you are too late - its called a cluster and is only slightly more reliable than a normal standalone box. The problem is that you need to hook up both boxes to a storage system (like a SAN) which then becomes your single point of failure again. You can mirror and cluster the SANs of course but your costs just keep spiraling upwards.
The other problem is that unreliable software running on your cluster is likely to toast all the boxes on the cluster, rendering it useless. A crash reduces Your expensive computer
Okay I`ll bite...
Linux on its own simply refers to the kernel, this is the bit that Linus wrote at first and is now contributed to by the kernel hacking guys. GNU refers to the UNIX style utilities which are shipped with the Linux kernel in most distributions so that you can actually use the kernel to do useful stuff (like running shells, X-windys etc). RMS is just being anal, everybody else means GNU/Linux when they refer to just Linux. A crash reduces Your expensive computer
I wasn`t speaking from a "politically correct" stance and I certainly wasn`t trying to claim different values for intelligence, or indeed 2.
The basic point I am making is that the "educated class" tend to elevate their own brand of academic intelligence above other demonstrable forms of intelligence and use spurious arguments about nurture to justify their ludicrous claims for superiority.
Any population sample will tend to have a random spread of "intelligent" people all over the class spectrum. (you can forget about intelligent parents having more intelligent children, or vice-versa, due to random factors and mendellian regression).
I have met plenty educated stupid people and plenty uneducated intelligent people.
> Conclusion: the poor are less likely to enjoy healthy neurological development and are therefore less likely to be intelligent than the rich.
you missed a couple of steps:
Assertion: There are statistically as many "intelligent" (not necesarily educated) children in poor ares as rich.
Assertion: Intelligence is manifested in many diferent ways, academic intelligence is just one of them.
Assertion: Rich children tend to have better education and grow up in an environment which nurtures academic curiousity so are therefore more likely to be considered more intelligent.
Assertion: While your theory about neurological development is very interesting, I detect a slight elitist bias.
(any scottish people in the audience can now picture me with my tounge sticking into my lower lip/chin and making a noise like duhhhhh)
if 95% are above average then it is not average anymore. By definition exactly 50% are above average. (before the pedants start talking about 3 different types of average, the stanford-binet IQ definition is based on arithmetic mean, so the above is correct.)
Surely then reading a printed version of the Torah - (rather than a version you have copied out by hand yourself) is in denial of this rule.
This seems to be one of the problems with obeying laws set down in scripture from thousands of years ago - you are always going to run up against new technology which is at odds with a law where the creator of the law had no idea of the possible future technology which may leave the law obsolete or superfluous. A crash reduces Your expensive computer
erm, where on earth did you get the idea that capitalism is about choice and communism is about "one true way"?
Capitalism is not about choice it is about making money, consumerism doesn`t even need choice, it just needs people buying your product, if there are no other similar products available then so much the better as far as both capitalism and consumerism are concerned.
Communism/ Socialism (I know they are not the same but most americans seem to think they are) has nothing whatsoever to do with choice or lack thereof, and has everything to do with the distribution of goods within the society.
There is nothing in marxism/ stalinism/ socialism which says that there should only be one of each type of product. However in a managed economy it is sometimes easier to produce just one of each product, but it is not a requirement, a managed socialist economy with a little imagination can have just as much choice as a consumerist one. A crash reduces Your expensive computer
Here`s a little thought experiment that your small minded brain may be able to handle:
Roll a dice 30 times and write down the number that you get (or 40 times or 50 times, it doesn`t really matter). Now calculate the probability that you would roll that EXACT number: pretty high isn`t it? But it just happened! The universe is infinately more complex that you or I can possibly imagine but I don`t need to postulate some mythical "daddy in the sky" figure to accept that as fact.
Get off your moralistic high-horse for one second and think about words like murder before ignorantly spouting them in such a manner. The "where to draw the line between contraception and abortion" argument has been done to death before so I won`t go into it here.
If you can`t debate the ethics of a complex issue like cloning without resorting to childish "don`t mess with the big daddy in the sky" ignorance then please don`t bother: you are just wasting your own time and everybody else`s.
(jeez, work must be really boring me, that I`m responding to god-bothering flamebait...) A crash reduces Your expensive computer
The point about such laws which prohibit rape/murder, theft etc is not to legislate against immorality but to protect the individual in a society. This is not a moral issue as such. If somebody breaks into my house and steals my stuff, I am not morally outraged but I am pretty pissed off that my stuff has been stolen. Likewise if I am raped or a family member is murdered then I am still pretty pissed off that I was not protected by the society in which I live.
Stealing/raping/killing are morally wrong in that they are "bad" or "evil" if you have a moral code which prohibits these things. If you have a moral code which considers certain people to be less than human (for example) then doing these things to them might not be morally wrong to you. However in a society which protects the individual, these acts are clearly against the ethics of the society and are illegal.
On the other hand certain people hold that swearing or using the Lord`s name in vain is immoral, but it sure as christ shouldn`t be fucking illegal;-)
Getting back on topic for a mo, sick though these puppys are, if no illegal act has been commited (ie abuse of a minor) then you can`t outlaw something based on morality (assuming we have a common morality in the first place, see above). A crash reduces Your expensive computer
The deal is that there is only one Santa but he/it is in a quantum state which is a superposition of Santas, delivering presents to each child in each household simultaneously. This is why it is vitally important that no child sees Santa on christmas eve as the waveform would collapse and no-one would get any presents.
