Get the idea of a space shuttel out of your head. It's the wrong frigging way to do things.
Let's see we lift all this heavy space craft into orbit, use loads of fuel etc and then what? We let the thing glide back down!!!
Build rockets, build them cheap and lob pletny of them up there. If some idiot wants to go along for the ride sure, but mostly lets get payload up there.
The correct machine for the job runs your code, be it your desktop, the server, the toaster down the hall in building 2.
I've played, I sorta like. It doesn't offer enough of an advantage over *NIX for me to change. Maybe when everybody has fiber to the desktop and people have evolved to want to share then maybe Plan9 will be more than a neat research too.
Why did Sun produce Solaris? They had hardware and needed an OS, they chose BSD and made it Solaris.
Why did Sun promote Java? They wanted software that could run on Solaris as well as windows. Every piece of windows software is a Sun machine not bought.
Why did IBM first produce RBMDS? They had these things called mainframes and realised that if they offered a RDBMS people would buy mainframes. People will buy hardware to run a RDBMS, these is a machine made by IBM that is soley a RDBMS machine, everything that runs on it uses the DB.
What does One & Tivoli do? They allow management of machines, directly and indirectly. Who's machines? If you buy these products which machines are you more likely to buy?
The software products are important, but neither company has a software division, the software is attached to a server line.
Re:Why this is newsworthy...
on
Potato Bazookas
·
· Score: 1
Heck no, getting maimed by a 200mph spud you're on your own buddy. Also, it's very cold in Deutschland about no so those soft spuds will be more like blocks of ice.
Back in my day we had to bootstarp the machine with punch cards and flip switches. And let me tell you being curious as to what would happen if one of those switches wasn't set right was a sure fire way to trash the HPT disk. Six foot across it was and it needed balancing every month. Printers, printers you say they were in another building and you had to wear glasses and ear muffs just to change the paper. Still that wasn't as bad as having to pay for every instruction run, out of your own pocket mind. The best bit was users were actually grateful, yep grateful they were, when you totalled the expenses in a night rather than a month.
About a month ago I was in a SF Bay area marina, checking my 5o5 was still on the trailer after a storm. When I saw two guys wheeling out two J shaped funnels. Turned out these were the crew compartment and they were off to be pressure tested in Texas, Houston I think. I knew what deep flight was but these were meant to be more civilised.
Personally I still prefer the original Deep Flight.
On a side note the bernoulli effect isn't much in use. It's more the angle of attack of the wings. Think diving planes not wings.
> More than one researcher has argued that the > world is flat, but that's not true either. These > critics clearly have no conception of how > science actually works.
Has the same researcher said the earth is flat and that HIV/AIDS research has a problem? Even if they did what that invalidate their view on AIDS/HIV? Researchers are wrong/right all the time the devil is when the majority is wrong, it happens in-frequently but when it does it's a real bear.
> There are 'simple definitions' of both HIV and > AIDS. If you don't understand them, then I'd > argue that the failure lies with you, not with > the definitions.
Please furnish these simple explanations. Something a little more than HIV causes AIDS and AIDS attacks the immune system would be appreciated. This is what has been broadcast since day one. When did HIV appear in man? Why did Aids suddenly explode?
> HIV is a virus that is implicated in the cause > of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. The > latter is so called because it describes a > cluster of symptoms and illnesses associated > with failure of the immune system. Acquired > because it isn't congenital (as other immune > deficiencies are.)
Implicated, the mainstream doesn't say implicated it says HIV is the main cause of AIDS, it is often referred to as the only cause.
> What was so difficult about that? Can you point > to somewhere aside from an AIDS conspiracy > theorist where those definitions are contested?
By tone of this post so far it would seem anyone who contests these views is a conspirasist. That would make it rather hard to give you an example?
> He'd do rather better to focus on what he can do > to help treat them. There's no cure for cancer > or the common cold either, but both conditions > are treatable, and as with AIDS, indefinite > remission is possible with some cancers.
What cheap treatment is currently available for AIDS? Cancer is sometimes treatable, the less cancerous cells you have the more treatable you are. According to the WHO the fourth cause of death in the world is AIDS.
> If so, you'd be guessing wrong. His advisors are > clearly fuckwits who have no idea about how to > evaluate scientific evidence.
A statement such as the above would be better backed with some credentials? I'm assuming by the venom of your post you are somehow involved in the AIDs/HIV research field?
