Um, no, The annual deficit may be smaller, but the debt is definitely bigger. That said, given the circumstances in 2008-2009, even if Jesus Christ somehow had been resurrected and been elected POTUS, "He" wouldn't have been able to turn the US budget back into a surplus and start paying down the debt.
The ones who have never heard of queuing theory and trust the promises of SAN salespersons or sales brochures with equal lack of knowledge regarding queuing theory. It's somewhat less common now but was fairly common 5 or more years ago in SMBs. You'll also get SAN specialists who know how to optimize the SAN for general workloads and insist on that approach even if it precludes necessary workload partitioning for databases. Even a few years ago, documentation for entry-level SANs from some vendors denied it could be an issue.
Sort of. If you used the API header files verbatim, including non-functional/expressive elements (i.e. comments or change history) then you might be liable for infringement on the expressive elements. If you strip out any expressive elements (except for attribution maybe?) to the minimum commonality required for interoperability, then you would be OK.
In many industries, that requirement might force the judge to recuse themselves because there are few opportunities to acquire that experience without being significantly involved with one of the litigants. Low barriers to entry for learning programming and the large number of players in the industry make it pretty easy for a judge to have that experience without being compromised. That would be harder in the petroleum, telco, or broadcast industries.
Mostly. If you read the judge's ruling (and the observations thereof on Groklaw), the judge makes it clear that this applies to the Java API SSO because the java package SSO is essential to method invocation. (i.e. you need to import java.lang.String to access the string methods or need to explicitly invoke the class methods using the full package hierarchical path). The judge leaves open the possibility that an API's SSO would be copyrightable in a language where conforming to that SSO was not required for API interoperability, where the SSO was expressive only and not functional in any way.
Database I/Os tend to use random access patterns much more than other I/O workloads, such that latency is frequently the key performance factor, not throughput. SANs can give you lots of IOPS when most of those IOPS are substantially sequential and can take advantage of a large stripe block being read into a cache from multiple drives at once. However if each IO requires a head seek, a SAN's performance won't be substantially better than local disk and, when a DB's IO requests are queued with other VM IO requests against a shared spindle set, the SAN latency will be worse than local disk if the active data set substantially exceeds the SAN's shared cache.
If you've got some wimpy databases of a few GB or less, then the SAN should handle the load fine because you can take advantage of the shared cache. But if you're talking about serious Terabyte+ DBs effectively interspersed on a SAN with large shared file repositories? Ouch.
To be fair, UEFI can be one line among many in a defense-in-depth approach. Redhat does work hard to present themselves as the more secure/hardened Linux distribution, starting with baked-in SELinux and associated policies for Redhat-distributed packages (and including SELinux MAC customization as part of the RHCE BOK for at least 5 years now). Support of RHEL as a signed O/S under UEFI fits into their marketing strategy pretty well, and it gives them a way to differentiate themselves from CentOS.
If I was planning on running a web server with financial transactions, that would be a positive feature. For use as a workstation? Meh. If I was really paranoid about information on an end-user system, I would probably reboot with a read-only Live CD when handling secure info.
Somebody else indicated that that "culture" is a recent development from Western support of mujahadeen against the Soviets in the 80's, and that female education wasn't viewed in the same way previously. A lot of those attitudes also stem from the (relatively recent) exportation of Wahhabism and other extreme Salafist views, funded by petrodollars.
You know who you remind me of? Me, when I was a Mac OS admin in the late 90s. Back then, everybody thought Mac users were a cult. We were all convinced our platform was the best
So, back when Apple only had MacOS 9, which was the only contemporary PC O/S which still relied on co-operative multitasking? It had some nice UI design and a good UI programming interface, but it still had a fundamental O/S weakness which even Windows had eliminated in moving from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95. Apple had struggled for years in unsuccessfully trying to revamp the O/S core, and publicly pretended that preemptive multitasking wasn't important for a user workstation.That's why Apple partisans were viewed as a cult in those days; they were wilfully blind to a glaring weakness in the product.
Steve Jobs saved Apple because he brought in NeXT's O/S as the core of OS X and saved Apple from suffering the same fate of irrelevancy that overtook other companies like Commodore [Amiga] who failed to keep up with the market (on the hardware side in Commodore's case).
