Here is the fundamental problem: I'm writing update and you're reading upgrade. No I don't upgrade much of anything very often either. As I mentioned elsewhere in the post, I am running Red Hat 6.2 on three machines. That's three releases removed from the current version in case you didn't notice. I do, however, run up2date every week or two and a few packages get updated with bug fixes and occassionally a few minor new features. If that sounds like a lot of effort to you, then maybe you should just use the computers at your local library, because that's no more effort than it takes to update any system.
And I have three Red Hat 6.2 systems with up2date running perfectly. What's your point? The parent-parent said "automatically." Unless you've got Windows Update in your startup folder (maybe not such a bad idea), I don't think it's automatic.
Maybe it's illegal in your country, but in America, we let our corporations do pretty much whatever they want. There are some companies whose sole purpose is to own other companies. These are called holding companies and the companies they own are called subsidiaries. If the holding company has no co-owners in a subsidiary, the subsidiary is described as wholly-owned.
Whether it's Microsoft or Bill Gates that owns the Apple shares, I don't know. I thought it was Microsoft. Either way, it certainly isn't illegal for Microsoft to own the shares.
If you had kept up with the updates as they came out (as all people who maintain and operate a computer should), you would have gotten the intermediate versions of RPM and glibc that eased the transition. The fact that RedHat doesn't keep these intermediate versions around after the latest comes out is unfortunate, but the fact that they were there and all the good users got them is undeniable. As a bonus, if you had kept up with the 6.2 updates, you eventually would have gotten up2date, a splendid tool which takes care of updating your system semiautomatically... all you have to do is run it and keep clicking on 'Next'. Note that up2date shipped with all later versions of RH Linux.
If you're really feeling adventurous, a 6.2 user can grab the redhat-release package from 7.0, upgrade that one package, and up2date will think it's updating a very out-of-date Red Hat 7.0 system. It isn't quite automatic at that point, since there are things that disappeared from 6.2 to 7.0 and the replacements conflict with them, but barring that one drawback, it's as powerful as 'apt-get upgrade-dist'. (Actually, I would presume that that's the difference between 'apt-get upgrade' and 'apt-get upgrade-dist')
Also, IIRC, Red Hat 6.2 is a year and a half (or is it two years?) old. If a modern Windows system can tell you what updates are available automatically now, great, have fun, but don't say your distro of the week can't when your looking at an obsolete version. After all, I don't recall anyone's Win98 SE systems telling them there were updates available.
I would say yours is the most meaningful, because it starts with MSFT and RHAT both at a low and compares where they've gone since. All the others have MSFT and RHAT at different moments in their respective histories and don't make a very good comparison.
What sort of bikes have you officially challenged?
Hell if I know. I was riding down Sheffield past Wriggly Field one day in June or July and these two guys on Yamahas with racing tires and no helmets went flying past me. I caught up with them at the red light at Addison. They'd been roaring up the street behind me, so I knew they were going to take off anyway and so I didn't really challenge them, I was really just interested if I could do it. So they took off and I took off and I beat them across the intersection plus a little bit. Fun Fun.
My estimation is that the extremely low lightning at sea is caused by a general lack of geographic anomalies to disturb airflow.
You'll notice in the map a wide swath of sea to the west of South America which follows the equator and then curves south following the coast. This is approximately the path of the Humbolt and equatorial currents in the South Pacific. Winds and sea currents have a strong influence on each other, and so we may presume that the winds over these strong ocean currents are less turbulent than those over the Polynesians or the Carribean islands. This is consistent with the hypothesis that a lack of turbulence is the cause of low lightning occurrence at sea.
At the poles, the temperature is very low. I'm not sure of the mechanics involved, but I do know that regions with surfaces heated by the sun experience more lightning in general, so we could reasonably presume the opposite about regions of cold surfaces, explaining the lack of lightning at the poles.
