If so, you are actually reading it way out of context. The article was very anti-Microsoft and very pro-Linux. It was off-handed or sarcastic -- not that sarcastic is somehow wrong.
I believe that in literature, this is called "Tone of Voice." It was a sarcastic tone.
However, the author that called the "5 reasons" author a "sarcastic moron", was resorting to ad hominem attack, since he had no argument to build upon.
While that name-caller was right about the "5 reasons" guy being sarcastic and pro-Linux, he was wrong about many of his supposed "facts."
It's like he was neither an expert in Linux or in Windows -- he got "facts" wrong on both sides.
Since he used the label "sarcastic moron." So, his argument was further invalidated.
Wrong premises and poor logic lead to wrong conclusions and unsound reasoning....
Now you have several cases in point, in the parent "sarcastic moron" article, if you want to show somebody examples of bad logic!:-)
The name-caller was just trying to raise the ire of Slashdotters everywhere....
The rest of it was perfectly correct and enlightened... from a relatively new Linux user's point of view.
Whoa! So, in your blog, you aren't clear that you a new Linux user, then you spew a littany of incorrect "facts" about Linux, as if you're in the know.
Do I detect dishonesty? (This is reason number 1 that you felt the flaims of Slashdot).
I, for one, use and admin both OS'es extensively and have done so for many years. I'm not new user in either environment. My current full-time job is an IIS admin (mostly) and as an Apache admin, as well.
I have about 13 years of Linux (released September of 1991) and more (I don't remember how many) of Windows. I have used, admin'ed, developed for, etc., Windows 1.0 through 2003 -- virtually every release.
I'm not a new user to either environment, as most on Slahdot are not, as well. Most of us are equally comfortable in either environment and we *know* the problems with both Windows and Linux.
I've already posted replies twice, but let me just point you to some IIS admin items that you conveniently left out (these are all separate from IIS and are required to admin IIS -- look them up, if you're not sure about them):
web.config
machine.config
COM+
mmc
iisreset
net stop iisadmin / net start w3svc
(permissions and security)
SSL -- code signing, not just plain SSL on IIS
Research your "facts," first, before posting on Slashdot, or we will have to moderate you out of existence.
Having incorrect "facts" is the second reason you got no respect.
In addition, your rant rambled all over the place from Desktop OS (where Windows shines, sort of) to Server OS (where Linux shines). This is not an apples-to-apples comparison!
This is the other reason you got no respect on Slashdot.
Now, I have tried to confine my responses to IIS v Apache and security/permissions. The desktop is something I'm not tackling, here.
From http://darnitwebdev.blogspot.com/2005/08/this-is-i n-response-to-sarcastic-and.html - Take a look at Apache. A server widely acclaimed for its up-time, and yet you can't even change a single setting without restarting the server! Compare this now with Microsoft IIS. A nice GUI that lets you change almost any setting or add an entire web site with a few clicks and you're already live. No restart, no downtime. And you don't need a fat "Apache Unleashed" manual for IIS to figure out how to do this or that.
First, using fat Apache Unleashed manuals for IIS won't help that much, anyway....:-)
Second, lighten up, dude!
Not only are there quick, easy solutions to your straw-man argument (`apachectl graceful` comes to mind), but, as I've said here, it's akin to comparing Oracle to Access....
Let me be the first to say it:
Oracle is hard. It's rocket science. Access is easy. It's run by a GUI.
However, where would you rather to run enterprise data, Access or Oracle? (Usual disclaimer: Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks).
Let me say it a different way:
Apache is hard. It's rocket science. IIS is easy. It's run by a GUI.
Apache also has about 70-75% of the webserver market, and is growing, while IIS has less than 20%, and is shrinking....
Apache is enterprise-grade, as is Oracle. IIS and Access, well.... (Humorous note: Which do you see more of on resumes -- Oracle DBA's or Access DBA's?)
Now compare this to the original topic -- Linux vs. Windows or any Unix vs. Windows... See any correlation?
And then there's this one, which makes me wonder if you have ever used a modern distro: Suppose I install Gnome as default and want to install KDE and use that as the default. How easy is that? Well, every time I try, I have to search through several configuration files with 100s of lines to find the one that specifies the default GUI, and then it often doesn't even work.
Did you ever hear of Desktop Configurator on Fedora Core 3, for one quick example? Install KDE packages, run Desktop Configurator (only a click or two and a restart of X)....
Your security agument is wrong, wrong, wrong. Try Windows 2003, for starters. Yes, you *have* to be *Local Admin* to do about 1/2 of IIS work, period. You cannot assign permissions, do SSL work, do IISRESET, do NET STOP / NET START, restart the box, etc., without *Local Admin*. Or, have you ever used 2003?
