I am for a reduction of ALL immigration, not just the H-1B.In my opinion, the the H1-B is just stupid. We should just train and hire our own people. We should also ban sending our jobs overseas just so corporations can give their CEOs 20 million dollar a year bonuses.
Speaking as a computer professional who lives and works outside the USA[0], I strongly agree with you[1] and would encourage all US citizens to lobby their politicians to adopt the above position (to paraphrase Randy Bush).
0. I guess, given your parochial view of global economics, that that makes us competitors, in your mind.
1. Seriously: I strongly disagree with some of the indentured-servitude aspects of the H1-B programme. They're unfair on the workers, and they're economically counter-productive to your country.
Or it may mean delegating nameservers by IP address rather than domain name so that resolvers will no longer need to accept potentially-malicious glue records.
Good post. Forgive me for focusing in on this one point and nitpicking it..;)
0. Glue used to have a specific meaning: records configured in a parent to help delegate a zone. You (and many people reporting on the current flaws) seem additionally to use it to refer to "additional answers" in DNS replies. While such answers often are glue records, they're not quite the same thing. Least, it didn't use to be. Perhaps the meaning has moved on, but I'll use "glue" in the stricter sense.
1. That's essentially already the case, for in-zone delegations (ie delegating example.com to a name in example.com. like ns.example.com.). The authorative server must be configured with glue, and it must return that glue in the additional answer section for anyone to be able to query ns.example.com.
2. Resolvers mustn't treat glue from the delegator as authorative anyway. Resolvers are only supposed to believe additional answers that are in-bailiwick (ie you'll only believe an additional record for/in example.com. if it came from a DNS server you know to be authorative for example.com., e.g. cause you just queried it for a name in example.com.)
3. The problem here is not inherent to glue/additional, but in knowing whether a reply is authorative or not. The only good way to fix this is to secure the DNS chain of trust, either through near-ubiqutious deployment of IPSec+PKI for DNS servers (ha!) or a PKI inside DNS.
If having a family with kids and stuff would make it so you won't ever be the "random star", then bad guys will simply travel with fake family and some kids.
Or dupe their pregnant girlfriend into doing the terrorism for them, see Anne Murphy.
So then if you use aluminium, you use less (by weight, for same volume) than if you build from steel? Hence why many (most?) commercial aircraft are in fact made from aluminium? (i.e. I'm wondering if you mistyped this point in your original post..).
(I'm not sure, but where steel is used (wing 'boxes'?), is it not more due to the fatigue properties of steel than to its mechanical strength/weight?)/me curious..
If steel weighs 3 times as much but is only twice as strong, doesn't that then mean that you can get 33% more strength for a given weight by using aluminium?
I.e. for some specified strength, you'll need a greater weight of steel than aluminium, not less. (unless you're thinking in terms of volume).
You said no fat person eats an 1800 calorie a day diet. I called you on your bullshit, with personal experience.
I think any reasonable person would have assumed the "1800 calorie a day diet" comment implied "averaged over a long period of time". From your own reply, you didn't stick to the low-cal diet for long. To a reasonable person, it looks like you're picking a technical nit and missing the point.
Further, the original comment was trying to give a balanced, overview of all that is known about best practice in weight-loss. They were just making a point about how obesity is fundamentally related to an excess intake of calories. Trying to pick nits in things they left out is, again, missing the point.
Buy a Sun Unix-layout, type-6 USB keyboard. It has 'Control' where it should be (where caps-lock is on PC keyboards). If you use Unix terminals, you'll use ctrl a lot, and this is a far better place for it.
If you have a PC keyboard, you can easily remap caps-lock as you wish with xkb. Even easier is to use GNOME's keyboard preferences and set the 'swap ctrl/caps-lock' option - I guess other *Nix desktops have a similar option.
