So I dunno, maybe I shouldn't buy my Levi's from Macy's? Target? I mean come on, if I can't get a decent pair at those stores. Then I'm moving to a different brand.
Target has a different Levi line as well. It's obvious if you just look at them. Even the label is different.
Yeah, but anytime you use hardware RAID, your disks and data are usually tied to that specific RAID controller anyhow. So I'm not sure if it matters whether you use RAID5 or X-RAID.
And this is why I will never use hardware RAID unless it's from a trusted vendor, e.g. EMC.
CPU - Software RAID (especially writing to RAID 5) is very CPU intensive.
What in the world? Do you know what CPU function is being used for RAID 5? XOR. It's not CPU intensive at all. It's four NAND gates for goodness' sakes. For most uses, unless you have dedicated storage appliances, like a Clariion or DMX array from EMC, software RAID should be used. If your RAID card fries, you can't be certain that you will be able to replace it with an identical model. You can always load the right version of Linux or BSD to recover a software RAID.
And this is exactly why I bought one. It's good enough. I had a power supply fail, but they replaced it under warranty no problem (I fell in a range of bad serial numbers). Coincidentally, the reason I originally bought one is the reason I'm going to get rid of it. The "proprietary" notion of X-RAID bothers me. I'm going to move to a small server with several drives in RAID-Z on OpenSolaris.
You've fallen for the corporate propaganda. You will always be shit upon by people more powerful than you because you are one small voice that noone hears.
No. Not really. Apparently you're brainwashed by union leaders whom you think can protect you and care for your "rights" as a worker. Why can't you stand alone? Is it because you're not good enough by yourself? I thought so.
I have really wondered why net admins didn't want to join the Electricians union, or even the Teamsters. [...] There would be no Draconian employment contracts and you would be treated with respect.
Maybe because unions only protect the weak and those who can't negotiate good employment on their own right? Yep, that's it. Some of us, on the other hand, are actually skilled enough to get a job at a firm that cares about their employees, treats them well, pays them well, and recognizes their value, oh and doesn't make them work 60 hour weeks, let alone 70 hour weeks. And go figure, I work on Wall Street.
The cure for all this is to unionize and negotiate contracts as a community rather than as individual replacable cogs in the machine.
Hahahahahaha. Come on. Tell me another one! You're good. Hahahahaha. Unions are the most worthless devices on this earth. They serve to inflate the value of the unskilled and devalue those with extra skills. I will never take a job where I have to join a union. They're demeaning and only beneficial if you can't get work you want on your own merits, in which case, it's your problem.
Amen, brother. All the doctors and/or insurance companies want to do is point you at a surgeon to cut up your intestines. Very very few people in the medical profession want to help the obese.
I'm not in the "medical profession," but I am an engineer, so that qualifies me to give the following advice. Eat Less. Exercise More. You definitely won't gain weight, and most likely you'll lose weight. No one needs more than thermodynamics to lose weight. Beyond that, it's just a question of will power.
But the engineering track still has to include a fair amount of science (and the math necessary to describe/express the science) - although, at the same time, I think it is equally important to start emphasizing engineering itself as early as possible - i.e. with labs and courses that emphasize problem-solving, problem definition, functional decomposition, etc. in general, alongside courses that teach the discipline-specific math/science.
That's fine. I think you're just misunderstanding me. Once you bring in software engineering topics, it's no longer computer science. Obviously you need to learn about computer science to understand software engineering. But at that point it's software engineering and not computer science. There's a reason that people on pure math tracks only end up with a cursory set of physics courses. It's applied math, not pure math. I hesitate to call software engineering applied computer science, but the analogy works well enough.
So, teaching things like team dynamics and working within a project schedule were really beyond their expertise.
And also beyond the scope of computer science. If that's what you wanted, you should have specialized in software engineering. People keep forgetting that computer science classes should feel more like math classes than engineering or management classes. One look at TAoCP would hint at that. For the record, I'm an engineer and I find the pseudo-engineering that most CS programs push out to be highly disturbing. Either do it right and call it software engineering, or remove the non-CS stuff and call it computer science. If you're not gonna do either aggressively, give it a fake major name like "Information Technology" or "Management of Information Systems" and teach a bunch of stuff really poorly.
