Yes, I'm aware this is slashdot, but not everyone is happy living in their parents basement. For your own sake, try to stay off the internet for a little while and see what the world is really like.
But some people really are happy spending their time indoors, gaming, reading, whatever. You may not have come across them in your well adjusted, adventurous life, but not everyone enjoys nature.
To each his own, and maybe the introverted basement dwelling geeks will make the best long-term spacefarers.
You don't think we could convert the whole global economy into a factory that mass-produces ships that go on suicide-nuke missions? If the rich realize they have no choice but to employ everyone on the planet to save their own sorry asses, we could all be put to work. How many nukes would it take to scatter a comment into less-harmful pieces?
Try convincing the public that an asteroid that has a 99% chance of hitting the earth in 150 years is worth spending trillions of dollars on today to launch a probe to deflect it.
When it comes to the outlets and paint and such, I've found that having a pair of screwdrivers with you works really well. I usually poke things, take them apart (and put together), etc., and generally do things even home inspectors don't do. Having a moisture meter also helps -- paint won't cover that up, no matter how hard you try.
But how do you do all of that without Google Glass?
Yes, but looking at it first via video may save you from having to go to all the houses. Sure you see one that you like, then go and take a look, get an inspector and so on.
I haven't found video walkthroughs to be any more effective than quality pictures when deciding if I want to view a house in person. I don't think watching the video in my Google Glasses is going to make it any more effective. And shooting a video with Google Glass is certainly not going to make a real estate agent into a great videographer.
don't know about you but if i'm going to buy a home i want to see it.
You've got it all backwards. Do you even know that the topic is Google Glass? If you were looking at a home, you'd go there, and put on the glasses, and walk around and do your tour. The glasses could provide you with additional info on the house, and could also record your experience so the agent had a peak at what you were doing (likes/dislikes/etc).
I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it's not the non-existent idea you were debating:-)
The glasses aren't going to magically tell me the information I want to know.
When I'm looking at fresh paint on a basement wall, I want to know if that paint is covering a mildew problem, when I'm looking at a 3 pronged outlet in an older home, I want to know if they really rewired the home, or just put in new outlets to make it look like they did, when I see new shingles on the roof, I want to know if it'd been leaking for 2 years before they got around to fixing it.
The only thing the glasses are going to tell me is what someone posted online, which I already read before going to see the house. And I certainly don't want my real estate agent looking over my shoulder the entire time. Even without glasses, if she follows my wife around room to room, I'll ask her to leave us alone.
Someone at Phoronix really needs to learn basic math. The Chassis is 4.3U and hold 45 of these Moonshot servers, so a 47U rack could fit 10 chassis' for a total of 450 servers.
Yeah, I think they got confused between threads and servers. Each server has a 2 core CPU, each core can "handle" 2 hyper threads. So 450 servers * 2 cpus * 2 threads = 1800
no, oracle *wrote* the btrfs project so their view might be a tad biased, self-blinded and self-serving
What kind of biased self-service view would make them recommend a flaky and unstable filesytem for use with their flagship database product? Are they afraid some other filesystem is going to displace btrfs and... well, what do they get out of having btrfs more widely used? I can see why they might recommend btrfs if it provided better performance or had other benefits over other filesystems, but I don't see any incentive to recommend it if it's worse than the alternatives. It's not like they are worried that ZFS is going to take over (since they own ZFS too)
It's astonishing, what with all the various gadgets enticing people's attention in the 1970s and 1980s, that it's only now become a problem.
I wonder what changed between now and then that has dramatically increased the incidence of accidents caused by driver distractions. But I suppose we needed something to make up for all mechanic and doctor billing lost after seat-belts and crackdowns on drunk drivers. Those people have mouths to feed, after all.
You've obviously never tried to extricate an 8-track or cassette tape that's been partially eaten by the tape player while driving down the freeway if you think there was no distracting technology in the 70's and 80's. Though at least the 8-track player had only a single button and no playlist to manage.
Stand alone sat nav units usually don't let you operate them while the car is in motion. You have to stop before the touch screen is enabled. When moving you can only passively use them, looking at the display and listening to instructions.
