I'm a EVE server dev and this analysis is not quite right. The DB is indeed a central point of failure, but it's rarely a performance bottleneck nowadays. The part about migrating resources is half-wrong, as yes, we can't (yet) move solarsystems around machines without disconnecting the players in it, but unless there's a fight going on in a to be moved system, we still do it to free cpu for the system where a fight is indeed going on. See more here http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74227 .
Did I read that correctly? You burn additional fuel to pass a Prius in order to avoid burning additional fuel later in case you're behind it when/if you go up hill?
PS. I want to see that proof you speak of, as I've heard it mentioned several times but not produced.
That's total bullshit. Settling down on one distro which is pre-installed doesn't constitute a nightmare in any way, and most of the difficult support issues are dealt with by the distro. Dell does already have partnership programs with both redhat and novell.
It's a very very very very old trick, much used by politicians, to take somebodys viewpoint and polarize it to the extreme and then refute the extreme claims (which were never made in the first place).
His argument was the embryos do not have a nervous system, nor a brain and is therefor _incapable_ of thought, feelings and emotions. Thats is very different from not _having_ thoughts, feelings or emotions which is what you are arguing against.
Potential matters, thats a valid point, but that line of argument is also flawed because there is no clear cutof between the potential and having fullfilled the potential. What happens is you gradually _become_ what you had potential to become. Mind, every child is a potential adult. Should we treat children as adults because that's what they potentially are? Same argument as treating embryos as human because they potentially are.
Just think about it for a minute; I'm sure you'll come up with more examples that illustrates the problem with using polarized versions of either extreme of potentiality and pretending that there is some line that distinguishes between either side. Caterpillar->butterfly is a bad anology, because they are the exception to the rule, i.e. have a clear visible cutof point, unless you use it as an anology for birth (which it is).
You can produce hydrogen with any energy source and water. The fact that they chose to use natural gas for this project to produce the hydrogen to fuel the car is mostly irrelevant in light of the other advances towards using hydrogen as an effective energy storage system (it's not a energy source in the greater scheme of things.
Dont get it. Why is keeping Linux current so overwhelming? Install suse, create a user account, keep the firewall on, and use automatic updates. Skip the spyware and AV step and its the same. Works for my mom.
It was 'Space with Sam Neil', a BBC documentary in 6 episodes.. quite nice, actually. Available at any descent bitTorrent, dc++, kazaa, etc. network near you.
I've had this happen to me twice, and this is what happens when you decide to stay after the initial cutbacks:
Your workload increases, output decreases, work satisfaction disappears completely, projects and services get cancelled and gradually fall into disarray.
Next, management realises that several departments (i.e. yours) aren't performing well enough or that your services seem to be sub-par and decides to 1) outsource your job function, and/or 2) 'restructure' the departments down to it's skeleton functionality.
That means you're either out of a job or you end up being one of the few 'lucky' ones who gets loaded with responsibilities and end up hating your job more then the plague.
My advice: Be professional, get your folks together and try to see where management is going with this, make firm but fair suggestions, if possible, as to improve your condition. If they're not willing to meet them, give your X-weeks notice and then walk out.
Whamever the intended target may be, that does not change the law.
The definition of 'legitimate' programmers is bound to change over time as those who feel they have interests at stake will increasingly start to sue based on the letter of the law and not the intent.
Any law whose meaning and targets are left for interpretation, will sooner and later be interpreted in a way bad way.
Why hasn't anyone addressed this from the purely practical point of view?
In my world the reasons for any legislation must be the thing to focus on. In this case, we want to protect our children from abuse, right?
So, let's say I'm a sexual deviant who likes kiddie porn. Like most sexual deviants, I realize that the sexual abuse of children is illegal, and considered morally wrong. So, in order to satisfy my pornographic needs (should I choose to do so) I have two options: a)'fake'-porn, which is indistinguishable from the 'real' thing, except in that matter that I get it from a legal source, and b) the 'real' thing. The first option involves no legal risk to me, and is in it self not harmful to other people.