So establishing a parallel between two companies which have completely missed where the market has been heading, have been unwilling or unable to execute a strategy to catch up, and have an ever-dwindling devoted fan base as a result? Yep, sounds about right.
Germany had its economy crushed by the massive reparation payments imposed on it after WWI, primarily at the instigation of the French, as a part of the treaty of Versailles. Inflation and poverty in 20s/30s Germany was horrendous (people wore suits made from re-purposed paper because cloth was too expensive) and the resulting national depression predisposed the German people to radical alternatives. It didn't help that Hitler was a masterful orator with a Reality Distortion Field that would have made Steve Jobs look like Gerald Ford.
Understanding that part of history is why some people worry about increasing wealth separation/concentration within the US and other Western democracies. Some of the 1% appear to think that controlling information media allows them to control the message and direct the building resentment. Others see an increasingly dry plain and fear the spark and the lightning strike will eventually bypass the media firebreak.
Well, there was that whole series of "Hellmouth" articles by whathisname. News about bullying of nerds was pretty big on Slashdot at one time after a certain high school shooting. This is an article about girls being targeted in school because they're trying to get an education. Does it suddenly stop being news for nerds because it's about girls instead of socially inept boys? Does it suddenly stop being news for nerds because the perpetrators are adult religious conservatives instead of jocks and clique culture?
That's not just politics, that's Negotiation 101, which applies to far more than politics. The difference is that in most other negotiations you don't want to be so outrageous that the other party walks away, whereas in 21st century politics that can be a bonus that makes your base happy.
Heh, that was also my initial reaction. Although there's some possibility that the addition of some genes to the genome may have occurred as a result of insertion by retroviruses. That wouldn't be a copying "mistake" from the virus' point of view, and is not a normal part of the host's DNA reproductive cycle yet still not a "mistake".
Who knows? Maybe some people thought that black hole creation theory was probable and decided they wanted to secure that weapon of mass destruction for use against the decadent West.
To the Google-Oracle judge's ears. The jury have been specifically instructed to assume that APIs are copyrightable.
That said, Jonathan Schwartz' testimony on day 9 was seriously damaging to Oracle's case. He established a sound basis for the argument that Java APIs had been officially released for use without a licence, and that Sun had claimed a licence was only necessary to obtain the JCK to certify Java compatibility. STo the best of my knowledge, Sun didn't go bankrupt but were instead bought by Oracle, so those statements should still be in force. I'm thinking there might be opportunity for some serious class action lawsuits for breach of contract from Java developers against Oracle using that testimony if Oracle pursue the matter of copyrighting and demanding licences for the APIs. Not to mention massive flight of developers from use of the language and collapse of the Java business as developers decide not to pray that Oracle doesn't alter the deal further.
So there's reasonable hope that we might get a double win: a non-infringement ruling from the jury and a legal ruling against API copyrightability from the judge.
BTW, all I claimed was that "fear" due to excessive stress from change was likely one of the two contributing causes of AGW/CC denial, and that it could be due to the causal chain mentioned in the second paragraph. However you shouldn't take this as an accusation that you are poorly educated or limited in knowledge. Other cultural factors could contribute to a fear of change stress. For instance divorce and single-parent families have increased significantly since the 60s. With single parent families generally less well off financially, and working single parents having less time to devote individual attention to their children than married couples, that could force additional changes and stresses during critical formative years, leading to a similar outcome (increased stress during change). Perhaps there is yet another completely different scenario during your childhood/adolescence that would make you much more susceptible as an adult to stress from change than someone who hasn't been through that scenario?
I beg to differ. One of the fundamentals of the scientific method is that any theory needs to be revised or replaced whenever it is shown to not explain a body of repeatable results/observations. If you don't understand that then you are misunderstanding the fundamental basis of science and all we have achieved with it.
Nothing of what I believe is based in religion, as I am Atheist.
and then you say
You can toss all of the data at me that you wish to toss. It won't change the fact that I believe the changes are natural and have happened previously and will happen again (as they are now).
Explain to me how that does not say: I will not change my beliefs no matter how much conflicting evidence I am confronted with. And then explain to me how that is different from a religion.
Nothing of what I believe is based in religion, as I am Atheist. You can toss all of the data at me that you wish to toss. It won't change the fact that I believe the changes are natural and have happened previously and will happen again (as they are now). The planet warmed, cooled, warmed and then cooled again WELL before people even existed in the way they exist now; industrialized.
