Well iLO and remote administration of a server are really two different things.
They should be, but...
If the OS on that server requires a full GUI to maintain and configure the running processes, well, iLO offers nothing new other then giving you the full GUI to perform those maintenance tasks.
Right. And the point is that you shouldn't have to resort to that sort of thing just to do routine remote maintenance of a server. All the (Unix) servers I run have a remote console capability, but I almost never have to use it. The fact that Windows depends on this has a pervasive impact on the way server software for Windows is written: most server software uses the local GUI for administration, so even if you do set up e.g. SSH access to the server, it's crippled for many admin tasks. There's no way around the fact that server software that depends on local memory-mapped video hardware creates issues for administration, which no amount of hardware workarounds can completely fix.
On a side note, MS console based utilities and administration are no where near what the various Unix systems offer but there is a lot more now then their was even a couple of years ago. MS realized that bulk administration is desired and is making progress in this area.
Yeah. I first spec'd a Win NT system as a server for a client back around '94 or so. 12 years later, I'm tired of waiting for Microsoft to figure out that exactly how servers aren't desktop PCs. Besides, Debian licenses are a lot cheaper.:)
That's the same hack - you have to buy extra hardware to virtualize the machine's local video. The point is that Windows cannot support machines without local memory-mapped video. The purpose of local memory-mapped video is to provide high-speed local interaction for users of a workstation. The fact that Windows servers sitting in a datacenter need such video hardware, and then on top of that need other hardware to virtualize that video hardware, and even after all that its remote administration capabilities are inferior to that of other OSes, is the problem.
Apparently we must be current with the most recent of meaningless corporate renaming schemes.
What are you talking about? CA was called CA, informally if not formally, back before 1995 when I last had dealings with them. Hand that geek badge over!
Yes, it was a famous company. For a long time, it was the second biggest software company by revenue, after Microsoft. Many people in the computer industry in the U.S. have had dealings with them, one way or another.
They were also famous for bad practices: terrible employee relations, annual reorganizations for no good reason, stuffing the sales channel, lying to Wall Street, acquiring companies and then running them and their products into the ground, the list goes on. I suspect many people are personally pleased to see Sanjay Kumar go to jail.
You can do it, sure, with the right hardware hack, as I mentioned in my previous message. The point is, you shouldn't have to, and it's primitive, single-user-oriented software that makes you do that. That bias is pervasive, affecting the way software for the Windows platform works.
BTW, I'm not some Unix zealot. I grew up on DOS & Windows and have been using Windows 32-bit versions since the first betas of Windows NT and the Win32 API. But Microsoft got lazy, and stopped improving their architecture.
What I do now to optimize administration of servers is use Debian.
No country... I'll repeat NO GODDAMN COUNTRY has a "right to fight a war". They have rights to DEFEND, AT HOME, not "take a war to da enemy".
Two words for you: Pearl Harbor.
In fact, those who don't understand U.S. foreign policy today and over the past 60 years would do well to study that incident, and how it changed U.S. foreign policy. The bottom line is that the U.S. came to the conclusion that it couldn't trust the rest of the world to look after its own affairs. It had to bail out Europe and subdue Japan, both at incredible cost in terms of lives and dollars. That cost could have been reduced dramatically, had the U.S. become actively involved much, much earlier, and that couldn't possibly have been limited to "defending at home".
In short, the quoted point above is completely wrong.
I think you might have missed the point the grandparent was making - possibly because you're a Unix admin, and not a Windows admin.
The Windows GUI is inseperable from the OS, and has to run on the machine's built in video adapter and keyboard. You can't fully administer it through a console connected via RS232, for example, without hardware hacks to virtualize the video. And as the GP mentioned, many operations tend to require or at least strongly encourage a session logged in on the server's console. This is all pretty strange, when you think about it.
Is anyone claiming to be indulging in anything else?;)
My point is just that the situation isn't binary: because a great power inevitably has enemies doesn't mean that it (i.e. its citizens, its executive, etc.) shouldn't work to minimize that, where that isn't in conflict with its other goals.