> Here's a question for you. How much of the > mainstream research on HIV and AIDS have you > actually read? I'd be willing to bet you any > amount of money that the amount adds up to none, > and you get *all* of your information from these > conspiracy theorists.
I read the New Scientist weekly, that's about it I'm afarid. The Terrence Higgins trust has made available some info as well although it's pretty sparse. The WHO has a lot of info on current research but they seem to be going for the vaccine rather than the cure?
The worrying thing is that everybody is talking of ten years for a vaccine/cure which I beleive to mean they still don't have a clue of how to start developing a cure/vaccine.
> One last time. The evidence today that HIV is a > causal factor in AIDS is overwhelming. > Everything from the epidemiological data on > transmission to what we know about treatment > draws us to this conclusion.
Does everybody who has HIV develop AIDS? Careful how you answer.
> Learn about Occams razor and apply it here.
I coded Occam a long time ago. Never shaved with the stuff. I much prefer Murphy's law "if things seem problematic have another Murphys"
More than one researcher has argued that something is wrong with the research done on aids.
I'm not into conspiracy, well ok LHO did not shoot JFK, but apart from that:-) But I am into thinking and evaluating what experts tell me. If you wish to blindly follow what is said and not inquire as to why we have no simple definition of HIV or AIDs, after how many years, fine.
Mbeke seems to be doing all he can to find out why so many of his citizens are dying and why no cure is available. I guess his advisors might be more qualified than you?
In summary your view might be correct, but there is no evidence so far to support it. If there is no evidence so far how much longer must we wait for evidence to appear?
Go and read the facts. They are looking for solutions not profits. There is something that stinks with aids research but everybody involved keeps on trotting out the party line.
I'm not convinced either way. Is HIV directly responsible for aids and death or does it take something else? Why do the people searching foe answer not question what they are searching for. Are they looking for the cause of death or the cause of aids?
Is CrazyDuck trying grow market share or please it's existing users? By tailoring the package to their existing users they may be limiting it's ability to attract new users.
I feel this sort of preaching to the choir is best avoided. These people have already bought CrazyDuck, what about the 99.99% of other PC users?
It's only two forty five, what shall we do until three?
Re:Congratulations Mr. Marthouse, You've Invented.
on
The End of Solotrek
·
· Score: 2
I dis-agree.
A train has set stops, set routes and set times. All this makes it very akward to use. As a train commuter in a previous life I hate the bloddy things.
Now automate the car so they can drive closer, faster and safer. All the problems of that train are eliminated.
The US would love automated cars. It's shiny, modern, safe, convienient. I can see the info commercials now.
I've read the book more than once and with a critical eye. Or so I thought.
1 He does mention this although not directly. Information is currently available but only those who can afford to harvest can gain from it. By opening things up the cost of harvesting goes down.
2 This has always been the way. It's the old story about victors of war write the history.
3 I do not believe that this is enough of a deterent to torpedo his suggestions. Morals are after all what keeps society going.
4 But lack of information nearly always increases prejudice.
5 But lack of informaton hinders understanding.
6 No we can't. Look at how close the world leaders blood lines are, is it a coincidence? Bush lost the election but sits in the whitehouse. Only 20% of people voted for the republicans at the last election. Your vote doesn't count, get over it.
It matters not wether the general public adopts it only that it is made available. I do not believe that we will ever have an open society but it would seem better than what we have now.
This book influenced my thinking to such a large degree on privacy that it's hard to reconcile my thoughts with people who in any way want privacy. If you want a good thought provoking read then pick it up.
If most/.'ers read the book the Mikey & Timmy game would be senn for what it is. Two adolescents pontificating about things they cannot change.
Well think about it. You are a moderator for/. your current job is based on surfing the web and then posting stories that other people submit. Would you want to automate the very job you are performing?
In the case of two moderators their position at/. gives them a platform they simply couldn't have anywhere else.
In a nut shell/. is all for free speech, efficient use of technology and open discussion AS long as/. itself never implicated in any of those ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
Get the idea of a space shuttel out of your head. It's the wrong frigging way to do things.
Let's see we lift all this heavy space craft into orbit, use loads of fuel etc and then what? We let the thing glide back down!!!
Build rockets, build them cheap and lob pletny of them up there. If some idiot wants to go along for the ride sure, but mostly lets get payload up there.
The network is the computer.
The correct machine for the job runs your code, be it your desktop, the server, the toaster down the hall in building 2.
