Iraq - killing off ethnicities, millions of dead Iraqis, dissidents were made public examples of, their families killed. Iran - nothing remotely like Iraq.
In Iran, dissidents are out in millions, hugging the Basij. In Iraq, dissidents were shot in high percentages. While people in Iran are being killed right now, it's substantially less than of 1% of the dissidents that are protesting. Phenomenally different situation.
Which is why, if you look at what I was responding to, the question of whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is not really relevant to whether we should go to Iran. They are different situations.
the situation in Iraq was no where close to the situation in Iran. Millions of Iranians haven't been killed by the Iranian government in the last decade, for example. Iran isn't targeting ethnic groups for extermination, and doesn't have a long history of killing dissidents. In fact, the dissidents biggest weapon right now is going up and giving the Basij hugs - seriously.
Anyone that writes a story about this that doesn't mention Fark specifically needs to do a bit more research on the subject. Tats(uma) obviously gets quite a bit of credit, but he wasn't the only person there keeping up with the tweets. Fark (and oddly, 4chan) became major filters for finding the real data for the first several days. I'm amazed at the people who still don't know there's effectively a civil war going on in Iran, since CNN and other mainstream media didn't really start reporting on it until yesterday.
The other bit is, because mainstream media has to hedge their bets - they have something to lose, where sites like Fark aren't even media sites, so they have nothing to lose - CNN and such has to worry about whether the dissidents will be successful. Because if they aren't, then you've pissed off the people still in power. Media blockout is one thing, but there was reliable reports of many deaths long before MSM was reporting there being only a single death.
BTW, Iranians still need proxies for their twitter updates. If you have the ability...
Also, one of the ways people have been trying to make it more difficult for the Iranian police to track down dissidents is by changing their twitter location and timezone to that of Tehran. Feel free to do that too.
But yeah, twitter is the only thing able to make it out right now, considering.
why is parent modded "funny?" He's making a legit point. To say, after it being available for 2 hours, that you evaluated the new version and uninstalled it and replaced it with Ubuntu is beyond silly. Hell, 2 hours from now I won't even be finished downloading it, much less evaluating it - and I have a decent pipe I'm pulling from.
Ok, being serious here. I'm an eng for a software development company. Security is a very aspect of our software; we store patient records for DoD hospitals.
I'm honestly scratching my head here, completely confused as to how anyone...anyone...could take a concept as overwhelmingly farking simple as COUNTING and screw it up. Seriously. I'm pretty sure I could have a reliable, bug-free (oh yes, I made that claim), fully auditable system created in a few days. I really, really don't understand why the hell this whole concept is getting so incredibly overblown. At this point, I almost have to be sceptical that when "bugs" are reported in the machines of a funded commercial entity (diebold, etc) that they have to have been intentional for some reason.
sight, not site...among other things. Also, there's quite a long list of cases where pictures of things that were not obfuscated were still determined to be protected under the twisted First Amendment. What, we'll allow the SPOTUS and its feeders say that personal photography (which didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted...) was intended - even when well outside of "press" - based on some strange "speech" redefinition...but we don't allow the same group to also say that we need to be farking reasonable about the invasion of other people's property?
I remember having to use debug to format ESDI drives back in the day. They should keep it around - it's still a power tool. What, do they think there will be fewer people writing viruses if it is gone? As though there aren't alternatives out there?
if AMD had gone out of business because of it, your argument might make sense. But so far as I know, AMD still exists, so obviously the thing we're punishing someone for doing didn't actually happen.
If you're going to harsh someone for being competitive based on anything other than skill at making the product, then why the fark did the EU extend copyrights to 70 farking years? Yes, business get involved in marketing, competitive pricing, and etc. They also get involved in sitting on asine patents - want to actually do something about stupid-ass anti-innovation, non "fair" business practices? Then why do patent/trademark/copyright laws get worse every year, in both the EU and the US?
If someone is going to call themselves a "researcher" then they are compelled to follow certain rules. In CS, you get exact numbers. Things are very discrete. If they were talking about a field with lots of unknowns, then a large range would be acceptable. They aren't - they're talking about something that is most likely the *most discrete* field there is.
