Should we be concerned that only 30% of scientists adopt a position of agnosticism towards matters of religion? Surely in the absence of reproducible evidence either way, the scientific position is to be non-committal?
I would expect the default position of a scientist - given the utter lack of any evidence demonstrating the existence of god(s) - is to be atheist, based on the principle of Occam's Razor.
Those who think pirating helps companies make money are just trying to justify their own illegal activity. You want it, you pay for it. Not willing or able to pay for it? Do without. It's a movie (music, game, whatever). You don't need it.
But I can get it.
Why should I feel any more guilty about downloading a movie than I do listening to a song at a party ?
Sure, they don't call it ideology: they call it 'established theory' or some such thing. But what, if not an "established theory" is (say) protestantism or catholicism or islam? ("the logic of man" vs. "the texts of our ancestors" or whatever).
Erm, that an established theory is a) based on extensive evidence and experimentation and b) is actually disprovable ?
The fact that someone prefers one foundational basis over the other is simply bias: scientific 'fact' gets disproven much more frequently than religious 'fact', after all - and the scientific communities of the world seem almost as reticsient in admitting a significant conceptual change as religious organizations.
What religious "facts" are you referring to that could actually be disproven in the first place ?
We all look at the world through colored lenses.
Obviously. Yours are clearly pretty coloured against your misconception of what Science actualy is.
The athiests I know all have comic books in their back pockets. They should just fess up where their hearts are, rather than hiding behind the facad of "rationality."
Can someone please explain overclocking to me? Why are processors sold at a slower speed than they can actually perform at? Why don't they ship from the factory at their fastest speed?
In any case, identity theft makes this whole concept a bad idea. You should never have to prove your identity, you should have to prove that you have the right to be doing whatever you are doing - role based access control.
Authorisation is pointless without authentication.
You could have 100k employees and still be around the $20grand support costs of RHEL.
What ? A RHEL license will run you, on average, about $1000/yr. Are you seriously trying to say a company with 100k employees is going to only have 6-7 (spreading the cost over 3 years) RHEL servers ?
Plus, you don't anything for RHEL server. If you want to DIY with in-house trained RHEL developers, do it.
Such people are going to cost the company $100k-$200k/year to employ, each. Or, roughly the cost of 100 - 200 RHEL licenses, and zero overheads in managing the development process. Unless you had some quite unique requirements, going with the latter is a no-brainer.
We want to use a single virtualization platform for all our servers which means a migration from ESXi.
You're crazy to be moving away from ESXi, then. Especially to RHEL, where the builtin management capabilities around virtualisation are pathetic, to say the least.
We were emphatically told by several people at Red Hat (2 salespeople, our dedicated support engineer, and 2 other support staff) that Xen was the wrong direction and that only KVM would be supported in the future AND that existing support for Xen was being phased out.
This is correct. Xen will be supported until RHEL5 is phased out, KVM is the (current) long-term platform.
Seems to me they mostly get used to run multiple OS's that each run a single main app. Last time I looked modern OS's are quite capable of running multiple apps at the same time so unless you really need to run different OS's on the same machine (er why?) then what exactly is the point?
Isolating a single application to a single server is the ideal situation. It dramatically simplifies change management, troubleshooting and dealing with special requirements.
All modern OSes are, indeed, quite capable of running multiple apps. However, similarly, all of them are also dismally bad at isolating them in an easily manageable fashion - hence the explosion in popularity of virtualisation.
That's it. I wanted to use Linux. I read every single manual I could. There seemed to be 10 different ways to do the same thing and the documentation was never quite there.
Well that's pretty much Linux <anything> in a nutshell.;)
Re:Windows mirrors linux mirrors windows.
on
Fedora 13 Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Some examples where Microsoft is still producing retarded software:
- Focus follows mouse.
Is a UI catastrophe.
- Roll up windows.
Are of highly questional utility given the Taskbar.
- Multiple desktops.
Are dramatically overrated.
I.e. Trying to eliminate or hide the ability to perform tree / list file management in the Nautilus browser and instead opening new windows all over the desktop for each directory. Microsoft tried this crappy UI in Windows, it sucked, and it sucked just as much in Gnome.
Call me a heretic but I don't see software technology improving much over the past two decades. There are a lot more choices and more opportunties to aggregate the works of others to your advantage saving you time and money but very little has changed in terms of underlying core design principals and fundemental understanding of the nature of the space.
