The best part is that the Author admits that in this version, you can't do single file restores.
This part had me rolling. WTF good is a backup if you can't do a single file restores?
I hope no one who is considering linux stumbles across this article and thinks that's the best we have for backing something up. If I had written the article KDar would've been skipped for something that can completely do the job. Even if that meant hacking out some scripts and setting up a cron job.
I'm a sysadmin, and the prospect of getting the lowdown on what you face with that kind of massive direct-to-external-customer realtime load intrigues me.
Same here. From a technical standpoint it would interesting to see how they split their sever software across clusters etc... I know DAoC released their basic configuration one time. IIRC, each server a user saw was a small cluster of linux servers serving up different parts of the world.
gee, after your first week of playing in this Disney Land pastel colored land, you get to fight your first dragon! oooooh... after the second week of playing yow will cap your level too! aaaaaah...
If you play 15 hours/day then yes. I think what WoW got right is that they realized the majoriy of the population doesn't want to or can't play a game 8hours/day. It's nice to be able to log into a MMO play for 1-2 hours and actually accomplish something. Since even the casual player can reach a high level and get decent gear the playfield in WoW will end up being much more equal when it comes to PvP. Hopefully this will allow what little skill there is in any MMO to be the deciding factor in fights.
WoW looks like move fun than DAoC, but really no challenge to it.
What if you had gotten WoW and never looked up the quest details or items on the web? Challenge doesn't have to come from insane death penalties or how fast I can click my mouse.
Doesn't matter anyways. Skill time played in pretty much every MMO. I'm interested to see anyones ideas on how to fix that though.
Take the WoW Census numbers with a grain of salt. The most accurate numbers about games sold/subs have come from Blizzard in press releases. Keep in mind their latest release is only from Dec. 1 though.
These digital files of movies released are out there, we can get them free, and it won't be stopped. It's not much use defining something as wrong, because it doesn't actually HURT anyone. Not the studios, not the actors, not the writers.
That's funny. What kind of hell would/. raise if MS started taking parts of the linux kernel and integrating them into windows w/o releasing the changes? It wouldn't actually hurt anyone. In fact you could argue it would help everyone who uses windows.
Then don't buy it twice(or at all)! Don't watch it either. If you disagree with the MPAA, then don't consume their products. It's a pretty simple concept I would think.
If all you really want to do is use/enjoy their content for free, then admit it's not a copyright issue but a "you don't feel like paying for it" issue.
Persistence generally pays off. There is a fine line between being persistent and annoying though.
but I always thought that if I was the one doing the hiring and I had told an interviewee that they would hear from us in two weeks, and they kept calling up, I would just get pissed off with them.
If you are told this there is nothing wrong with sending a follow up letter or making a call thanking the company for their time/hospitality/etc... during the interview. Then if you don't hear anything in two weeks give them a call. If they don't say the position was filled then call back weekly and check on it. If the position was filled, but you really want to work there or need a job, there is nothing wrong with calling back every couple months to check for another open position. This all assumes of course that you had a good interview but someone else beat you out for whatever reason.
So when you server blows up you want them to wait for your call before fixing it?
Calling every day is bad practice, but following up an interview is generally the right thing to do. If someone checks back weekly on a job it shows they have initiative and that they really want to work for you. How do you not find those qualities desirable in a candidate?
Does the Trumpster really think that ONLY Ivy-leaguers could come up with the crap that those contestants did? Give me a break.
There was an interview with Trump on one of the news shows talking about the contestants schooling, etc... He was saying that overall he didn't see much difference between the school/no school people, but to get on the show you either had to go to a good school OR be personally successful. He said what was most interesting to him though, was how the cameras changed everyone. You end up with smart people who fall apart while under the TV pressure or end up doing things just for looks.
OPEC is happy when oil is around the $35 per barrel range. It's not so expensive that they get slammed in the press, and not so cheap that they make no money.
I agree. It's the old setting your price point curve to maximize revenue. OPEC knows that if oil really got up into the $80-$100 barrel range people would start making lifestyle changes and start to be forced to find other energy avenues. They definitely don't want that happening.