Which would I choose?
Furthermore, let's say I'm deeply involved in my porn-addiction and I'd like to start making this kind of stuff myself. Again I have two options: a) the 'real' thing which requires a supply of real children to abuse (which is, from a purely practical standpoint, time-consuming, expensive, and involves a huge risk), and other facilities needed to maintain 'human-resources', such as _good_ privacy (don't want the neighbours hearing odd sounds, don't wan't anyone to die on me (or, if so have to hide bodies and stuff), etc. etc. etc. Or option b): Buy a $1500 workstation, and spend $1000-$10000 on software, and start modeling (most people learn this by ripping of other peoples work, and doing their research on the internet). This involves no risk and no hassle, and would be a lot cheaper.
Which would I choose?
Maybe a few pedophiles will be more likely to commit acts of violence against children as a result of legalizing virtual kiddie pron, but I'd think in the end, fewer real persons would be harmed.
No, 3G is a roadmap or a shared vision of future mobile system. It's not a "standard" in it's own right, so to speak. Current GSM technology (that is the hard core tech stuff) will die; time division systems (TDMA) will die. Code division systems are coming in. A basis for that is GPRS, i.e. get the communications into a packet format. Then there is the migration path of interim solutions towards the final goal (in technologically advanced order: HSCSD, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS)
Wrong. Iceland now tops in both wireless usage, as well as internet usage. Fiberoptic landlines have been a reality here for a long time, so thats not the reason behind the US falling behind. The reason is quite simple:
Competition.
Whilst being the (academically at least) best way to ensure the survival of the most competent, cooperation somtimes gets you ahead. While US network operators were busy deplaying different standards in mobile communication, most (I think all) European countries at the time, met and signed a "Statement of understanding", in which they agreed on basic standards, and to let the competition be on quality basis, instead of lock-in basis.
The US companies fortunatly saw the light, and is participating fully in ITS200 and the 3G consortiums, to create globally compatible standards.
The only problem being that the frequency range planned for use in UMTS is at least partially in use in the US, so measures must be taken to free that frequency range to make room for 3G.
I think it's true what a previous poster said, that 3G wont be "really" available in the US untill ca. 2005, but all indications point towards a much more rapid deployment in Europe and Asia, particularly scandinavia, and Japan.
'nuff said.
Who cares how many servers are deployed? It is irrelevant to EVERYONE. Your decision to use an OS should be completely independent of what other people are doing, right?
Oh, please show some clue. The number of deployed servers matters to everyone in the business as well; how good is the OS support? how many people know how to use it? how many people are writing apps for it? etc. etc. and so on and so forth. True, money matters to everyone, but it's not only the direct-sales-of-the-os money that matters. Were it so, none of the big players like SGI, IBM, Compaq or Dell would have entered into the Linux arena...
How about proposing to the company, that they try to get NDA's with the major distros, such as RedHat, SuSe, etc. and release the sources to them, so they can distribute binary drivers and/or installers for their distro/kernel version. That way you'll get maximum compatability and public exposure, without releasing proprietary information to the general public...
After all Linux is rather standards-friendly, but I fail to see how one-size-fits-all security design goal could ever be written, let alone implemented.
Think about it. There are somewhere around..what..20 Million Linux's running right now, doing all sorts of stuff, with all sorts of software and configurations, and they're exactly as secure as their weakest software and/or config file. Bottom line: The OS only brings you a mechanism to implement _your_ security policy and nothing more!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a EVE server dev and this analysis is not quite right. The DB is indeed a central point of failure, but it's rarely a performance bottleneck nowadays. The part about migrating resources is half-wrong, as yes, we can't (yet) move solarsystems around machines without disconnecting the players in it, but unless there's a fight going on in a to be moved system, we still do it to free cpu for the system where a fight is indeed going on. See more here http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74227 .
Well, you have to consider the fact that demand has also been rising since discovery and that will NOT peak with the production.