It there's more than "one way to do it" in Perl, maybe you should consider that there may be more than one way to effect global climate changes in the Earth. Just because past climate changes have been due to external forcing factors acting on a system in equilibrium, resulting in a new equilibrium point, doesn't negate the possibility that significant new internal changes in that system could also change the equilibrium point. Now we have 7 billion people, with a substantial portion using heavy machinery for force multiplication. We (humanity) take apart mountains in years when it takes erosion centuries or millenia to do the same. As "intelligent" actors (organized by our brains and instincts) we are like millions of Maxwell's demons thrown into a thermodynamic equilibrium.
I have no illusions about my ability to, by myself, effect massive worldwide change or turn back the tide of billions of people. By myself, the best I can hope for is to find some insight into what great currents move the masses of people and try to not get swamped by the waves. A faint hope is that I may be able to catch a glimpse of how that wave might be usefully redirected and can try to use memetic engineering to convince people to join me in that effort, but my voice is minuscule compared to that of the dominant media and economic actors.
Come to think of it, I think that means that the most effective thing we can do to fight Islamofascism (and other forms of extreme religious conservatism) is to make smartphones (because they are small and easy to hide) cheap as hell, distribute them with solar chargers to kids in school, fund wireless data connectivity to rural areas, and then make the phones' home page a site that teaches analytical thinking and have an easy way to search/browse wikipedia. OLPC would have a similar though lesser effect. However the downside is that they would no longer be as ignorant of or content with how they are exploited by the Western top 1%, which is why this won't happen easily (it's much harder for the 99% to scrape up the disposable income to fund it). You wouldn't get as many Islamoterrorists, but you would get lots of hopefully bloodless (yeah right!) political revolutions and an upset of the current economic order. I think the Arab Spring is an early example of that principle in action.
This also probably means that China's attempts to control access to the Internet is also doomed to failure. Because Communism is just a (very different) form of conservative orthodoxy, and to run a competitive urban industrialized modern nation you need an educated urban populace, which is the necessary ingredient for a more secular and liberal/progressive outlook. Firewalling the internet may decrease the ease of access to those ideas, but it doesn't affect the increasing susceptibility to those ideas. When they finally catch, it will be like a spark in a tinder dry forest.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no, The annual deficit may be smaller, but the debt is definitely bigger. That said, given the circumstances in 2008-2009, even if Jesus Christ somehow had been resurrected and been elected POTUS, "He" wouldn't have been able to turn the US budget back into a surplus and start paying down the debt.
So in other words, par for the course, accuracy and relevance wise, when it comes to Fox News reporting.
That's the whole point. In that case it's plagiarism due to laziness, not fair use for interoperability.
The ones who have never heard of queuing theory and trust the promises of SAN salespersons or sales brochures with equal lack of knowledge regarding queuing theory. It's somewhat less common now but was fairly common 5 or more years ago in SMBs. You'll also get SAN specialists who know how to optimize the SAN for general workloads and insist on that approach even if it precludes necessary workload partitioning for databases. Even a few years ago, documentation for entry-level SANs from some vendors denied it could be an issue.
Sort of. If you used the API header files verbatim, including non-functional/expressive elements (i.e. comments or change history) then you might be liable for infringement on the expressive elements. If you strip out any expressive elements (except for attribution maybe?) to the minimum commonality required for interoperability, then you would be OK.
In many industries, that requirement might force the judge to recuse themselves because there are few opportunities to acquire that experience without being significantly involved with one of the litigants. Low barriers to entry for learning programming and the large number of players in the industry make it pretty easy for a judge to have that experience without being compromised. That would be harder in the petroleum, telco, or broadcast industries.
Mostly. If you read the judge's ruling (and the observations thereof on Groklaw), the judge makes it clear that this applies to the Java API SSO because the java package SSO is essential to method invocation. (i.e. you need to import java.lang.String to access the string methods or need to explicitly invoke the class methods using the full package hierarchical path). The judge leaves open the possibility that an API's SSO would be copyrightable in a language where conforming to that SSO was not required for API interoperability, where the SSO was expressive only and not functional in any way.