There is a Adobe Photoshop codebase that works on Unix based platforms. When you ask for a copy for your Linux desktop, the reason the answer is no is because even though we've invested the effort and could give you what you want, for business reasons we choose not to do so at this time.
If you're referring to the fact that there is Photoshop for OS X, this is hardly a reason for it to work on Linux. Cocoa/Carbon are not X by any stretch of the imagination, so the code is much different. Historically, Photoshop has run on Unix platforms. Starting in 1993, there was Photoshop for IRIX and Solaris (though these no longer exist).
You say "business reasons" are why there is no Photoshop on Linux. This is quite true, and reasonable. There may not be enough market for Photoshop on Linux to finance having development, testing, and support teams for it. When you develop software for fun or for free you can say "it might not work at all, but try it!" When you're actually selling software, no reasonable development firm is going to say "Pay us for it, but we won't support it and it might not work!"
With v6, you've unnecessarily exposed something that you don't exactly want open, and would have to firewall every single device connected to your "wonderful" new world of everything connected to v6.
At least v6 gives you the flexibility. Only an idiot would leave everything open. The idea is that you have an implicit deny for the entire network that you have and then only poke holes when you need them. At least then everything's routable. NAT is a kludge. Nothing more. It needs to die a swift death.
The only problem with the Apple store is the cultish atmosphere.
This might previously have been a problem for Apple, but now it's anything but. Any sort of "cult" feel (I'd venture to say more like "club" feel) works to their advantage. People on the outside want to know what's so special. It doesn't hurt that the trickle down effect from a large portion of vocal Internet community (i.e. bloggers) is in full swing. Even though Macs are obviously in the general minority, there is a feel that they're more than that.
Mossberg is a tech journalist for the Wall Street Times. He's famous for always giving very favorable reviews to Apple products, so this is somewhat of a departure for him.
This will just cause people to write down their passwords.
And what, exactly, is wrong with this? Bruce Schneier offers the following wisdom:
I write my passwords down. There's this rampant myth that you shouldn't write your passwords down. My advice is exactly the opposite. We already know how to secure small bits of paper. Write your passwords down on a small bit of paper, and put it with all of your other valuable small bits of paper: in your wallet.
No one is asking you to upgrade every single application that is only IPv4 compatible. You can run IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously as there is an injective mapping between IPv4 addresses and IPv6 addresses. Specifically, the mapping is IPv4 address A.B.C.D -> IPv6 address::FFFF:A.B.C.D. Obviously the mapping is not bijective as there are more IPv6 IPs than IPv4 IPs, but nonetheless an organization can convert their core network to support IPv6 and still support IPv4 addresses and networks. That would allow for new deployments in said organization to make use of IPv6.
but it's so far from commercial deployment that it's just not an option - most infrastructure simply doesn't support it
I guess that depends on your definition of "most." It's been in Solaris since Solaris 8. It's been in Linux since 2.2. Cisco supports it as does Juniper. Right there you capture most of the Internet server market and underlying infrastructure. As for Microsoft, if they can't get their act together, you can run IPv4 pools translated to IPv6 without an issue. So really, it is an option and it's been an option. People just choose the path of least resistance. Eventually that path will be IPv6.
A few years ago, I spent a fair amount of time in Metrotech ( their Brooklyn data center ), and I didn't see much MS in the back office. What do you base this statement on?
Some people seem to say that there is a lot of Windows in 2 Metrotech and 1400 Fed (Carteret, NJ data center), but I know that working for one of the big I-banks, we have little use for Microsoft outside of mail, so it'd be weird if Nasdaq ran a lot of MS.
Slashdot Mirror
So I dunno, maybe I shouldn't buy my Levi's from Macy's? Target? I mean come on, if I can't get a decent pair at those stores. Then I'm moving to a different brand.
Target has a different Levi line as well. It's obvious if you just look at them. Even the label is different.
Yeah, but anytime you use hardware RAID, your disks and data are usually tied to that specific RAID controller anyhow. So I'm not sure if it matters whether you use RAID5 or X-RAID.
And this is why I will never use hardware RAID unless it's from a trusted vendor, e.g. EMC.
CPU - Software RAID (especially writing to RAID 5) is very CPU intensive.
