a potential source for the next STAR.
This role is under jeapordy from the Internet and file sharing, because they allow us to make up our own minds. The real effect here would be the diminution of the STAR. Not that we won't have them, but they'll be less significant, and under less control, AND probably more talented.
The other big issue is distribution. Once upon a time, their role was to get music out there. Now their role appears to be preventing music from getting out there. They manufacture scarcity. But that's also not to say that CD stores are obsolete, because they're not. But we/they need to understand the difference between mp3 and CD, and quit pricing the things like platinum.
In a technology-adjusted business model, the RIAA and the major labels still exist. Ironically, they may still make the same profit levels. But they shed most of their control over STARs and airtime, and they have to work harder for a larger range of artists.
Next, if you don't click through at percentage rate, you're stealing...
After that, if you don't read spam at percentage rate, and click through at percentage rate, you're stealing...
Obviously hardware DRM is not a sufficient answer. The real solution will include eyeball and ear metering devices installed shortly after birth, prior to leaving the hospital. Of course this leaves a 'theft gap' of a few days of newborn media consumption, but that loophole can be closed, later.
Except for supporting the ethically bankrupt attempt of the Rambus company to subvert the industry standard. Playing by competition is one thing. Playing by courting Intel and having Intel twist everyones' arms is worse. Rambus went way beyond that.
I wonder how much breakage they have in the production line for vinyl records.
After all, the RIAA subtracts an 11% 'laquer breakage' allowance from artists' royalties. They don't do laquer any more, but I wonder what the breakage is for vinyl, or even for CDs.
I know, pointless barb, but I'd like to see a lawyer go after this one. No doubt the padding would appear somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised that over the past year or two, in all the furor over real cloning, that nobody has looked a decade or two into the past.
There was a claim and book, "In His Image" written by someone who claimed to have performed human cloning. Don't remember the year, but the name "David Rorvik" was attached to it. Don't know if it was the father, son, or author.
Perhaps we should remember that architecture and implementation are two different things. What the Internet was designed for, and how we have implemented it can be two very different things. Don't forget that it was also designed as an 'end-to-end' dumb (dumb in the good sense) transport, and there are very powerful (and rich) forces that want to change that to make it smart and preferential.
Let's imagine that you have a new feature that doesn't exactly play with Microsoft's strategic direction of the week. You're frozen out.
Really, that's the issue, here. Who's in the driver's seat. If you're *just* DirectX, then Microsoft is in the driver's seat, and you're maybe in the passenger's seat or back seat, but maybe you're back in the trunk or the trailer. Right now ATI and nVidia get to ride in the car with the driver, and they have some say about the hardware features that DirectX expresses.
Playing nicely with OpenGL and Open Source gives graphics makers a chance to differentiate their product. Maybe it's an extension, not OpenGL base, but at least OpenGL has the extension mechanism, and you're not petitioning Microsoft to grant your feature. Open source is not even a bad move, for some niche products, since many of those run on Unix/Linux, anyway.
Of course a graphics maker must play ball with Microsoft these days. But there are good business reasons to also keep a finger in the Open Source corner, too.
So the 717 is a little bigger than the Embraer that I've flown in. Embraer has made big inroads into the markets I seem to fly in. Pretty much the entire Concourse D at Cleveland Hopkins appears to run them - little "Express Jets."
The flights where I've been on Embraer have been pretty well packed, too. So I wouldn't mind seeing something a little bigger on those runs.
I'm still not sure about, "They don't compete in the same markets." Seems to me the 717 is just a cut bigger.
Last Summer my daughter and I flew from the Northeast to Utah. We took a small regional jet to Cleveland, a 737 to Phoenix, and forgot-which-jet to Salt Lake. I was surprised to see a 737 in a long-haul role.
I agree that the Boeing plan looks reasonable for today's market. But I thought the transonic thing looked pretty neat, too. I guess it wouldn't have been as cheap to operate.
Remember the Aston Martin in the James Bond movies, Goldfinger and Thunderball? The one with oil slicks, ejection seat, machine guns, rotating license plates, and all that stuff?
They actually built one, and within legal limits, all of the doodads worked.
By the time they were done, the car was so heavy, and the engine so much smaller to make room, that...
The car could barely make it to 35MpH.
Can you explain the ETOPS thing further? With no further information, I'd presume that you're talking about the amount of time you can fly on one engine?
As to the 717/MD-95, haven't seen one. I've flown on MD-80s, if that's any reference point. Recently most of my flights have been on a 50-seat jet made in South America by Embraer. (sp?)