Database I/Os tend to use random access patterns much more than other I/O workloads, such that latency is frequently the key performance factor, not throughput. SANs can give you lots of IOPS when most of those IOPS are substantially sequential and can take advantage of a large stripe block being read into a cache from multiple drives at once. However if each IO requires a head seek, a SAN's performance won't be substantially better than local disk and, when a DB's IO requests are queued with other VM IO requests against a shared spindle set, the SAN latency will be worse than local disk if the active data set substantially exceeds the SAN's shared cache.
If you've got some wimpy databases of a few GB or less, then the SAN should handle the load fine because you can take advantage of the shared cache. But if you're talking about serious Terabyte+ DBs effectively interspersed on a SAN with large shared file repositories? Ouch.
To be fair, UEFI can be one line among many in a defense-in-depth approach. Redhat does work hard to present themselves as the more secure/hardened Linux distribution, starting with baked-in SELinux and associated policies for Redhat-distributed packages (and including SELinux MAC customization as part of the RHCE BOK for at least 5 years now). Support of RHEL as a signed O/S under UEFI fits into their marketing strategy pretty well, and it gives them a way to differentiate themselves from CentOS.
If I was planning on running a web server with financial transactions, that would be a positive feature. For use as a workstation? Meh. If I was really paranoid about information on an end-user system, I would probably reboot with a read-only Live CD when handling secure info.
Somebody else indicated that that "culture" is a recent development from Western support of mujahadeen against the Soviets in the 80's, and that female education wasn't viewed in the same way previously. A lot of those attitudes also stem from the (relatively recent) exportation of Wahhabism and other extreme Salafist views, funded by petrodollars.
So, back when Apple only had MacOS 9, which was the only contemporary PC O/S which still relied on co-operative multitasking? It had some nice UI design and a good UI programming interface, but it still had a fundamental O/S weakness which even Windows had eliminated in moving from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95. Apple had struggled for years in unsuccessfully trying to revamp the O/S core, and publicly pretended that preemptive multitasking wasn't important for a user workstation.That's why Apple partisans were viewed as a cult in those days; they were wilfully blind to a glaring weakness in the product.
Steve Jobs saved Apple because he brought in NeXT's O/S as the core of OS X and saved Apple from suffering the same fate of irrelevancy that overtook other companies like Commodore [Amiga] who failed to keep up with the market (on the hardware side in Commodore's case).
So establishing a parallel between two companies which have completely missed where the market has been heading, have been unwilling or unable to execute a strategy to catch up, and have an ever-dwindling devoted fan base as a result? Yep, sounds about right.
Germany had its economy crushed by the massive reparation payments imposed on it after WWI, primarily at the instigation of the French, as a part of the treaty of Versailles. Inflation and poverty in 20s/30s Germany was horrendous (people wore suits made from re-purposed paper because cloth was too expensive) and the resulting national depression predisposed the German people to radical alternatives. It didn't help that Hitler was a masterful orator with a Reality Distortion Field that would have made Steve Jobs look like Gerald Ford.
Understanding that part of history is why some people worry about increasing wealth separation/concentration within the US and other Western democracies. Some of the 1% appear to think that controlling information media allows them to control the message and direct the building resentment. Others see an increasingly dry plain and fear the spark and the lightning strike will eventually bypass the media firebreak.
Well, there was that whole series of "Hellmouth" articles by whathisname. News about bullying of nerds was pretty big on Slashdot at one time after a certain high school shooting. This is an article about girls being targeted in school because they're trying to get an education. Does it suddenly stop being news for nerds because it's about girls instead of socially inept boys? Does it suddenly stop being news for nerds because the perpetrators are adult religious conservatives instead of jocks and clique culture?
It's been done already. 40 years ago even.
That's not just politics, that's Negotiation 101, which applies to far more than politics. The difference is that in most other negotiations you don't want to be so outrageous that the other party walks away, whereas in 21st century politics that can be a bonus that makes your base happy.
Heh, that was also my initial reaction. Although there's some possibility that the addition of some genes to the genome may have occurred as a result of insertion by retroviruses. That wouldn't be a copying "mistake" from the virus' point of view, and is not a normal part of the host's DNA reproductive cycle yet still not a "mistake".
You just use NoScript and don't allow Google Analytics scripts to execute.
Who knows? Maybe some people thought that black hole creation theory was probable and decided they wanted to secure that weapon of mass destruction for use against the decadent West.