The rest is incidental. (Is a great power an entity? Certainly. Does a great power make decisions? Yes, unless you're also going to say that people aren't entities, and that e.g. neurons make the decisions. Besides, the decisions we're probably thinking of right now were mainly made by a small group of people with executive power.)
So you see it's not so much the criticism of American foreign policy I'm reacting to (there's plenty to criticize) it's the dangerously idealogical and overly-simplistic rational behind it. If you're going to criticize my country, I'd prefer you do it honestly and intelligently and (hopefully) constructively.
I support that. The reason I responded was constructive: if you're going to argue against people who are subject to different propaganda than you (which is the case for everyone outside the U.S.), then I think you're better off making your argument as logical as possible, otherwise it becomes easier to dismiss. Since the Iraq war at least, U.S. foreign policy has left plenty of room for the reasonable belief that an approach which made fewer enemies would have been preferable.
In fact, if the U.S. wants to postpone its presumably inevitable ultimate demise as a great power, then maximizing allies and minimizing enemies would seem to be an excellent strategy. In that sense, the example of the Romans, or the British Empire, or pretty much any other prior great power, are not helpful. The U.S. was a trailblazer when it came to its constitution and its democracy, but it shouldn't stop there: it should continue to blaze a trail when it comes to acting responsibly as a great power on planet Earth in the 21st century C.E.
I don't really care about your particular argument with the OP, but I have to say that the fact that it's inevitable that global powers have enemies doesn't in any way justify e.g. a "fucked up foreign policy". Such a global power still has a great deal of choice about how many enemies it's going to make, and which ones, and that can make a great deal of difference to the powers' own interests.
The argument in the U.S. case is that what it has done is not in its own interests, and has nothing to do with whether or not it is inevitable that the U.S. has enemies.
Cameras would only be a problem for me if they were joined together in some kind of global tracking system using something like face recognition. An IT project I'm happy to say is vastly out of the UK government's league:)
It's not for want of trying. Multiple face recognition efforts are underway in the UK. See the EPIC page on face recognition. I wouldn't be too sure that they won't get some measure of success in future, particularly since face recognition is going to advance without requiring the UK government's help.
Most people just want to live their lives, not fight for some political ideal. Things have to get pretty bad before the average person is willing to make any direct sacrifices in order to try to correct a problem in the political environment. The appearance that "People want fascism" is an emergent property of behaviors and tradeoffs made in a much smaller context.
The old claim about Mussolini making the trains run on time captures this point. A basic requirement for most people is that the basic services they rely on should be dependable and affordable. That requires government to have a certain minimal level of administrative efficacy. One reason people don't vote Libertarian, or Green, etc. is that they have something of a comfort factor that the major parties have a "machine" which "knows" how to run things. Run them badly, perhaps, but the "better the devil you know" effect is at work here, too.
Look at the situation in Iraq: they've been freed of a dictator who did indeed metaphorically "make the trains run on time". Many Iraqis now complain because the quality of their lives has deteriorated in so many visible ways. Even Iraqis who strongly support the removal of Saddam recognize that the country is probably ruined for at least a generation, while they recover and rebuild. There are many people in that sacrificed generation who understandably don't like that tradeoff. They would have preferred to live a more comfortable life under a dictator, where the risks are well-known and avoidable (i.e. don't piss off those in power), as opposed to an uncomfortable life in an environment with unpredictable risks (roadside bombs). That doesn't mean they "want fascism", although it might appear that way.
You can call it something else if you're offended, but the DNA itself won't have its feelings hurt if you call it junk.
Arguably, if a human is offended by the use of the term "Junk DNA", then the DNA's feelings were hurt, since the ability to even have that emotional response was coded for by the respondee's DNA.
But it's not whether the DNA's feelings are hurt, it's whether people are misled by the name. I agree with the grandparent, that using the term "junk" to refer to something that's mostly just not understood is not the best choice of name. The process of science is conducted by humans, not just by scientists but also administrators, politicians, and voters, and names that are misleading can cause real problems. Labelling the stuff we know least about as junk could prove to be a big mistake, from that perspective.