Oh wait, *Local Admin* is basically the same thing as *root* on Linux, isn't it?
Also, just look at viruses, worms, etc.... Windows sure is secure when you, as a non-admin, can simply *use* IE, Messenger, or Outlook/Outlook Express and totally compromise the box....
Yours is a straw-man argument, (and so was the original tongue-in-cheek article, of course).
Mine can also be made into a straw-man, if we don't compare the above as server products and start comparing them as desktop products.... That's also an example of equivocation.
What I also don't like about Linux is the lack of unity. (KDE v GNOME,.rpm v.deb, LSB v non-LSB, a gazillion distros, multiple config formats, etc.)
What I don't like about Windows (other than licensing) is the lack of options. I cannot think outside the box without generating reams and reams of code, if it's even possible to do x, y, or z the way I want to. (I run into these issues all the time, BTW).
To the last poster: `apachectl graceful` is correct.
It waits until all child processes are done, kills each one, then reloads and restarts Apache. The users shouldn't even know you're down.
What's funny is that IIS is really doing the same thing behind-the-scenes, without your knowledge.
At least with Apache, you can control *when* it restarts. IIS only needs a whiff of a web.config change and it does it.
(For example, on IIS this could be a bad thing, if you are in the middle of copying a ton of files and your customers see the site mangled. This is possible to have happen in Apache, as well, but you have more control).
Both servers occasionally have configuration changes or other problems that require a full stop/start. However, with Apache, it's far less frequent, unless someone breaks it.
Apache is also *so* much more powerful because it's *so* configurable. As someone who admins both for my job, I can attest that there's no contest.
IMHO, IIS feels like a cheap plastic toy. Apache, on the other hand, is almost overkill, but good overkill, nonetheless. Apache truly feels enterprise-class, unlike IIS, which feels more like an point-and-click application. (I think this is akin to comparing Oracle to Access).
Features-wise, there is no comparison. For example, look up all the "mod_xxxxx" modules for Apache, some time. Not impressed? Well, just try mod_rewrite on for size, or mod_proxy, or mod_auth, or mod_perl's extensions to Apache.
(Now compare that to IIS. Insert stunned silence and the chirping of crickets)....
Again, IMHO, you cannot compare the IIS to Apache for power, flexibility, control, etc. IIS is easier to use -- initially -- until you want to think-outside-the-box, that is!
Apache's portability, stability, performance under load, features, and popularity are renowned, for good reasons....
If you want more of an apples-to-apples comparison, find a GUI tool for Apache that behaves somewhat like IIS, if one exists. (Of course, you'd have to get one that limits features to make it more apples-to-apples)....
Most Americans now think the ban should be dropped and the government should "fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos".
Most Americans thought slavery was a good thing and that "people of color" should not have the same rights as those who were not "people of color."
So, I'm afraid I have no clue what point you were trying to make.... Does 50.00000001% or 99.999999999% make it *right*?
Of course not.
I wonder how barbaric we will look 50, 100, or 150 years from now.
Absolutely. In most states, including my state of Kansas, you are under no obligation to give any notice. In most states, if not all, they must pay you up to the last day of employment, and may still have to pay for all vacation, depending on laws and company policy. You are *not* a slave.
It sounds like he's been repeatedly stabbing you and other employees in the back. However, as professional courtesy, give him two-weeks notice and be very nice about it.
This guy is clearly desperate. Who knows, perhaps you can negotiate, if you're willing to go back?
I agree with this -- this season is better. I also have watched Enterprise weekly -- and like it.
Now I also agree that it could help to get some new writers, with newer story lines; three of the bridge crew are so-so; and the theme song is lame. I still like the show, though.
However, like it or lump it, I think there is something bigger at stake -- SciFi in the mainstream. So, if./'ers don't like Enterprise, they may get more (actually less) than they bargained for....
If the flagship SciFi show -- Star Trek "xyz" (this time it is Enterprise) -- is cancelled, then SciFi, outside videogames, the occasional movie, and the SciFi channel, languishes. If the network execs already don't like SciFi, this will be ammo that they will use over and over again.
The danger, IMHO, is that they will clutter up the airwaves with more reality shows, instead. Slashdotters already complain about what's on the airwaves, but if there is no SciFi, then TV gets even more lame than it admittedly already is.
Again, if not Star Trek Enterprise, then what is gonna replace it? You might not watch it, Slashdotters (I do,) but it's not gonna get replaced with Babylon 5, BattleStar Galactica (on SciFi), or name-your-favorite-show....
