but I have found that Exchange and Outlook are very unreliable, prone to crashing, etc., even though they're "easy to administer."
I have found them extremely reliable myself, so that doesn't prove anything. If you are critisizing Exchange it would also be nice if you could suggest an alternative with similar functionality.
I don't have the time to go into details, but this was a horribly biased article. If you want to see why, read the comments when this story was posted on kuro5hin here. I certainly hope that Roblimo doesn't waste his money getting that story submitted. Shoeboy's story has a much better chance of getting anywhere.
to be pedantic i would like to point out that RedHat does have a priority ftp site (for customers paying support) where updated packages appear 1-2 weeks before the public ftp servers. but this is a minor thing, and i agree that RedHat has a very good attitude:-)
Hmm... I am getting mixed messages here. Kiss The Blade agrees with me that I should not try to rationalise the Lord of the Rings, whereas you say the exact opposite. In response to your points:
You may have forgotten that Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel, a wizard, an elven lord, and an elven lady, (of the third generation of elves ever to live, IIRC), all REFUSED the burden of the ring.
Yes, but that does not mean anything. They refused the ring simply because they knew it too well. It was their skills that Sauron had copied in order to make it. They had the three rings and they knew their amazing strength. The one ring was more powerful than the others combined, so the elves were rightly terrified.
Frodo on the other hand was a totally clueless hobbit: the only magic he knew was Gandalf's fireworks and smoke rings. Not very scary stuff, is it? If he had any idea what powers the ring held he would have been just as terrified. The elves had the responsibility to destroy the ring as:
a. it was their skills that Sauron had copied to make the ring
b. they were they supreme race on middle-earth
c. they did not know almost anything about hobbits and their resistance to magic or the other physical wounds that you mention as no hobbit before Frodo and his friends had been in such an adventure. Placing their faith on Frodo was therefore totally unjustified.
As for Boromir: he was a weakly mortal human, I will not even compare him to elves.
In general the whole plot of the LotR just seems very "cheap". Gandalf always appears at the right moment to help the others: when he finds the two lesser hobbits (I forget their names), when goes to Gondor, when he rescues Faramir from the fire, and of course when he starts the battle at exactly the right moment. Too many coincidences for my liking. It seems to me that when Tolkien was writing this, whenever he got stuck he thought "Oh, time to bring Gandalf to save the day". Not very convincing is it?
In other words LotR appears to much like a another childrens' story of a poor little boy who lands unwillingly is a large adventure, struggles a lot, comes close to failing (to have some suspense), but manages to save the day and become a hero. Just like all those stories with the same theme (Star Wars, The Matrix, E.T) it is good for children, but it does not come close to becoming a proper mythology (like the ancient Greek legents with real heroes battling real monsters and god) despite what Tolkien's fans seem to think.
I have to admit that I really enjoyed reading Tolkien's books when I was a child. The hobbit was the first book that I read in English, and I was thrilled. A few years later when I my English had improved, I read the Lord of the Rings and again I was so impressed with Tolkien's Middle Earth.
A few years later though, I decided to re-read the book. Even though Tolkien's descriptions amazed me as much as the first time, this time I didn't enjoy it so much.
Why? The plot! It simply didn't make sense. Here was a ring, that could determine the fate of the entire world. And who is assigned to go to the land of Mordor and destroy it? A moronic hobbit who has never been more than a few miles away from his house! OK, I am sort of convinced of the need for secrecy and the fact that they couldn't send an army to do the task, but a hobbit??
I mean there are the first born elves, creatures far superior to hobbits, almost immortal seasoned warriors with millenia of experience, and yet Gandalf has to give the ring to a hobbit who barely knows how to use a kitchen knife.
There are wizards like Gandalf and Saruman with the ability to defeat entire armies on their own, and yet they send a hobbit who cannot defend himself from a wild animal.
Sorry, but I think that the plot of the book is just illogical. Yes, it is a good childrens' book, but it certainly does not deserve the cult status it has gained...
Signal_11 TheReverand: you wanna take this up with the slashdot crew, or do you want me to take care of our DSL lamer? TheReverand Signal_11 both
So, did you take it up with the Slashdot crew and if so what did they say? Or are you guys just trolling us again?
Look, if this really happened I think you should raise hell, but if you plan to post offtopic stuff to the stories the least you could do is make an effort to gather all the possible proof.
They were working when I checked them out before.
And suck failure rates are really not unusual for high end chips (which is why they much more expensive than lowew end chips even though the performance in difference in not that great)
Phil Garnier
First, thank you for providing a link that requires a subscription to view.
So, when you are having an argument with someone and the other person backs up his view with a URL, it is not acceptable unless subscription is not required.
Any other preferences? Should the Web Server be running Debian GNU/Linux or FreeBSD? Does it *have* to be Apache too?
I think you are comparing apples with oranges here. What does OpenBSD have to do with Windows 98?
OpenBSD is an OS targeted at small to medium size servers which are almost always networked. It is very secure and very stable so it is very good at its job.