Looks like no one has found a way to blame the U.S. for causing this, so they're blaming the U.S. for not giving a shit.
ROFL, I was listening to talk radio yesterday and some enviro whacko called in to blame the US (and other civilized nations) for the earthquake. His premise was that by building roads and basements we have weakned the tensil strength of the earths crust and the crust is now falling apart. At least it gave me a good laugh.
No one's infringing on copyright, they're just trading crap.
If it's covered by a copyright it's infringement. There is no argument here other than you don't agree with copyright law in general.
Under what authority is it against the law? The authority which gives Congress its power is the Constitution, which addresses inventors and creators, not the mega-corps who bought the first copy and set up factories to produce the product.
So now you question whether the law can be set up and enforced to begin with. You probably think it's illegal to collect taxes too?
If you think about it, a case could be made that it's better to be part of a big corp if you're an inventor/creator. No one person would ever have the resources to fully protect their copyrighted material in the type of environment we live in today. The mega-corps have even mostly failed.
I'm all for changing how copyrights work. Infringing on others copyrighted works it not the way to go about it. All it does is make people like the record execs think that they have a great product that tons of people of want so the only failure is stopping the people who share it.
You can troll and say,"Don't sign it." That would clearly demonstrate your complete disassociation from reality.
How is saying don't sign it a troll? If you're going to come here and preach about principles and how the man is keeping you down then fight it. All talk and no action. If more people acted (ie, completely boycotting all *AA products) things would change. Instead people bitch and moan about prices, about how copyrights suck and how all the products suck, all the while buying and downloading everything they produce. Brilliant!
You produce crap, you want protection, and you take my money to give yourself that protection.
Where did the person who produces crap take your money? Did you buy some of his crap?
Oh you're talking about you taxes that are used to enforce the law. Well if what is produced is crap as you say, then no one will want to infringe on his copyright anyways.
Copyright infringement, for better or worse, is against the law. If you disagree with how copyrights currently work then stop buying things that are copyrighted AND stop infringing. That is the only way to really force a change.
You're probably one of those people who claim that all music is crap, but you go and download all of Britney Spears latest songs.
It's funny because I was curious and ran the numbers on % of deaths for cars and for sky diving.
In 2003 there were 42,643 traffic deaths in the US. Using the estimated population numbers from the CIA website that came to roughly.014% chance to die in a car accident.
Using the latest sky diving death numbers of 25(the last time they reported) and dividing by the only number I could find as to how many jumped (members of the USPA). It came to a.074% chance of death by sky diving. The only problem with the number is that I couldn't find how many people actually did jump last year and had to go off members in the association.
A better stat would be deaths/divided by number of attempts/trips. I wonder if anyone keeps accurate counts of all sky dives and if someone has any figures around number of car trips taken per year.
Another thing I wonder about is do the sky dive deaths include base jumping? IMHO, I would agree with you about base jumping being very stupid to do on a regular basis. An acquaintance of mine died doing a base jump when a gust of wind pushed her back into the mountain. She was a pro sky diver(doing competitions and stuff) so it was more bad luck than anything that got her. Knowing what happened to her, I still think people should try a tandem jump at least once in their life. It is truly an amazing experience.
I don't think going out and doing a tandom jump one time would be that dangerous. You're probably more like to get in a car accident on your way there and back than not have your chute open.
What extremely fun sports to you participate in? My guess is that there is a chance to become seriously injured in all of them. Football? People mess up their backs all the time. Basketball? I've broken my nose twice. Surfing? Cut by fins, hit by the board and nearly drowned before. Snow skiing? Check out Sonny.
I did tandom jump one time, because I figured why not. I just wanted to see what jumping was like and it was a blast and probably one of the best things I ever did.
I don't consider myself an adrenaline junkie. Just someone who likes to try new things and push my physical and mental limits once in awhile.
It is similar to demanding that your girlfriend be a rich, nymphomaniac supermodel who models lingerie in Paris and Milan during the week, but plays Doom3 and mods cases on the weekend. Doesn't exist.