"3-3000" wouldn't even be acceptable in fields like retro-virology, or astro-physics. Having that range as a result invalidates the entire study. If it is "3-5 for some, 2500-3000 for others" then that is entirely different than "3-3000." That everyone in IT calls themselves "engineers" and anyone that spends a week looking at something calls themselves a "researcher" is just plain absurd. There are engineers and researchers in IT, yes. There aren't a dozen at every small-sized company, though.
yes. Doesn't change the position. If the answer is "3-10 times cheaper for most configurations, but 2500-3000 times cheaper for small files" then that would be acceptable. ranges can have elements within them. merely saying, however, "3-3000 times" means that there are situations near 100x, some near 245x, some near 1221x, some near 2331x...and all of them would "make sense" per the "Their price needs to decrease by 3-3000 times for them to make sense" quote.
I think you're missing the point. If there's 1000x the total lifetime cost differential, then great! You've got an idea of the difference there.
That has nothing to do with my post, though. To say "2000-3000x difference" would at least be reasonable. "5-10 times difference" might be as well. But when the range of differential goes from a single digit (3) to a number 1000x larger (3000) then the range of potential differential demonstrates - when the specifics of something can be so easily known, like in this case - that your study was crap. The range of differential is ridiculous.
There are only so many SDD configurations that make sense. To do this study, you have to first determine what those configurations might be - that would be part of your postulate. Others can then look at the work of these "researchers" and discredit the findings based on the postulates themselves. With something as discrete, and easily quantifiable as IO usage (no ethical questions of animal testing, no grey areas where we don't really understand what's going on, etc), there is absolutely, positively, no reason to give a differential range where the bottom and top of the range are 1000x apart from each other. That is positively unacceptable in an easily quantifiable field like CS. You get exact freaking numbers. there's nothing exact about the range "3-3000x"
Their price needs to decrease by 3-3000 times for them to make sense.
There are plenty of configuration options that are possible...that would not make sense. I could make a mirror set of a raid 1+0 set where each component is a raid5 set composed of.......yeah, wouldn't make any sense, would it. Which is why I said it is a ridiculous range. We have the specifics of the situation, there's no reason to go trying to large divergent sets; my very point is that the range of divergence is not reasonable given the specifics. So are you saying the range of divergence is reasonable, given the specifics?
to be clear - "abouttimetheyverified" if they were, on a scientific level, going to make the claim. I do understand the "don't harm" point. I, however, think that has nothing to do with the "wellduh" tagging (see subject line).
my first reply to you made absolutely none of that clear. lol
1) any telescope that needs to be 2000x more powerful to see a flag planted on the moon isn't a telescope. 2) there is not 1000x the price variance (since what was being discussed was price) between viable SDD vendors for similar products.
I was in the USMC, and my little bro is in the USNavy; I'm far from a military-basher. And I agree that very few other world powers will give a rat's ass whether or not their harming anything. I also do actual animal welfare work (I don't do protests), I'm vegan, and I make efforts to not buy products from companies that do animal testing; I certainly appreciate the "don't hurt dolphins to do the testing" angle, too.
However, it doesn't change the fact that "wellduh" mocks the scientific value of actually doing research versus merely guessing through correlation. Science is a cold, heartless creature - one that cares not. It is the scientist who must care. Science, though, requires that something actually be studied.
It would be a lot easier if the dolphin could have volunteered for the task, but...err...we're not to the point of communicating that sort of thing, yet.
seriously? "we don't have enough people here. we need between 2-2000 times as many people in the configuration department." Does that sound like I have ANY idea how many people we need?
My wife is a wildlife conservation researcher, and specifically works with animals in the Delphinidae family (which include dolphins). There's a lot of stuff she, and others, have to - must - verify, even if it seems to be a "wellduh."
The alternative would be that science just thinks correlation = causation. Is that what we want? "Well, Navy ships used sonar, and these whales stranded themselves...must be related. Case closed." Instead, someone did actual science showing that sonar causes real deafness in these animals. And someone wants to harsh that?
I say instead that there should be a tag, "abouttimetheyverified"
people don't come to/. to do a quick search for a toaster. Instead, they come to chastise those who can't see the difference between a discussion forum, and a classified ad site;)/. also doesn't (as far as they admit, at least) charge for making postings in any areas.
Want a comparison? www.google.com. Go on, look at it. pretty simple and to the point, isn't it. Compare it to www.yahoo.com. All that busy-junk, wall-of-text crap on yahoo's site? Yup, that's why they aren't doing as well as google. Amazing stuff.
Ok, how about a retort, just for fun. So Americans didn't like it because we don't want to see a big blue dong for half a movie. Europeans on the other hand will love it because they DO like seeing a big blue dong for half a movie.
This paragraph there should be seen - and I apologize if it isn't as obvious as I intended, I'm not a skilled writer - as a sarcastic strawman I was intending no one to accept. Note the next paragraph:
Not fair? Sortof silly, really? Hmmm. Yeah, I agree.