Windows 98 is targeted at PCs that are connected to the Internet using a modem. It does not run any services so it is quite secure in that aspect. It is very easy to install. It runs thousands of applications and games (which all install with minimum fuss). You simply cannot do all that with OpenBSD (yet?). Having a BSOD once every few weeks while surfing the Internet or editing a document in Word is a compromise that most people are willing to make (and do make), since the alternative is to become a CS major first and then install Linux/OpenBSD/whatever and then not being able to run the applications that you are familiar with.
As for your argument with Microsoft putting bugs so that they can then sell upgrades with fewer bugs, this is just your paranoia talking. I am not saying that if their QA as more strict they couldn't produce a more stable OS but this is a long way from saying that they put bugs there on purprose. Besides look at the deterioration in performance in all the windows releases:
Windows 98 less stable than Windows 95 less stable than Windows 3.11
Windows 2k less stables than Windows NT4 less stables than Windows NT 3.51
The article mentions that Unix Network Programming spans three volumes. Last year, when Stevens passed away I remember reading somewhere that someone would look at the state of the third volume to see if it could be published (after some editing).
So what's the story with the applications volume, has it/is it going to be published? Does anyone know?
Duh! I should have known you were trolling - all your posts were full of nonsense but I just had to reply. Oh well, I guess I will be more careful next time.
Actually, I often refer to protons as fundamental particles.
Well, guess what: they are not. And it is not nitpicking, it is absolutely essential to be precise when discussing technical issues.
If experiments reveal smaller particles for which gravity is more important than other forces, then maybe it would be wrong to diss gravity so much.
Ah, so I need to prove to you by experiments the existence of other particles. However when the article mentions dimensions wrapped inside other dimensions with gravity diffusing from one dimension to another and everything being ~1mm in size you are willing to take their word for it. And you know why? Because you really are short sighted and insecure. Insecure because these mumbo-jumbo theories only serve to protect other flawed theories which you believe in so firmly. And you are willing to believe anything that will give those theories another chance, because your world would collapse if someone proved them wrong.
We already know that we don't know everything about physical law.
Yes we do. But you also believe that the things we know are correct, whereas I don't make any such assumptions.
Leptons and quarks are fundamental particles. The earth is not a fundamental particle.
I would very cautious before making such statements: at best it makes you look very short sighted. A few decades ago people thought protons and neutrons were fundamental particles. A century ago people thought atoms were fundamental particles.
This is why I made the analogy between the earth and a proton: there is no fundamental difference between them.
Slashdot Mirror
I have found them extremely reliable myself, so that doesn't prove anything. If you are critisizing Exchange it would also be nice if you could suggest an alternative with similar functionality.
My guess it was a typo "...without a reboot or a restart of Oracle.", meaning he hasn't rebooted the machine or restarted the Oracle server.
I don't have the time to go into details, but this was a horribly biased article. If you want to see why, read the comments when this story was posted on kuro5hin here. I certainly hope that Roblimo doesn't waste his money getting that story submitted. Shoeboy's story has a much better chance of getting anywhere.
It was meant for old devices where you'd type.
Whereas embedded Linux was made for PDAs, right?
rusty owns k5 just like Linus owns Linux. It is not your site so stop complaining.
Apologies, my first post was inaccurate & misleading. I meant the public web pages ( http://www.redhat.com/errata/), not the public ftp servers.
to be pedantic i would like to point out that RedHat does have a priority ftp site (for customers paying support) where updated packages appear 1-2 weeks before the public ftp servers. but this is a minor thing, and i agree that RedHat has a very good attitude :-)
Hmm... I am getting mixed messages here. Kiss The Blade agrees with me that I should not try to rationalise the Lord of the Rings, whereas you say the exact opposite. In response to your points:
You may have forgotten that Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel, a wizard, an elven lord, and an elven lady, (of the third generation of elves ever to live, IIRC), all REFUSED the burden of the ring.
Yes, but that does not mean anything. They refused the ring simply because they knew it too well. It was their skills that Sauron had copied in order to make it. They had the three rings and they knew their amazing strength. The one ring was more powerful than the others combined, so the elves were rightly terrified.
Frodo on the other hand was a totally clueless hobbit: the only magic he knew was Gandalf's fireworks and smoke rings. Not very scary stuff, is it? If he had any idea what powers the ring held he would have been just as terrified. The elves had the responsibility to destroy the ring as:
a. it was their skills that Sauron had copied to make the ring
b. they were they supreme race on middle-earth
c. they did not know almost anything about hobbits and their resistance to magic or the other physical wounds that you mention as no hobbit before Frodo and his friends had been in such an adventure. Placing their faith on Frodo was therefore totally unjustified.
As for Boromir: he was a weakly mortal human, I will not even compare him to elves.
In general the whole plot of the LotR just seems very "cheap". Gandalf always appears at the right moment to help the others: when he finds the two lesser hobbits (I forget their names), when goes to Gondor, when he rescues Faramir from the fire, and of course when he starts the battle at exactly the right moment. Too many coincidences for my liking. It seems to me that when Tolkien was writing this, whenever he got stuck he thought "Oh, time to bring Gandalf to save the day". Not very convincing is it?