I was about to prove you wrong, but my girlfriend doesn't play Doom3.
and still lets me get what I need done 110% of the time.
The problem is that what you need to get done doesn't always match what everyone else needs to get done. Tabbed windows and bookmarks are essential tools in my opinion.
I'm failing to see how it makes sense. As the company who originally wrote the software you already own the code. After the original development cost you're continuing to invest 80k/year for updates and additional features. Why does it make sense to release that code as GPL so that your competitors can use it for free? They get to take advantage of your original investment and your current investment without making any investment of their own.
It's a double whammy if the application happened to give the original company a competitive advantage. Mainly because they lose the advantage (by giving it to their competitors) and they still have the expense of the software.
Since company A developed the code, they already own the source. This allows them to just hire developers to do work on it anytime they want. Releasing it as open source allows company As competitors to use the code (which destroys it's competitive advantage) and they only gain IF competitors add features that also end up being useful to company A. It seems like a big gamble for company A to release the software as open source where they give up a competitive advantage for a hope that they get some additional features in return.
where rivals can look at the code you're using and totally undermine your business pratices
There is some truth to this statement though. If company A hires me to write some software for them that gives them a competitive advantage why would they want to release it as open source? Company A footed the bill for development, so they reap the rewards. What is the arugment for releasing the software as open source so that competitors B, C, etc... get to use the software for free?
No, the quote is to help you keep things in perspective. It also shows you that math is something you must think about to understand. Answers just don't appear to people out of thin air. Hell, if Einstein is still stuggling to figure out math problems, then it is okay that I also struggle.
I'm not sure if the politically correct society we have would allow for elite math schools. We do have some magnet types of schools where the smart kids can go, but for the most part PCness in the US keeps us from pointing out the smart ones from the dumb ones.
Some even think having the dumb kids in the class will help make them smarter. I wonder what that does to the smart kids though?
Slashdot Mirror
The best part is that the Author admits that in this version, you can't do single file restores.
This part had me rolling. WTF good is a backup if you can't do a single file restores?
I hope no one who is considering linux stumbles across this article and thinks that's the best we have for backing something up. If I had written the article KDar would've been skipped for something that can completely do the job. Even if that meant hacking out some scripts and setting up a cron job.
I'm a sysadmin, and the prospect of getting the lowdown on what you face with that kind of massive direct-to-external-customer realtime load intrigues me.
Same here. From a technical standpoint it would interesting to see how they split their sever software across clusters etc... I know DAoC released their basic configuration one time. IIRC, each server a user saw was a small cluster of linux servers serving up different parts of the world.
gee, after your first week of playing in this Disney Land pastel colored land, you get to fight your first dragon! oooooh...
after the second week of playing yow will cap your level too! aaaaaah...
If you play 15 hours/day then yes. I think what WoW got right is that they realized the majoriy of the population doesn't want to or can't play a game 8hours/day. It's nice to be able to log into a MMO play for 1-2 hours and actually accomplish something. Since even the casual player can reach a high level and get decent gear the playfield in WoW will end up being much more equal when it comes to PvP. Hopefully this will allow what little skill there is in any MMO to be the deciding factor in fights.
WoW looks like move fun than DAoC, but really no challenge to it.
What if you had gotten WoW and never looked up the quest details or items on the web? Challenge doesn't have to come from insane death penalties or how fast I can click my mouse.
Doesn't matter anyways. Skill time played in pretty much every MMO. I'm interested to see anyones ideas on how to fix that though.
Take the WoW Census numbers with a grain of salt. The most accurate numbers about games sold/subs have come from Blizzard in press releases. Keep in mind their latest release is only from Dec. 1 though.
These digital files of movies released are out there, we can get them free, and it won't be stopped. It's not much use defining something as wrong, because it doesn't actually HURT anyone. Not the studios, not the actors, not the writers.
/. raise if MS started taking parts of the linux kernel and integrating them into windows w/o releasing the changes? It wouldn't actually hurt anyone. In fact you could argue it would help everyone who uses windows.