I didn't RTFA but if all that the court is saying is that you can't be trying to use the touch screen then that seems reasonable.
My Garmin GPS allows me to use it while driving.
Built-in navigation units may not, but the standalone ones generally do, even if you have to specifically enable the feature. My GPS has some features (like "What restaurants and gas stations are at the next exit" that only make sense to use while on the road.
My built-in touch-screen stereo is much harder to operate while driving than the GPS. I'd welcome a law that requires that all car controls (air conditioning, radio, etc) have tactile switches and knobs for all common functions, a touch screen is impossible to operate without looking at it.
Is hawguy informative or is hawguy a boondoggle waste of time? Inquiring minds what to know!
How could I be "informative", all I did was ask questions - I provided no information.
If you're going to insult (?) someone, at least show that you've put some thought into it.
At best I could be tagged "insightful", but even that is dubious. Too bad there's no "skeptical" moderation flag. I was hoping that someone could point to some laser weapons tests that show that the obvious counter meaures are ineffective.
Have they figured out how to stop a cohesive beam of light once it has missed the target? Didn't think so.
That's a good point, but it seems easier to predict what the laser is going to hit when it misses the target than 100 rounds/second of 20mm Phalanx rounds. I don't think the current lasers in the KW range are a danger to spacecraft, so if you can't see anything behind the target, it should be safe to shoot. But if you're close to shore and you fire your Phalanx guns toward shore, you might be raining Phalanx rounds onto a shoreside town.
Video released by the Navy shows the laser lock onto a slow-moving target, in this case an unmanned drone, which bursts aflame in mid-flight. The drone soon catches fire and crashes into the sea below.
But how well does it work against a fast moving target that's actively trying to evade a laser lock or even spinning to prevent a continued lock on any particular part of the target? Would a polished/mirrored skin work as a countermesure? How long does it need to be locked on the surface of the target to cause damage?
I would guess that that information is classified.
Classified information, or is this a boondoggle "weapon system" that's deployed only because the military wants to claim that they are deploying a high tech weapon even if it's not effective against real threats under real combat conditions?
Video released by the Navy shows the laser lock onto a slow-moving target, in this case an unmanned drone, which bursts aflame in mid-flight. The drone soon catches fire and crashes into the sea below.
But how well does it work against a fast moving target that's actively trying to evade a laser lock or even spinning to prevent a continued lock on any particular part of the target? Would a polished/mirrored skin work as a countermesure? How long does it need to be locked on the surface of the target to cause damage?
why would serious business use shaky unstable things like btrfs? The "well tested" is relatively old, yes.
Oracle supports btrfs with their database product, so I assumed that meant it's not so shaky and unstable anymore - it doesn't make sense for them to spend expensive support engineer time supporting known shaky software.
For those of us that install a Linux image expecting to get work done with it instead of jacking off and building every piece of software ourselves, Ubuntu sucks - most specifically, because of Unity.
Which software do you have to build yourself? I don't like Unity so I use Kubuntu as a developer workstation and the only software I've had to build myself is software I've written myself. It's been a while since I've used plain Ubnutu so I'm curious what software they don't include with Unity.
But then, I don't use Linux for jacking off, some of the porn codecs are windows specific so I use windows for jacking off.
Note also that the argument that "getting your stuff copied" should be an opt-out situation (as in "well, you can always put a robots.txt" or "you can always do steps x y and z") i find weak. this is what in essence we have with the DMCA and youtube -
Don't post your information publicly if you don't want search engines to find it. Put it behind a password, or a paywall or some other way to protect it and search engines won't find it - no robots.txt needed.
If you're going to tape the pages of your book up in a public park, don't be surprised if some of the public write it down or take a picture of it for their own use.
and you see it takes all of an instant from the time that any given video is taken down to the time that it's up again in some other form Rightsholders have to have *full time* people involved in policing sites like youtube.. something just isnt right about that.
What's the alternative? Copyright holders have always had the burden of protecting their work. Should youtube be shut down because someone might post copyrighted content? Should theaters be shut down because someone may read a copyrighted book or play copyrighted music?
