The gui is called up2date and it is launched by the Red Hat Network Alert Icon lives that lives in your system tray.
It's just another example of a clueless reviewer who doesn't realise that anything that can be made to use a command line interface by design can have a python gui slapped onto it to make it pretty if you just complain to the right people enough.
The reverse is not true of things that come designed for GUI.
yes, that's actually the basic idea
on
Red Hat announces GFS
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Say you want to create a webserver cluster that can host some big files and dynamic content and survive a slashdotting. No one machine can survive all of us hitting it for video and dynamic content at once, so you build your cluster so that the video is distribtued over several machines, the webservers are distributed over some other machines, and the layers in between the that decide which request goes to which physical hard drive holding a copy of the video are also made redundant.
Now if, after running for some time, one of the machines gets coffee spilled on it and dies, GFS will automatically route around it. The result is that a slashdotter will not be aware of the failure, and still get the video.
Meanwhile you can fix the problem and bring the downed machine back on-line again.
We really ought to make a table of the structural faults of all the political systems except our own. then everyone else makes a similar table, which will include our political system's structural faults.
Then we put down our nukes and sit down and see if we can fix this mess before it's too late.
Can't you route around? I thought that if the company is buying gigabit switches and routers you might as well get some redundancy built in to your network instead of going the old star topology.
After all, Saddam Hussein put is entire military C3I aparatus onto his dedicated POTS telephone network. American spy planes just followed the cables... and we all know how that ended.
TCP/IP has automatic route around capability built into that layer, so why not use it? You might even get a bigger discount buying more equipment.
On the other hand, perhaps this may be better as an educational tool:
"And here you can see the distribution of Influenza cases superimposed across this landsat image lower manhattan... and my apartment. Hey! There's me! And I have the flu."
the solution proposed in the article is to use non-toxic fire retardants. Sounds logical. I volunteer to get free new electronic equipment to test the effects of the new fire retardant chemicals on the human body over a long period of time.
Ok, maybe not you on flat prarie land. I don't walk there. But I do have to wonder about the people who are vacantly fiddlin with knobs unrelated to driving as they roll over the crosswalk outside outside my local mall regardless of whether I'm there or not.
Or those people who page through thousands of Mp3 folders while wavering all over their lane behind me on the freeway, so close that I can see them swapping CDs from through my rearview mirror. I always change lanes when that comes up.
No, I turn on my radio before I disengage the hand brake and it stays tuned until I stop.
We keep on putting more and more functions at the drivers fingertips... isn't it time that making a car as fun as a living room became a two person job?
Tune out the distractions or I end up in traction. The best driver interface should make all nondriving functions of the car inaccessable from the driver's seat unless the car is at rest. What do you think people riding shotgun are for?
However I am all for tactile feedback gear shifts and drive by wire and head's up displays. Just keep the nonessential stuff out of the driver's hands, until the driver parks. Too hot? Radio station sucks? Put up with it or pull over.
actually a slashdotting would sound like this
on
LA to Oregon at Mach 9
·
· Score: 4, Funny
#1:"Hey, we're getting a lot of traffic from..." #1 & #2: "SLASHDOT!!!" #2:"quick redirect all traffic to that goatse.cx guy's website!"
Unfortunately, you and not the parent poster have committed the fallacy of equivocation. The parent poster asserted that nuclear weapons != nuclear reactors, and gave an example of the same fallacy when applied to gasoline based weapons falsly equated to gasoline power.
The parent poster never said that napalm was worse than nuclear weapons, merely that any relationship between the "horrors of napalm" and a safe internal combustion engine was spurious. (In this argument, the relationship was merely based on materials used, rather than any deep analysis of historical or sociopolitical factors.)
Likewise a safe nuclear power plant cannot be related to a very dangerous nuclear weapon by any arguement that links them by the materials they are made from. After all, the two devices are designed with diametrically opposed aims: The reactor is designed to keep nuclear materials inside and release energy slowly, the bomb is designed to let nuclear materials out and explosively liberate as much energy as possible.
To any member of a food chain, all things that are edible are resources to be exploited, and all things that are able to eat you are threats to be evaded or destroyed.
The only solution for a past or would be victim is to either make themselves inedible (increase the cost of a possible attack through legislation, situation, or repurcussions) or move up the food chain themselves until they can eat their former threats.