This seems a bit odd in light of recent moves away from hub/spoke routes toward regional routes. Some pundits have been citing over-reliance on hub/spoke to be part of the major airlines' financial problems. I live off the main track, and flying anywhere used to involve getting to a hub, first. For the past several years, flying anywhere has involved taking a regional jet, either directly to my destination, or to transfer at a non-major-hub airport.
Most of my recent flights have been on a 50-seat jet build in South America. Prior to that, I remember going to/from major hubs on much bigger planes, largely empty. It makes me wonder about the real economy of coming up with an airplane family that starts at 555 seats. IMHO, "eating low" in the airline chain is the way to go.
The new Boeing plane looked interesting in this respect, though I suspect pursuit of greater operating economy is more important than the speed. As someone else mentioned, delays at airports are more important than airspeed to the total travel time.
I absolutely agree. If I were in a foxhole, I'd want this.
The problem would be keeping it out of the civil sector. As a society, we have a hard time, "Just saying No!"
Do we really want it to?
Do you really want another 8 hours of your life to become that available?
Who gets that time, you or your employer?
For arguement, let's pretend for a moment that the sleep you miss is taken directly off of your lifetime. Use a drug and skip sleep for a year, take 1/3 year off of your life.
Is your employer in a position to demand that you shorten your life in order to meet a schedule?
What's appropriate compensation?
I might not mind not needing to sleep, if the time gained were mine. But somehow I don't think things would work out that way.
I can't believe nobody mentioned a Beowulf cluster of these.
Or the ultimate DDOS attack on one, using Warfarin.
AFAIK, the screensavers in xscreensaver don't burn anything in, because they keep things moving enough.
/etc/X11/xdm/Xsetup_0 I've added the lines:
But if we're going to gripe about pollution, Big Oil, and the like, we should be using DPMS. It's not tightly linked to APM or ACPI, or other power-saving features. It's right there in X.
For my example, in
"/usr/X11R6/bin/xset s noblank s 200 60"
"/usr/X11R6/bin/xset dpms 300 1800 2400"
The first line puts the good old X screensaver into action, and the second line handles DPMS. The three DPMS numbers are the times when progressive power savings kick in. By having these lines in the xdm configuration, you get the screensaving features even at the xdm or gdm login. (Gdm symlinks to Xsetup_0, I don't know about kdm.) By the time the third powersaving mode kicks in, your tube uses about as much current as a night light.
The flipside of burn-in is cathode poisoning. That happens, or happened, when the tube is blanked, but still active. I don't know if it's still a problem with modern tubes. But it takes so little to avoid, why not. That's why I kick the X screensaver in, and turn off blanking.
Then please help educate me, because I seem to have either amused or ticked off a fair number of people.
I'll admit I'm not an admin, except on my home LAN. But I am an early adopter, and was on the ground floor for the planning over a decade ago when our site began migrating from mainframes to workstations. We're now somewhere in the 5000 (SWAG, probably an underestimate) systems on the site lan, with probably 1/4 of those getting IP through DHCP, the rest static. So I don't see capacity being the problem.
One set of problems comes with department moves, and the coordination between physical and IP frequently gets messed up. That's what prompted my DHCP suggestion, because it sure could help around here at those times. I also know that what I suggest could lead to some large MACIP tables, but some admins like (anal?) control and this is one mechanism.
But I have no experience whatsoever in (probably heterogeneous) co-location. I'd assume you get floor space, electricity, an IP range, basic external DNS, and some form of bandwidth, either in the form of one/multiple ethernet or something more exotic that plugs into a router. Beyond that, I don't know what services you get from the data center and what you provide in your own square footage. If you're on your own in that floorspace, and if you're a small operator, then maybe it does start to look like my home LAN, just in a bigger room.
So help with a clue. I'm not about to quit my day job for it, and you'll probably say that's a good thing. Though anonymous, you're the most polite response. Generally, if someone clueless comes into my haunts asking obviously ignorant questions about chip design, I try to be polite. (Unless of course they're asking to get their homework done for them.)
He wants to change IP numbers on a bunch of servers. You can serve static IP out of a DHCP server using MACIP mapping. That way you can accomplish a subnet-wide IP change from a single administration point. It confines the problem of changing IP numbers to DHCP/DNS servers. Others touched on the DNS side, I felt that the DHCP side had something to offer in simplifying his job.
Use DHCP for server addresses instead of static IP.