What in the world? Do you know what CPU function is being used for RAID 5? XOR. It's not CPU intensive at all. It's four NAND gates for goodness' sakes. For most uses, unless you have dedicated storage appliances, like a Clariion or DMX array from EMC, software RAID should be used. If your RAID card fries, you can't be certain that you will be able to replace it with an identical model. You can always load the right version of Linux or BSD to recover a software RAID.
Their proprietary X-RAID is quite handy
And this is exactly why I bought one. It's good enough. I had a power supply fail, but they replaced it under warranty no problem (I fell in a range of bad serial numbers). Coincidentally, the reason I originally bought one is the reason I'm going to get rid of it. The "proprietary" notion of X-RAID bothers me. I'm going to move to a small server with several drives in RAID-Z on OpenSolaris.
How do you even begin to calculate the damage that might have caused to prospective customers or partners?
I think the only cost is buying them all a sense of humor so that they can laugh a bit too.
You've fallen for the corporate propaganda. You will always be shit upon by people more powerful than you because you are one small voice that noone hears.
No. Not really. Apparently you're brainwashed by union leaders whom you think can protect you and care for your "rights" as a worker. Why can't you stand alone? Is it because you're not good enough by yourself? I thought so.
I have really wondered why net admins didn't want to join the Electricians union, or even the Teamsters. [...] There would be no Draconian employment contracts and you would be treated with respect.
Maybe because unions only protect the weak and those who can't negotiate good employment on their own right? Yep, that's it. Some of us, on the other hand, are actually skilled enough to get a job at a firm that cares about their employees, treats them well, pays them well, and recognizes their value, oh and doesn't make them work 60 hour weeks, let alone 70 hour weeks. And go figure, I work on Wall Street.
The cure for all this is to unionize and negotiate contracts as a community rather than as individual replacable cogs in the machine.
Hahahahahaha. Come on. Tell me another one! You're good. Hahahahaha. Unions are the most worthless devices on this earth. They serve to inflate the value of the unskilled and devalue those with extra skills. I will never take a job where I have to join a union. They're demeaning and only beneficial if you can't get work you want on your own merits, in which case, it's your problem.
Amen, brother. All the doctors and/or insurance companies want to do is point you at a surgeon to cut up your intestines. Very very few people in the medical profession want to help the obese.
I'm not in the "medical profession," but I am an engineer, so that qualifies me to give the following advice. Eat Less. Exercise More. You definitely won't gain weight, and most likely you'll lose weight. No one needs more than thermodynamics to lose weight. Beyond that, it's just a question of will power.
But the engineering track still has to include a fair amount of science (and the math necessary to describe/express the science) - although, at the same time, I think it is equally important to start emphasizing engineering itself as early as possible - i.e. with labs and courses that emphasize problem-solving, problem definition, functional decomposition, etc. in general, alongside courses that teach the discipline-specific math/science.
That's fine. I think you're just misunderstanding me. Once you bring in software engineering topics, it's no longer computer science. Obviously you need to learn about computer science to understand software engineering. But at that point it's software engineering and not computer science. There's a reason that people on pure math tracks only end up with a cursory set of physics courses. It's applied math, not pure math. I hesitate to call software engineering applied computer science, but the analogy works well enough.
So, teaching things like team dynamics and working within a project schedule were really beyond their expertise.
And also beyond the scope of computer science. If that's what you wanted, you should have specialized in software engineering. People keep forgetting that computer science classes should feel more like math classes than engineering or management classes. One look at TAoCP would hint at that. For the record, I'm an engineer and I find the pseudo-engineering that most CS programs push out to be highly disturbing. Either do it right and call it software engineering, or remove the non-CS stuff and call it computer science. If you're not gonna do either aggressively, give it a fake major name like "Information Technology" or "Management of Information Systems" and teach a bunch of stuff really poorly.
The New York time
Can anyone edit at all? This is just retarded. It's The New York Times.
Wow. Just wow.
There is a Adobe Photoshop codebase that works on Unix based platforms. When you ask for a copy for your Linux desktop, the reason the answer is no is because even though we've invested the effort and could give you what you want, for business reasons we choose not to do so at this time.