Sure, I jump up on the pedals when the light is yellow, and balance at a standstill with my feet in optimal starting positions. Then, when the light turns green, I give it all I've got and lean way the fuck forward so I don't pop a wheelie and loose steering. With my navel above the handlebars, I sometimes pop a wheelie anyway and occassionally the rear tire loses traction and I peel out (not far enough, and too far forward, respectively). That's not so easy to do on a bicycle. Of course, the biggest advantage is surprise. No one expects much from a cyclist.
My horsepower was calculated in high school as a physics experiment. Everyone in my class was timed running as fast as possible up a flight of stairs through 4m vertical distance and weighed. Those numbers and Earth's gravity where used to calculate power in watts, which most of us then converted that to horsepower. The average was around 1.05 hp IIRC. That was about five years ago, so I probably ought to recalculate it. All I'd need is to find someone to time me going from 0 to 20 mph and a scale to weight myself with bike. From there the calculation is basically pretty similar.
I think they would block requests like that if they really knew that much about the web and web servers. Based on their policy WRT linking, though, I have my doubts.
I have far better torque and have beaten every vehicle (whether motorcycle, automobile, truck, or otherwise) off the line and out-paced it for the first 25 meters. Of course that's just in regular city traffic, but occassionally some punk in a fast car tries it. I also get infinite gas mileage. I drive a 1.15 horsepower Schwinn with a 24-speed manual transmission. I could turbocharge it, but I quit caffeine.
Cornering? Braking? 90 degree turn, 15 foot radius, 20 mph (on a daily basis using worn tires).
AC makes point, moderators see only AC. It's like net.racism or something like that. I thought it was +1 Interesting, anyway. (too bad I have no points)
Think about what the average home/office user is doing on the computer and how much processing power it really takes to make that cursor blink. The simple fact is that for a typical office suite and web browser, current technology is overkill. Some people like to play audio, video, or games on their computers and that takes some more processing power, but it's nothing that pushes the limits of modern hardware (you gamers who say you can tell the difference between 100 and 125 FPS are lying... that's 1.5 to 2 times your monitor's refresh rate).
People are going to get the hot new toys because they're hot new toys and then be really disappointed when everything they've been doing doesn't get any better.
Somebody somewhere might develop the killer app that makes a 64-bit processor make sense for home and desktop users, and I can think of a few things that have the potential to take off like that, but until then the new hardware will basically be a "my dick is bigger than yours" type of thing. I honestly hope that killer app comes sooner rather than later because whatever it is, it'll be killer.
...hopefully that is so blindingly stupid that no-one would do it.
I think it's fairly well understood that virus writers will by and large target the most popular platforms. But so will the herds of developers of legitimate software. As has been pointed out, some developers of software for Windows have thought that such "blindingly stupid" techniques were a good idea. They'd be doing things just as stupid regardless of the platform they were doing it on.
What book? Not Stevens, which might be the only book on networking I've ever read (/me thinks for a second)... yup that's the only book on networking I've ever read and there's no freight train example in it.
Well, one way to measure it is to calculate how long it takes to send X amount of data from end to end and then do the appropriate division (that's how I calculated it, cause it's simple and it makes the point). But that does include latency in the throughput calculation. So you could measure latency separately and just subtract it from the elapsed time and do the division over again. Some people might consider that more accurate, but whatever. Under most networking circumstances, the latency is low enough that most people just ignore it anyway. In the box car example it would make a big difference. Tremendously big. Let's arbitrarily say that it takes about 1 minute to actually "arrive" in San Francisco. That makes throughput about 170 Tb/s. Most impressive. Another way to measure throughput is to pick a random point along the network and measure (at full usage) how much data goes past that point in a second. That's usually more work than is really necessary to get a good enough answer, but in the box car example, if you estimate that New York and San Fran are about 3000 miles apart, you can calculate the train's average speed and if you assume a certain size box car, you can calculate how long it would take to pass an average point at the average speed. Then take that number and do the division.
Anyway, it was just an illustrative example. Technical accuracy is only of secondary importance to the main purpose of showing the difference between throughput and latency.