It's interesting that we talk about the next generation, especially concerning the space program. SciFi fills a huge role here; however, if there's nothing to stimulate the mind and help people dream about the future, then it's only gonna get worse.
They're at/near the edge of the Solar System and transmitting at 20 watts, or so, if memory serves.... I also don't think the receiving antennas are 1,000 feet long, either, although they're more expensive.
They've also been transmitting under their own power for about 30 years continuously, or something like that?!?
That's quite a bit better than this example, wouldn't everyone agree?
If you're using VNC, you probably notice how slow it is. UltraVNC/TightVNC is a big improvement over regular VNC, as well as XWindows, but they're all dog slow.
NX (by NoMachine) and FreeNX (the GPL'ed edition) are REALLY fast, on the other hand. They are 100% encrypted through SSH and can tunnel to VNC, X, and RDP....
NX will currently only host from Unix/Linux. However, there are a bunch of clients.
I made an IMMEDIATE change to FreeNX/NX after using it only once. Now, I no longer use VNC for Linux....
For most newcomers to the world of IT, who want to be on the fast-track, without rushing yourself too much, I'd recommend a plan like this:
Get your BSCS, BSEE, or whatever. While in college, try to gain as much knowledge and as many internships and "odd computer jobs" as possible. Spend a lot of time in the library, gaining as much depth and breadth as you can in your field. Write database-driven Linux-based web code for fun and profit. If you're single, you probably have an enormous amount of time at your disposal, at this point in your life, believe it or not!
Go to work for a couple of years, gaining enough experience to find a decent paying IT job with a large, respected, well-known company. Larger companies often pay for degrees.
(Make a conscious choice about your family, work, and school plans.)
Let your (larger) company pay for the MSCS, while continuing to work -- there are still plenty of companies which do this.
(Maybe wait until this point to get married, maybe not. Don't let work/degree crowd out your family time -- you will pay for it later, if you do.)
Continue to work and let your company pay for your doctorate. Gain management experience, if you're into that sort of thing.
Get in about 10+ years total working experience.
(Maybe start a family at this point. If you're in your early to mid-thirties, at this point, life isn't over.... Again, balance your work and family time properly; everyone will be much happier.)
Do anything you want with your degree/career....
Retire early?
A PhD with no experience is a risky (and expensive) proposition.
10 years experience with a PhD or Masters' Degree is not risky, however. This combination pays handsomely, as well.
If you can get your company to pay for most/all of it, all the better.
Or, to every point that you make, there are defensive as opposed to offensive purposes. We can go round and round. The point I want to make is that there are BOTH uses. In other words, all of these technologies are neutral; it depends on the person using them.
Also, the military, itself is neutral and not inherently bad. Again, it is a false assumption that "military" == "evil". What about defense, peace keeping, rebulding, policing, and rescue operations, which are FAR more common uses of the military? What about defending other nations who ask for help from outside aggression? What about helping governments stop drug trafficing? (Those uses heavily consume military technology, BTW.)
Point by point -
This would useful for finding people in a burning building full of smoke... and once the targets have been acquired, neutralize them.Or, save military personnel and civilians.
Or imagine putting it onto a car as a warning system in heavy fog that you're approaching an obstacle too fast... or taking advantage of a dust storm and locating the enemy before he can locate you.Or, keep your troops and the Red Cross out of harm's way during a rescue operation.
Same with planes... same reason, faster visual target acquisition is an advantage.Same with planes...
the internet was a defense project... that could allow us to maintain communication after a nuclear strike which is necessary if orders for a counter-strike are no be disemminatedHow is this necessarily an OFFENSIVE activity? (You are making an assumption or two, here....)
So was GPS... to guide precision munitions to targets to increase kill ratiosCan you find military units, rescue-people-on-the-ground uses?
So was radar... to detect any and all potential aerial and sea going enemy targetsWrong!!! This was a DEFENSIVE application, during World War II, developed by the British, who were being ATTACKED by the Germans. This should have saved lives during the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese, in present-day Hawaii, but the RADAR was IGNORED, even though it saw them. Of course, it was turned into a defensive/offensive technology.
"We dont need this" - we don't need you and your cluelessness... nor your innocence.Why do you naively assume that "war" == "bad"? Why do you assume that "military" == "bad"? Why do you assume that "military tech" == "bad"? This is illogical in the extreme. You should not assume that it is either good or bad; only the use is good or bad.