This is like arguing vehicles haven't improved in a century because the "underlying core design principals and fundemental understanding of the nature of the space" haven't either. It's dumb.
In short, they're screwed. Too tied to Windows to easily jump platforms, too tied to thinstations to easily return to the desktop environment, and too broke to maintain it.
If they can't afford a beefier terminal server, then - ignoring the much bigger problem of being basically bankrupt - they can't afford to do any sort of platform migration anyway, so what they're currently on is utterly irrelevant.
Without copyright law the GPL would be unnecessary.
Not so much unnecessary as pointless. Without copyright, GPL == BSDL.
Even if companies guarded their source code, there would be no downside to reverse engineering.
You mean apart from how long it takes and how the results are nowhere near as usable as simple source code ?
Without copyright, the goals and results of the GPL cannot be achieved. If you're a believer in the GPL, the last thing you want is for copyright to be abolished.
If taking a minute at the beginning of the meal to take pictures degrades the taste, then the taste will be degraded horribly by the time the diner finishes the plate.
The thing is, in restaurants expensive enough to be visited by people who review food, you barely get more than a few bites worth of food on your plate to start with.
Slashdot Mirror
Should we be concerned that only 30% of scientists adopt a position of agnosticism towards matters of religion? Surely in the absence of reproducible evidence either way, the scientific position is to be non-committal?
I would expect the default position of a scientist - given the utter lack of any evidence demonstrating the existence of god(s) - is to be atheist, based on the principle of Occam's Razor.
Why DRM-free? I thought you just cared about it being a click away. "DRM-free" is code for "easy to pirate".
No, it's "code" for "can put it on any damn playback device I want to".
Those who think pirating helps companies make money are just trying to justify their own illegal activity. You want it, you pay for it. Not willing or able to pay for it? Do without. It's a movie (music, game, whatever). You don't need it.
But I can get it.
Why should I feel any more guilty about downloading a movie than I do listening to a song at a party ?
Sure, they don't call it ideology: they call it 'established theory' or some such thing. But what, if not an "established theory" is (say) protestantism or catholicism or islam? ("the logic of man" vs. "the texts of our ancestors" or whatever).
Erm, that an established theory is a) based on extensive evidence and experimentation and b) is actually disprovable ?
The fact that someone prefers one foundational basis over the other is simply bias: scientific 'fact' gets disproven much more frequently than religious 'fact', after all - and the scientific communities of the world seem almost as reticsient in admitting a significant conceptual change as religious organizations.
What religious "facts" are you referring to that could actually be disproven in the first place ?
We all look at the world through colored lenses.
Obviously. Yours are clearly pretty coloured against your misconception of what Science actualy is.
The athiests I know all have comic books in their back pockets. They should just fess up where their hearts are, rather than hiding behind the facad of "rationality."
Er, what ?
Historically, they make a whole batch of processors together, then run some tests to see how fast each will run.
Nitpick. They don't test each chip, they test a few samples from each batch and grade the whole batch based on them.
Can someone please explain overclocking to me? Why are processors sold at a slower speed than they can actually perform at? Why don't they ship from the factory at their fastest speed?
Binning and market segmentation.
Same reason you can buy basically the same car at multiple price points with different options.
In any case, identity theft makes this whole concept a bad idea. You should never have to prove your identity, you should have to prove that you have the right to be doing whatever you are doing - role based access control.
Authorisation is pointless without authentication.
It might be, but then there's that whole DRM system that's been there since Vista.
You mean the DRM system that does nothing unless you're viewing DRM-encumbered media (at which point it's nothing but useful) ?
They may not be able to build a shift register, but they could tell you how a netmask works or why spanning tree is important.
Then they probably won't be working on your helpdesk for long once the economy picks up.
CPUs have been "fast enough" for years, but GPUs have not.
GPUs are already quite "fast enough" for the majority of users, and have been for years.
What is it you think the average computer using is doing that they coudl be doing faster with a better GPU ?
yes, sorry, per CPU. Meanwhile, that doesn't happen with redhat.
RH have two licensing tiers - <2 and >2 sockets.
You could have 100k employees and still be around the $20grand support costs of RHEL.
What ? A RHEL license will run you, on average, about $1000/yr. Are you seriously trying to say a company with 100k employees is going to only have 6-7 (spreading the cost over 3 years) RHEL servers ?