Throughput is up to 200Mbps, so you don't have to worry about MIDI latency again:)
Throughput and latency are different things. Here's an example to illustrate:
In New York, fill a railroad box car with 80GB hard drives filled with your mountain of data (many many many many terabytes in that box car).
Send the boxcar to San Francisco in the way that one would expect to send a box car from New York to San Franciso.
Unload the hard drives from the boxcar
Now, some calculations using simple numbers. Let's say you managed to stuff 5 exabytes of data into the box car and it took 3 days to get to San Francisco. Your throughput would be around 34 GB/s. Your latency would be around 3 days.
I can't even count the number of times I've been at work or in a computer lab at school or some other place where I don't have access to Unix tools, and simply wanted to use grep. Just grep! Of course the other tools are nice, too, and I use Debian at home to great effect... anyway you get the idea... It'd be nice.
Actually, I've also had that experience (wanting to use grep) while reading hard copy. (You know you've been at the computer too long when...)
What's wrong with the non-technical solution (mirrors)? It doesn't have that "21st century appeal" but is there really anything wrong with it? Your IT department is already burdened with the chore of keeping all of this new crap working, so if teachers can solve this problem with mirrors, I say let them.
I thought that all current carrying deviced generated their own opposing magnetic field...
Yup, where there's current, there's a field (unless there's something else going on that negates the field effect of the current... I've heard that buried electrical cables have no field because their sheathing is naturally grounded, for instance). Their point was that the induced magnetic field didn't go away after they shut off the main one. If the field was the result of induced current, then the fact that the field persists could mean that the induced current persists, indicating resistance close to zero. Then again, I can think of at least one other material that can retain a magnetic field and isn't superconducting... the ferroceramics used in hard disk platters.
Note that I don't know much beyond high school physics and chemistry.
Slashdot Mirror
I upgrade my machine when...
Here is the fundamental problem: I'm writing update and you're reading upgrade. No I don't upgrade much of anything very often either. As I mentioned elsewhere in the post, I am running Red Hat 6.2 on three machines. That's three releases removed from the current version in case you didn't notice. I do, however, run up2date every week or two and a few packages get updated with bug fixes and occassionally a few minor new features. If that sounds like a lot of effort to you, then maybe you should just use the computers at your local library, because that's no more effort than it takes to update any system.
And I have three Red Hat 6.2 systems with up2date running perfectly. What's your point? The parent-parent said "automatically." Unless you've got Windows Update in your startup folder (maybe not such a bad idea), I don't think it's automatic.
Maybe it's illegal in your country, but in America, we let our corporations do pretty much whatever they want. There are some companies whose sole purpose is to own other companies. These are called holding companies and the companies they own are called subsidiaries. If the holding company has no co-owners in a subsidiary, the subsidiary is described as wholly-owned.
Whether it's Microsoft or Bill Gates that owns the Apple shares, I don't know. I thought it was Microsoft. Either way, it certainly isn't illegal for Microsoft to own the shares.
If you had kept up with the updates as they came out (as all people who maintain and operate a computer should), you would have gotten the intermediate versions of RPM and glibc that eased the transition. The fact that RedHat doesn't keep these intermediate versions around after the latest comes out is unfortunate, but the fact that they were there and all the good users got them is undeniable. As a bonus, if you had kept up with the 6.2 updates, you eventually would have gotten up2date, a splendid tool which takes care of updating your system semiautomatically... all you have to do is run it and keep clicking on 'Next'. Note that up2date shipped with all later versions of RH Linux.
