Can't he concentrate on being a better person *by* being a better programmer? Or at least *while* being a better programmer? The idea that coding is merely some tedious task with no benefit for the coder or the world is a very limiting view.
Why must he choose one or the other? Why do you believe that working on his coding skills will make his other experiences less meaningful or enjoyable?
You can't compare real filesystems to EXT. EXT4 is a backport of some of what is possible in modern filesystems to a brand name that makes people comfortable. Like most filesystems it's sufficient for many uses, but it's not particularly good at anything and it's really bad a whole slew of fairly common uses. It's not even a good compromise for backwards compatibility, like EXT3 was, as volumes formatted as EXT4 can't be mounted as EXT2/3.
I'm not saying EXT4 is bad, just that it isn't a terribly useful baseline for comparison. By the time you get to systematically evaluating a filesystem on functionality and performance EXT shouldn't even be on the list, except maybe to help people who don't understand the problem see why you want to make a change in the first place.
He hasn't given up, he's just acknowledged the reality that the variance among drives of any particular model is large enough that he can't statistically pick a winner even given reliable statistics about the past performance of similar drives (which is definitely not available) and assuming the drives never change over their manufacturing life (with is definitely not true).
If you're buying 1000 hard drives their average reliability is meaningful to you (though even then it's only *a* factor, not *the* factor). But if you're only buying a handful of drives and prioritizing reliability you're much better off with diversity than any single model because the average reliability means almost nothing in your small application and diversity at least lets you avoid duplicating systematic faults.
Whatever strategy you think you've devised to beat the statistics is just you hoping to pick the right stock/horse/number and lying to yourself about the odds -- even if you have good data and choose the statistically best option there's still a very good chance it won't turn out to be the best one available and a moderate chance it will be one of the worst.
GPS can be cryptographically authenticated, at least for authorized users. You can jam it, but you can't easily fake it, at least not against receivers that are worried about such things.
Another way to look at it: Non-radio navigation continues to be possible, and constitutes a practical, cheap, already-in-use backup to GPS for most ship-related uses.
LORAN is fine and has valid uses. But it also has a cost, and taking it down doesn't meant that ships will get lost or crash into each should GPS become unavailable.
Do these schools of thought know that the chip is inside a piece of glass? Are they suggesting that glass causes cancer? They can't possibly be thinking of effects related to the radio emissions, as the chip has no local power source -- it is only active when powered by a fairly strong emitter and most pets spend well less than 0.0001% of their time in such a situation even if their chip is read many times each year.
Unless they decide not to. Or go out of business. Or you haven't paid them enough. Or any of 100 other things. Even if it was 100% their policy to unlock on request, they locked it without my consent or any ethical technical or business purpose, which is itself a problem.
What is it about a server that makes systemd inappropriate? NetworkManager I see; servers rarely change their network configuration when they do they want to do it in a controlled way, not an automatic way.
But I don't understand what similar distinction you're drawing for systemd. It doesn't take away the ability to carefully manage your configuration via text files, and doesn't do anything automatically unless you ask it to; what about running a server makes systemd undesirable?
If one of your required qualifications is "be part of an existing program that old admits men" then the program is sexist merely by its requirements, even if those requirements are applied equally to all candidates. Neither does discrimination require malice or intent -- unintentional discrimination has exactly the same outcomes as intentional discrimination.
You also can't claim both that there were no women up-to-snuff therefore no discrimination existed, and also that selecting women would have imposed an additional burden on NASA. One of those scenarios claims there was no discrimination while the other one claims that discrimination was present and intentional but justified. And again, if you construct one of the requirements to be "must urinate via a penis" it doesn't matter that you apply that standard to everyone who applies, it's still sexist (and assumes that "male" is the default option and the females have "extra" requirements -- even if gender was a legitimate reason to discriminate, why are females the group selected against instead of males?).
But mostly this is absurd, because if NASA wasn't discriminating against females they would have been in the extreme minority of organizations at the time. Sexism was even more ridiculous then than it is now and to presume that NASA is or was somehow exempt from that culture-wide phenomenon just because they dreamed up an arbitrary set of performance standards is insane.