For example, in World War II, both the German Alliance and the Japanese were in the wrong (a fact, definitely not an opinion); a coalition of Allies stopped them, instead of giving into them. America found out the hard way that being a pacifist nation (actual Presidential campaign statement: "He kept us out of the War"), allows tyrants to steam-roll their way into power and kill very large numbers of people. It is not only dangerous and naive -- it is also cruel and wrong to allow this to go unchecked. Hence, militaries, military power and military technology can be either good or bad. Don't assume. Look at the military, the leaders, and the objectives. Even there, you should not have the assumption of guilt...
Just wanted let you know that there is always a way technology can be used by the military that is related to killing people. Especially if the military is involved in it's development.
The above statement can, of course, be true, as can its converse: "Just wanted let you know that there is always a way technology can be used by the military that is life-saving."
However, there is an implied assumtion in your statements that military technology is evil. This is extremely faulty reasoning: "Straw-Man Arguments," "begging the question," "red herrings," "ad-hominem attack" to name just a few.
I agree. To me, it changes Star Trek, but it adds a lot, too, because the tech is much lower. It's almost like NASA, then Cochran [sp?], then Enterprise NX, then Star Trek TOS....
I liked Season 3 a lot better than the previous two.
Slashdot Political Diversity Poll -
What is your political party?
Democrat
Green
Communist
Somewhere Left of Communist, whatever that is
Invoke Godwin's Law -- make it stop
CmdrTaco
# Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks. # Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first. # This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
I've used Cygwin for years and they'll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers -- unless they convert to Linux from Windoze. ("They" is anybody that makes me use Windoze on the Desktop but still gives me admin capability to my Windoze box.)
It's pretty stable, but I don't know if I'd trust it for mission-critical work. Again, I don't trust Windoze for mission-critical work, either.
The fact that Cygwin usually runs as an app on top of Windoze and that it usually likes to run in a console window on top of a real desktop makes it less stable and is a non-replacement for Linux/Unix, for sure. I'd take it over MKS or Hummingbird Exceed in a heatbeat, however, for functionality and performance reasons, alone!
It's definitely better than VBA or OLE, for stability and automation of the things it can automate. OTOH, ActiveState Perl is, too, and it can hook into Windoze pretty well. I believe that ActiveState Perl, if you can run your apps on it, would be more stable, but less feature-rich than Cygwin. You may want to use ActiveState Perl, instead.
However, has the author considered this option?
http://www.redhat.com/software/cygwin/
RedHat sells support contracts. Also, the RedHat license for Cygwin is REQUIRED if you commercially distribute cygwin or its apps.
And then there is the issue of NTFS vs. FAT-32. With FAT-based filesystems, even on NT/2000/XP, everything runs as root. On NTFS-based filesystems, there is something of a security layer.
The next time you see a bootable C:\ drive formatted to FAT-32, note this: The OS, IE, and most apps are unprotected and can be compromised. In other words, in this configuration, IE is STILL running as root/administrator.
It's very odd that for backward compatibility reasons that M$ chose to leave FAT-32 insecure and that a file system can make an app insecure. This is most certainly not how Unix/Linux native filesystems behave.
Now why do people have FAT-32 on their bootup partitions on NT-based filesystems? Simple: It makes it really easy to image and to backup/resore to/from lots of software -- even old imaging and backup/restore apps based on non-NT OSes work with FAT-32. You could, in effect, use Windows 98/Me to image a bunch of NT/2000/XP machines in this configuration.
For example, the company I work for bought a COMPAQ desktop machine preloaded with XP. It came with a single partion (C:\) that was bootable and was formatted with FAT-32.
So, do you plan to buy that new NT-based operating system preinstalled? You had better check to see if any of your partitions that run software or store data use FAT-32.
Fortunately, there is a built-in utility to convert from FAT-32 to NTFS:
C:\WINNT\system32>convert/? Converts FAT volumes to NTFS.
CONVERT volume/FS:NTFS [/V]
volume Specifies the drive letter (followed by a colon),
mount point, or volume name. /FS:NTFS Specifies that the volume to be converted to NTFS. /V Specifies that Convert should be run in verbose mode.
Slashdot Mirror
The original "5 reasons" article?
:-)
If so, you are actually reading it way out of context. The article was very anti-Microsoft and very pro-Linux. It was off-handed or sarcastic -- not that sarcastic is somehow wrong.
I believe that in literature, this is called "Tone of Voice." It was a sarcastic tone.
However, the author that called the "5 reasons" author a "sarcastic moron", was resorting to ad hominem attack, since he had no argument to build upon.