I'm certainly not going to defend an argument (whether or not there was gratuitous frontal nudity) that I myself already rejected. I was attempting to make the argument that if people were saying excessive "big blue dong" turned off Americans, then (as a silly response), couldn't it also be said to be turning on Europeans?
It's pretty simple really; someone pulled the "Europeans are better" card, and I made an argument *against* saying either side was better than the other. Which is to say, I made an anti-nationalism argument. You then, in turn, made an argument against my argument, which means you were arguing *pro* nationalism. Now, if you don't think that flow makes it fair to label you as a nationalist, then fine - feel free to link to me where you also commented against the "Europeans are better" notion, and I'll admit that your involvement in the discussion was not pro-nationalism.
The US, like many other places, has minorities that are very vocal about certain things. Case in point, the movie being discussed was barely watched at all; any reaction to it can hardly be used to gauge the reaction the general populous would have, as it by no means appeals to the general populous. So, when someone uses reactions to the movie as a justification for bashing 300million people based simply on their geographic location on the planet, I do find that to be a bit absurd. That would be like polling vegans in Brazil, and holding their opinions against the whole of Brazil.
One might of course simply say that it was just "typical American Behaviour" but, I'd submit that if in fact Americans are on the conservative side of healthy views on sex - if that is really going to be argued for - then with the same validity I'd suggest Europeans are no closer to a healthy view, considering cases like this. That's not some tiny town somewhere, that's the highest court in a respected European nation. But really, those things are not accurate, or even fair, ways of determining what the general populous is like. Further, there are not any fair, or accurate, methods to determine the opinion of the general populous currently being used. Until such a time as such methods are employed, any argument against an entire group of 300Million based on the opinions of just a few people is - well, nationalistic to say the least.
Fair? And yes, I am indeed bored this morning; waiting for something to compile.;)
Slashdot Mirror
precisely. Re-read what I wrote.
Iraq - killing off ethnicities, millions of dead Iraqis, dissidents were made public examples of, their families killed.
Iran - nothing remotely like Iraq.
In Iran, dissidents are out in millions, hugging the Basij. In Iraq, dissidents were shot in high percentages. While people in Iran are being killed right now, it's substantially less than of 1% of the dissidents that are protesting. Phenomenally different situation.
Which is why, if you look at what I was responding to, the question of whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is not really relevant to whether we should go to Iran. They are different situations.
the situation in Iraq was no where close to the situation in Iran. Millions of Iranians haven't been killed by the Iranian government in the last decade, for example. Iran isn't targeting ethnic groups for extermination, and doesn't have a long history of killing dissidents. In fact, the dissidents biggest weapon right now is going up and giving the Basij hugs - seriously.
Anyone that writes a story about this that doesn't mention Fark specifically needs to do a bit more research on the subject. Tats(uma) obviously gets quite a bit of credit, but he wasn't the only person there keeping up with the tweets. Fark (and oddly, 4chan) became major filters for finding the real data for the first several days. I'm amazed at the people who still don't know there's effectively a civil war going on in Iran, since CNN and other mainstream media didn't really start reporting on it until yesterday.
The other bit is, because mainstream media has to hedge their bets - they have something to lose, where sites like Fark aren't even media sites, so they have nothing to lose - CNN and such has to worry about whether the dissidents will be successful. Because if they aren't, then you've pissed off the people still in power. Media blockout is one thing, but there was reliable reports of many deaths long before MSM was reporting there being only a single death.
BTW, Iranians still need proxies for their twitter updates. If you have the ability...
Also, one of the ways people have been trying to make it more difficult for the Iranian police to track down dissidents is by changing their twitter location and timezone to that of Tehran. Feel free to do that too.
But yeah, twitter is the only thing able to make it out right now, considering.
why is parent modded "funny?" He's making a legit point. To say, after it being available for 2 hours, that you evaluated the new version and uninstalled it and replaced it with Ubuntu is beyond silly. Hell, 2 hours from now I won't even be finished downloading it, much less evaluating it - and I have a decent pipe I'm pulling from.
Ok, being serious here. I'm an eng for a software development company. Security is a very aspect of our software; we store patient records for DoD hospitals.