I've played, I sorta like. It doesn't offer enough of an advantage over *NIX for me to change. Maybe when everybody has fiber to the desktop and people have evolved to want to share then maybe Plan9 will be more than a neat research too.
Obviously you weren't around in the good old days. Otherwise you'd know you also got the source code.
In that case how do you explain WGET being sent the faulty style sheet?
Security thru obscurity :-)
Let's here for the IBM AS/400.
Why did Sun produce Solaris? They had hardware and needed an OS, they chose BSD and made it Solaris.
Why did Sun promote Java? They wanted software that could run on Solaris as well as windows. Every piece of windows software is a Sun machine not bought.
Why did IBM first produce RBMDS? They had these things called mainframes and realised that if they offered a RDBMS people would buy mainframes. People will buy hardware to run a RDBMS, these is a machine made by IBM that is soley a RDBMS machine, everything that runs on it uses the DB.
What does One & Tivoli do? They allow management of machines, directly and indirectly. Who's machines? If you buy these products which machines are you more likely to buy?
The software products are important, but neither company has a software division, the software is attached to a server line.
Heck no, getting maimed by a 200mph spud you're on your own buddy. Also, it's very cold in Deutschland about no so those soft spuds will be more like blocks of ice.
Back in my day we had to bootstarp the machine with punch cards and flip switches. And let me tell you being curious as to what would happen if one of those switches wasn't set right was a sure fire way to trash the HPT disk. Six foot across it was and it needed balancing every month. Printers, printers you say they were in another building and you had to wear glasses and ear muffs just to change the paper. Still that wasn't as bad as having to pay for every instruction run, out of your own pocket mind. The best bit was users were actually grateful, yep grateful they were, when you totalled the expenses in a night rather than a month.
Particulary downwind of an old nuclear test area.
About a month ago I was in a SF Bay area marina, checking my 5o5 was still on the trailer after a storm. When I saw two guys wheeling out two J shaped funnels. Turned out these were the crew compartment and they were off to be pressure tested in Texas, Houston I think. I knew what deep flight was but these were meant to be more civilised.
Personally I still prefer the original Deep Flight.
On a side note the bernoulli effect isn't much in use. It's more the angle of attack of the wings. Think diving planes not wings.
Or prehaps you have gone uphill?
/. needs page views, controversy = page clicks.
Look
I thought Sun said it was possible, they never promised this. If you have a link where Sun is saying this WILL happen I'd be most interested.
"Free Energy" just attach a generator to Freud, he's spinning like a top at the mo'.
Personal swipes and insinuations removed/ignored.
> More than one researcher has argued that the
> world is flat, but that's not true either. These
> critics clearly have no conception of how
> science actually works.
Has the same researcher said the earth is flat and that HIV/AIDS research has a problem? Even if they did what that invalidate their view on AIDS/HIV? Researchers are wrong/right all the time the devil is when the majority is wrong, it happens in-frequently but when it does it's a real bear.
> There are 'simple definitions' of both HIV and
> AIDS. If you don't understand them, then I'd
> argue that the failure lies with you, not with
> the definitions.
Please furnish these simple explanations. Something a little more than HIV causes AIDS and AIDS attacks the immune system would be appreciated. This is what has been broadcast since day one. When did HIV appear in man? Why did Aids suddenly explode?
> HIV is a virus that is implicated in the cause
> of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. The
> latter is so called because it describes a
> cluster of symptoms and illnesses associated
> with failure of the immune system. Acquired
> because it isn't congenital (as other immune
> deficiencies are.)
Implicated, the mainstream doesn't say implicated it says HIV is the main cause of AIDS, it is often referred to as the only cause.
> What was so difficult about that? Can you point
> to somewhere aside from an AIDS conspiracy
> theorist where those definitions are contested?
By tone of this post so far it would seem anyone who contests these views is a conspirasist. That would make it rather hard to give you an example?
> He'd do rather better to focus on what he can do
> to help treat them. There's no cure for cancer
> or the common cold either, but both conditions
> are treatable, and as with AIDS, indefinite
> remission is possible with some cancers.
What cheap treatment is currently available for AIDS? Cancer is sometimes treatable, the less cancerous cells you have the more treatable you are. According to the WHO the fourth cause of death in the world is AIDS.
> If so, you'd be guessing wrong. His advisors are
> clearly fuckwits who have no idea about how to
> evaluate scientific evidence.
A statement such as the above would be better backed with some credentials? I'm assuming by the venom of your post you are somehow involved in the AIDs/HIV research field?