While that name-caller was right about the "5 reasons" guy being sarcastic and pro-Linux, he was wrong about many of his supposed "facts."
It's like he was neither an expert in Linux or in Windows -- he got "facts" wrong on both sides.
Since he used the label "sarcastic moron." So, his argument was further invalidated.
Wrong premises and poor logic lead to wrong conclusions and unsound reasoning....
Now you have several cases in point, in the parent "sarcastic moron" article, if you want to show somebody examples of bad logic!
The name-caller was just trying to raise the ire of Slashdotters everywhere....
Dude, go back and actually read the replies.
The rest of it was perfectly correct and enlightened... from a relatively new Linux user's point of view.
Whoa! So, in your blog, you aren't clear that you a new Linux user, then you spew a littany of incorrect "facts" about Linux, as if you're in the know.
Do I detect dishonesty? (This is reason number 1 that you felt the flaims of Slashdot).
I, for one, use and admin both OS'es extensively and have done so for many years. I'm not new user in either environment. My current full-time job is an IIS admin (mostly) and as an Apache admin, as well.
I have about 13 years of Linux (released September of 1991) and more (I don't remember how many) of Windows. I have used, admin'ed, developed for, etc., Windows 1.0 through 2003 -- virtually every release.
I'm not a new user to either environment, as most on Slahdot are not, as well. Most of us are equally comfortable in either environment and we *know* the problems with both Windows and Linux.
I've already posted replies twice, but let me just point you to some IIS admin items that you conveniently left out (these are all separate from IIS and are required to admin IIS -- look them up, if you're not sure about them):
web.config
machine.config
COM+
mmc
iisreset
net stop iisadmin / net start w3svc
(permissions and security)
SSL -- code signing, not just plain SSL on IIS
Research your "facts," first, before posting on Slashdot, or we will have to moderate you out of existence.
Having incorrect "facts" is the second reason you got no respect.
In addition, your rant rambled all over the place from Desktop OS (where Windows shines, sort of) to Server OS (where Linux shines). This is not an apples-to-apples comparison!
This is the other reason you got no respect on Slashdot.
Now, I have tried to confine my responses to IIS v Apache and security/permissions. The desktop is something I'm not tackling, here.
You didn't earn respect -- you just trolled.
FYI - don't post editorial as if it's journalism!
Take a look at Apache. A server widely acclaimed for its up-time, and yet you can't even change a single setting without restarting the server! Compare this now with Microsoft IIS. A nice GUI that lets you change almost any setting or add an entire web site with a few clicks and you're already live. No restart, no downtime. And you don't need a fat "Apache Unleashed" manual for IIS to figure out how to do this or that.
First, using fat Apache Unleashed manuals for IIS won't help that much, anyway....
Second, lighten up, dude!
Not only are there quick, easy solutions to your straw-man argument (`apachectl graceful` comes to mind), but, as I've said here, it's akin to comparing Oracle to Access....
Let me be the first to say it:
Access is easy. It's run by a GUI.
However, where would you rather to run enterprise data, Access or Oracle? (Usual disclaimer: Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks).
Let me say it a different way:
IIS is easy. It's run by a GUI.
Apache also has about 70-75% of the webserver market, and is growing, while IIS has less than 20%, and is shrinking....
Apache is enterprise-grade, as is Oracle. IIS and Access, well.... (Humorous note: Which do you see more of on resumes -- Oracle DBA's or Access DBA's?)
Now compare this to the original topic -- Linux vs. Windows or any Unix vs. Windows... See any correlation?
And then there's this one, which makes me wonder if you have ever used a modern distro:
Suppose I install Gnome as default and want to install KDE and use that as the default. How easy is that? Well, every time I try, I have to search through several configuration files with 100s of lines to find the one that specifies the default GUI, and then it often doesn't even work.
Did you ever hear of Desktop Configurator on Fedora Core 3, for one quick example? Install KDE packages, run Desktop Configurator (only a click or two and a restart of X)....
Your security agument is wrong, wrong, wrong. Try Windows 2003, for starters. Yes, you *have* to be *Local Admin* to do about 1/2 of IIS work, period. You cannot assign permissions, do SSL work, do IISRESET, do NET STOP / NET START, restart the box, etc., without *Local Admin*. Or, have you ever used 2003?
Oh wait, *Local Admin* is basically the same thing as *root* on Linux, isn't it?
Also, just look at viruses, worms, etc.... Windows sure is secure when you, as a non-admin, can simply *use* IE, Messenger, or Outlook/Outlook Express and totally compromise the box....
Yours is a straw-man argument, (and so was the original tongue-in-cheek article, of course).