Yeah, it's kinda like poker. It may look like it's just random cards and luck, but it isn't really.
Thats simply a blatant lie. One (1) CCP dev was caught funneling ingame items, no real money was involved.
Did I read that correctly? You burn additional fuel to pass a Prius in order to avoid burning additional fuel later in case you're behind it when/if you go up hill?
PS. I want to see that proof you speak of, as I've heard it mentioned several times but not produced.
'nuff said
Take a look at Skolelinux
'nuff said
That's total bullshit. Settling down on one distro which is pre-installed doesn't constitute a nightmare in any way, and most of the difficult support issues are dealt with by the distro. Dell does already have partnership programs with both redhat and novell.
No no no... stop right there.
It's a very very very very old trick, much used by politicians, to take somebodys viewpoint and polarize it to the extreme and then refute the extreme claims (which were never made in the first place).
His argument was the embryos do not have a nervous system, nor a brain and is therefor _incapable_ of thought, feelings and emotions. Thats is very different from not _having_ thoughts, feelings or emotions which is what you are arguing against.
Potential matters, thats a valid point, but that line of argument is also flawed because there is no clear cutof between the potential and having fullfilled the potential. What happens is you gradually _become_ what you had potential to become. Mind, every child is a potential adult. Should we treat children as adults because that's what they potentially are? Same argument as treating embryos as human because they potentially are.
Just think about it for a minute; I'm sure you'll come up with more examples that illustrates the problem with using polarized versions of either extreme of potentiality and pretending that there is some line that distinguishes between either side. Caterpillar->butterfly is a bad anology, because they are the exception to the rule, i.e. have a clear visible cutof point, unless you use it as an anology for birth (which it is).
cheers
Ever heard of Freenet?
You can produce hydrogen with any energy source and water. The fact that they chose to use natural gas for this project to produce the hydrogen to fuel the car is mostly irrelevant in light of the other advances towards using hydrogen as an effective energy storage system (it's not a energy source in the greater scheme of things.
Dont get it. Why is keeping Linux current so overwhelming? Install suse, create a user account, keep the firewall on, and use automatic updates. Skip the spyware and AV step and its the same. Works for my mom.
It was 'Space with Sam Neil', a BBC documentary in 6 episodes.. quite nice, actually. Available at any descent bitTorrent, dc++, kazaa, etc. network near you.
... in html...
U J: www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/linux_vs_windows_tco_ comparison.pdf+linux_vs_windows_tco_comparison.pdf &hl=en&client=firefox-a
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:YQZRl1WHkt
With more then 10.000 linux boxes running at $700 each... thats $7M to SCO on a discount price.
Do'ya think google will pay?
--
Did ya hear? They took the word gullible out of the dictionary!
I've had this happen to me twice, and this is what happens when you decide to stay after the initial cutbacks:
Your workload increases, output decreases, work satisfaction disappears completely, projects and services get cancelled and gradually fall into disarray.
Next, management realises that several departments (i.e. yours) aren't performing well enough or that your services seem to be sub-par and decides to 1) outsource your job function, and/or 2) 'restructure' the departments down to it's skeleton functionality.
That means you're either out of a job or you end up being one of the few 'lucky' ones who gets loaded with responsibilities and end up hating your job more then the plague.
My advice:
Be professional, get your folks together and try to see where management is going with this, make firm but fair suggestions, if possible, as to improve your condition. If they're not willing to meet them, give your X-weeks notice and then walk out.
Science bah! I wan't to have sex in zero-g.
Not that I'd say no to sex in any other kind of gravity, but still...grrrrr....
Whamever the intended target may be, that does not change the law.
The definition of 'legitimate' programmers is bound to change over time as those who feel they have interests at stake will increasingly start to sue based on the letter of the law and not the intent.
Any law whose meaning and targets are left for interpretation, will sooner and later be interpreted in a way bad way.
Well it usually does with windows, so you can't really blame them...