Take the bees again - you are right that the bees are armed to defend the hive. Also note that they remain the food sources of bears - their many stings hurt the bears, but the act of stinging is fatal to the individual bee so the deterant is not as effective against multiple attackers as that of a wasp or a hornet's sting. (think about the person who carries a kubotan or an umbrella for self defence)
Now one way to give the bees a good season is to vary the environment - if the bees manage to find higher structures to build hives in, they can evade the bears, until the bears learn how to knock down hives. Then if a fire sweeps through and destroys the trees, the bees can hive inside rocks, until the bears find them and the bees have to seek higher places to nest.
For this reason, laws have to stay in flux. You cannot legalise guns and expect your problems to go away. You cannot ban guns and expect your problems to go away. You cannot institute a system of laws that says you cannot plant your fields with two different kinds of crops and expect your problems to go away.
You must vary your laws to reflect the changing complexion of criminality, and destabilise them. Remember - the simple truth is that criminals are people who break laws, and those who break laws deliberately will attempt to figure out the easiest way to do it. Change the laws and the simple time proven methods employed by criminals will fail because the situation has changed.
No point clawing at a tree if there is no beehive in it.
No point trying to steal a gun that isn't legally allowed to exist in that jurisdiction.
No point trying to lift a rock to find a hive that isn't there.
No point trying to rape a woman who could shoot you and then get a pat on the back and a box of bullets from the local police.
These opposing situations require mutually exclusive conditions to arise. This is why the gun debate will stagnate until somebody realises that even Jesus Christ went from an "Eye for an Eye" to "Turn the Other Cheek" back to "Gian Winepress and Bowls of Wrath" depending on what the situation needed.
My argument is that right and wrong blind us to the actual effects of the actions of criminals and the laws we impose on them. I'm not arguing that any good can come of a criminal action, rather I am arguing that there is no such thing as good.
Criminality, then, becomes a behaviour that we are simply trying to reduce, for reasons of our own, and sometimes to do so we have to take paradoxical measures such as turning potential victims into threats, or curtailing the rights and freedoms of honest citizens. We do these things to reduce crime, because we have no direct control over the criminals themselves, only the environment that they live in.
If you could figure out a way to tame the bear, and make them obey your pattern of perfect laws for non-abberant behaviour in civilised society, then you would have a world free of crime - a world that could be genuinely called good.
I am not so optimistic. There will always be criminals doing behaviours that you wish to limit. The only way to control crime is to make sure that the criminal environment becomes so confusing that nobody ever becomes very good at crime, and the price of such an enterprise must be born by the non-criminals.
Not really. If criminality was really abberant then it would periodically disappear. We as a species have tried virtually every legal system possible in our time on this blue world and no matter what laws we put in or take out, somebody breaks the ones we leave in.
As for some people being food for criminals, and that food shouldn't fight back, I'll stretch the eco-system analogy a bit more - why do bees have stings? They don't use them to hunt with, and the beehive will most likely suffer horrific casulaties when stinging fleshy mammals in self defense. Yet they still have stings, because if there wasn't some deterrant against wholesale raiding of the soft honey containing targets then soon there would be no more victims, and no more honey for the honey eaters to eat - ecological collapse.
The idea of a criminal food chain is repugnant to most because it does away with the old idea that there are such things as right and wrong. Instead there are only actions and outcomes.
If you want a society where crime is less frequent, you have to create a situation where the criminals cannot figure out how to commit crime efficiently. They will eventually evolve a response and become more efficient, and then you have to adjust again. That is why there will be no end to the creation and repealment of new laws.
On the other hand, I suppose if you want ordinary folk who could become potential victims to have a better fighting chance, you could leave conditions for them the same and have generations of training instilled in them so that their self defense is highly efficient... but then they become a part of the criminal's environment which is very predictable, and the criminals who survive and learn from the initial resistance will find some way to exploit any weakness that is systemic to the victim's defense mechanism.
Re:Reap what you sow
on
The 3Com Saga
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Good point, but once they do they will cease to be 3Com, and would more accurately be called "Faceless Holding Group Company of No Discernable Character".
At that point you are right - anybody with a finance degree and a bit of capital can and will compete with them. And probably win.
3Com was a tech company once, but now it is losing its identity.
Slashdot Mirror
The gui is called up2date and it is launched by the Red Hat Network Alert Icon lives that lives in your system tray.
It's just another example of a clueless reviewer who doesn't realise that anything that can be made to use a command line interface by design can have a python gui slapped onto it to make it pretty if you just complain to the right people enough.
The reverse is not true of things that come designed for GUI.