Mine can also be made into a straw-man, if we don't compare the above as server products and start comparing them as desktop products.... That's also an example of equivocation.
What I also don't like about Linux is the lack of unity. (KDE v GNOME,
What I don't like about Windows (other than licensing) is the lack of options. I cannot think outside the box without generating reams and reams of code, if it's even possible to do x, y, or z the way I want to. (I run into these issues all the time, BTW).
To the last poster: `apachectl graceful` is correct.
It waits until all child processes are done, kills each one, then reloads and restarts Apache. The users shouldn't even know you're down.
What's funny is that IIS is really doing the same thing behind-the-scenes, without your knowledge.
At least with Apache, you can control *when* it restarts. IIS only needs a whiff of a web.config change and it does it.
(For example, on IIS this could be a bad thing, if you are in the middle of copying a ton of files and your customers see the site mangled. This is possible to have happen in Apache, as well, but you have more control).
Both servers occasionally have configuration changes or other problems that require a full stop/start. However, with Apache, it's far less frequent, unless someone breaks it.
Apache is also *so* much more powerful because it's *so* configurable. As someone who admins both for my job, I can attest that there's no contest.
IMHO, IIS feels like a cheap plastic toy. Apache, on the other hand, is almost overkill, but good overkill, nonetheless. Apache truly feels enterprise-class, unlike IIS, which feels more like an point-and-click application. (I think this is akin to comparing Oracle to Access).
Features-wise, there is no comparison. For example, look up all the "mod_xxxxx" modules for Apache, some time. Not impressed? Well, just try mod_rewrite on for size, or mod_proxy, or mod_auth, or mod_perl's extensions to Apache.
(Now compare that to IIS. Insert stunned silence and the chirping of crickets)....
Again, IMHO, you cannot compare the IIS to Apache for power, flexibility, control, etc. IIS is easier to use -- initially -- until you want to think-outside-the-box, that is!
Apache's portability, stability, performance under load, features, and popularity are renowned, for good reasons....
If you want more of an apples-to-apples comparison, find a GUI tool for Apache that behaves somewhat like IIS, if one exists. (Of course, you'd have to get one that limits features to make it more apples-to-apples)....
Regarding the debate, Bush is losing.
Most Americans now think the ban should be dropped and the government should "fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos".
Most Americans thought slavery was a good thing and that "people of color" should not have the same rights as those who were not "people of color."
So, I'm afraid I have no clue what point you were trying to make.... Does 50.00000001% or 99.999999999% make it *right*?
Of course not.
I wonder how barbaric we will look 50, 100, or 150 years from now.
That should have been:
Its an old tried and trusted story of young boy with destiny meets mystical mentor Yoda, Yoda, Yoda.
Absolutely. In most states, including my state of Kansas, you are under no obligation to give any notice. In most states, if not all, they must pay you up to the last day of employment, and may still have to pay for all vacation, depending on laws and company policy. You are *not* a slave.
It sounds like he's been repeatedly stabbing you and other employees in the back. However, as professional courtesy, give him two-weeks notice and be very nice about it.
This guy is clearly desperate. Who knows, perhaps you can negotiate, if you're willing to go back?
I wouldn't, though.
I agree with this -- this season is better. I also have watched Enterprise weekly -- and like it.
./'ers don't like Enterprise, they may get more (actually less) than they bargained for....
Now I also agree that it could help to get some new writers, with newer story lines; three of the bridge crew are so-so; and the theme song is lame. I still like the show, though.
However, like it or lump it, I think there is something bigger at stake -- SciFi in the mainstream. So, if
If the flagship SciFi show -- Star Trek "xyz" (this time it is Enterprise) -- is cancelled, then SciFi, outside videogames, the occasional movie, and the SciFi channel, languishes. If the network execs already don't like SciFi, this will be ammo that they will use over and over again.
The danger, IMHO, is that they will clutter up the airwaves with more reality shows, instead. Slashdotters already complain about what's on the airwaves, but if there is no SciFi, then TV gets even more lame than it admittedly already is.
Again, if not Star Trek Enterprise, then what is gonna replace it? You might not watch it, Slashdotters (I do,) but it's not gonna get replaced with Babylon 5, BattleStar Galactica (on SciFi), or name-your-favorite-show....
It's interesting that we talk about the next generation, especially concerning the space program. SciFi fills a huge role here; however, if there's nothing to stimulate the mind and help people dream about the future, then it's only gonna get worse.
What about the Pioneer and Voyager probes?