I'm honestly scratching my head here, completely confused as to how anyone...anyone...could take a concept as overwhelmingly farking simple as COUNTING and screw it up. Seriously. I'm pretty sure I could have a reliable, bug-free (oh yes, I made that claim), fully auditable system created in a few days. I really, really don't understand why the hell this whole concept is getting so incredibly overblown. At this point, I almost have to be sceptical that when "bugs" are reported in the machines of a funded commercial entity (diebold, etc) that they have to have been intentional for some reason.
sight, not site...among other things. Also, there's quite a long list of cases where pictures of things that were not obfuscated were still determined to be protected under the twisted First Amendment. What, we'll allow the SPOTUS and its feeders say that personal photography (which didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted...) was intended - even when well outside of "press" - based on some strange "speech" redefinition...but we don't allow the same group to also say that we need to be farking reasonable about the invasion of other people's property?
I remember having to use debug to format ESDI drives back in the day. They should keep it around - it's still a power tool. What, do they think there will be fewer people writing viruses if it is gone? As though there aren't alternatives out there?
and in the same regard, they could buy a herd of goats and have 2 fulltime shepherds instead of mowers. So, still a equal argument.
And I think you missed the part about them enjoying the site of a bunch of goats running around.
if AMD had gone out of business because of it, your argument might make sense. But so far as I know, AMD still exists, so obviously the thing we're punishing someone for doing didn't actually happen.
If you're going to harsh someone for being competitive based on anything other than skill at making the product, then why the fark did the EU extend copyrights to 70 farking years? Yes, business get involved in marketing, competitive pricing, and etc. They also get involved in sitting on asine patents - want to actually do something about stupid-ass anti-innovation, non "fair" business practices? Then why do patent/trademark/copyright laws get worse every year, in both the EU and the US?
one can get 300g fast and easy via daily quests. Group up with friends, go hit dailies. Tada. Want some cheese with your whine?
If someone is going to call themselves a "researcher" then they are compelled to follow certain rules. In CS, you get exact numbers. Things are very discrete. If they were talking about a field with lots of unknowns, then a large range would be acceptable. They aren't - they're talking about something that is most likely the *most discrete* field there is.
"3-3000" wouldn't even be acceptable in fields like retro-virology, or astro-physics. Having that range as a result invalidates the entire study. If it is "3-5 for some, 2500-3000 for others" then that is entirely different than "3-3000." That everyone in IT calls themselves "engineers" and anyone that spends a week looking at something calls themselves a "researcher" is just plain absurd. There are engineers and researchers in IT, yes. There aren't a dozen at every small-sized company, though.
yes. Doesn't change the position. If the answer is "3-10 times cheaper for most configurations, but 2500-3000 times cheaper for small files" then that would be acceptable. ranges can have elements within them. merely saying, however, "3-3000 times" means that there are situations near 100x, some near 245x, some near 1221x, some near 2331x...and all of them would "make sense" per the "Their price needs to decrease by 3-3000 times for them to make sense" quote.
I think you're missing the point. If there's 1000x the total lifetime cost differential, then great! You've got an idea of the difference there.
That has nothing to do with my post, though. To say "2000-3000x difference" would at least be reasonable. "5-10 times difference" might be as well. But when the range of differential goes from a single digit (3) to a number 1000x larger (3000) then the range of potential differential demonstrates - when the specifics of something can be so easily known, like in this case - that your study was crap. The range of differential is ridiculous.
There are only so many SDD configurations that make sense. To do this study, you have to first determine what those configurations might be - that would be part of your postulate. Others can then look at the work of these "researchers" and discredit the findings based on the postulates themselves. With something as discrete, and easily quantifiable as IO usage (no ethical questions of animal testing, no grey areas where we don't really understand what's going on, etc), there is absolutely, positively, no reason to give a differential range where the bottom and top of the range are 1000x apart from each other. That is positively unacceptable in an easily quantifiable field like CS. You get exact freaking numbers. there's nothing exact about the range "3-3000x"
"there's no reason to go trying to large divergent sets"
should be: "there's no reason to go trying to compare to large divergent sets"
Their price needs to decrease by 3-3000 times for them to make sense.
There are plenty of configuration options that are possible...that would not make sense. I could make a mirror set of a raid 1+0 set where each component is a raid5 set composed of.... ...yeah, wouldn't make any sense, would it. Which is why I said it is a ridiculous range. We have the specifics of the situation, there's no reason to go trying to large divergent sets; my very point is that the range of divergence is not reasonable given the specifics. So are you saying the range of divergence is reasonable, given the specifics?
to be clear - "abouttimetheyverified" if they were, on a scientific level, going to make the claim. I do understand the "don't harm" point. I, however, think that has nothing to do with the "wellduh" tagging (see subject line).
my first reply to you made absolutely none of that clear. lol
1) any telescope that needs to be 2000x more powerful to see a flag planted on the moon isn't a telescope.