That's funny. What kind of hell would
Then don't buy it twice(or at all)! Don't watch it either. If you disagree with the MPAA, then don't consume their products. It's a pretty simple concept I would think.
If all you really want to do is use/enjoy their content for free, then admit it's not a copyright issue but a "you don't feel like paying for it" issue.
Persistence generally pays off. There is a fine line between being persistent and annoying though.
but I always thought that if I was the one doing the hiring and I had told an interviewee that they would hear from us in two weeks, and they kept calling up, I would just get pissed off with them.
If you are told this there is nothing wrong with sending a follow up letter or making a call thanking the company for their time/hospitality/etc... during the interview. Then if you don't hear anything in two weeks give them a call. If they don't say the position was filled then call back weekly and check on it. If the position was filled, but you really want to work there or need a job, there is nothing wrong with calling back every couple months to check for another open position. This all assumes of course that you had a good interview but someone else beat you out for whatever reason.
So when you server blows up you want them to wait for your call before fixing it?
Calling every day is bad practice, but following up an interview is generally the right thing to do. If someone checks back weekly on a job it shows they have initiative and that they really want to work for you. How do you not find those qualities desirable in a candidate?
Does the Trumpster really think that ONLY Ivy-leaguers could come up with the crap that those contestants did? Give me a break.
There was an interview with Trump on one of the news shows talking about the contestants schooling, etc... He was saying that overall he didn't see much difference between the school/no school people, but to get on the show you either had to go to a good school OR be personally successful. He said what was most interesting to him though, was how the cameras changed everyone. You end up with smart people who fall apart while under the TV pressure or end up doing things just for looks.
OPEC is happy when oil is around the $35 per barrel range. It's not so expensive that they get slammed in the press, and not so cheap that they make no money.
I agree. It's the old setting your price point curve to maximize revenue. OPEC knows that if oil really got up into the $80-$100 barrel range people would start making lifestyle changes and start to be forced to find other energy avenues. They definitely don't want that happening.
Looks like no one has found a way to blame the U.S. for causing this, so they're blaming the U.S. for not giving a shit.
ROFL, I was listening to talk radio yesterday and some enviro whacko called in to blame the US (and other civilized nations) for the earthquake. His premise was that by building roads and basements we have weakned the tensil strength of the earths crust and the crust is now falling apart. At least it gave me a good laugh.
No one's infringing on copyright, they're just trading crap.
If it's covered by a copyright it's infringement. There is no argument here other than you don't agree with copyright law in general.
Under what authority is it against the law? The authority which gives Congress its power is the Constitution, which addresses inventors and creators, not the mega-corps who bought the first copy and set up factories to produce the product.
So now you question whether the law can be set up and enforced to begin with. You probably think it's illegal to collect taxes too?
If you think about it, a case could be made that it's better to be part of a big corp if you're an inventor/creator. No one person would ever have the resources to fully protect their copyrighted material in the type of environment we live in today. The mega-corps have even mostly failed.
I'm all for changing how copyrights work. Infringing on others copyrighted works it not the way to go about it. All it does is make people like the record execs think that they have a great product that tons of people of want so the only failure is stopping the people who share it.
You can troll and say,"Don't sign it." That would clearly demonstrate your complete disassociation from reality.
How is saying don't sign it a troll? If you're going to come here and preach about principles and how the man is keeping you down then fight it. All talk and no action. If more people acted (ie, completely boycotting all *AA products) things would change. Instead people bitch and moan about prices, about how copyrights suck and how all the products suck, all the while buying and downloading everything they produce. Brilliant!
Um, this is slashdot. How dare you bring facts to the discussion!
You produce crap, you want protection, and you take my money to give yourself that protection.
Where did the person who produces crap take your money? Did you buy some of his crap?
Oh you're talking about you taxes that are used to enforce the law. Well if what is produced is crap as you say, then no one will want to infringe on his copyright anyways.
Copyright infringement, for better or worse, is against the law. If you disagree with how copyrights currently work then stop buying things that are copyrighted AND stop infringing. That is the only way to really force a change.
You're probably one of those people who claim that all music is crap, but you go and download all of Britney Spears latest songs.