. ..a black hole coexisting at the center of Earth should only make a minimal impact, right?
Right.
Hmm? It completely depends on the mass of the black hole, and as the other response points out, how it got there. If terrorists from the future (aliens are so passe) teleported a large enough black hole to the center of the Earth, we'd get hoovered up right quick.
They already did - it was a TV movie on the Scifi channel (in the US): The Black Hole. It starts out as this exact plot: an experiment at a particle accelerator accidentally creates a black hole, which begins eating St. Louis at a rapid rate. My advice is that you shouldn't go out of your way to see it, though...
Nothing is said about he is planning on monetizing this. Any ideas?
The answer to that is well known in the industry, as "Step 2". For more information, see the seminal work in this area by Parker & Stone, entitled "Gnomes".
If you think Halloween was "invented... by businesses", you need to read up on your world history. The Snarky Halloween History linked up top will catch you up.
But you have a point. Remind me not to purchase any more food, either, which after all is invented and promoted by businesses in the name of profit.
Oh wait, no, you don't have a point. Some of the best Halloween costumes and decorations are home-made, and dressing up in costumes is something kids have enormous fun with. I'm not even American, but I spent a year in a small town in the midwest US when I was about five, and trick-or-treating is one of the things that really stands out in my mind from that time.
But for some strange reason, people don't just give away costumes, decorations, or food, so it often makes sense to pay someone for them. What's wrong with that, exactly? Should humans never celebrate something together as a community, or if they do, only wear found scraps while doing it? (That would be scary, I admit.)
Question: why do American's call Halloween a holiday? In my book a holiday involves time off work.
Simple: in the U.S., "holiday" has a meaning closer to its derivation, "holy day". Time off work is called a "vacation".
In other news involving novel theraputic uses of recreational drugs, MDMA seems to help treat parkinsons symptoms. Check it out at the New Scientist. Maybe we can get Michael J. Fox to come out in favor of medicinal MDMA?
Finally, a political position from Michael J. Fox that Rush Limbaugh can really get behind!
Unless I'm missing something, you could have made it clearer which job you're talking about. Here are the steps I followed to find the (wrong) job posting:
Click on the link in the Slashdot article, get to a page with almost no information.
Click on the link which reads "Read the full announcement"
Click on the link for a VA Software jobs page
Now I'm faced with a list of jobs, many of which look largely alike. The text which caused me to start clicking is two pages back. By this time, I'm thinking "boy, Sourceforge really is in need of competent people!
Of course, someone in HR probably said to link to the main job listing page - who knows, maybe you'll fill all your open positions at once from the Slashdot audience. That's sure to improve the staffing situation at Sourceforge!;oP
From the Sourceforge job listing: "US Citizenship or Permanent Residency required". See, that's the problem right there. You're discriminating against all the superstar illegal alien programmers, you ignorant clods!
P.S. Congressman Markey's response this morning (issued on a Sunday, so he obviously took it fairly seriously) is more like what I would have hoped to see in the first place:
So Markey's initial reaction at least was a kneejerk one in which he didn't have enough information. (He would make a good Slashdot denizen...) Now all that has to happen is for prosecutors and the FBI to back down similarly. I won't be holding my breath...
Slashdot Mirror
They should be, but...
Right. And the point is that you shouldn't have to resort to that sort of thing just to do routine remote maintenance of a server. All the (Unix) servers I run have a remote console capability, but I almost never have to use it. The fact that Windows depends on this has a pervasive impact on the way server software for Windows is written: most server software uses the local GUI for administration, so even if you do set up e.g. SSH access to the server, it's crippled for many admin tasks. There's no way around the fact that server software that depends on local memory-mapped video hardware creates issues for administration, which no amount of hardware workarounds can completely fix.
