The causality you're implying is just not there. Suse Linux was talking about dropping ReiserFS even before Hand Reiser was suspected in the case of his missing wife. Reasons given were that interest in ReiserFS had dropped and that ext3 had been catching up in performance.
People can safely live there now so why not the animals? Animals may not care about half of them dying for strange reasons. People do.
If anything, that supports his argument - you're thinking the opposite way.
Yes, I'm not aware that "people can safely live there now" (or that they do), so that may have confused me. (But me and the one I was replying to may have different opinions of what "there" exactly means.)
So drug overdoses are nonsense too?
Drug overdoses are lethal, and of course you can die of radiation sickness. But there the similarities end. If you survive radiation sickness, you are fine, except for a higher risk of getting cancer later in life. If you receive the same dose over a longer time, you'll be accumulating more genetic damage and have an even higher higher risk of getting cancer. The reason is that a lot of the damaged cells in the "high dose over short time" scenario just die because of too much damage done in too short a time. They get replaced by other cells, if you survive. If you receive the same dose over a longer time, the repair mechainism of a lot more of these cells has time to fix things, but if they don't get it exactly right, cancer may occur.
It's simply more damaged cells surviving = more (possible) cancer.
Coincidentially, cancer tissue is worse at repairing this damage than normal tissue, which is one of the reasons why radiation therapy works on cancer.
The interesting part is that a large (but obviously non-lethal) dose in a short time, like radiation therapy, can heal you from cancer, but spreading the same dose out over a larger time may give you cancer.
It has been postulated that life wouldn't exist the closer one gets to the center of the galaxy because of the ambient radiation
That must have been some time ago. "Deinococcus radiophilus" is a bacterium extraordinarily resistant to radiation (like, several kGy, which is an insane dose). You can find it in nuclear reactors.
If high levels of radiation would be a evolutionary condition, life would most likely adapt to it. And that's only for carbon-based life as we know it...
People can safely live there now so why not the animals?
Animals may not care about half of them dying for strange reasons. People do.
Although it is above the average world natural background radiation (2.4 mSv/year), there are a lot of places where people receive larger radiation doses without ANY harmful effects including Ramsar in Iran, where the doze is 260 mSv/year, 26 times larger than in the Chernobyl zone.
They probably adapted to it. With some casualties in the meantime. I wouldn't advocate the same for other populations, for some reason large-scale experiments with humans are frowned upon.
It is known (although ignored in strict radiation regulations) that the same dose received in short time is much more harmful than the dose received during longer times.
The problem with nuclear energy is not that it can be unsafe. Of course it can... if handled as badly as the Russians did it is an unmitigated disaster. Contrast that with the Three Mile Island event, which did in fact melt a lot of equipment but so far as nuclear accidents go was a success because containment wasn't breached.
Linux: Their hardware is unlikely to ever support my os, because (perhaps because they're a giant popular corporation) they like to keep it all closed up.
Now, maybe you agree with Stallman about copyright for music, etc. Even so, you should recognize that that puts you farther outside the mainstream, and it's much harder to change the mainstream when you're 1,000 miles away.
How far away from the mainstram had he been when he first brought the GPL to life? Did we achieve something?
Are you also recommending that Firefox be distributed with Javascript disabled?
I know that I HAVE JavaScript disabled (using the NoScript extension) for this and other reasons, and I don't want to have that functionality back whithout me noticing.
It was Lenin who said that and he actually didn't say it. It was invented by the John Birch Society to describe Ronald Regan.
I highly doubt that. I'm a German, and I remember that Lenin quote (in German) from even before Reagan was president.
Lenin also said "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." This jibes much better with a description of them as "useful idiots" than your obscure "deaf mutes" reference.
I'm running a number of (old) RH boxes with ext3, some with a pretty high load (news server...) and I've never had a single problem with ext3. I applied all patches available, though (and keep them firewalled because they aren't any new patches available from RH anymore).
The only reason why I'm considering to switch to ReiserFS is the lacking speed of ext3.
RH kernels have their share of problems, though. There's been some pretty nasty NFS problems, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
The causality you're implying is just not there. Suse Linux was talking about dropping ReiserFS even before Hand Reiser was suspected in the case of his missing wife. Reasons given were that interest in ReiserFS had dropped and that ext3 had been catching up in performance.
Hanno
It's not the "next big thing." In fact, it's the old big thing that kept me running Windows XP on a machine at home.
That sounds like it's a bad thing.
Seriously, everything which reduces the pains of using Windows and keeps people from switching is not good. Read this: http://www.fefe.de/nowindows/
- Hurga
Fact is, we always have to choose between liberty and safety.
Quoth Thomas Jefferson: "He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both."
Hurga
(don't get me started on Chernobyl. That was a poorly designed system, which is not used in the US).
Ok. What about Three Mile Island? You've been lucky that time, but it would be foolish to think you'll always be.
Hanno
But since you already have cancer at that point, you'll probably accept dying from cancer later if it means you don't die from cancer sooner.
6 &cid=15175333
That still doesn't address the issue if short term or long term irradiation with the same dose is less detrimental. I explained it in more detail in http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=18369
Hanno
People can safely live there now so why not the animals?