Do you think Molasses is safe? Ever given a second of thought to the fear that your bottle of syrup might attack you?
But wait, a disaster COULD happen.
Just like with cotton balls, unicorn dust, and pixie wings.
Get your facts straight, the only result from the great Unicorn Dust Explosion in Ireland back in the 1800's was a slight increase in the birth rate of Leprechans.
...said by someone who doesn't have to specifically allow probes from the scanning hosts, and has to deal with the DoSing when the port scans cause a couple of the services to go haywire. (lock up, start sucking down all available memory on the machine)
We put in new checks to watch for these things, but who knows what new tests they're going to run on the next scan.
The memory one was particularly nasty, as machines w/ lots of memory available didn't start showing problems 'til up to 2 days later. (and everyone loves getting alerts at 2am)
If the hospital doesn't run the scans, Chinese hackers will. Better to fix the services that can't handle it than to wait until the bad guys decide it's fun to execute a DoS attack against those services, or figure out the right attack to get past your security.
My company has thousands of port scans, website fuzzing, and all sorts of known vulnerability scans every day, and 90% of them originate overseas (and since our company has a global reach we can't block entire countries, and can't even block known Tor exit nodes or our customers can't reach us).
We use good IDS/IPS to detect and ward off the attacks and try to stay one step ahead of the hackers. (not always successfully, but so far they've only gotten into our webserver, which was easy to restore).
Because "linux" is toxic to 90% of the population out there.
"Windows" is the status quo, "mac" is sexy, and "linux" is that ugly fat guy in IT who smells bad and makes you change your passwords every other day.
Google is right to avoid "linux" like the plague.
I don't think Linux is "toxic" to 90% of the population, it's just meaningless... much like like "BSD kernel", "Mach", or "Microkernel" would be... putting a linux-inside sticker adds nothing of value, anyone that cares about Linux already knows that it's based on a Linux kernel.
But the real reason there's no Linux-inside sticker is because there's no "Linux, Inc" to pay for it - the reason every Intel laptop has "Intel-inside" stickers is not because PC makers thought it would sell more laptops, it's because Intel paid for those stickers (or at least negotiated it as a part of volume purchase deals) for the brand recognition.
Shouldn't we use a convicted murderer or something?
I think there would be plenty of volunteers for a one-way trip to a black hole -- volunteers more willing to make scientific observations than a death-row inmate forced to go.
Besides, what if the inmate banished from earth finds himself released by an atomic shockwave from a planet that his prison-ship flies near and he goes to that planet and finds that he has superpowers granted by the planet's sun, and he wreaks havoc on that planet as a super-villan until someone on the planet with super-powers to match the criminal manages to stop him?
FBI: Hello? NSA? This is FBI. We have this problem iMessage we need decrpted, can you help? NSA: Well not if the message was transmitted within the US. FBI: Suppose we have our London office transmit the message to Paris, could you decrypt that? NSA: Sure, no problem!
The problem is not so much that the NSA has any moral scruples that would prevent it from decrypting a message sent in the USA between US citizens (when they can hide behind "national security" to protect themselves), but that they aren't going to take any risks of letting the world know what they are really capable of by tipping off someone outside of top-secret intelligence that they have the capability.
It's like how the British went to great pains to make sure that the Germans did not know that they could break the Enigma codes - if you tip off the other side that you can read their messages, they'll find a new way to hide them from you.
Seems like it's a small step from this to having computer algorithms that automatically write your paper for you too - then you can let it go through thousands of submit-edit-submit cycles until the scoring computer gives you a perfect score.
Kind of like the guys that came up with software to generate nonsense scientific papers and actually had a few accepted at conferences and journals.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm aware this is slashdot, but not everyone is happy living in their parents basement. For your own sake, try to stay off the internet for a little while and see what the world is really like.
But some people really are happy spending their time indoors, gaming, reading, whatever. You may not have come across them in your well adjusted, adventurous life, but not everyone enjoys nature.