Huh.. If all the other posters who read the question as being about purely *text* terminals (despite mention of VNC) are correct, then their suggested answer of "use screen or dtach" are of course much better than using Sunrays.;)
The ideal scientists is like the ideal gas, a nice model. Most people, including those with PhDs, believe in things. Examples such as "No replacement for displacement," "goto is evil," and "Windows Sucks Linux rules" are examples of belief. One may be able to cite evidence of a larger engine being better than a smaller one with a turbo charger, and would reconsider their beliefs if a really efficient turbo charger was made. However, that stated maxim represents one of their "beliefs."
Uhmm, the "no replacement.." seems to be some kind of rule-of-thumb for technicians (not engineers, never mind scientists); "goto is evil" is from a well-argued paper"Go To Statement Considered Harmful" by the well-respected computer scientist, Edsger Dijkstra and is an important work in software engineering (though, not scientific..); the last is not worth discussing.
It's absurd to call these "beliefs", particularly when you also described them as "maxims" - a far better description, as it means "a well-established proposition or principle". Simple belief is, as you might agree, not a good way to establish the usefulness of some proposition. Science however is. Adopting maxims that result from science (directly, or percolated down through the woolier fields of engineering) is *perfectly* acceptable when, as you say, no one has the time or ability to derive everything from first principles for themselves.
Your attempt to conflate everyday technical or engineering maxims with belief, so as try implicate science because some scientists may adhere to some maxims is just disturbing though. Engineering != science, and the scientific process is deliberately mindful of the fallability and even occasional dishonesty of man.
The big-bang theory exists because it explains observable physical states, such as the expansion we can see in galaxies moving away from each other, cosmic background radiation, etc.
I'm not aware there's any evidence to support any postulates of what went on before the big bang (and to my limited knowledge, the common-garden big-bang theory doesn't say anything about it either) but then IANAP. If you want to speculate a 'god' created the matter and energy that went into the big-bang, away you go - however you then have a problem of logical consistency, as how do you explain the existence of god (as you seem to insist things can't just come into existence, or just always exist)?
If you want to believe in a god, as something to explain all that which science can not explain (including how matter and energy came to being), fair enough, but if you're honest you have to recognise that this is logically on a par with believing that fairies live at the bottom of the garden.
We might have difficulty proving certain properties in maths, but assuming them is useful. Mathematicians are quite free to invent alternative systems, that avoid those assumptions (perhaps by introducing others). I.e., there's nothing about religious about '0' and you're free to ignore the concept if you wish.
To try claim god is axiomatic of this world begs the question: Why? What purpose does it serve to invent a 'god'?
So if evolution was created by god, who created god then?
Also, if you're intelligent/educated enough to accept the utility of scientific rigour, on what reasonable basis (other than having being brain-washed in youth, or other cultural reasons) can one then just assume a god must exist?*
Anyway, I guess some people have a weird need to believe in fairy-stories.
* Its not reasonable to base it on apparent complexity in the universe, if one also has a philosophy of trying to adjudge truth scientifically..
It doesn't have the Merkle tree and the associated error-detection properties of ZFS though.
Also, AdvFS (or PolyFS, as I could swear it was called in the beginning - though Google can't seem to any record of it) had a pretty bad reliability record in its earlier days, at least bad enough that its unreliability still was mentioned in DEC Open Systems Support when I visited there in 2000.. (by which stage Tru64 clearly was on life-support).;)
Slashdot Mirror
I am for a reduction of ALL immigration, not just the H-1B.In my opinion, the the H1-B is just stupid. We should just train and hire our own people. We should also ban sending our jobs overseas just so corporations can give their CEOs 20 million dollar a year bonuses.
Speaking as a computer professional who lives and works outside the USA[0], I strongly agree with you[1] and would encourage all US citizens to lobby their politicians to adopt the above position (to paraphrase Randy Bush).
0. I guess, given your parochial view of global economics, that that makes us competitors, in your mind.
1. Seriously: I strongly disagree with some of the indentured-servitude aspects of the H1-B programme. They're unfair on the workers, and they're economically counter-productive to your country.
Ryanair, the "just a loney loner, walking down a lonely road" of the airline industry...