They're at/near the edge of the Solar System and transmitting at 20 watts, or so, if memory serves.... I also don't think the receiving antennas are 1,000 feet long, either, although they're more expensive.
They've also been transmitting under their own power for about 30 years continuously, or something like that?!?
That's quite a bit better than this example, wouldn't everyone agree?
A now a special note to all the people who commented unfavorably to the parent: READ THE ARTICLE FIRST, before you COMMENT ON IT!!!
:-(
You denigrate the parent post who most likely AGREED WITH YOU!
I guess it's true. No good deed (or word) will go unpunished, here on Slashdot. People disagree with you when you are saying the *SAME THING*.
Only on Slashdot can you have 4 people on the same side of an issue arguing and calling each other an idiot. I guess the irony is lost....
If you're using VNC, you probably notice how slow it is. UltraVNC/TightVNC is a big improvement over regular VNC, as well as XWindows, but they're all dog slow.
NX (by NoMachine) and FreeNX (the GPL'ed edition) are REALLY fast, on the other hand. They are 100% encrypted through SSH and can tunnel to VNC, X, and RDP....
NX will currently only host from Unix/Linux. However, there are a bunch of clients.
I made an IMMEDIATE change to FreeNX/NX after using it only once. Now, I no longer use VNC for Linux....
For most newcomers to the world of IT, who want to be on the fast-track, without rushing yourself too much, I'd recommend a plan like this:
Get your BSCS, BSEE, or whatever. While in college, try to gain as much knowledge and as many internships and "odd computer jobs" as possible. Spend a lot of time in the library, gaining as much depth and breadth as you can in your field. Write database-driven Linux-based web code for fun and profit. If you're single, you probably have an enormous amount of time at your disposal, at this point in your life, believe it or not!
Go to work for a couple of years, gaining enough experience to find a decent paying IT job with a large, respected, well-known company. Larger companies often pay for degrees.
(Make a conscious choice about your family, work, and school plans.)
Let your (larger) company pay for the MSCS, while continuing to work -- there are still plenty of companies which do this.
(Maybe wait until this point to get married, maybe not. Don't let work/degree crowd out your family time -- you will pay for it later, if you do.)
Continue to work and let your company pay for your doctorate. Gain management experience, if you're into that sort of thing.
Get in about 10+ years total working experience.
(Maybe start a family at this point. If you're in your early to mid-thirties, at this point, life isn't over.... Again, balance your work and family time properly; everyone will be much happier.)
Do anything you want with your degree/career....
Retire early?
A PhD with no experience is a risky (and expensive) proposition.
10 years experience with a PhD or Masters' Degree is not risky, however. This combination pays handsomely, as well.
If you can get your company to pay for most/all of it, all the better.
Or, to every point that you make, there are defensive as opposed to offensive purposes. We can go round and round. The point I want to make is that there are BOTH uses. In other words, all of these technologies are neutral; it depends on the person using them.
Also, the military, itself is neutral and not inherently bad. Again, it is a false assumption that "military" == "evil". What about defense, peace keeping, rebulding, policing, and rescue operations, which are FAR more common uses of the military? What about defending other nations who ask for help from outside aggression? What about helping governments stop drug trafficing? (Those uses heavily consume military technology, BTW.)
Point by point -
This would useful for finding people in a burning building full of smoke... and once the targets have been acquired, neutralize them. Or, save military personnel and civilians.
Or imagine putting it onto a car as a warning system in heavy fog that you're approaching an obstacle too fast... or taking advantage of a dust storm and locating the enemy before he can locate you. Or, keep your troops and the Red Cross out of harm's way during a rescue operation.
Same with planes... same reason, faster visual target acquisition is an advantage. Same with planes...
the internet was a defense project... that could allow us to maintain communication after a nuclear strike which is necessary if orders for a counter-strike are no be disemminated How is this necessarily an OFFENSIVE activity? (You are making an assumption or two, here....)
So was GPS... to guide precision munitions to targets to increase kill ratios Can you find military units, rescue-people-on-the-ground uses?
So was radar... to detect any and all potential aerial and sea going enemy targets Wrong!!! This was a DEFENSIVE application, during World War II, developed by the British, who were being ATTACKED by the Germans. This should have saved lives during the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese, in present-day Hawaii, but the RADAR was IGNORED, even though it saw them. Of course, it was turned into a defensive/offensive technology.
"We dont need this" - we don't need you and your cluelessness... nor your innocence. Why do you naively assume that "war" == "bad"? Why do you assume that "military" == "bad"? Why do you assume that "military tech" == "bad"? This is illogical in the extreme. You should not assume that it is either good or bad; only the use is good or bad.