Which all sounds like a good idea, though it's strongly tainted by the nationalist protectionism. The same sort art and education funding system could be setup with penalizing people who aren't lucky enough to currently reside in Canada.
Some people -- particularly those with 2 servers -- transfer data on paths other then WiFi endpoint Internet. Wired Ethernet is definitely faster in such cases. It's also frequently more reliable, easier to secure, allows simultaneous full-speed transfers, is full-duplex, doesn't incur a repeater penalty for transfer among local endpoints, requires less configuration and frequently avoids the need for custom driver installation.
Not that there's anything wrong with WiFi. It has lots of useful applications, its own set of benefits, and is definitely sufficient or even preferable for many installations. But to suggest that there's no use for wired Ethernet in a tech-heavy home scenario is ludicrous.
It sounds like you're saying/. doesn't support Unicode. Make all the excuses you want about it being hard -- they might be true -- but Unicode support on/. does not exist. The idea that a whitelist (that doesn't even include mu) is evidence of support is like claiming that an F1 car is road-legal because you added headlights.
Tell me about it. And don't even get me started on the Anglicans -- they do almost nothing except plot terrorism. Given the number of current and former Anglicans in Australia it's hard to believe you can walk down the street with getting blown up.
/ Or maybe reducing the entire world to the single dimension of religion is not a terribly useful way to understand "terrorism"
The sentiment "then they are just going to stop caring" ignores our ability to require universal service for broadband just like we did for voice in the past.
I'm not sure where you getting mobile out of this -- AT&T is talking about wireline service. They think 10 Mbps is too fast to be counted as wireline broadband.
It's also unclear why you feel entitled to make everyone use the Internet the same way you do.
The smaller government is the less harm it can do. But also less good. You can argue about where the point of balance should be, but to argue that smaller is always better assumes that government can do nothing worthwhile. That is not a widely held assumption, so you must support it if you want to convince anyone of theories that assume it.
Exactly what makes parents more qualified to make educational decisions than other people? I know they *feel* more qualified, but it's unclear to me that feeling is justified by any observable fact. Parents have a certain perspective to offer, but no particular expertise (at least not as a group), and certainly not the only valid perspective. What you're suggesting is essentially self-regulation -- which we know from other areas creates inherent conflicts of interest and readily ignores broader societal goals. Why do you think it will work here when it clearly does not in other places?
And the parent says "fair" as though there's only one way to evaluate that declaration. As with most things it's a more subtle question than simply declaring that some other position is morally wrong and therefore your position must by default be the only acceptable option. If you want to support a regressive tax feel free, but simply declaring that a progressive tax isn't clearly morally superior is not the same as providing rational in support of a regressive tax.
Moreover anyone who excludes payroll taxes from their definition of "income tax" is stretching credulity. Payroll taxes are paid by even the very poorest earners, are proportional to income, and are deducted from paychecks. The only people who avoid them are the very rich who either hit the upper limit -- though it's unclear why such a limit even exists -- or those who don't have earned income in the first place, like those living on investment income.
And of course most poor people pay both payroll taxes and sales taxes, even if they "pay no income taxes at all". Which is why taxation needs to be considered as a system and not as a series of independent pieces -- only they very rich have the freedom to choose which taxes apply to them.
You've got this 100% backwards. Deciding to drive slower than everyone else makes you a much bigger risk than the people driving the same speed. If the speed at which most drivers are comfortable on a road is too high for safety the road system itself (which includes signage and surroundings) has been designed incorrectly and should be corrected.
Or maybe we're just familiar with past disasters and a more or less complete lack of the sort of scenario you imagine. I know it's fun to pretend that everyone else is evil and coming to hurt you -- that's the plot of more or less every zombie movie -- but in real life it's just not much a threat compared to say, dehydration.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't he concentrate on being a better person *by* being a better programmer? Or at least *while* being a better programmer? The idea that coding is merely some tedious task with no benefit for the coder or the world is a very limiting view.