> Here's a question for you. How much of the
> mainstream research on HIV and AIDS have you
> actually read? I'd be willing to bet you any
> amount of money that the amount adds up to none,
> and you get *all* of your information from these
> conspiracy theorists.
I read the New Scientist weekly, that's about it I'm afarid. The Terrence Higgins trust has made available some info as well although it's pretty sparse. The WHO has a lot of info on current research but they seem to be going for the vaccine rather than the cure?
The worrying thing is that everybody is talking of ten years for a vaccine/cure which I beleive to mean they still don't have a clue of how to start developing a cure/vaccine.
> One last time. The evidence today that HIV is a
> causal factor in AIDS is overwhelming.
> Everything from the epidemiological data on
> transmission to what we know about treatment
> draws us to this conclusion.
Does everybody who has HIV develop AIDS? Careful how you answer.
> Learn about Occams razor and apply it here.
I coded Occam a long time ago. Never shaved with the stuff. I much prefer Murphy's law "if things seem problematic have another Murphys"
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/
:-) But I am into thinking and evaluating what experts tell me. If you wish to blindly follow what is said and not inquire as to why we have no simple definition of HIV or AIDs, after how many years, fine.
More than one researcher has argued that something is wrong with the research done on aids.
I'm not into conspiracy, well ok LHO did not shoot JFK, but apart from that
Mbeke seems to be doing all he can to find out why so many of his citizens are dying and why no cure is available. I guess his advisors might be more qualified than you?
In summary your view might be correct, but there is no evidence so far to support it. If there is no evidence so far how much longer must we wait for evidence to appear?
Go and read the facts. They are looking for solutions not profits. There is something that stinks with aids research but everybody involved keeps on trotting out the party line.
I'm not convinced either way. Is HIV directly responsible for aids and death or does it take something else? Why do the people searching foe answer not question what they are searching for. Are they looking for the cause of death or the cause of aids?
Is CrazyDuck trying grow market share or please it's existing users? By tailoring the package to their existing users they may be limiting it's ability to attract new users.
I feel this sort of preaching to the choir is best avoided. These people have already bought CrazyDuck, what about the 99.99% of other PC users?
Bandits at three o'clock!
It's only two forty five, what shall we do until three?
I dis-agree.
A train has set stops, set routes and set times. All this makes it very akward to use. As a train commuter in a previous life I hate the bloddy things.
Now automate the car so they can drive closer, faster and safer. All the problems of that train are eliminated.
The US would love automated cars. It's shiny, modern, safe, convienient. I can see the info commercials now.
I've read the book more than once and with a critical eye. Or so I thought.
1 He does mention this although not directly. Information is currently available but only those who can afford to harvest can gain from it. By opening things up the cost of harvesting goes down.
2 This has always been the way. It's the old story about victors of war write the history.
3 I do not believe that this is enough of a deterent to torpedo his suggestions. Morals are after all what keeps society going.
4 But lack of information nearly always increases prejudice.
5 But lack of informaton hinders understanding.
6 No we can't. Look at how close the world leaders blood lines are, is it a coincidence? Bush lost the election but sits in the whitehouse. Only 20% of people voted for the republicans at the last election. Your vote doesn't count, get over it.
It matters not wether the general public adopts it only that it is made available. I do not believe that we will ever have an open society but it would seem better than what we have now.
This book influenced my thinking to such a large degree on privacy that it's hard to reconcile my thoughts with people who in any way want privacy. If you want a good thought provoking read then pick it up.
/.'ers read the book the Mikey & Timmy game would be senn for what it is. Two adolescents pontificating about things they cannot change.
If most
In a lot of cases alchol had a hell of a lot to do with the creation of life :-)
Alchol in moderation is not harmful. Or do you think they had 'lite' wine when Jesus was quaffing it. Or cancer free incense?
This depends on your religon and your faith.
This has been suggested many,many times before.
/. your current job is based on surfing the web and then posting stories that other people submit. Would you want to automate the very job you are performing?
/. gives them a platform they simply couldn't have anywhere else.
/. is all for free speech, efficient use of technology and open discussion AS long as /. itself never implicated in any of those ideas.
Why has it not been applied?
Well think about it. You are a moderator for
In the case of two moderators their position at
In a nut shell
You bastard!
:-) Trust me I'm a doctor doesn't work.
There as I happy in my ignorance now I'm just going to have learn boustrophedon. The speed increase even in the examples was quite staggering.
I'd keep the MD bit quite, nobody likes a show off