If you're really feeling adventurous, a 6.2 user can grab the redhat-release package from 7.0, upgrade that one package, and up2date will think it's updating a very out-of-date Red Hat 7.0 system. It isn't quite automatic at that point, since there are things that disappeared from 6.2 to 7.0 and the replacements conflict with them, but barring that one drawback, it's as powerful as 'apt-get upgrade-dist'. (Actually, I would presume that that's the difference between 'apt-get upgrade' and 'apt-get upgrade-dist')
Also, IIRC, Red Hat 6.2 is a year and a half (or is it two years?) old. If a modern Windows system can tell you what updates are available automatically now, great, have fun, but don't say your distro of the week can't when your looking at an obsolete version. After all, I don't recall anyone's Win98 SE systems telling them there were updates available.
I would say yours is the most meaningful, because it starts with MSFT and RHAT both at a low and compares where they've gone since. All the others have MSFT and RHAT at different moments in their respective histories and don't make a very good comparison.
Or this.
And I've been wondering... will enough heads explode while boggling that very question to just make it stop entirely?
Even more interesting is this graph: RHAT vs. MSFT.
Food for financial thought. By the way, RHAT is trading about triple what it was on Sept 10. I wish I'd put money down.
What sort of bikes have you officially challenged?
Hell if I know. I was riding down Sheffield past Wriggly Field one day in June or July and these two guys on Yamahas with racing tires and no helmets went flying past me. I caught up with them at the red light at Addison. They'd been roaring up the street behind me, so I knew they were going to take off anyway and so I didn't really challenge them, I was really just interested if I could do it. So they took off and I took off and I beat them across the intersection plus a little bit. Fun Fun.
My estimation is that the extremely low lightning at sea is caused by a general lack of geographic anomalies to disturb airflow.
You'll notice in the map a wide swath of sea to the west of South America which follows the equator and then curves south following the coast. This is approximately the path of the Humbolt and equatorial currents in the South Pacific. Winds and sea currents have a strong influence on each other, and so we may presume that the winds over these strong ocean currents are less turbulent than those over the Polynesians or the Carribean islands. This is consistent with the hypothesis that a lack of turbulence is the cause of low lightning occurrence at sea.
At the poles, the temperature is very low. I'm not sure of the mechanics involved, but I do know that regions with surfaces heated by the sun experience more lightning in general, so we could reasonably presume the opposite about regions of cold surfaces, explaining the lack of lightning at the poles.
You beat motorcycles? Wow.
Sure, I jump up on the pedals when the light is yellow, and balance at a standstill with my feet in optimal starting positions. Then, when the light turns green, I give it all I've got and lean way the fuck forward so I don't pop a wheelie and loose steering. With my navel above the handlebars, I sometimes pop a wheelie anyway and occassionally the rear tire loses traction and I peel out (not far enough, and too far forward, respectively). That's not so easy to do on a bicycle. Of course, the biggest advantage is surprise. No one expects much from a cyclist.
My horsepower was calculated in high school as a physics experiment. Everyone in my class was timed running as fast as possible up a flight of stairs through 4m vertical distance and weighed. Those numbers and Earth's gravity where used to calculate power in watts, which most of us then converted that to horsepower. The average was around 1.05 hp IIRC. That was about five years ago, so I probably ought to recalculate it. All I'd need is to find someone to time me going from 0 to 20 mph and a scale to weight myself with bike. From there the calculation is basically pretty similar.
I think they would block requests like that if they really knew that much about the web and web servers. Based on their policy WRT linking, though, I have my doubts.
If you're going to go, make some noise on your way out.
I have far better torque and have beaten every vehicle (whether motorcycle, automobile, truck, or otherwise) off the line and out-paced it for the first 25 meters. Of course that's just in regular city traffic, but occassionally some punk in a fast car tries it. I also get infinite gas mileage. I drive a 1.15 horsepower Schwinn with a 24-speed manual transmission. I could turbocharge it, but I quit caffeine.
Cornering? Braking? 90 degree turn, 15 foot radius, 20 mph (on a daily basis using worn tires).