Even though my home network is only a two, sometimes three machines, I administer IP addresses through DHCP. The server has a static IP, everything else gets its IP served from DHCP, with a static MACIP mapping. My DNS is on the same machine.
For your situation, switch the machines to DHCP at the old location, and have everything running. You would need a temporary machine to act as the DHCP/DNS machine at the new location. When you move your machines, they should simply come up. Watch out for hardcoded IPs in other configs.
I presume your servers are on a DMZ, and you could arrange one machine as a DHCP/DNS server. Heck, a WalMart $200 box could more than do the job.
More disturbing is a later paragraph in the article...
"It is troubling for enforcement of the (criminal provisions of the) DMCA," said Evan Cox, an attorney with the San Francisco firm of Covington & Burlington. "This was the kind of case that the DMCA was meant to prevent. If this enforcement led to a not guilty verdict, you have to wonder what would lead to a successful case."
Gee, I didn't know the DMCA was meant to control the way lawful purchasers use their own property. I thought it was meant to prevent unlawful copying. Weren't there even those statements by the DMCA framers that they weren't meaning to take steps toward universal pay-per-view?
As a docking facility/point-of-departure, the ISS is *terrible*. Its inclination is so high that it's tough to get loads there and back, and subsequent exit/entry insertions are off the plane of the ecliptic, so you've got to correct there, too.
Try a locally-owned toy store, or toy catalogs such as Hearthsong. The Vermont Country Store catalog also has some "old" toys.
Pick a toy, any toy. Take the toy out of the box. Play with the box.
Then there were the times your parents got a major appliance, and you got a really big box you could play inside, instead of play with. Or the time a friend's father brought home a telephone-booth box.
"resue"?
Freudian slip or spelling error?
Do you want to SUE him again, or do you want to RESCUE him?
We're all distracted by the side issue, here. It's not piracy vs shoplifting, or anything like that.
The simple fact is that the Internet has made the current business model of music publishing and distribution obsolete.
That's not to say that we don't need music stores, or that we don't need the RIAA. (Snicker if you like, but they do have a role to play, and it may well be more then the pre/de-emphasis curve for vinyl recording.) It's the business model, plain and simple. They have three prime roles: studio work (recording/mixing, etc), promotion, and distribution.
Studio work is diminishing, because the declining cost of technology brings it to an ever-increasing number of people. Basement and garage studios abound, and it goes uphill from there. Sure there's a lot of drek, but there's some good stuff, too. But this isn't the big issue.
Promotion is one big issue. The big labels really work on the STAR. For the most part, they are able to pick a random artist, shove them into airtime with music and videos, and make them a STAR. Then they sit back and harvest cash. The rest of those people who want to make music are a 'cost of doing business' to be minimized, albeit a potential source for the next STAR.
This role is under jeapordy from the Internet and file sharing, because they allow us to make up our own minds. The real effect here would be the diminution of the STAR. Not that we won't have them, but they'll be less significant, and under less control, AND probably more talented.
The other big issue is distribution. Once upon a time, their role was to get music out there. Now their role appears to be preventing music from getting out there. They manufacture scarcity. But that's also not to say that CD stores are obsolete, because they're not. But we/they need to understand the difference between mp3 and CD, and quit pricing the things like platinum.
In a technology-adjusted business model, the RIAA and the major labels still exist. Ironically, they may still make the same profit levels. But they shed most of their control over STARs and airtime, and they have to work harder for a larger range of artists.
Someone did mod it up, but as 'funny' rather than 'insightful'. It deserves both.
If you block popups, you're stealing...
Next, if you don't click through at percentage rate, you're stealing...
After that, if you don't read spam at percentage rate, and click through at percentage rate, you're stealing...
Obviously hardware DRM is not a sufficient answer. The real solution will include eyeball and ear metering devices installed shortly after birth, prior to leaving the hospital. Of course this leaves a 'theft gap' of a few days of newborn media consumption, but that loophole can be closed, later.
Except for supporting the ethically bankrupt attempt of the Rambus company to subvert the industry standard. Playing by competition is one thing. Playing by courting Intel and having Intel twist everyones' arms is worse. Rambus went way beyond that.
I wonder how much breakage they have in the production line for vinyl records.
After all, the RIAA subtracts an 11% 'laquer breakage' allowance from artists' royalties. They don't do laquer any more, but I wonder what the breakage is for vinyl, or even for CDs.
I know, pointless barb, but I'd like to see a lawyer go after this one. No doubt the padding would appear somewhere else.