Why must he choose one or the other? Why do you believe that working on his coding skills will make his other experiences less meaningful or enjoyable?
You can't compare real filesystems to EXT. EXT4 is a backport of some of what is possible in modern filesystems to a brand name that makes people comfortable. Like most filesystems it's sufficient for many uses, but it's not particularly good at anything and it's really bad a whole slew of fairly common uses. It's not even a good compromise for backwards compatibility, like EXT3 was, as volumes formatted as EXT4 can't be mounted as EXT2/3.
I'm not saying EXT4 is bad, just that it isn't a terribly useful baseline for comparison. By the time you get to systematically evaluating a filesystem on functionality and performance EXT shouldn't even be on the list, except maybe to help people who don't understand the problem see why you want to make a change in the first place.
He hasn't given up, he's just acknowledged the reality that the variance among drives of any particular model is large enough that he can't statistically pick a winner even given reliable statistics about the past performance of similar drives (which is definitely not available) and assuming the drives never change over their manufacturing life (with is definitely not true).
If you're buying 1000 hard drives their average reliability is meaningful to you (though even then it's only *a* factor, not *the* factor). But if you're only buying a handful of drives and prioritizing reliability you're much better off with diversity than any single model because the average reliability means almost nothing in your small application and diversity at least lets you avoid duplicating systematic faults.
Whatever strategy you think you've devised to beat the statistics is just you hoping to pick the right stock/horse/number and lying to yourself about the odds -- even if you have good data and choose the statistically best option there's still a very good chance it won't turn out to be the best one available and a moderate chance it will be one of the worst.
GPS can be cryptographically authenticated, at least for authorized users. You can jam it, but you can't easily fake it, at least not against receivers that are worried about such things.
Another way to look at it: Non-radio navigation continues to be possible, and constitutes a practical, cheap, already-in-use backup to GPS for most ship-related uses.
LORAN is fine and has valid uses. But it also has a cost, and taking it down doesn't meant that ships will get lost or crash into each should GPS become unavailable.
The system can be selectively disabled to prevent use in specific geographic areas. Those areas are fairly large but not global.
And if the decision was made to disable GPS in the US they would most assuredly turn off any local radionavigation system as well.
Do these schools of thought know that the chip is inside a piece of glass? Are they suggesting that glass causes cancer? They can't possibly be thinking of effects related to the radio emissions, as the chip has no local power source -- it is only active when powered by a fairly strong emitter and most pets spend well less than 0.0001% of their time in such a situation even if their chip is read many times each year.
Unless they decide not to. Or go out of business. Or you haven't paid them enough. Or any of 100 other things. Even if it was 100% their policy to unlock on request, they locked it without my consent or any ethical technical or business purpose, which is itself a problem.
If you think httpd only does one thing you clearly have never even cracked the configuration file open, let alone compiled it.
What is it about a server that makes systemd inappropriate? NetworkManager I see; servers rarely change their network configuration when they do they want to do it in a controlled way, not an automatic way.
But I don't understand what similar distinction you're drawing for systemd. It doesn't take away the ability to carefully manage your configuration via text files, and doesn't do anything automatically unless you ask it to; what about running a server makes systemd undesirable?
If one of your required qualifications is "be part of an existing program that old admits men" then the program is sexist merely by its requirements, even if those requirements are applied equally to all candidates. Neither does discrimination require malice or intent -- unintentional discrimination has exactly the same outcomes as intentional discrimination.
You also can't claim both that there were no women up-to-snuff therefore no discrimination existed, and also that selecting women would have imposed an additional burden on NASA. One of those scenarios claims there was no discrimination while the other one claims that discrimination was present and intentional but justified. And again, if you construct one of the requirements to be "must urinate via a penis" it doesn't matter that you apply that standard to everyone who applies, it's still sexist (and assumes that "male" is the default option and the females have "extra" requirements -- even if gender was a legitimate reason to discriminate, why are females the group selected against instead of males?).
But mostly this is absurd, because if NASA wasn't discriminating against females they would have been in the extreme minority of organizations at the time. Sexism was even more ridiculous then than it is now and to presume that NASA is or was somehow exempt from that culture-wide phenomenon just because they dreamed up an arbitrary set of performance standards is insane.
