In our data center we have over a thousand servers. The mix is roughly 70/30 unix to windows. Of that 70% how many do you think are web servers? Around 40, not 40%, just 40 servers. Also, do you know how many linux systems there are in that 70%? Three. I suppose it's natural for a person who has never worked in a enterprise computing environment to not realize that most IT is not web hosting.
I'd say yes, if your goal is to be the OS of choice for vanity web servers in the dedicated hosting space, then joe random linux has won. But if your goal is to be the OS of choice in the enterprise/data processing space, then linux certainly has not won, they're just another player and not even dominant.
Correct, those numbers are Redhat's profits, i.e. their earnings. Revenue is around $900 million.
Regardless the phrase "makes" in the English language means profits, not cash flow. If someone buys a house for $300,000 and they later sell it for $250,000, no one would say they made $250,000. Well, maybe mendacious knuckleheads, but not someone conversing in good faith. In one of Sun's last quarters they had $2.6 billion in revenue. They didn't make $2.6 billion, rather they lost $200 million.
The post I was responding too showed either complete financial illiteracy, dishonesty, or general disregard for facts. In any of those cases it calls into question the quality and value of the poster's comments.
Comments like that really call into question whether anyone should ever believe anything you post. Redhat's latest financials reported $107 million in earnings for fiscal 2011.
File-sharing lawsuits are typically civil actions, which has a completely different burden of proof. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard and that means >50%.
That's some thrilling hyperbole you got there, it really supports your argument. Let me see if I can get into that mindset in my rebuttal...
I think you left out the bit where someone else comes along and MURDERS!!!!!!!! and RAPES!!!!!!!! the original developer and SODOMIZES!!!!!!! the code repository where the software itself resides.
Sorry, I can't do it. But the point is, the original software continues to exist and is available under the original terms. Your complaint seems to be that they did additional work and chose not to make that new improved piece of software available under the original terms. Your desire seems more to be that everyone agrees with your worldview rather than to be a producer of quality, free software that will benefit those who choose to use it.
If you're not a Utahn you probably shouldn't get involved as signing the petition or whatever will just create work for people who have to verify signatures.
The employer is a criminal because they don't have the investigative capability to detect all false documents? That's particularly interesting since the Feds are shitting on AZ right now for passing a law that requires e-verify for new hires. The e-verify requirement is listed specifically in the Feds complaint.
If they really wanted to deal with the illegal immigration problem there is a solution, it's a bit draconian bit it would work:
1 - everytime someone is caught illegally in the US, you take DNA sample, finger prints, photos, blood type and any other type of measurement to make sure you can very correctly identify them if they are ever taken into custody a second time. 2 - ship them back to their home country with a note informing them that you'll kill them if they are ever caught in the US illegally. 3 - actually kill them if they are caught illegally in the US.
I'm not advocating this, but it does illustrate that there are solutions to the illegal immigration problem if so desired.
You have lots of opinions about how it ought to be, but that's not how it is now.
No one has an obligation to publish their books at a cost that you find to your liking. Perhaps they want to make it a limited edition in the truest sense. Perhaps the work has themes they no longer approve of and chose not to reprint/republish, an author is under no obligation to continue to make such things available.
The point of copyright protection is to 'promote the progress', i.e. to encourage people to publish, it most certainly does not mandate publication. I could write the most valuable book ever written, that captures the true essence of life, truth, beauty, etc. and I make exactly one hand written copy. I let a few people read it, word gets out that it exists, that it changed the lives of the people who've read it, and if I choose not to make a mass market publication, you're just S.O.L. about getting a chance to read it. Copyright protection isn't qualified so that it only applies to books that are mass marketed and sold at an accessible price point.
Unless they purchased a copy of everything they've scanned, they've already violated copyright by doing the scanning. There are four factors in considering "fair use" and making a copy of the entire book pretty much blows one of them out of the water. The fact that they are adding zero additional material to the books strikes another. The fact that they are monetizing the copyright violation makes a third.
Tolkien published The Hobbit in 1937 and The Lord of the Rings in 1954 - 1955. Fifty-seven years later a series of movies were made that grossed $2.925 Billion dollars. They started filming The Hobbit yesterday.
Three billion nickles is a lot of fucking nickles.
Even if the temperature does decrease by.1 or.2 C over the next decade, that doesn't mean the long-term trend isn't still up.
I guarantee you that the long term trend is up. Way the fuck up. Like thousands of degrees C. And no changes that you make to your lifestyle will in any way prevent that from happening.