AC makes point, moderators see only AC. It's like net.racism or something like that. I thought it was +1 Interesting, anyway. (too bad I have no points)
Think about what the average home/office user is doing on the computer and how much processing power it really takes to make that cursor blink. The simple fact is that for a typical office suite and web browser, current technology is overkill. Some people like to play audio, video, or games on their computers and that takes some more processing power, but it's nothing that pushes the limits of modern hardware (you gamers who say you can tell the difference between 100 and 125 FPS are lying... that's 1.5 to 2 times your monitor's refresh rate).
People are going to get the hot new toys because they're hot new toys and then be really disappointed when everything they've been doing doesn't get any better.
Somebody somewhere might develop the killer app that makes a 64-bit processor make sense for home and desktop users, and I can think of a few things that have the potential to take off like that, but until then the new hardware will basically be a "my dick is bigger than yours" type of thing. I honestly hope that killer app comes sooner rather than later because whatever it is, it'll be killer.
I think it's fairly well understood that virus writers will by and large target the most popular platforms. But so will the herds of developers of legitimate software. As has been pointed out, some developers of software for Windows have thought that such "blindingly stupid" techniques were a good idea. They'd be doing things just as stupid regardless of the platform they were doing it on.
Not really. The latency is too high for most applicatons.
:-P
What book? Not Stevens, which might be the only book on networking I've ever read (/me thinks for a second)... yup that's the only book on networking I've ever read and there's no freight train example in it.
Well, one way to measure it is to calculate how long it takes to send X amount of data from end to end and then do the appropriate division (that's how I calculated it, cause it's simple and it makes the point). But that does include latency in the throughput calculation. So you could measure latency separately and just subtract it from the elapsed time and do the division over again. Some people might consider that more accurate, but whatever. Under most networking circumstances, the latency is low enough that most people just ignore it anyway. In the box car example it would make a big difference. Tremendously big. Let's arbitrarily say that it takes about 1 minute to actually "arrive" in San Francisco. That makes throughput about 170 Tb/s. Most impressive. Another way to measure throughput is to pick a random point along the network and measure (at full usage) how much data goes past that point in a second. That's usually more work than is really necessary to get a good enough answer, but in the box car example, if you estimate that New York and San Fran are about 3000 miles apart, you can calculate the train's average speed and if you assume a certain size box car, you can calculate how long it would take to pass an average point at the average speed. Then take that number and do the division.
Anyway, it was just an illustrative example. Technical accuracy is only of secondary importance to the main purpose of showing the difference between throughput and latency.
Throughput is up to 200Mbps, so you don't have to worry about MIDI latency again :)
Throughput and latency are different things. Here's an example to illustrate:
Now, some calculations using simple numbers. Let's say you managed to stuff 5 exabytes of data into the box car and it took 3 days to get to San Francisco. Your throughput would be around 34 GB/s. Your latency would be around 3 days.
Is the difference clear now?
I can't even count the number of times I've been at work or in a computer lab at school or some other place where I don't have access to Unix tools, and simply wanted to use grep. Just grep! Of course the other tools are nice, too, and I use Debian at home to great effect... anyway you get the idea... It'd be nice.
Actually, I've also had that experience (wanting to use grep) while reading hard copy. (You know you've been at the computer too long when...)
What's wrong with the non-technical solution (mirrors)? It doesn't have that "21st century appeal" but is there really anything wrong with it? Your IT department is already burdened with the chore of keeping all of this new crap working, so if teachers can solve this problem with mirrors, I say let them.
I thought that all current carrying deviced generated their own opposing magnetic field...
Yup, where there's current, there's a field (unless there's something else going on that negates the field effect of the current... I've heard that buried electrical cables have no field because their sheathing is naturally grounded, for instance). Their point was that the induced magnetic field didn't go away after they shut off the main one. If the field was the result of induced current, then the fact that the field persists could mean that the induced current persists, indicating resistance close to zero. Then again, I can think of at least one other material that can retain a magnetic field and isn't superconducting... the ferroceramics used in hard disk platters.
Note that I don't know much beyond high school physics and chemistry.
Don't hold me to this, but I think some of the software on the Pioneer probes was written in the 1970's.