Yeah. I first spec'd a Win NT system as a server for a client back around '94 or so. 12 years later, I'm tired of waiting for Microsoft to figure out that exactly how servers aren't desktop PCs. Besides, Debian licenses are a lot cheaper. :)
That's the same hack - you have to buy extra hardware to virtualize the machine's local video. The point is that Windows cannot support machines without local memory-mapped video. The purpose of local memory-mapped video is to provide high-speed local interaction for users of a workstation. The fact that Windows servers sitting in a datacenter need such video hardware, and then on top of that need other hardware to virtualize that video hardware, and even after all that its remote administration capabilities are inferior to that of other OSes, is the problem.
Yes, it was a famous company. For a long time, it was the second biggest software company by revenue, after Microsoft. Many people in the computer industry in the U.S. have had dealings with them, one way or another. They were also famous for bad practices: terrible employee relations, annual reorganizations for no good reason, stuffing the sales channel, lying to Wall Street, acquiring companies and then running them and their products into the ground, the list goes on. I suspect many people are personally pleased to see Sanjay Kumar go to jail.
You can do it, sure, with the right hardware hack, as I mentioned in my previous message. The point is, you shouldn't have to, and it's primitive, single-user-oriented software that makes you do that. That bias is pervasive, affecting the way software for the Windows platform works.
BTW, I'm not some Unix zealot. I grew up on DOS & Windows and have been using Windows 32-bit versions since the first betas of Windows NT and the Win32 API. But Microsoft got lazy, and stopped improving their architecture.
What I do now to optimize administration of servers is use Debian.
In fact, those who don't understand U.S. foreign policy today and over the past 60 years would do well to study that incident, and how it changed U.S. foreign policy. The bottom line is that the U.S. came to the conclusion that it couldn't trust the rest of the world to look after its own affairs. It had to bail out Europe and subdue Japan, both at incredible cost in terms of lives and dollars. That cost could have been reduced dramatically, had the U.S. become actively involved much, much earlier, and that couldn't possibly have been limited to "defending at home".
In short, the quoted point above is completely wrong.
And WOPR was a U.S. Defense Department computer. Your point being...?
I think you might have missed the point the grandparent was making - possibly because you're a Unix admin, and not a Windows admin.
The Windows GUI is inseperable from the OS, and has to run on the machine's built in video adapter and keyboard. You can't fully administer it through a console connected via RS232, for example, without hardware hacks to virtualize the video. And as the GP mentioned, many operations tend to require or at least strongly encourage a session logged in on the server's console. This is all pretty strange, when you think about it.
My point is just that the situation isn't binary: because a great power inevitably has enemies doesn't mean that it (i.e. its citizens, its executive, etc.) shouldn't work to minimize that, where that isn't in conflict with its other goals.
The rest is incidental. (Is a great power an entity? Certainly. Does a great power make decisions? Yes, unless you're also going to say that people aren't entities, and that e.g. neurons make the decisions. Besides, the decisions we're probably thinking of right now were mainly made by a small group of people with executive power.)
I support that. The reason I responded was constructive: if you're going to argue against people who are subject to different propaganda than you (which is the case for everyone outside the U.S.), then I think you're better off making your argument as logical as possible, otherwise it becomes easier to dismiss. Since the Iraq war at least, U.S. foreign policy has left plenty of room for the reasonable belief that an approach which made fewer enemies would have been preferable.
In fact, if the U.S. wants to postpone its presumably inevitable ultimate demise as a great power, then maximizing allies and minimizing enemies would seem to be an excellent strategy. In that sense, the example of the Romans, or the British Empire, or pretty much any other prior great power, are not helpful. The U.S. was a trailblazer when it came to its constitution and its democracy, but it shouldn't stop there: it should continue to blaze a trail when it comes to acting responsibly as a great power on planet Earth in the 21st century C.E.
I don't really care about your particular argument with the OP, but I have to say that the fact that it's inevitable that global powers have enemies doesn't in any way justify e.g. a "fucked up foreign policy". Such a global power still has a great deal of choice about how many enemies it's going to make, and which ones, and that can make a great deal of difference to the powers' own interests.
The argument in the U.S. case is that what it has done is not in its own interests, and has nothing to do with whether or not it is inevitable that the U.S. has enemies.
