Compared to what? Coal and natural gas, that are bad for us even when they're within normal parameters? Renewables that are nowhere near enough to properly replace what we're currently using without using up massive land areas?
Well, personally I'd just use enough renewables to properly replace what we're currently using, since we have tremendous land area available - hundreds of thousands of times the area actually required to power the world, in fact, even using fairly old technologies.
But don't let me get in the way of your anti-hippy rant, I can tell it's very meaningful to you. Please carry on.
Yeah, in real life Android integrates far better with Exchange than either an iPhone or a BlackBerry. I dunno about windows phones, we haven't got any.
Blackberry needs BES if you are federally regulated (like any public corporation or HIPAA entity) which is a whole nuther server, for crying out loud.
Exactly the problem I have! The best I can do is refuse to vote for Barack "drill baby drill" Obama or Mitt "drill baby drill" Romney.
And because I'm in a US state where there's no chance of Obama losing, I don't have to make any "lesser evil" sorts of calculations, I can just vote for Jill Stein and thumb my nose at both major party bozos.
How about, just for a start: stopping fracking and undersea drilling, eliminating income tax, and taxing all releases of geologically sequestered carbon into the atmosphere?
That would open up hundreds of thousands of new jobs, overturn our existing brown energy political puppetmasters (who, let's face it, are big fans of torture as well as pollution, so fuck them) and since the carbon taxes would compensate for the loss of federal income tax revenues, but shift the majority of the cost of governing onto an asset basis (homeless people don't have furnaces, and walmart has very inefficient heating) we'd have a more equitable system of taxation that didn't punish people for bettering themselves.
That's just off the top of my head. Maybe it wouldn't work, OK, but the fact is there are hundreds of alternatives to drill baby drill and all of them are better than just ignoring climate change.
I'm not familiar with powerbroker but I've written systems and applications code for production use on at quite a few different OSes - TSX-11, RSX-11m, RSTS/e, VMS, OS/2, OS/400, MVS, OS/390, DOS, CP/M, the original Apple II OS, Windows, WinNT (which is like a badly hacked VMS really) and of course dozens of flavors of unix and linux including Venix, Xenix, SunOS, Solaris, HP/UX, Slackware, Red Hat, Yggdrasil, BSDi, etc. I've been a sysadmin on nearly all those, too, and I've been a netadmin in DECnet/LAT, TCP/IP, IPX/SPX, and NetBEUI networks. I started coding when I was 14, which was a very long time ago.
It's not necessary to prove that there exists a better OS than unix in order to postulate that unix is not perfect. Lack of granular permissions is something that was solved before unix was invented, yet most *nix systems today still use "sudo" and "chroot", which is caveman technology.
Keep in mind I was coding for 64 bit machines with granular permissions and capabilities that outstrip modern linux in 1992 before you discount my opinions on this. I just might be speaking from significant experience.;)
Yeah, I don't recommend macs any more either, except to graphic artists who draw with their mice. It seems to still be a good fit for them, functionally, and typically they don't care about the politics or technology. For everybody else I generally recommend linux on x86.
He didn't just spout computer-generated buzzwords on the phone, though, he actually put on a fake mustache and physically attended a meeting - spouting total drivel. Nobody noticed until he started drawing Dilbert cartoons on the blackboard!
I wasn't familiar with the WKRP schtick, but I actually worked for a DOD subcontractor and saw a guy wire an entire harpoon missile controller using nothing but blue wire. It was for the test environment, of course, not for combat use. Hundreds of individual wires, all pale blue... most of them would be printed circuits in the real controllers.
That is one of the experiences (building out the Internet was another) that convinced me there is no such thing as a non-trivial test environment. You cannot simulate the interactions of very large amounts of completely normal human stupidity. You can't even really get close.
Well, I could pretend I was talking about NeXT, but I'd be lying. It's just that I've been laughing about the way people idolize *nix for over thirteen years now (BSD people have always been the funniest) and I need to update my punchline.
The Unix OS was indeed brilliant when it was created. Even 40 years ago it was still amazing and brilliant. But let me quote Jamie Zwarinski here:
"If you'd told me in 1980 that Unix was the future of operating systems, I'd have cut my throat."
The root superuser concept and the ugo/rwxS file access control system are antique abominations that Ritchie and Kernighan et al. certainly did not get right, and the greatest thing about linux and MacOS is that they aren't really unix - they are significantly improved, with (for example) modern virtual memory subsystems, Ted T'so's work on capabilities, the NSA's work on privileges, support for non-unix filesystem semantics, and a thousand other really major improvements.