Or it may mean delegating nameservers by IP address rather than domain name so that resolvers will no longer need to accept potentially-malicious glue records.
Good post. Forgive me for focusing in on this one point and nitpicking it.. ;)
0. Glue used to have a specific meaning: records configured in a parent to help delegate a zone. You (and many people reporting on the current flaws) seem additionally to use it to refer to "additional answers" in DNS replies. While such answers often are glue records, they're not quite the same thing. Least, it didn't use to be. Perhaps the meaning has moved on, but I'll use "glue" in the stricter sense.
1. That's essentially already the case, for in-zone delegations (ie delegating example.com to a name in example.com. like ns.example.com.). The authorative server must be configured with glue, and it must return that glue in the additional answer section for anyone to be able to query ns.example.com.
(Interestingly, DJB has long had a page arguing that "out-of-bailiwick" delegations are bad, amongst other things).
2. Resolvers mustn't treat glue from the delegator as authorative anyway. Resolvers are only supposed to believe additional answers that are in-bailiwick (ie you'll only believe an additional record for/in example.com. if it came from a DNS server you know to be authorative for example.com., e.g. cause you just queried it for a name in example.com.)
3. The problem here is not inherent to glue/additional, but in knowing whether a reply is authorative or not. The only good way to fix this is to secure the DNS chain of trust, either through near-ubiqutious deployment of IPSec+PKI for DNS servers (ha!) or a PKI inside DNS.
Yep.
If having a family with kids and stuff would make it so you won't ever be the "random star", then bad guys will simply travel with fake family and some kids.
Or dupe their pregnant girlfriend into doing the terrorism for them, see Anne Murphy.
So then if you use aluminium, you use less (by weight, for same volume) than if you build from steel? Hence why many (most?) commercial aircraft are in fact made from aluminium? (i.e. I'm wondering if you mistyped this point in your original post..).
(I'm not sure, but where steel is used (wing 'boxes'?), is it not more due to the fatigue properties of steel than to its mechanical strength/weight?) /me curious..
it was the "dikes" and not the "dykes"
You realise those are the same word, right? (the second is the original dutch and english spelling of the former).
You must be dumb, cause I linked to a simple page on physical, observable states that the big bang theory explains.
Do we understand everything? Of course not - and I say as much in the comment you're replying to!! Could there be better theories? Sure there could.
Your attempt to put words into my mouth saying otherwise is idiotic.
Someone mod the AC parent up as "interesting" please.
If steel weighs 3 times as much but is only twice as strong, doesn't that then mean that you can get 33% more strength for a given weight by using aluminium?
I.e. for some specified strength, you'll need a greater weight of steel than aluminium, not less. (unless you're thinking in terms of volume).
??
You said no fat person eats an 1800 calorie a day diet. I called you on your bullshit, with personal experience.
I think any reasonable person would have assumed the "1800 calorie a day diet" comment implied "averaged over a long period of time". From your own reply, you didn't stick to the low-cal diet for long. To a reasonable person, it looks like you're picking a technical nit and missing the point.
Further, the original comment was trying to give a balanced, overview of all that is known about best practice in weight-loss. They were just making a point about how obesity is fundamentally related to an excess intake of calories. Trying to pick nits in things they left out is, again, missing the point.
Also nice is that Unicomp sell Unix-layout keyboards (ctrl to the left of A). They'll even do custom layouts.
Buy a Sun Unix-layout, type-6 USB keyboard. It has 'Control' where it should be (where caps-lock is on PC keyboards). If you use Unix terminals, you'll use ctrl a lot, and this is a far better place for it.
If you have a PC keyboard, you can easily remap caps-lock as you wish with xkb. Even easier is to use GNOME's keyboard preferences and set the 'swap ctrl/caps-lock' option - I guess other *Nix desktops have a similar option.
Huh.. If all the other posters who read the question as being about purely *text* terminals (despite mention of VNC) are correct, then their suggested answer of "use screen or dtach" are of course much better than using Sunrays. ;)
Sun make pretty neat thin-client terminals called Sun Ray. Can work with either Linux or Solaris servers.