Say you want to create a webserver cluster that can host some big files and dynamic content and survive a slashdotting. No one machine can survive all of us hitting it for video and dynamic content at once, so you build your cluster so that the video is distribtued over several machines, the webservers are distributed over some other machines, and the layers in between the that decide which request goes to which physical hard drive holding a copy of the video are also made redundant.
Now if, after running for some time, one of the machines gets coffee spilled on it and dies, GFS will automatically route around it. The result is that a slashdotter will not be aware of the failure, and still get the video.
Meanwhile you can fix the problem and bring the downed machine back on-line again.
How many Assloads are there in a Library of Congress?
It would have been, but let me say this: Whoever the MPAA uses for a lobby group is probably getting some kind of lobby group oscar right now.
Goodnight coppertop.
I would join your League, but I fled CONUS to live in Australia when things got rough.
Then John Howard came to power.
We really ought to make a table of the structural faults of all the political systems except our own. then everyone else makes a similar table, which will include our political system's structural faults.
Then we put down our nukes and sit down and see if we can fix this mess before it's too late.
Can't you route around? I thought that if the company is buying gigabit switches and routers you might as well get some redundancy built in to your network instead of going the old star topology.
After all, Saddam Hussein put is entire military C3I aparatus onto his dedicated POTS telephone network. American spy planes just followed the cables... and we all know how that ended.
TCP/IP has automatic route around capability built into that layer, so why not use it? You might even get a bigger discount buying more equipment.
ok, for my free suicide, I demand yours. Kill youself and have your next of kin give me the reciept.
Tell me about it, those body covering burkas that the american clerics make us wear really chafe don't they.
Add to that the fact that Australia has no bill of rights and therefore no formal right of free speech.
I think we've found Ms Jane Example who does all those credit card ads.
That was inspired. I hope that it never gets used.
Anything new here to say guys?
On the other hand, perhaps this may be better as an educational tool:
"And here you can see the distribution of Influenza cases superimposed across this landsat image lower manhattan... and my apartment. Hey! There's me! And I have the flu."
tekgear sells 'em
the solution proposed in the article is to use non-toxic fire retardants. Sounds logical. I volunteer to get free new electronic equipment to test the effects of the new fire retardant chemicals on the human body over a long period of time.
Ok, maybe not you on flat prarie land. I don't walk there. But I do have to wonder about the people who are vacantly fiddlin with knobs unrelated to driving as they roll over the crosswalk outside outside my local mall regardless of whether I'm there or not.
Or those people who page through thousands of Mp3 folders while wavering all over their lane behind me on the freeway, so close that I can see them swapping CDs from through my rearview mirror. I always change lanes when that comes up.
No, I turn on my radio before I disengage the hand brake and it stays tuned until I stop.
We keep on putting more and more functions at the drivers fingertips... isn't it time that making a car as fun as a living room became a two person job?
...You hit me as I cross the road.
YouDrive, IDie.
Tune out the distractions or I end up in traction. The best driver interface should make all nondriving functions of the car inaccessable from the driver's seat unless the car is at rest. What do you think people riding shotgun are for?
However I am all for tactile feedback gear shifts and drive by wire and head's up displays. Just keep the nonessential stuff out of the driver's hands, until the driver parks. Too hot? Radio station sucks? Put up with it or pull over.
#1:"Hey, we're getting a lot of traffic from..."
#1 & #2: "SLASHDOT!!!"
#2:"quick redirect all traffic to that goatse.cx guy's website!"
Britain invents, loses interest, somebody else commercialises, and then Britain still wins the war.
How do those Brits do it?
Unfortunately, you and not the parent poster have committed the fallacy of equivocation. The parent poster asserted that nuclear weapons != nuclear reactors, and gave an example of the same fallacy when applied to gasoline based weapons falsly equated to gasoline power.
The parent poster never said that napalm was worse than nuclear weapons, merely that any relationship between the "horrors of napalm" and a safe internal combustion engine was spurious. (In this argument, the relationship was merely based on materials used, rather than any deep analysis of historical or sociopolitical factors.)
Likewise a safe nuclear power plant cannot be related to a very dangerous nuclear weapon by any arguement that links them by the materials they are made from. After all, the two devices are designed with diametrically opposed aims: The reactor is designed to keep nuclear materials inside and release energy slowly, the bomb is designed to let nuclear materials out and explosively liberate as much energy as possible.