If you're referring to the fact that there is Photoshop for OS X, this is hardly a reason for it to work on Linux. Cocoa/Carbon are not X by any stretch of the imagination, so the code is much different. Historically, Photoshop has run on Unix platforms. Starting in 1993, there was Photoshop for IRIX and Solaris (though these no longer exist).
You say "business reasons" are why there is no Photoshop on Linux. This is quite true, and reasonable. There may not be enough market for Photoshop on Linux to finance having development, testing, and support teams for it. When you develop software for fun or for free you can say "it might not work at all, but try it!" When you're actually selling software, no reasonable development firm is going to say "Pay us for it, but we won't support it and it might not work!"
+10000. Imagine if we had tags then!
With v6, you've unnecessarily exposed something that you don't exactly want open, and would have to firewall every single device connected to your "wonderful" new world of everything connected to v6.
At least v6 gives you the flexibility. Only an idiot would leave everything open. The idea is that you have an implicit deny for the entire network that you have and then only poke holes when you need them. At least then everything's routable. NAT is a kludge. Nothing more. It needs to die a swift death.
The only problem with the Apple store is the cultish atmosphere.
This might previously have been a problem for Apple, but now it's anything but. Any sort of "cult" feel (I'd venture to say more like "club" feel) works to their advantage. People on the outside want to know what's so special. It doesn't hurt that the trickle down effect from a large portion of vocal Internet community (i.e. bloggers) is in full swing. Even though Macs are obviously in the general minority, there is a feel that they're more than that.
Mossberg is a tech journalist for the Wall Street Times. He's famous for always giving very favorable reviews to Apple products, so this is somewhat of a departure for him.
That would be the Wall Street Journal.
Wait... what? You replace your calipers when you change your pads? So you bleed your brakes every time you change your pads? That's crazy. Wow.
Even so, I see no reason to sympathise this guy in any way.. why should we even bother? I hope he spends a lot of money for legal fees.
If this is not a hoax, why would you say this? Call it satire or parody, both of them are powerful devices that are part of our free speech rights.
This will just cause people to write down their passwords.
And what, exactly, is wrong with this? Bruce Schneier offers the following wisdom:
I write my passwords down. There's this rampant myth that you shouldn't write your passwords down. My advice is exactly the opposite. We already know how to secure small bits of paper. Write your passwords down on a small bit of paper, and put it with all of your other valuable small bits of paper: in your wallet.
No one is asking you to upgrade every single application that is only IPv4 compatible. You can run IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously as there is an injective mapping between IPv4 addresses and IPv6 addresses. Specifically, the mapping is IPv4 address A.B.C.D -> IPv6 address ::FFFF:A.B.C.D. Obviously the mapping is not bijective as there are more IPv6 IPs than IPv4 IPs, but nonetheless an organization can convert their core network to support IPv6 and still support IPv4 addresses and networks. That would allow for new deployments in said organization to make use of IPv6.
but it's so far from commercial deployment that it's just not an option - most infrastructure simply doesn't support it
I guess that depends on your definition of "most." It's been in Solaris since Solaris 8. It's been in Linux since 2.2. Cisco supports it as does Juniper. Right there you capture most of the Internet server market and underlying infrastructure. As for Microsoft, if they can't get their act together, you can run IPv4 pools translated to IPv6 without an issue. So really, it is an option and it's been an option. People just choose the path of least resistance. Eventually that path will be IPv6.
Perhaps applied mathematics if you feel the need to make such a distinction.
Computer Science contains both pure and applied mathematics. From a set perspective, Computer Science cannot be a subset of applied mathematics.
If you reflash a Linksys with DD-WRT, it DOES support BGP and ssh. It's going to be fast ethernet only, and no support for automatic failover.
And does it support 128MB of RAM? Because you need 128MB RAM for a full Internet BGP feed.
A few years ago, I spent a fair amount of time in Metrotech ( their Brooklyn data center ), and I didn't see much MS in the back office. What do you base this statement on?
Some people seem to say that there is a lot of Windows in 2 Metrotech and 1400 Fed (Carteret, NJ data center), but I know that working for one of the big I-banks, we have little use for Microsoft outside of mail, so it'd be weird if Nasdaq ran a lot of MS.