Most people just want to live their lives, not fight for some political ideal. Things have to get pretty bad before the average person is willing to make any direct sacrifices in order to try to correct a problem in the political environment. The appearance that "People want fascism" is an emergent property of behaviors and tradeoffs made in a much smaller context.
The old claim about Mussolini making the trains run on time captures this point. A basic requirement for most people is that the basic services they rely on should be dependable and affordable. That requires government to have a certain minimal level of administrative efficacy. One reason people don't vote Libertarian, or Green, etc. is that they have something of a comfort factor that the major parties have a "machine" which "knows" how to run things. Run them badly, perhaps, but the "better the devil you know" effect is at work here, too.
Look at the situation in Iraq: they've been freed of a dictator who did indeed metaphorically "make the trains run on time". Many Iraqis now complain because the quality of their lives has deteriorated in so many visible ways. Even Iraqis who strongly support the removal of Saddam recognize that the country is probably ruined for at least a generation, while they recover and rebuild. There are many people in that sacrificed generation who understandably don't like that tradeoff. They would have preferred to live a more comfortable life under a dictator, where the risks are well-known and avoidable (i.e. don't piss off those in power), as opposed to an uncomfortable life in an environment with unpredictable risks (roadside bombs). That doesn't mean they "want fascism", although it might appear that way.
Arguably, if a human is offended by the use of the term "Junk DNA", then the DNA's feelings were hurt, since the ability to even have that emotional response was coded for by the respondee's DNA.
But it's not whether the DNA's feelings are hurt, it's whether people are misled by the name. I agree with the grandparent, that using the term "junk" to refer to something that's mostly just not understood is not the best choice of name. The process of science is conducted by humans, not just by scientists but also administrators, politicians, and voters, and names that are misleading can cause real problems. Labelling the stuff we know least about as junk could prove to be a big mistake, from that perspective.
For those of us without clearance, a .torrent link would be useful. Thanks. ;)
If such laws exist, then it would be a good idea to test them and break them as much as possible. Otherwise, things will only get worse in future.
But you have a point. Remind me not to purchase any more food, either, which after all is invented and promoted by businesses in the name of profit.
Oh wait, no, you don't have a point. Some of the best Halloween costumes and decorations are home-made, and dressing up in costumes is something kids have enormous fun with. I'm not even American, but I spent a year in a small town in the midwest US when I was about five, and trick-or-treating is one of the things that really stands out in my mind from that time.
But for some strange reason, people don't just give away costumes, decorations, or food, so it often makes sense to pay someone for them. What's wrong with that, exactly? Should humans never celebrate something together as a community, or if they do, only wear found scraps while doing it? (That would be scary, I admit.)
Simple: in the U.S., "holiday" has a meaning closer to its derivation, "holy day". Time off work is called a "vacation".
Was that a "whoosh", or a failed attempt to compete?
- Click on the link in the Slashdot article, get to a page with almost no information.
- Click on the link which reads "Read the full announcement"
- Click on the link for a VA Software jobs page
- Now I'm faced with a list of jobs, many of which look largely alike. The text which caused me to start clicking is two pages back. By this time, I'm thinking "boy, Sourceforge really is in need of competent people!
Of course, someone in HR probably said to link to the main job listing page - who knows, maybe you'll fill all your open positions at once from the Slashdot audience. That's sure to improve the staffing situation at Sourceforge!From the Sourceforge job listing: "US Citizenship or Permanent Residency required". See, that's the problem right there. You're discriminating against all the superstar illegal alien programmers, you ignorant clods!
Time to up the H1-B quota again??
You know, anti-schizophrenia drugs would really help with your condition.
P.S. Congressman Markey's response this morning (issued on a Sunday, so he obviously took it fairly seriously) is more like what I would have hoped to see in the first place:
m an_res.html
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2006/10/congress
So Markey's initial reaction at least was a kneejerk one in which he didn't have enough information. (He would make a good Slashdot denizen...) Now all that has to happen is for prosecutors and the FBI to back down similarly. I won't be holding my breath...