To any member of a food chain, all things that are edible are resources to be exploited, and all things that are able to eat you are threats to be evaded or destroyed.
The only solution for a past or would be victim is to either make themselves inedible (increase the cost of a possible attack through legislation, situation, or repurcussions) or move up the food chain themselves until they can eat their former threats.
Take the bees again - you are right that the bees are armed to defend the hive. Also note that they remain the food sources of bears - their many stings hurt the bears, but the act of stinging is fatal to the individual bee so the deterant is not as effective against multiple attackers as that of a wasp or a hornet's sting. (think about the person who carries a kubotan or an umbrella for self defence)
Now one way to give the bees a good season is to vary the environment - if the bees manage to find higher structures to build hives in, they can evade the bears, until the bears learn how to knock down hives. Then if a fire sweeps through and destroys the trees, the bees can hive inside rocks, until the bears find them and the bees have to seek higher places to nest.
For this reason, laws have to stay in flux. You cannot legalise guns and expect your problems to go away. You cannot ban guns and expect your problems to go away. You cannot institute a system of laws that says you cannot plant your fields with two different kinds of crops and expect your problems to go away.
You must vary your laws to reflect the changing complexion of criminality, and destabilise them. Remember - the simple truth is that criminals are people who break laws, and those who break laws deliberately will attempt to figure out the easiest way to do it. Change the laws and the simple time proven methods employed by criminals will fail because the situation has changed.
No point clawing at a tree if there is no beehive in it.
No point trying to steal a gun that isn't legally allowed to exist in that jurisdiction.
No point trying to lift a rock to find a hive that isn't there.
No point trying to rape a woman who could shoot you and then get a pat on the back and a box of bullets from the local police.
These opposing situations require mutually exclusive conditions to arise. This is why the gun debate will stagnate until somebody realises that even Jesus Christ went from an "Eye for an Eye" to "Turn the Other Cheek" back to "Gian Winepress and Bowls of Wrath" depending on what the situation needed.
My argument is that right and wrong blind us to the actual effects of the actions of criminals and the laws we impose on them. I'm not arguing that any good can come of a criminal action, rather I am arguing that there is no such thing as good.
Criminality, then, becomes a behaviour that we are simply trying to reduce, for reasons of our own, and sometimes to do so we have to take paradoxical measures such as turning potential victims into threats, or curtailing the rights and freedoms of honest citizens. We do these things to reduce crime, because we have no direct control over the criminals themselves, only the environment that they live in.
If you could figure out a way to tame the bear, and make them obey your pattern of perfect laws for non-abberant behaviour in civilised society, then you would have a world free of crime - a world that could be genuinely called good.
I am not so optimistic. There will always be criminals doing behaviours that you wish to limit. The only way to control crime is to make sure that the criminal environment becomes so confusing that nobody ever becomes very good at crime, and the price of such an enterprise must be born by the non-criminals.
Not really. If criminality was really abberant then it would periodically disappear. We as a species have tried virtually every legal system possible in our time on this blue world and no matter what laws we put in or take out, somebody breaks the ones we leave in.
As for some people being food for criminals, and that food shouldn't fight back, I'll stretch the eco-system analogy a bit more - why do bees have stings? They don't use them to hunt with, and the beehive will most likely suffer horrific casulaties when stinging fleshy mammals in self defense. Yet they still have stings, because if there wasn't some deterrant against wholesale raiding of the soft honey containing targets then soon there would be no more victims, and no more honey for the honey eaters to eat - ecological collapse.
The idea of a criminal food chain is repugnant to most because it does away with the old idea that there are such things as right and wrong. Instead there are only actions and outcomes.
If you want a society where crime is less frequent, you have to create a situation where the criminals cannot figure out how to commit crime efficiently. They will eventually evolve a response and become more efficient, and then you have to adjust again. That is why there will be no end to the creation and repealment of new laws.
On the other hand, I suppose if you want ordinary folk who could become potential victims to have a better fighting chance, you could leave conditions for them the same and have generations of training instilled in them so that their self defense is highly efficient... but then they become a part of the criminal's environment which is very predictable, and the criminals who survive and learn from the initial resistance will find some way to exploit any weakness that is systemic to the victim's defense mechanism.
Good point, but once they do they will cease to be 3Com, and would more accurately be called "Faceless Holding Group Company of No Discernable Character".
At that point you are right - anybody with a finance degree and a bit of capital can and will compete with them. And probably win.
3Com was a tech company once, but now it is losing its identity.