In other words LotR appears to much like a another childrens' story of a poor little boy who lands unwillingly is a large adventure, struggles a lot, comes close to failing (to have some suspense), but manages to save the day and become a hero. Just like all those stories with the same theme (Star Wars, The Matrix, E.T) it is good for children, but it does not come close to becoming a proper mythology (like the ancient Greek legents with real heroes battling real monsters and god) despite what Tolkien's fans seem to think.
A few years later though, I decided to re-read the book. Even though Tolkien's descriptions amazed me as much as the first time, this time I didn't enjoy it so much.
Why? The plot! It simply didn't make sense. Here was a ring, that could determine the fate of the entire world. And who is assigned to go to the land of Mordor and destroy it? A moronic hobbit who has never been more than a few miles away from his house! OK, I am sort of convinced of the need for secrecy and the fact that they couldn't send an army to do the task, but a hobbit??
I mean there are the first born elves, creatures far superior to hobbits, almost immortal seasoned warriors with millenia of experience, and yet Gandalf has to give the ring to a hobbit who barely knows how to use a kitchen knife.
There are wizards like Gandalf and Saruman with the ability to defeat entire armies on their own, and yet they send a hobbit who cannot defend himself from a wild animal.
Sorry, but I think that the plot of the book is just illogical. Yes, it is a good childrens' book, but it certainly does not deserve the cult status it has gained...
TheReverand Signal_11 both
So, did you take it up with the Slashdot crew and if so what did they say? Or are you guys just trolling us again?
Look, if this really happened I think you should raise hell, but if you plan to post offtopic stuff to the stories the least you could do is make an effort to gather all the possible proof.
Phil Garnier
They were working when I checked them out before. And suck failure rates are really not unusual for high end chips (which is why they much more expensive than lowew end chips even though the performance in difference in not that great) Phil Garnier
test5
test4
test3
test2
test
First, thank you for providing a link that requires a subscription to view.
So, when you are having an argument with someone and the other person backs up his view with a URL, it is not acceptable unless subscription is not required.
Any other preferences? Should the Web Server be running Debian GNU/Linux or FreeBSD? Does it *have* to be Apache too?
thank you
Yes, I am sure he is overwhelmed.
Once again, it's time to plug my Web page.
Don't worry about it. As long as it's for a good cause, and your page is not full of banner it's all welcome.
Erm... any chance you can format your posts a bit better in the future?
I think you are comparing apples with oranges here. What does OpenBSD have to do with Windows 98?
OpenBSD is an OS targeted at small to medium size servers which are almost always networked. It is very secure and very stable so it is very good at its job.
Windows 98 is targeted at PCs that are connected to the Internet using a modem. It does not run any services so it is quite secure in that aspect. It is very easy to install. It runs thousands of applications and games (which all install with minimum fuss). You simply cannot do all that with OpenBSD (yet?). Having a BSOD once every few weeks while surfing the Internet or editing a document in Word is a compromise that most people are willing to make (and do make), since the alternative is to become a CS major first and then install Linux/OpenBSD/whatever and then not being able to run the applications that you are familiar with.
As for your argument with Microsoft putting bugs so that they can then sell upgrades with fewer bugs, this is just your paranoia talking. I am not saying that if their QA as more strict they couldn't produce a more stable OS but this is a long way from saying that they put bugs there on purprose. Besides look at the deterioration in performance in all the windows releases:
Windows 98 less stable than Windows 95 less stable than Windows 3.11
Windows 2k less stables than Windows NT4 less stables than Windows NT 3.51
The article mentions that Unix Network Programming spans three volumes. Last year, when Stevens passed away I remember reading somewhere that someone would look at the state of the third volume to see if it could be published (after some editing). So what's the story with the applications volume, has it/is it going to be published? Does anyone know?
thank you
Duh! I should have known you were trolling - all your posts were full of nonsense but I just had to reply. Oh well, I guess I will be more careful next time.
Actually, I often refer to protons as fundamental particles.
Well, guess what: they are not. And it is not nitpicking, it is absolutely essential to be precise when discussing technical issues.
If experiments reveal smaller particles for which gravity is more important than other forces, then maybe it would be wrong to diss gravity so much.
Ah, so I need to prove to you by experiments the existence of other particles.
However when the article mentions dimensions wrapped inside other dimensions with gravity diffusing from one dimension to another and everything being ~1mm in size you are willing to take their word for it.
And you know why? Because you really are short sighted and insecure. Insecure because these mumbo-jumbo theories only serve to protect other flawed theories which you believe in so firmly. And you are willing to believe anything that will give those theories another chance, because your world would collapse if someone proved them wrong.
We already know that we don't know everything about physical law.
Yes we do. But you also believe that the things we know are correct, whereas I don't make any such assumptions.
What on earth are you complaining about?
The technical inaccuracies of the article.
Leptons and quarks are fundamental particles. The earth is not a fundamental particle.
I would very cautious before making such statements: at best it makes you look very short sighted.
A few decades ago people thought protons and neutrons were fundamental particles. A century ago people thought atoms were fundamental particles.
This is why I made the analogy between the earth and a proton: there is no fundamental difference between them.