But nonetheless rehashes of *nix are the future of operating systems, because that's where next generations of Ritchies and Torvaldses will be found. Open Source is fundamentally more, well, open - so it can innovate on a broader scale. It's amusing to watch Apple try to rebrand their particular rehash as their own innovation, though, since they contributed so little to the development of Mach, and are so quick to try to stop anyone from "copying their work". Their fatuous self-righteousness is hilarious.
I think the main point is about using a human-readable configuration method, manipulable with generic tools, rather than using a blob registry that has to be manipulated with special tools.
But you've still got a valid point. At least windows won't actively sabotage settings configured with netsh, the way the linux GUI's infamous "Network Manager" likes to wreak utter havoc on anything configured with ifconfig or iwconfig.
Always. Typically I do this on a linux box: cp -a squid.conf squid.conf.`date -I`. If it's a brand new unconfigured system, I do this: cp -a squid.conf squid.conf.distroversion where "distroversion" is the name of the distribution, like RHEL5 or SuSe10 or whatever.
Obviously, on systems that only have "point and grunt" interfaces exposed to the user, it's a few more steps and less intuitive. But I do it anyway.
When a new version of a software comes down the update pipe, you diff the old distro config against the new version distro config, and you have an easy reference to any new options or gotchas. Or you can diff the current config against the distro config and find the custom site specific modifications you made and port them to the new config style.
It's just common sense. Modifying a config file without backing it up first is like going on a cross-country car trip without checking your oil and spare tire pressure first - total n00b mistake.
Because the folks that know how to do that don't want wizards. This is a computer not a fucking magic kingdom. I would much rather edit the text file then guess what home network vs business network means in some wizard.
The really annoying thing is that you could have both, and that used to be considered good programming. Being able to support different levels of user skill is a desirable feature.
Cause there's nothing wrong with a wizard that simply automates the creation of a pure text config file, right? What's fscked up is designing a configuration mechanism that consists of cryptic numbers in a binary database, which requires a wizard.
Wow I didn't know GPUs were programmed in a manor ! How big are the grounds ? Do they have servants too ?
Stately Wayne Manor, in fact. It was designed by Nathan Van Derm for Darius Wayne, and now houses Keith Packard's Bat-Cave. The grounds are huge but there's only one servant.
Most people voluntarily do as they are told; it's just a matter of figuring out who they have chosen to obey. For example, Chuck Norris really has no idea what Socialism means, he just believes that whatever Christians who fly the flag and support private gun ownership tell him is probably true, so he believes Democrats are going to make America Socialist if we don't vote Republican. Like most people, he works on inductive reasoning, and what has worked so far for him is what he's going to keep doing. He's pledged his allegiance, and if his "team" were to say Roundup is good, he would believe it's good unless it kills somebody he cares about.
As for creationists, whether you believe in Creationism or not is a matter of pure faith; it is simply not possible to disprove the argument that everything was created mere seconds ago, including your memories of the past. Rationally, there can be no such thing as an objective view of your own perceptual and mental processes; all teleology and epistemology is subjective. You either believe in creationism based on faith, or you don't believe in creationism based on faith, or else you just believe what you've been conditioned or told to believe.
Myself, what I know is, "If God's nature can be divined through the study of his works, he has an inordinate fondness for beetles".
Strictly speaking, we don't know whether GM food is risky; historically, there has been a long list of substances that were regarded as "obviously harmless" or even "beneficial", which none the less turned out to be harmful.
You do realize that nearly everyone's already decided one way or the other, based on their political brainwashing, and your sane and reasonable reality-based statements are useless, right? It's the same as a nuclear power argument; you're just ringing a bell for Pavlov's dogs, who will now slobber all over you.
It's not difficult any more. Nearly anything worth running has IPv6 support built in.
I mean where the cost really is? It is not like I have to buy all of my hardware again, it is mostly a software issue right?
Nope. It's a man-hours issue. Time is money; if you have people doing things (like reconfiguring networks that run fine on RFC1918 IPv4 address blocks) you have to pay them. Businesses that spend money on IPv6 conversions that aren't necessary are wasting money that could be better spent increasing profitability. There is no ROI on IPv6 for most businesses, only telcos and ISPs can get any return out of it. So nobody else cares.
If you're a startup building out a new network from scratch, you might bother with IPv6. But probably not even then, since you'll have to pay more for techs who are capable of doing it as fast and reliably as IPv4.
Large enterprises rarely permit change for change's sake. There has to be a compelling business advantage or the resources will be better used elsewhere. For example, if your ISP offered IPv6 at a discount over IPv4, then you'd light it up at your edge routers.
Slashdot Mirror
I want all that stuff, and also a pony.
No pony? Your products are crap!