NB: I'm biased, as I work for Sun.
The ideal scientists is like the ideal gas, a nice model. Most people, including those with PhDs, believe in things. Examples such as "No replacement for displacement," "goto is evil," and "Windows Sucks Linux rules" are examples of belief. One may be able to cite evidence of a larger engine being better than a smaller one with a turbo charger, and would reconsider their beliefs if a really efficient turbo charger was made. However, that stated maxim represents one of their "beliefs."
Uhmm, the "no replacement.." seems to be some kind of rule-of-thumb for technicians (not engineers, never mind scientists); "goto is evil" is from a well-argued paper"Go To Statement Considered Harmful" by the well-respected computer scientist, Edsger Dijkstra and is an important work in software engineering (though, not scientific..); the last is not worth discussing.
It's absurd to call these "beliefs", particularly when you also described them as "maxims" - a far better description, as it means "a well-established proposition or principle". Simple belief is, as you might agree, not a good way to establish the usefulness of some proposition. Science however is. Adopting maxims that result from science (directly, or percolated down through the woolier fields of engineering) is *perfectly* acceptable when, as you say, no one has the time or ability to derive everything from first principles for themselves.
Your attempt to conflate everyday technical or engineering maxims with belief, so as try implicate science because some scientists may adhere to some maxims is just disturbing though. Engineering != science, and the scientific process is deliberately mindful of the fallability and even occasional dishonesty of man.
Another correction: First sentence, last paragraph, "can not explain" should say "can not yet explain" (noting that "not yet" allows for never).
I had meant to put in a footnote on big-bang theory at the word 'explains', to say something like:
* Possibly partially, or imperfectly. Science allows for refinement and even replacement of theories.
The big-bang theory exists because it explains observable physical states, such as the expansion we can see in galaxies moving away from each other, cosmic background radiation, etc.
I'm not aware there's any evidence to support any postulates of what went on before the big bang (and to my limited knowledge, the common-garden big-bang theory doesn't say anything about it either) but then IANAP. If you want to speculate a 'god' created the matter and energy that went into the big-bang, away you go - however you then have a problem of logical consistency, as how do you explain the existence of god (as you seem to insist things can't just come into existence, or just always exist)?
If you want to believe in a god, as something to explain all that which science can not explain (including how matter and energy came to being), fair enough, but if you're honest you have to recognise that this is logically on a par with believing that fairies live at the bottom of the garden.
We might have difficulty proving certain properties in maths, but assuming them is useful. Mathematicians are quite free to invent alternative systems, that avoid those assumptions (perhaps by introducing others). I.e., there's nothing about religious about '0' and you're free to ignore the concept if you wish.
To try claim god is axiomatic of this world begs the question: Why? What purpose does it serve to invent a 'god'?
So if evolution was created by god, who created god then?
Also, if you're intelligent/educated enough to accept the utility of scientific rigour, on what reasonable basis (other than having being brain-washed in youth, or other cultural reasons) can one then just assume a god must exist?*
Anyway, I guess some people have a weird need to believe in fairy-stories.
* Its not reasonable to base it on apparent complexity in the universe, if one also has a philosophy of trying to adjudge truth scientifically..
You can use ZFS volumes as block devices (e.g. for iSCSI), with your own FS on top of it. You don't lose that ability..
It doesn't have the Merkle tree and the associated error-detection properties of ZFS though.
Also, AdvFS (or PolyFS, as I could swear it was called in the beginning - though Google can't seem to any record of it) had a pretty bad reliability record in its earlier days, at least bad enough that its unreliability still was mentioned in DEC Open Systems Support when I visited there in 2000.. (by which stage Tru64 clearly was on life-support). ;)
Hmm, does the fact that compiz gets to use XDamage help at all? I wish I knew more about X11 :)
Sigh.. now you've been modded informative. *groan*.