For example, in World War II, both the German Alliance and the Japanese were in the wrong (a fact, definitely not an opinion); a coalition of Allies stopped them, instead of giving into them. America found out the hard way that being a pacifist nation (actual Presidential campaign statement: "He kept us out of the War"), allows tyrants to steam-roll their way into power and kill very large numbers of people. It is not only dangerous and naive -- it is also cruel and wrong to allow this to go unchecked. Hence, militaries, military power and military technology can be either good or bad. Don't assume. Look at the military, the leaders, and the objectives. Even there, you should not have the assumption of guilt...
Just wanted let you know that there is always a way technology can be used by the military that is related to killing people. Especially if the military is involved in it's development.
The above statement can, of course, be true, as can its converse: "Just wanted let you know that there is always a way technology can be used by the military that is life-saving."
However, there is an implied assumtion in your statements that military technology is evil. This is extremely faulty reasoning: "Straw-Man Arguments," "begging the question," "red herrings," "ad-hominem attack" to name just a few.
If you buy into this, you probably also
Agreed.
I agree. To me, it changes Star Trek, but it adds a lot, too, because the tech is much lower. It's almost like NASA, then Cochran [sp?], then Enterprise NX, then Star Trek TOS....
I liked Season 3 a lot better than the previous two.
Slashdot Political Diversity Poll -
What is your political party?
Democrat
Green
Communist
Somewhere Left of Communist, whatever that is
Invoke Godwin's Law -- make it stop
CmdrTaco
# Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
# Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
# This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
I've used Cygwin for years and they'll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers -- unless they convert to Linux from Windoze. ("They" is anybody that makes me use Windoze on the Desktop but still gives me admin capability to my Windoze box.)
It's pretty stable, but I don't know if I'd trust it for mission-critical work. Again, I don't trust Windoze for mission-critical work, either.
The fact that Cygwin usually runs as an app on top of Windoze and that it usually likes to run in a console window on top of a real desktop makes it less stable and is a non-replacement for Linux/Unix, for sure. I'd take it over MKS or Hummingbird Exceed in a heatbeat, however, for functionality and performance reasons, alone!
It's definitely better than VBA or OLE, for stability and automation of the things it can automate. OTOH, ActiveState Perl is, too, and it can hook into Windoze pretty well. I believe that ActiveState Perl, if you can run your apps on it, would be more stable, but less feature-rich than Cygwin. You may want to use ActiveState Perl, instead.
However, has the author considered this option?
http://www.redhat.com/software/cygwin/
RedHat sells support contracts. Also, the RedHat license for Cygwin is REQUIRED if you commercially distribute cygwin or its apps.
There are used (or EBay/UBid) notebooks out there.... You can pick one up for cheap.
A used laptop with a few G of HD isn't that bad.
How about a small laptop?
I don't know if it's been posted, yet, otherwise mod me down as redunant -- I am prepared for your wrath.
What about WinSCP, which used PuTTY DLLs'?
Caffeine?
Now I'm thinking that the posters should have cached those links using Google. Oh wait!
All true....
The next time you see a bootable C:\ drive formatted to FAT-32, note this: The OS, IE, and most apps are unprotected and can be compromised. In other words, in this configuration, IE is STILL running as root/administrator.
It's very odd that for backward compatibility reasons that M$ chose to leave FAT-32 insecure and that a file system can make an app insecure. This is most certainly not how Unix/Linux native filesystems behave.
Now why do people have FAT-32 on their bootup partitions on NT-based filesystems? Simple: It makes it really easy to image and to backup/resore to/from lots of software -- even old imaging and backup/restore apps based on non-NT OSes work with FAT-32. You could, in effect, use Windows 98/Me to image a bunch of NT/2000/XP machines in this configuration.
For example, the company I work for bought a COMPAQ desktop machine preloaded with XP. It came with a single partion (C:\) that was bootable and was formatted with FAT-32.
So, do you plan to buy that new NT-based operating system preinstalled? You had better check to see if any of your partitions that run software or store data use FAT-32.
Fortunately, there is a built-in utility to convert from FAT-32 to NTFS:
If I'm not mistaken, it seems that the tax software companies primarily use the Government's PDF forms. They sure look like them.
If you can open the PDF and make an FDF out of it, couldn't you do EXACTLY what the poster of this message asked?
So, if you have an interactive FDF viewer that made calculations, etc., you should be able to do it easier than many think you might.
Of course Python is the wrong language to do it in. Kidding. (Self-confessed Perl/PHP bigot.)