To each his own, and maybe the introverted basement dwelling geeks will make the best long-term spacefarers.
You don't think we could convert the whole global economy into a factory that mass-produces ships that go on suicide-nuke missions? If the rich realize they have no choice but to employ everyone on the planet to save their own sorry asses, we could all be put to work. How many nukes would it take to scatter a comment into less-harmful pieces?
Try convincing the public that an asteroid that has a 99% chance of hitting the earth in 150 years is worth spending trillions of dollars on today to launch a probe to deflect it.
When it comes to the outlets and paint and such, I've found that having a pair of screwdrivers with you works really well. I usually poke things, take them apart (and put together), etc., and generally do things even home inspectors don't do. Having a moisture meter also helps -- paint won't cover that up, no matter how hard you try.
But how do you do all of that without Google Glass?
Yes, but looking at it first via video may save you from having to go to all the houses.
Sure you see one that you like, then go and take a look, get an inspector and so on.
I haven't found video walkthroughs to be any more effective than quality pictures when deciding if I want to view a house in person. I don't think watching the video in my Google Glasses is going to make it any more effective. And shooting a video with Google Glass is certainly not going to make a real estate agent into a great videographer.
don't know about you but if i'm going to buy a home i want to see it.
You've got it all backwards. Do you even know that the topic is Google Glass?
If you were looking at a home, you'd go there, and put on the glasses, and walk around and do your tour. The glasses could provide you with additional info on the house, and could also record your experience so the agent had a peak at what you were doing (likes/dislikes/etc).
I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it's not the non-existent idea you were debating :-)
The glasses aren't going to magically tell me the information I want to know.
When I'm looking at fresh paint on a basement wall, I want to know if that paint is covering a mildew problem, when I'm looking at a 3 pronged outlet in an older home, I want to know if they really rewired the home, or just put in new outlets to make it look like they did, when I see new shingles on the roof, I want to know if it'd been leaking for 2 years before they got around to fixing it.
The only thing the glasses are going to tell me is what someone posted online, which I already read before going to see the house. And I certainly don't want my real estate agent looking over my shoulder the entire time. Even without glasses, if she follows my wife around room to room, I'll ask her to leave us alone.
Someone at Phoronix really needs to learn basic math. The Chassis is 4.3U and hold 45 of these Moonshot servers, so a 47U rack could fit 10 chassis' for a total of 450 servers.
Yeah, I think they got confused between threads and servers. Each server has a 2 core CPU, each core can "handle" 2 hyper threads. So 450 servers * 2 cpus * 2 threads = 1800
Not nearly as impressive.
no, oracle *wrote* the btrfs project so their view might be a tad biased, self-blinded and self-serving
What kind of biased self-service view would make them recommend a flaky and unstable filesytem for use with their flagship database product? Are they afraid some other filesystem is going to displace btrfs and... well, what do they get out of having btrfs more widely used? I can see why they might recommend btrfs if it provided better performance or had other benefits over other filesystems, but I don't see any incentive to recommend it if it's worse than the alternatives. It's not like they are worried that ZFS is going to take over (since they own ZFS too)
It's astonishing, what with all the various gadgets enticing people's attention in the 1970s and 1980s, that it's only now become a problem.
I wonder what changed between now and then that has dramatically increased the incidence of accidents caused by driver distractions. But I suppose we needed something to make up for all mechanic and doctor billing lost after seat-belts and crackdowns on drunk drivers. Those people have mouths to feed, after all.
You've obviously never tried to extricate an 8-track or cassette tape that's been partially eaten by the tape player while driving down the freeway if you think there was no distracting technology in the 70's and 80's. Though at least the 8-track player had only a single button and no playlist to manage.
Stand alone sat nav units usually don't let you operate them while the car is in motion. You have to stop before the touch screen is enabled. When moving you can only passively use them, looking at the display and listening to instructions.
I didn't RTFA but if all that the court is saying is that you can't be trying to use the touch screen then that seems reasonable.
My Garmin GPS allows me to use it while driving.