Well, personally I'd just use enough renewables to properly replace what we're currently using, since we have tremendous land area available - hundreds of thousands of times the area actually required to power the world, in fact, even using fairly old technologies.
But don't let me get in the way of your anti-hippy rant, I can tell it's very meaningful to you. Please carry on.
Yeah, in real life Android integrates far better with Exchange than either an iPhone or a BlackBerry. I dunno about windows phones, we haven't got any.
Blackberry needs BES if you are federally regulated (like any public corporation or HIPAA entity) which is a whole nuther server, for crying out loud.
And of course the iPhone has the stupid timezone calendaring bug which has been known to cause epic mail loops.
Oh, and now you're going to bring reality into the argument.
No, I didn't say that, but I do have to admit I'll have a huge advantage if any of the doomsayers' predictions come true in my lifetime.
Exactly the problem I have! The best I can do is refuse to vote for Barack "drill baby drill" Obama or Mitt "drill baby drill" Romney.
And because I'm in a US state where there's no chance of Obama losing, I don't have to make any "lesser evil" sorts of calculations, I can just vote for Jill Stein and thumb my nose at both major party bozos.
How about, just for a start: stopping fracking and undersea drilling, eliminating income tax, and taxing all releases of geologically sequestered carbon into the atmosphere?
That would open up hundreds of thousands of new jobs, overturn our existing brown energy political puppetmasters (who, let's face it, are big fans of torture as well as pollution, so fuck them) and since the carbon taxes would compensate for the loss of federal income tax revenues, but shift the majority of the cost of governing onto an asset basis (homeless people don't have furnaces, and walmart has very inefficient heating) we'd have a more equitable system of taxation that didn't punish people for bettering themselves.
That's just off the top of my head. Maybe it wouldn't work, OK, but the fact is there are hundreds of alternatives to drill baby drill and all of them are better than just ignoring climate change.
I'm assuming it's user number 419 until proven otherwise.
I'm not familiar with powerbroker but I've written systems and applications code for production use on at quite a few different OSes - TSX-11, RSX-11m, RSTS/e, VMS, OS/2, OS/400, MVS, OS/390, DOS, CP/M, the original Apple II OS, Windows, WinNT (which is like a badly hacked VMS really) and of course dozens of flavors of unix and linux including Venix, Xenix, SunOS, Solaris, HP/UX, Slackware, Red Hat, Yggdrasil, BSDi, etc. I've been a sysadmin on nearly all those, too, and I've been a netadmin in DECnet/LAT, TCP/IP, IPX/SPX, and NetBEUI networks. I started coding when I was 14, which was a very long time ago.
It's not necessary to prove that there exists a better OS than unix in order to postulate that unix is not perfect. Lack of granular permissions is something that was solved before unix was invented, yet most *nix systems today still use "sudo" and "chroot", which is caveman technology.
Keep in mind I was coding for 64 bit machines with granular permissions and capabilities that outstrip modern linux in 1992 before you discount my opinions on this. I just might be speaking from significant experience. ;)
Yeah, I don't recommend macs any more either, except to graphic artists who draw with their mice. It seems to still be a good fit for them, functionally, and typically they don't care about the politics or technology. For everybody else I generally recommend linux on x86.
By the nuclear power industry. It's called "regulatory capture".
He didn't just spout computer-generated buzzwords on the phone, though, he actually put on a fake mustache and physically attended a meeting - spouting total drivel. Nobody noticed until he started drawing Dilbert cartoons on the blackboard!
http://www.tealdragon.net/humor/articles/dil-hoax.htm
Interesting; I was at the New Castle DMV yesterday and they didn't do anything like that to me. Were you at the Wilmington DMV?
I wasn't familiar with the WKRP schtick, but I actually worked for a DOD subcontractor and saw a guy wire an entire harpoon missile controller using nothing but blue wire. It was for the test environment, of course, not for combat use. Hundreds of individual wires, all pale blue... most of them would be printed circuits in the real controllers.
That is one of the experiences (building out the Internet was another) that convinced me there is no such thing as a non-trivial test environment. You cannot simulate the interactions of very large amounts of completely normal human stupidity. You can't even really get close.
Well, I could pretend I was talking about NeXT, but I'd be lying. It's just that I've been laughing about the way people idolize *nix for over thirteen years now (BSD people have always been the funniest) and I need to update my punchline.
The Unix OS was indeed brilliant when it was created. Even 40 years ago it was still amazing and brilliant. But let me quote Jamie Zwarinski here:
"If you'd told me in 1980 that Unix was the future of operating systems, I'd have cut my throat."