Plus, you don't anything for RHEL server. If you want to DIY with in-house trained RHEL developers, do it.
Such people are going to cost the company $100k-$200k/year to employ, each. Or, roughly the cost of 100 - 200 RHEL licenses, and zero overheads in managing the development process. Unless you had some quite unique requirements, going with the latter is a no-brainer.
Microsoft doesnt make anything... not real stuff. You can buy an Apple computer, but not a Microsoft one.
But there's nothing compelling about Apple's computers, other than the software they run.
The jaded cynical capitalist in me says that it is to open new markets for Microsoft products.
Africa is decades, if not a century, away from being that sort of market. Somehow I think Bill's not planning that far ahead.
We want to use a single virtualization platform for all our servers which means a migration from ESXi.
You're crazy to be moving away from ESXi, then. Especially to RHEL, where the builtin management capabilities around virtualisation are pathetic, to say the least.
We were emphatically told by several people at Red Hat (2 salespeople, our dedicated support engineer, and 2 other support staff) that Xen was the wrong direction and that only KVM would be supported in the future AND that existing support for Xen was being phased out.
This is correct. Xen will be supported until RHEL5 is phased out, KVM is the (current) long-term platform.
Seems to me they mostly get used to run multiple OS's that each run a single main app. Last time I looked modern OS's are quite capable of running multiple apps at the same time so unless you really need to run different OS's on the same machine (er why?) then what exactly is the point?
Isolating a single application to a single server is the ideal situation. It dramatically simplifies change management, troubleshooting and dealing with special requirements.
All modern OSes are, indeed, quite capable of running multiple apps. However, similarly, all of them are also dismally bad at isolating them in an easily manageable fashion - hence the explosion in popularity of virtualisation.
That's it. I wanted to use Linux. I read every single manual I could. There seemed to be 10 different ways to do the same thing and the documentation was never quite there.
Well that's pretty much Linux <anything> in a nutshell. ;)
Some examples where Microsoft is still producing retarded software:
- Focus follows mouse.
Is a UI catastrophe.
- Roll up windows.
Are of highly questional utility given the Taskbar.
- Multiple desktops.
Are dramatically overrated.
I.e. Trying to eliminate or hide the ability to perform tree / list file management in the Nautilus browser and instead opening new windows all over the desktop for each directory. Microsoft tried this crappy UI in Windows, it sucked, and it sucked just as much in Gnome.
Actually they copied this from MacOS [Classic].
Call me a heretic but I don't see software technology improving much over the past two decades. There are a lot more choices and more opportunties to aggregate the works of others to your advantage saving you time and money but very little has changed in terms of underlying core design principals and fundemental understanding of the nature of the space.
This is like arguing vehicles haven't improved in a century because the "underlying core design principals and fundemental understanding of the nature of the space" haven't either. It's dumb.
In short, they're screwed. Too tied to Windows to easily jump platforms, too tied to thinstations to easily return to the desktop environment, and too broke to maintain it.
If they can't afford a beefier terminal server, then - ignoring the much bigger problem of being basically bankrupt - they can't afford to do any sort of platform migration anyway, so what they're currently on is utterly irrelevant.
They only have one network socket, you'd need to add one, or use a usb adsl/cable modem, and then get it to work with linux.
Or you can used tagged vlans and a switch supporting same (pretty cheap these days).
Without copyright law the GPL would be unnecessary.
Not so much unnecessary as pointless. Without copyright, GPL == BSDL.
Even if companies guarded their source code, there would be no downside to reverse engineering.
You mean apart from how long it takes and how the results are nowhere near as usable as simple source code ?
Without copyright, the goals and results of the GPL cannot be achieved. If you're a believer in the GPL, the last thing you want is for copyright to be abolished.
If taking a minute at the beginning of the meal to take pictures degrades the taste, then the taste will be degraded horribly by the time the diner finishes the plate.
The thing is, in restaurants expensive enough to be visited by people who review food, you barely get more than a few bites worth of food on your plate to start with.
Which is based on VMS and OS/2.
It's not "based on" OS/2 in the slightest. Even a cursory examination of their two architectures will make that blatantly obvious.
It has the same _architect_ as VMS - Dave Cutler - but he was working for Microsoft when he did it. It was designed and developed completely in-house.