Built-in navigation units may not, but the standalone ones generally do, even if you have to specifically enable the feature. My GPS has some features (like "What restaurants and gas stations are at the next exit" that only make sense to use while on the road.
My built-in touch-screen stereo is much harder to operate while driving than the GPS. I'd welcome a law that requires that all car controls (air conditioning, radio, etc) have tactile switches and knobs for all common functions, a touch screen is impossible to operate without looking at it.
Is hawguy informative or is hawguy a boondoggle waste of time? Inquiring minds what to know!
How could I be "informative", all I did was ask questions - I provided no information.
If you're going to insult (?) someone, at least show that you've put some thought into it.
At best I could be tagged "insightful", but even that is dubious. Too bad there's no "skeptical" moderation flag. I was hoping that someone could point to some laser weapons tests that show that the obvious counter meaures are ineffective.
Have they figured out how to stop a cohesive beam of light once it has missed the target? Didn't think so.
That's a good point, but it seems easier to predict what the laser is going to hit when it misses the target than 100 rounds/second of 20mm Phalanx rounds. I don't think the current lasers in the KW range are a danger to spacecraft, so if you can't see anything behind the target, it should be safe to shoot. But if you're close to shore and you fire your Phalanx guns toward shore, you might be raining Phalanx rounds onto a shoreside town.
TFA says:
Video released by the Navy shows the laser lock onto a slow-moving target, in this case an unmanned drone, which bursts aflame in mid-flight. The drone soon catches fire and crashes into the sea below.
But how well does it work against a fast moving target that's actively trying to evade a laser lock or even spinning to prevent a continued lock on any particular part of the target? Would a polished/mirrored skin work as a countermesure? How long does it need to be locked on the surface of the target to cause damage?
I would guess that that information is classified.
Classified information, or is this a boondoggle "weapon system" that's deployed only because the military wants to claim that they are deploying a high tech weapon even if it's not effective against real threats under real combat conditions?
Haven't used Oracle much have you.
I have, but mostly on Solaris.
TFA says:
Video released by the Navy shows the laser lock onto a slow-moving target, in this case an unmanned drone, which bursts aflame in mid-flight. The drone soon catches fire and crashes into the sea below.
But how well does it work against a fast moving target that's actively trying to evade a laser lock or even spinning to prevent a continued lock on any particular part of the target? Would a polished/mirrored skin work as a countermesure? How long does it need to be locked on the surface of the target to cause damage?
why would serious business use shaky unstable things like btrfs? The "well tested" is relatively old, yes.
Oracle supports btrfs with their database product, so I assumed that meant it's not so shaky and unstable anymore - it doesn't make sense for them to spend expensive support engineer time supporting known shaky software.
For those of us that install a Linux image expecting to get work done with it instead of jacking off and building every piece of software ourselves, Ubuntu sucks - most specifically, because of Unity.
Which software do you have to build yourself? I don't like Unity so I use Kubuntu as a developer workstation and the only software I've had to build myself is software I've written myself. It's been a while since I've used plain Ubnutu so I'm curious what software they don't include with Unity.
But then, I don't use Linux for jacking off, some of the porn codecs are windows specific so I use windows for jacking off.
Note also that the argument that "getting your stuff copied" should be an opt-out situation (as in "well, you can always put a robots.txt" or "you can always do steps x y and z") i find weak. this is what in essence we have with the DMCA and youtube -
Don't post your information publicly if you don't want search engines to find it. Put it behind a password, or a paywall or some other way to protect it and search engines won't find it - no robots.txt needed.
If you're going to tape the pages of your book up in a public park, don't be surprised if some of the public write it down or take a picture of it for their own use.
and you see it takes all of an instant from the time that any given video is taken down to the time that it's up again in some other form Rightsholders have to have *full time* people involved in policing sites like youtube.. something just isnt right about that.
What's the alternative? Copyright holders have always had the burden of protecting their work. Should youtube be shut down because someone might post copyrighted content? Should theaters be shut down because someone may read a copyrighted book or play copyrighted music?
Do you think Molasses is safe? Ever given a second of thought to the fear that your bottle of syrup might attack you?
But wait, a disaster COULD happen.