In my world the reasons for any legislation must be the thing to focus on. In this case, we want to protect our children from abuse, right?
So, let's say I'm a sexual deviant who likes kiddie porn. Like most sexual deviants, I realize that the sexual abuse of children is illegal, and considered morally wrong.
So, in order to satisfy my pornographic needs (should I choose to do so) I have two options: a)'fake'-porn, which is indistinguishable from the 'real' thing, except in that matter that I get it from a legal source, and b) the 'real' thing. The first option involves no legal risk to me, and is in it self not harmful to other people.
Which would I choose?
Furthermore, let's say I'm deeply involved in my porn-addiction and I'd like to start making this kind of stuff myself.
Again I have two options: a) the 'real' thing which requires a supply of real children to abuse (which is, from a purely practical standpoint, time-consuming, expensive, and involves a huge risk), and other facilities needed to maintain 'human-resources', such as _good_ privacy (don't want the neighbours hearing odd sounds, don't wan't anyone to die on me (or, if so have to hide bodies and stuff), etc. etc. etc. Or option b): Buy a $1500 workstation, and spend $1000-$10000 on software, and start modeling (most people learn this by ripping of other peoples work, and doing their research on the internet).
This involves no risk and no hassle, and would be a lot cheaper.
Which would I choose?
Maybe a few pedophiles will be more likely to commit acts of violence against children as a result of legalizing virtual kiddie pron, but I'd think in the end, fewer real persons would be harmed.
No, 3G is a roadmap or a shared vision of future mobile system. It's not a "standard" in it's own right, so to speak. Current GSM technology (that is the hard core tech stuff) will die; time division systems (TDMA) will die. Code division systems are coming in. A basis for that is GPRS, i.e. get the communications into a packet format.
Then there is the migration path of interim solutions towards the final goal (in technologically advanced order: HSCSD, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS)
Wrong. Iceland now tops in both wireless usage, as well as internet usage.
Fiberoptic landlines have been a reality here for a long time, so thats not the reason behind the US falling behind. The reason is quite simple:
Competition.
Whilst being the (academically at least) best way to ensure the survival of the most competent, cooperation somtimes gets you ahead.
While US network operators were busy deplaying different standards in mobile communication, most (I think all) European countries at the time, met and signed a "Statement of understanding", in which they agreed on basic standards, and to let the competition be on quality basis, instead of lock-in basis.
The US companies fortunatly saw the light, and is participating fully in ITS200 and the 3G consortiums, to create globally compatible standards.
The only problem being that the frequency range planned for use in UMTS is at least partially in use in the US, so measures must be taken to free that frequency range to make room for 3G.
I think it's true what a previous poster said, that 3G wont be "really" available in the US untill ca. 2005, but all indications point towards a much more rapid deployment in Europe and Asia, particularly scandinavia, and Japan. 'nuff said.
Who cares how many servers are deployed? It is irrelevant to EVERYONE. Your decision to use an OS should be completely independent of what other people are doing, right?
Oh, please show some clue. The number of deployed servers matters to everyone in the business as well; how good is the OS support? how many people know how to use it? how many people are writing apps for it? etc. etc. and so on and so forth. True, money matters to everyone, but it's not only the direct-sales-of-the-os money that matters. Were it so, none of the big players like SGI, IBM, Compaq or Dell would have entered into the Linux arena...
How about proposing to the company, that they try to get NDA's with the major distros, such as RedHat, SuSe, etc. and release the sources to them, so they can distribute binary drivers and/or installers for their distro/kernel version.
That way you'll get maximum compatability and public exposure, without releasing proprietary information to the general public...
Just a thought....
After all Linux is rather standards-friendly, but I fail to see how one-size-fits-all security design goal could ever be written, let alone implemented.
Think about it. There are somewhere around..what..20 Million Linux's running right now, doing all sorts of stuff, with all sorts of software and configurations, and they're exactly as secure as their weakest software and/or config file.
Bottom line: The OS only brings you a mechanism to implement _your_ security policy and nothing more!