It's funny because I was curious and ran the numbers on % of deaths for cars and for sky diving.
.014% chance to die in a car accident.
.074% chance of death by sky diving. The only problem with the number is that I couldn't find how many people actually did jump last year and had to go off members in the association.
In 2003 there were 42,643 traffic deaths in the US. Using the estimated population numbers from the CIA website that came to roughly
Using the latest sky diving death numbers of 25(the last time they reported) and dividing by the only number I could find as to how many jumped (members of the USPA). It came to a
A better stat would be deaths/divided by number of attempts/trips. I wonder if anyone keeps accurate counts of all sky dives and if someone has any figures around number of car trips taken per year.
Another thing I wonder about is do the sky dive deaths include base jumping? IMHO, I would agree with you about base jumping being very stupid to do on a regular basis. An acquaintance of mine died doing a base jump when a gust of wind pushed her back into the mountain. She was a pro sky diver(doing competitions and stuff) so it was more bad luck than anything that got her. Knowing what happened to her, I still think people should try a tandem jump at least once in their life. It is truly an amazing experience.
I don't think going out and doing a tandom jump one time would be that dangerous. You're probably more like to get in a car accident on your way there and back than not have your chute open.
What extremely fun sports to you participate in? My guess is that there is a chance to become seriously injured in all of them. Football? People mess up their backs all the time. Basketball? I've broken my nose twice. Surfing? Cut by fins, hit by the board and nearly drowned before. Snow skiing? Check out Sonny.
I did tandom jump one time, because I figured why not. I just wanted to see what jumping was like and it was a blast and probably one of the best things I ever did.
I don't consider myself an adrenaline junkie. Just someone who likes to try new things and push my physical and mental limits once in awhile.
It is similar to demanding that your girlfriend be a rich, nymphomaniac supermodel who models lingerie in Paris and Milan during the week, but plays Doom3 and mods cases on the weekend. Doesn't exist.
I was about to prove you wrong, but my girlfriend doesn't play Doom3.
and still lets me get what I need done 110% of the time.
The problem is that what you need to get done doesn't always match what everyone else needs to get done. Tabbed windows and bookmarks are essential tools in my opinion.
For businesses, this makes excellent sense.
I'm failing to see how it makes sense. As the company who originally wrote the software you already own the code. After the original development cost you're continuing to invest 80k/year for updates and additional features. Why does it make sense to release that code as GPL so that your competitors can use it for free? They get to take advantage of your original investment and your current investment without making any investment of their own.
It's a double whammy if the application happened to give the original company a competitive advantage. Mainly because they lose the advantage (by giving it to their competitors) and they still have the expense of the software.
Since company A developed the code, they already own the source. This allows them to just hire developers to do work on it anytime they want. Releasing it as open source allows company As competitors to use the code (which destroys it's competitive advantage) and they only gain IF competitors add features that also end up being useful to company A. It seems like a big gamble for company A to release the software as open source where they give up a competitive advantage for a hope that they get some additional features in return.
where rivals can look at the code you're using and totally undermine your business pratices
There is some truth to this statement though. If company A hires me to write some software for them that gives them a competitive advantage why would they want to release it as open source? Company A footed the bill for development, so they reap the rewards. What is the arugment for releasing the software as open source so that competitors B, C, etc... get to use the software for free?
I agree. Haven't FTP servers been doing this for years?
*Tyrr gets an AK-47 and begins hunting down Ronald McDonald
Then the kids starve to death, because the lazy parents who use McDs as nutrition still don't cook meals.
No, the quote is to help you keep things in perspective. It also shows you that math is something you must think about to understand. Answers just don't appear to people out of thin air. Hell, if Einstein is still stuggling to figure out math problems, then it is okay that I also struggle.
I'm not sure if the politically correct society we have would allow for elite math schools. We do have some magnet types of schools where the smart kids can go, but for the most part PCness in the US keeps us from pointing out the smart ones from the dumb ones.
Some even think having the dumb kids in the class will help make them smarter. I wonder what that does to the smart kids though?