2) there is not 1000x the price variance (since what was being discussed was price) between viable SDD vendors for similar products.
I was in the USMC, and my little bro is in the USNavy; I'm far from a military-basher. And I agree that very few other world powers will give a rat's ass whether or not their harming anything. I also do actual animal welfare work (I don't do protests), I'm vegan, and I make efforts to not buy products from companies that do animal testing; I certainly appreciate the "don't hurt dolphins to do the testing" angle, too.
However, it doesn't change the fact that "wellduh" mocks the scientific value of actually doing research versus merely guessing through correlation. Science is a cold, heartless creature - one that cares not. It is the scientist who must care. Science, though, requires that something actually be studied.
It would be a lot easier if the dolphin could have volunteered for the task, but...err...we're not to the point of communicating that sort of thing, yet.
seriously? "we don't have enough people here. we need between 2-2000 times as many people in the configuration department." Does that sound like I have ANY idea how many people we need?
Sorry, that is a *ridiculous* range to give.
My wife is a wildlife conservation researcher, and specifically works with animals in the Delphinidae family (which include dolphins). There's a lot of stuff she, and others, have to - must - verify, even if it seems to be a "wellduh."
The alternative would be that science just thinks correlation = causation. Is that what we want? "Well, Navy ships used sonar, and these whales stranded themselves...must be related. Case closed." Instead, someone did actual science showing that sonar causes real deafness in these animals. And someone wants to harsh that?
I say instead that there should be a tag, "abouttimetheyverified"
people don't come to /. to do a quick search for a toaster. Instead, they come to chastise those who can't see the difference between a discussion forum, and a classified ad site ;) /. also doesn't (as far as they admit, at least) charge for making postings in any areas.
Want a comparison? www.google.com. Go on, look at it. pretty simple and to the point, isn't it. Compare it to www.yahoo.com. All that busy-junk, wall-of-text crap on yahoo's site? Yup, that's why they aren't doing as well as google. Amazing stuff.
what in the world does that have to do with a game that is still being played? Do you know something about Eve Online that CCP Games doesn't?
stick to your first point. /. has always done the stupid April's fools stuff, and it's not remotely supposed to be taken seriously.
To clarify my argument that is now in question:
Ok, how about a retort, just for fun. So Americans didn't like it because we don't want to see a big blue dong for half a movie. Europeans on the other hand will love it because they DO like seeing a big blue dong for half a movie.
This paragraph there should be seen - and I apologize if it isn't as obvious as I intended, I'm not a skilled writer - as a sarcastic strawman I was intending no one to accept. Note the next paragraph:
Not fair? Sortof silly, really? Hmmm. Yeah, I agree.
I'm certainly not going to defend an argument (whether or not there was gratuitous frontal nudity) that I myself already rejected. I was attempting to make the argument that if people were saying excessive "big blue dong" turned off Americans, then (as a silly response), couldn't it also be said to be turning on Europeans?
It's pretty simple really; someone pulled the "Europeans are better" card, and I made an argument *against* saying either side was better than the other. Which is to say, I made an anti-nationalism argument. You then, in turn, made an argument against my argument, which means you were arguing *pro* nationalism. Now, if you don't think that flow makes it fair to label you as a nationalist, then fine - feel free to link to me where you also commented against the "Europeans are better" notion, and I'll admit that your involvement in the discussion was not pro-nationalism.
The US, like many other places, has minorities that are very vocal about certain things. Case in point, the movie being discussed was barely watched at all; any reaction to it can hardly be used to gauge the reaction the general populous would have, as it by no means appeals to the general populous. So, when someone uses reactions to the movie as a justification for bashing 300million people based simply on their geographic location on the planet, I do find that to be a bit absurd. That would be like polling vegans in Brazil, and holding their opinions against the whole of Brazil.
One might of course simply say that it was just "typical American Behaviour" but, I'd submit that if in fact Americans are on the conservative side of healthy views on sex - if that is really going to be argued for - then with the same validity I'd suggest Europeans are no closer to a healthy view, considering cases like this. That's not some tiny town somewhere, that's the highest court in a respected European nation. But really, those things are not accurate, or even fair, ways of determining what the general populous is like. Further, there are not any fair, or accurate, methods to determine the opinion of the general populous currently being used. Until such a time as such methods are employed, any argument against an entire group of 300Million based on the opinions of just a few people is - well, nationalistic to say the least.
Fair? And yes, I am indeed bored this morning; waiting for something to compile. ;)