However in the terms that matter to humans, e.g. decades, centuries, anyone wanting to take the role of carbon/energy dictator had better be able to prove they're right in some empirical, objective fashion. Anyone who is predicting a 2-3 C degree change over 100 years had better be one board with one of two things. Option 1 is a gradual increase over the entire time range. In case they would be able to expect a.2 -.3 C degree change in a decade. Or option 2, they have a very specific explanation why the temperature is going to be flat for 99 years and then abruptly and permanently spike in the 100th year.
Ask yourself: why are there no models which show anything but global warming.
Because there aren't any climate scientists that are building climate models. They create CO2 in a volume models and the warming is built in. Not one of the models can predict the past (I'm not talking prehistoric times, but rather asking that they reset the clock to 1900 and let it run forward from there.) Why would we care what their models say about the future.
Given that he's going to a minimum security prison camp he's not going to be in prison with violent criminals. Also he got one year plus one day, which is the magic threshold for being allowed good conduct time.
I'd say that anyone saying "does not beling in prison with violent criminals" is likely right on the money, but they are completely missing the point and exposing their ignorance.
It's not up to the DOJ, it's not up to the judge. The judge determines how much time you'll spend, but the only organization that decides where a federal convict spends their time is the US Bureau of Prisons. There are guidelines, such as being housed near your family so that they can visit and considering the elements and nature of your crime and placing you with like convicts. However they are guidelines and they only do their best to meet them. I have personal experience with an ex-girlfriend who got in trouble and after violating her probation, based on her non-violent record they decided she should be in a minimum security prison camp (club fed as it were). However the nearest such facility was over a thousand miles away. So that's where they sent her.
I may be confused, but the page that I linked to does have the string "2005" anywhere on it. The title is "NOAA: 2010 Tied with 1998 as Warmest Global Temperature on Record".
Regardless, my response was to provide a source that says 1998 is as hot as it's been (which is debatable since Hansen keeps manually adjusting the data until it supports his narrative.)
Now, where on the page I linked to does it say anything about 2005? My guess is you're arguing in bad faith.
If we choose to do what we can to try and keep it from getting worse, and in the end all the climate scientists were wrong, what are the consequences? We spent more money than we had to?
This is exactly right. If we swamp the world economy by the amount demanded by the AGWers then the impact on the third world from that will result in millions dying. Under no scenarios will billions die (other than the usual get old and die that everyone does.)
Slashdot Mirror
Server != webserver.
In our data center we have over a thousand servers. The mix is roughly 70/30 unix to windows. Of that 70% how many do you think are web servers? Around 40, not 40%, just 40 servers. Also, do you know how many linux systems there are in that 70%? Three. I suppose it's natural for a person who has never worked in a enterprise computing environment to not realize that most IT is not web hosting.
I'd say yes, if your goal is to be the OS of choice for vanity web servers in the dedicated hosting space, then joe random linux has won. But if your goal is to be the OS of choice in the enterprise/data processing space, then linux certainly has not won, they're just another player and not even dominant.
You forgot the gay elves.
Correct, those numbers are Redhat's profits, i.e. their earnings. Revenue is around $900 million.
Regardless the phrase "makes" in the English language means profits, not cash flow. If someone buys a house for $300,000 and they later sell it for $250,000, no one would say they made $250,000. Well, maybe mendacious knuckleheads, but not someone conversing in good faith. In one of Sun's last quarters they had $2.6 billion in revenue. They didn't make $2.6 billion, rather they lost $200 million.
The post I was responding too showed either complete financial illiteracy, dishonesty, or general disregard for facts. In any of those cases it calls into question the quality and value of the poster's comments.
You said "makes" not "has cash flow." Lay of the smarm when you know you're completely and totally wrong, you just come across as a doofus.
Comments like that really call into question whether anyone should ever believe anything you post. Redhat's latest financials reported $107 million in earnings for fiscal 2011.
File-sharing lawsuits are typically civil actions, which has a completely different burden of proof. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard and that means >50%.
No true Scotsman, eh?
If it's just you it's not dating, it's being a lonely old codger.
That's some thrilling hyperbole you got there, it really supports your argument. Let me see if I can get into that mindset in my rebuttal...
I think you left out the bit where someone else comes along and MURDERS!!!!!!!! and RAPES!!!!!!!! the original developer and SODOMIZES!!!!!!! the code repository where the software itself resides.
Sorry, I can't do it. But the point is, the original software continues to exist and is available under the original terms. Your complaint seems to be that they did additional work and chose not to make that new improved piece of software available under the original terms. Your desire seems more to be that everyone agrees with your worldview rather than to be a producer of quality, free software that will benefit those who choose to use it.
If you're not a Utahn you probably shouldn't get involved as signing the petition or whatever will just create work for people who have to verify signatures.