Slashdot Mirror
you are too late - its called a cluster and is only slightly more reliable than a normal standalone box. The problem is that you need to hook up both boxes to a storage system (like a SAN) which then becomes your single point of failure again. You can mirror and cluster the SANs of course but your costs just keep spiraling upwards.
The other problem is that unreliable software running on your cluster is likely to toast all the boxes on the cluster, rendering it useless.
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
Okay I`ll bite...
Linux on its own simply refers to the kernel, this is the bit that Linus wrote at first and is now contributed to by the kernel hacking guys. GNU refers to the UNIX style utilities which are shipped with the Linux kernel in most distributions so that you can actually use the kernel to do useful stuff (like running shells, X-windys etc). RMS is just being anal, everybody else means GNU/Linux when they refer to just Linux.
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
I wasn`t speaking from a "politically correct" stance and I certainly wasn`t trying to claim different values for intelligence, or indeed 2.
The basic point I am making is that the "educated class" tend to elevate their own brand of academic intelligence above other demonstrable forms of intelligence and use spurious arguments about nurture to justify their ludicrous claims for superiority.
Any population sample will tend to have a random spread of "intelligent" people all over the class spectrum. (you can forget about intelligent parents having more intelligent children, or vice-versa, due to random factors and mendellian regression).
I have met plenty educated stupid people and plenty uneducated intelligent people.
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
> Conclusion: the poor are less likely to enjoy healthy neurological development and are therefore less likely to be intelligent than the rich.
you missed a couple of steps:
Assertion: There are statistically as many "intelligent" (not necesarily educated) children in poor ares as rich.
Assertion: Intelligence is manifested in many diferent ways, academic intelligence is just one of them.
Assertion: Rich children tend to have better education and grow up in an environment which nurtures academic curiousity so are therefore more likely to be considered more intelligent.
Assertion: While your theory about neurological development is very interesting, I detect a slight elitist bias.
Conclusion: You are talking shite.
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
(any scottish people in the audience can now picture me with my tounge sticking into my lower lip/chin and making a noise like duhhhhh)
if 95% are above average then it is not average anymore. By definition exactly 50% are above average. (before the pedants start talking about 3 different types of average, the stanford-binet IQ definition is based on arithmetic mean, so the above is correct.)
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
Surely then reading a printed version of the Torah - (rather than a version you have copied out by hand yourself) is in denial of this rule.
This seems to be one of the problems with obeying laws set down in scripture from thousands of years ago - you are always going to run up against new technology which is at odds with a law where the creator of the law had no idea of the possible future technology which may leave the law obsolete or superfluous.
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
erm, where on earth did you get the idea that capitalism is about choice and communism is about "one true way"?
Capitalism is not about choice it is about making money, consumerism doesn`t even need choice, it just needs people buying your product, if there are no other similar products available then so much the better as far as both capitalism and consumerism are concerned.
Communism/ Socialism (I know they are not the same but most americans seem to think they are) has nothing whatsoever to do with choice or lack thereof, and has everything to do with the distribution of goods within the society.
There is nothing in marxism/ stalinism/ socialism which says that there should only be one of each type of product. However in a managed economy it is sometimes easier to produce just one of each product, but it is not a requirement, a managed socialist economy with a little imagination can have just as much choice as a consumerist one.
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
Here`s a little thought experiment that your small minded brain may be able to handle:
Roll a dice 30 times and write down the number that you get (or 40 times or 50 times, it doesn`t really matter). Now calculate the probability that you would roll that EXACT number: pretty high isn`t it? But it just happened! The universe is infinately more complex that you or I can possibly imagine but I don`t need to postulate some mythical "daddy in the sky" figure to accept that as fact.
Get off your moralistic high-horse for one second and think about words like murder before ignorantly spouting them in such a manner. The "where to draw the line between contraception and abortion" argument has been done to death before so I won`t go into it here.
If you can`t debate the ethics of a complex issue like cloning without resorting to childish "don`t mess with the big daddy in the sky" ignorance then please don`t bother: you are just wasting your own time and everybody else`s.
(jeez, work must be really boring me, that I`m responding to god-bothering flamebait...)
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
The point about such laws which prohibit rape/murder, theft etc is not to legislate against immorality but to protect the individual in a society. This is not a moral issue as such. If somebody breaks into my house and steals my stuff, I am not morally outraged but I am pretty pissed off that my stuff has been stolen. Likewise if I am raped or a family member is murdered then I am still pretty pissed off that I was not protected by the society in which I live. ;-)
Stealing/raping/killing are morally wrong in that they are "bad" or "evil" if you have a moral code which prohibits these things. If you have a moral code which considers certain people to be less than human (for example) then doing these things to them might not be morally wrong to you. However in a society which protects the individual, these acts are clearly against the ethics of the society and are illegal.
On the other hand certain people hold that swearing or using the Lord`s name in vain is immoral, but it sure as christ shouldn`t be fucking illegal
Getting back on topic for a mo, sick though these puppys are, if no illegal act has been commited (ie abuse of a minor) then you can`t outlaw something based on morality (assuming we have a common morality in the first place, see above).
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
The deal is that there is only one Santa but he/it is in a quantum state which is a superposition of Santas, delivering presents to each child in each household simultaneously. This is why it is vitally important that no child sees Santa on christmas eve as the waveform would collapse and no-one would get any presents.