Animals may not care about half of them dying for strange reasons. People do.
If anything, that supports his argument - you're thinking the opposite way.
Yes, I'm not aware that "people can safely live there now" (or that they do), so that may have confused me. (But me and the one I was replying to may have different opinions of what "there" exactly means.)
So drug overdoses are nonsense too?
Drug overdoses are lethal, and of course you can die of radiation sickness. But there the similarities end. If you survive radiation sickness, you are fine, except for a higher risk of getting cancer later in life. If you receive the same dose over a longer time, you'll be accumulating more genetic damage and have an even higher higher risk of getting cancer. The reason is that a lot of the damaged cells in the "high dose over short time" scenario just die because of too much damage done in too short a time. They get replaced by other cells, if you survive. If you receive the same dose over a longer time, the repair mechainism of a lot more of these cells has time to fix things, but if they don't get it exactly right, cancer may occur.
It's simply more damaged cells surviving = more (possible) cancer.
Hanno
Coincidentially, cancer tissue is worse at repairing this damage than normal tissue, which is one of the reasons why radiation therapy works on cancer.
The interesting part is that a large (but obviously non-lethal) dose in a short time, like radiation therapy, can heal you from cancer, but spreading the same dose out over a larger time may give you cancer.
Hanno
It has been postulated that life wouldn't exist the closer one gets to the center of the galaxy because of the ambient radiation
That must have been some time ago. "Deinococcus radiophilus" is a bacterium extraordinarily resistant to radiation (like, several kGy, which is an insane dose). You can find it in nuclear reactors.
If high levels of radiation would be a evolutionary condition, life would most likely adapt to it. And that's only for carbon-based life as we know it...
Hanno
At least with GE only a single well studied change is being made.
Please ask someone who does GE about this.
Hanno
People can safely live there now so why not the animals?
Animals may not care about half of them dying for strange reasons. People do.
Although it is above the average world natural background radiation (2.4 mSv/year), there are a lot of places where people receive larger radiation doses without ANY harmful effects including Ramsar in Iran, where the doze is 260 mSv/year, 26 times larger than in the Chernobyl zone.
They probably adapted to it. With some casualties in the meantime. I wouldn't advocate the same for other populations, for some reason large-scale experiments with humans are frowned upon.
It is known (although ignored in strict radiation regulations) that the same dose received in short time is much more harmful than the dose received during longer times.
That's nonsense.
Hanno
The problem with nuclear energy is not that it can be unsafe. Of course it can ... if handled as badly as the Russians did it is an unmitigated disaster. Contrast that with the Three Mile Island event, which did in fact melt a lot of equipment but so far as nuclear accidents go was a success because containment wasn't breached.
l ear_accidentsi ation_accidents
Well... there was a lot stuff going on which was way worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_rad
Hanno
WTF? It's been all over the news... http://forevergeek.com/games/playstation_3_hdd_to
Hanno
How far away from the mainstram had he been when he first brought the GPL to life? Did we achieve something?
Hanno
Are you also recommending that Firefox be distributed with Javascript disabled?
I know that I HAVE JavaScript disabled (using the NoScript extension) for this and other reasons, and I don't want to have that functionality back whithout me noticing.
Hurga
"You have no privacy anyway, get over it." And that's been 1995...
- Hanno
and everyone knows that he *hates* Bill Gates
Uh? Since when? I've consistently read in the past that he's good friends with Bill Gates.
Hanno
"I don't care that you're not a spammer. Your ISP allows spammers in their midst and therefore you all go on the list. Get a new ISP."
Oh, ok. Nothing like over reacting a bit.
Well, you're paying an ISP who is allowing spammers to pollute the net. Does that mean you're part of the problem or part of the solution? Guess.
Hanno
I highly doubt that. I'm a German, and I remember that Lenin quote (in German) from even before Reagan was president.
Lenin also said "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." This jibes much better with a description of them as "useful idiots" than your obscure "deaf mutes" reference.
Hanno
Philip Reis invented the telephone.
There have been claims that the Reis telephone didn't work for spoken communication, just for sounds, but these have been rebutted a long time ago.
Hurga
Nobody can be this stupid and cynical.
He's probably from the USA?
- Hanno
...I suspect I know where your problems come from.
- Hanno
Thats why everyone wants to come over here to go to Harvard or Yale or MIT or Oxford or Stanford or even our high schools.
m l or http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1196702/p osts. Oh and BTW, Oxford? *grin*
You may want to check http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0730/p01s01-usgn.ht
- Hurga
I'm running a number of (old) RH boxes with ext3, some with a pretty high load (news server...) and I've never had a single problem with ext3. I applied all patches available, though (and keep them firewalled because they aren't any new patches available from RH anymore).
The only reason why I'm considering to switch to ReiserFS is the lacking speed of ext3.
RH kernels have their share of problems, though. There's been some pretty nasty NFS problems, for example.
Hanno
...Microsoft loves the "more free" BSD license (because it gives them the freedom to take the code and do an embrace-and-extend with it).
If you're doing something Microsoft loves, you really should ask yourself if you're doing the right thing.
Hanno
What do you want them to do?
To die quickly and painfully.
- Hanno