Just like with cotton balls, unicorn dust, and pixie wings.
Get your facts straight, the only result from the great Unicorn Dust Explosion in Ireland back in the 1800's was a slight increase in the birth rate of Leprechans.
...said by someone who doesn't have to specifically allow probes from the scanning hosts, and has to deal with the DoSing when the port scans cause a couple of the services to go haywire. (lock up, start sucking down all available memory on the machine)
We put in new checks to watch for these things, but who knows what new tests they're going to run on the next scan.
The memory one was particularly nasty, as machines w/ lots of memory available didn't start showing problems 'til up to 2 days later. (and everyone loves getting alerts at 2am)
If the hospital doesn't run the scans, Chinese hackers will. Better to fix the services that can't handle it than to wait until the bad guys decide it's fun to execute a DoS attack against those services, or figure out the right attack to get past your security.
My company has thousands of port scans, website fuzzing, and all sorts of known vulnerability scans every day, and 90% of them originate overseas (and since our company has a global reach we can't block entire countries, and can't even block known Tor exit nodes or our customers can't reach us).
We use good IDS/IPS to detect and ward off the attacks and try to stay one step ahead of the hackers. (not always successfully, but so far they've only gotten into our webserver, which was easy to restore).
Because "linux" is toxic to 90% of the population out there.
"Windows" is the status quo, "mac" is sexy, and "linux" is that ugly fat guy in IT who smells bad and makes you change your passwords every other day.
Google is right to avoid "linux" like the plague.
I don't think Linux is "toxic" to 90% of the population, it's just meaningless... much like like "BSD kernel", "Mach", or "Microkernel" would be... putting a linux-inside sticker adds nothing of value, anyone that cares about Linux already knows that it's based on a Linux kernel.
But the real reason there's no Linux-inside sticker is because there's no "Linux, Inc" to pay for it - the reason every Intel laptop has "Intel-inside" stickers is not because PC makers thought it would sell more laptops, it's because Intel paid for those stickers (or at least negotiated it as a part of volume purchase deals) for the brand recognition.
Shouldn't we use a convicted murderer or something?
I think there would be plenty of volunteers for a one-way trip to a black hole -- volunteers more willing to make scientific observations than a death-row inmate forced to go.
Besides, what if the inmate banished from earth finds himself released by an atomic shockwave from a planet that his prison-ship flies near and he goes to that planet and finds that he has superpowers granted by the planet's sun, and he wreaks havoc on that planet as a super-villan until someone on the planet with super-powers to match the criminal manages to stop him?
Leave your crappy sitcom references at the door and let the adults talk.
Take the time to read too, you might learn something that isn't some comic book fantasy.
Besides, if anyone knows the answer, it's Dr. Hans Reinhardt.
Adding complexity always drives up the possibility of failure... Needless complexity drives down reliability for no good reason.
A battery pack is a parallel redundancy - failure of the battery pack won't make your phone fail, so it doesn't increase the possibility of failure.
If that battery pack sat between my phone's battery and the phone, then it could make the system less reliable.
er.. easy way around it:
FBI: Hello? NSA? This is FBI. We have this problem iMessage we need decrpted, can you help?
NSA: Well not if the message was transmitted within the US.
FBI: Suppose we have our London office transmit the message to Paris, could you decrypt that?
NSA: Sure, no problem!
The problem is not so much that the NSA has any moral scruples that would prevent it from decrypting a message sent in the USA between US citizens (when they can hide behind "national security" to protect themselves), but that they aren't going to take any risks of letting the world know what they are really capable of by tipping off someone outside of top-secret intelligence that they have the capability.
It's like how the British went to great pains to make sure that the Germans did not know that they could break the Enigma codes - if you tip off the other side that you can read their messages, they'll find a new way to hide them from you.
Seems like it's a small step from this to having computer algorithms that automatically write your paper for you too - then you can let it go through thousands of submit-edit-submit cycles until the scoring computer gives you a perfect score.
Kind of like the guys that came up with software to generate nonsense scientific papers and actually had a few accepted at conferences and journals.