The root superuser concept and the ugo/rwxS file access control system are antique abominations that Ritchie and Kernighan et al. certainly did not get right, and the greatest thing about linux and MacOS is that they aren't really unix - they are significantly improved, with (for example) modern virtual memory subsystems, Ted T'so's work on capabilities, the NSA's work on privileges, support for non-unix filesystem semantics, and a thousand other really major improvements.
But nonetheless rehashes of *nix are the future of operating systems, because that's where next generations of Ritchies and Torvaldses will be found. Open Source is fundamentally more, well, open - so it can innovate on a broader scale. It's amusing to watch Apple try to rebrand their particular rehash as their own innovation, though, since they contributed so little to the development of Mach, and are so quick to try to stop anyone from "copying their work". Their fatuous self-righteousness is hilarious.
I think the main point is about using a human-readable configuration method, manipulable with generic tools, rather than using a blob registry that has to be manipulated with special tools.
But you've still got a valid point. At least windows won't actively sabotage settings configured with netsh, the way the linux GUI's infamous "Network Manager" likes to wreak utter havoc on anything configured with ifconfig or iwconfig.
Always. Typically I do this on a linux box: cp -a squid.conf squid.conf.`date -I`. If it's a brand new unconfigured system, I do this: cp -a squid.conf squid.conf.distroversion where "distroversion" is the name of the distribution, like RHEL5 or SuSe10 or whatever.
Obviously, on systems that only have "point and grunt" interfaces exposed to the user, it's a few more steps and less intuitive. But I do it anyway.
When a new version of a software comes down the update pipe, you diff the old distro config against the new version distro config, and you have an easy reference to any new options or gotchas. Or you can diff the current config against the distro config and find the custom site specific modifications you made and port them to the new config style.
It's just common sense. Modifying a config file without backing it up first is like going on a cross-country car trip without checking your oil and spare tire pressure first - total n00b mistake.
Indeed. Most people also prefer a pie in the face over a punch in the jaw.
The really annoying thing is that you could have both, and that used to be considered good programming. Being able to support different levels of user skill is a desirable feature.
Cause there's nothing wrong with a wizard that simply automates the creation of a pure text config file, right? What's fscked up is designing a configuration mechanism that consists of cryptic numbers in a binary database, which requires a wizard.
Stately Wayne Manor, in fact. It was designed by Nathan Van Derm for Darius Wayne, and now houses Keith Packard's Bat-Cave. The grounds are huge but there's only one servant.
Well, I guess I've been pretty cynical ever since I studied Milgram's Obedience Experiment.
Most people voluntarily do as they are told; it's just a matter of figuring out who they have chosen to obey. For example, Chuck Norris really has no idea what Socialism means, he just believes that whatever Christians who fly the flag and support private gun ownership tell him is probably true, so he believes Democrats are going to make America Socialist if we don't vote Republican. Like most people, he works on inductive reasoning, and what has worked so far for him is what he's going to keep doing. He's pledged his allegiance, and if his "team" were to say Roundup is good, he would believe it's good unless it kills somebody he cares about.
As for creationists, whether you believe in Creationism or not is a matter of pure faith; it is simply not possible to disprove the argument that everything was created mere seconds ago, including your memories of the past. Rationally, there can be no such thing as an objective view of your own perceptual and mental processes; all teleology and epistemology is subjective. You either believe in creationism based on faith, or you don't believe in creationism based on faith, or else you just believe what you've been conditioned or told to believe.
Myself, what I know is, "If God's nature can be divined through the study of his works, he has an inordinate fondness for beetles".
Yes, they've got a much more innovative rehashing of a 30 year old operating system than anyone else!
I guess you must have missed the word nearly in my post.
You do realize that nearly everyone's already decided one way or the other, based on their political brainwashing, and your sane and reasonable reality-based statements are useless, right? It's the same as a nuclear power argument; you're just ringing a bell for Pavlov's dogs, who will now slobber all over you.
It's not difficult any more. Nearly anything worth running has IPv6 support built in.
Nope. It's a man-hours issue. Time is money; if you have people doing things (like reconfiguring networks that run fine on RFC1918 IPv4 address blocks) you have to pay them. Businesses that spend money on IPv6 conversions that aren't necessary are wasting money that could be better spent increasing profitability. There is no ROI on IPv6 for most businesses, only telcos and ISPs can get any return out of it. So nobody else cares.
If you're a startup building out a new network from scratch, you might bother with IPv6. But probably not even then, since you'll have to pay more for techs who are capable of doing it as fast and reliably as IPv4.
Large enterprises rarely permit change for change's sake. There has to be a compelling business advantage or the resources will be better used elsewhere. For example, if your ISP offered IPv6 at a discount over IPv4, then you'd light it up at your edge routers.
I'm pretty sure you meant "religion", when you said "law".
OK, guess I pegged that one.