To the Google-Oracle judge's ears. The jury have been specifically instructed to assume that APIs are copyrightable.
That said, Jonathan Schwartz' testimony on day 9 was seriously damaging to Oracle's case. He established a sound basis for the argument that Java APIs had been officially released for use without a licence, and that Sun had claimed a licence was only necessary to obtain the JCK to certify Java compatibility. STo the best of my knowledge, Sun didn't go bankrupt but were instead bought by Oracle, so those statements should still be in force. I'm thinking there might be opportunity for some serious class action lawsuits for breach of contract from Java developers against Oracle using that testimony if Oracle pursue the matter of copyrighting and demanding licences for the APIs. Not to mention massive flight of developers from use of the language and collapse of the Java business as developers decide not to pray that Oracle doesn't alter the deal further.
So there's reasonable hope that we might get a double win: a non-infringement ruling from the jury and a legal ruling against API copyrightability from the judge.
BTW, all I claimed was that "fear" due to excessive stress from change was likely one of the two contributing causes of AGW/CC denial, and that it could be due to the causal chain mentioned in the second paragraph. However you shouldn't take this as an accusation that you are poorly educated or limited in knowledge. Other cultural factors could contribute to a fear of change stress. For instance divorce and single-parent families have increased significantly since the 60s. With single parent families generally less well off financially, and working single parents having less time to devote individual attention to their children than married couples, that could force additional changes and stresses during critical formative years, leading to a similar outcome (increased stress during change). Perhaps there is yet another completely different scenario during your childhood/adolescence that would make you much more susceptible as an adult to stress from change than someone who hasn't been through that scenario?
I beg to differ. One of the fundamentals of the scientific method is that any theory needs to be revised or replaced whenever it is shown to not explain a body of repeatable results/observations. If you don't understand that then you are misunderstanding the fundamental basis of science and all we have achieved with it.
Wow I can't believe my parent comment got downmodded as Troll. Offtopic I could see. But troll?
and then you say
Explain to me how that does not say: I will not change my beliefs no matter how much conflicting evidence I am confronted with. And then explain to me how that is different from a religion.
It there's more than "one way to do it" in Perl, maybe you should consider that there may be more than one way to effect global climate changes in the Earth. Just because past climate changes have been due to external forcing factors acting on a system in equilibrium, resulting in a new equilibrium point, doesn't negate the possibility that significant new internal changes in that system could also change the equilibrium point. Now we have 7 billion people, with a substantial portion using heavy machinery for force multiplication. We (humanity) take apart mountains in years when it takes erosion centuries or millenia to do the same. As "intelligent" actors (organized by our brains and instincts) we are like millions of Maxwell's demons thrown into a thermodynamic equilibrium.
I have no illusions about my ability to, by myself, effect massive worldwide change or turn back the tide of billions of people. By myself, the best I can hope for is to find some insight into what great currents move the masses of people and try to not get swamped by the waves. A faint hope is that I may be able to catch a glimpse of how that wave might be usefully redirected and can try to use memetic engineering to convince people to join me in that effort, but my voice is minuscule compared to that of the dominant media and economic actors.
Come to think of it, I think that means that the most effective thing we can do to fight Islamofascism (and other forms of extreme religious conservatism) is to make smartphones (because they are small and easy to hide) cheap as hell, distribute them with solar chargers to kids in school, fund wireless data connectivity to rural areas, and then make the phones' home page a site that teaches analytical thinking and have an easy way to search/browse wikipedia. OLPC would have a similar though lesser effect. However the downside is that they would no longer be as ignorant of or content with how they are exploited by the Western top 1%, which is why this won't happen easily (it's much harder for the 99% to scrape up the disposable income to fund it). You wouldn't get as many Islamoterrorists, but you would get lots of hopefully bloodless (yeah right!) political revolutions and an upset of the current economic order. I think the Arab Spring is an early example of that principle in action.
This also probably means that China's attempts to control access to the Internet is also doomed to failure. Because Communism is just a (very different) form of conservative orthodoxy, and to run a competitive urban industrialized modern nation you need an educated urban populace, which is the necessary ingredient for a more secular and liberal/progressive outlook. Firewalling the internet may decrease the ease of access to those ideas, but it doesn't affect the increasing susceptibility to those ideas. When they finally catch, it will be like a spark in a tinder dry forest.