If I can't otherwise have sewage treatment -- yes, definitely.
Which all sounds like a good idea, though it's strongly tainted by the nationalist protectionism. The same sort art and education funding system could be setup with penalizing people who aren't lucky enough to currently reside in Canada.
Some people -- particularly those with 2 servers -- transfer data on paths other then WiFi endpoint Internet. Wired Ethernet is definitely faster in such cases. It's also frequently more reliable, easier to secure, allows simultaneous full-speed transfers, is full-duplex, doesn't incur a repeater penalty for transfer among local endpoints, requires less configuration and frequently avoids the need for custom driver installation.
Not that there's anything wrong with WiFi. It has lots of useful applications, its own set of benefits, and is definitely sufficient or even preferable for many installations. But to suggest that there's no use for wired Ethernet in a tech-heavy home scenario is ludicrous.
It sounds like you're saying /. doesn't support Unicode. Make all the excuses you want about it being hard -- they might be true -- but Unicode support on /. does not exist. The idea that a whitelist (that doesn't even include mu) is evidence of support is like claiming that an F1 car is road-legal because you added headlights.
Tell me about it. And don't even get me started on the Anglicans -- they do almost nothing except plot terrorism. Given the number of current and former Anglicans in Australia it's hard to believe you can walk down the street with getting blown up.
/ Or maybe reducing the entire world to the single dimension of religion is not a terribly useful way to understand "terrorism"
The sentiment "then they are just going to stop caring" ignores our ability to require universal service for broadband just like we did for voice in the past.
I'm not sure where you getting mobile out of this -- AT&T is talking about wireline service. They think 10 Mbps is too fast to be counted as wireline broadband.
It's also unclear why you feel entitled to make everyone use the Internet the same way you do.
The smaller government is the less harm it can do. But also less good. You can argue about where the point of balance should be, but to argue that smaller is always better assumes that government can do nothing worthwhile. That is not a widely held assumption, so you must support it if you want to convince anyone of theories that assume it.
Exactly what makes parents more qualified to make educational decisions than other people? I know they *feel* more qualified, but it's unclear to me that feeling is justified by any observable fact. Parents have a certain perspective to offer, but no particular expertise (at least not as a group), and certainly not the only valid perspective. What you're suggesting is essentially self-regulation -- which we know from other areas creates inherent conflicts of interest and readily ignores broader societal goals. Why do you think it will work here when it clearly does not in other places?
And the parent says "fair" as though there's only one way to evaluate that declaration. As with most things it's a more subtle question than simply declaring that some other position is morally wrong and therefore your position must by default be the only acceptable option. If you want to support a regressive tax feel free, but simply declaring that a progressive tax isn't clearly morally superior is not the same as providing rational in support of a regressive tax.
Moreover anyone who excludes payroll taxes from their definition of "income tax" is stretching credulity. Payroll taxes are paid by even the very poorest earners, are proportional to income, and are deducted from paychecks. The only people who avoid them are the very rich who either hit the upper limit -- though it's unclear why such a limit even exists -- or those who don't have earned income in the first place, like those living on investment income.
And of course most poor people pay both payroll taxes and sales taxes, even if they "pay no income taxes at all". Which is why taxation needs to be considered as a system and not as a series of independent pieces -- only they very rich have the freedom to choose which taxes apply to them.
You've got this 100% backwards. Deciding to drive slower than everyone else makes you a much bigger risk than the people driving the same speed. If the speed at which most drivers are comfortable on a road is too high for safety the road system itself (which includes signage and surroundings) has been designed incorrectly and should be corrected.
People who didn't want their car stolen again asked for that feature. Feel lucky that you didn't have need of it before it existed.
Or maybe we're just familiar with past disasters and a more or less complete lack of the sort of scenario you imagine. I know it's fun to pretend that everyone else is evil and coming to hurt you -- that's the plot of more or less every zombie movie -- but in real life it's just not much a threat compared to say, dehydration.