The employer is a criminal because they don't have the investigative capability to detect all false documents? That's particularly interesting since the Feds are shitting on AZ right now for passing a law that requires e-verify for new hires. The e-verify requirement is listed specifically in the Feds complaint.
If they really wanted to deal with the illegal immigration problem there is a solution, it's a bit draconian bit it would work:
1 - everytime someone is caught illegally in the US, you take DNA sample, finger prints, photos, blood type and any other type of measurement to make sure you can very correctly identify them if they are ever taken into custody a second time.
2 - ship them back to their home country with a note informing them that you'll kill them if they are ever caught in the US illegally.
3 - actually kill them if they are caught illegally in the US.
I'm not advocating this, but it does illustrate that there are solutions to the illegal immigration problem if so desired.
You have lots of opinions about how it ought to be, but that's not how it is now.
No one has an obligation to publish their books at a cost that you find to your liking. Perhaps they want to make it a limited edition in the truest sense. Perhaps the work has themes they no longer approve of and chose not to reprint/republish, an author is under no obligation to continue to make such things available.
The point of copyright protection is to 'promote the progress', i.e. to encourage people to publish, it most certainly does not mandate publication. I could write the most valuable book ever written, that captures the true essence of life, truth, beauty, etc. and I make exactly one hand written copy. I let a few people read it, word gets out that it exists, that it changed the lives of the people who've read it, and if I choose not to make a mass market publication, you're just S.O.L. about getting a chance to read it. Copyright protection isn't qualified so that it only applies to books that are mass marketed and sold at an accessible price point.
Unless they purchased a copy of everything they've scanned, they've already violated copyright by doing the scanning. There are four factors in considering "fair use" and making a copy of the entire book pretty much blows one of them out of the water. The fact that they are adding zero additional material to the books strikes another. The fact that they are monetizing the copyright violation makes a third.
People not using their property as you would have them use it does not make it abandoned.
Tolkien published The Hobbit in 1937 and The Lord of the Rings in 1954 - 1955. Fifty-seven years later a series of movies were made that grossed $2.925 Billion dollars. They started filming The Hobbit yesterday.
Three billion nickles is a lot of fucking nickles.
The modeled temperatures shown in your link don't track the observations very closely.
I guarantee you that the long term trend is up. Way the fuck up. Like thousands of degrees C. And no changes that you make to your lifestyle will in any way prevent that from happening.
However in the terms that matter to humans, e.g. decades, centuries, anyone wanting to take the role of carbon/energy dictator had better be able to prove they're right in some empirical, objective fashion. Anyone who is predicting a 2-3 C degree change over 100 years had better be one board with one of two things. Option 1 is a gradual increase over the entire time range. In case they would be able to expect a .2 - .3 C degree change in a decade. Or option 2, they have a very specific explanation why the temperature is going to be flat for 99 years and then abruptly and permanently spike in the 100th year.
Because there aren't any climate scientists that are building climate models. They create CO2 in a volume models and the warming is built in. Not one of the models can predict the past (I'm not talking prehistoric times, but rather asking that they reset the clock to 1900 and let it run forward from there.) Why would we care what their models say about the future.
Given that he's going to a minimum security prison camp he's not going to be in prison with violent criminals. Also he got one year plus one day, which is the magic threshold for being allowed good conduct time.
I'd say that anyone saying "does not beling in prison with violent criminals" is likely right on the money, but they are completely missing the point and exposing their ignorance.
It's not up to the DOJ, it's not up to the judge. The judge determines how much time you'll spend, but the only organization that decides where a federal convict spends their time is the US Bureau of Prisons. There are guidelines, such as being housed near your family so that they can visit and considering the elements and nature of your crime and placing you with like convicts. However they are guidelines and they only do their best to meet them. I have personal experience with an ex-girlfriend who got in trouble and after violating her probation, based on her non-violent record they decided she should be in a minimum security prison camp (club fed as it were). However the nearest such facility was over a thousand miles away. So that's where they sent her.
...does not have the string "2005"...
I may be confused, but the page that I linked to does have the string "2005" anywhere on it. The title is "NOAA: 2010 Tied with 1998 as Warmest Global Temperature on Record".
Regardless, my response was to provide a source that says 1998 is as hot as it's been (which is debatable since Hansen keeps manually adjusting the data until it supports his narrative.)
Now, where on the page I linked to does it say anything about 2005? My guess is you're arguing in bad faith.
This is exactly right. If we swamp the world economy by the amount demanded by the AGWers then the impact on the third world from that will result in millions dying. Under no scenarios will billions die (other than the usual get old and die that everyone does.)
How about this from the NOAA?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100915_globalstats.html
Hansen is known for tweaking the data, anything that comes out of his mouth is suspect.
Weather and climate are not the same thing. It's stupid to even bring them up in the same sentence.