The bottom line is that Russia meddled to help Trump beat Clinton. There is plenty of evidence that isn't even disputed by the conservative wing of the media, or the GOP for that matter.
Clearly, you are a troll that is either delusional or in it for lulz. Either way, generally a drag on intelligent conversation and debate.
How does that work for cable? Have a lot of choice of cable companies in your area?
You don't, because state and local governments "negotiated" cable to a regional monopoly, without any significant regulation on behavior. Which leaves us with bundles of the one channel you want, and the 50 channels that the provider is paid to carry (ie shopping networks).
Here what will happen. Your cable company is already your internet provider for most Americans. There is already no competition. The big four will pay the provider for better throughput. Think throttling other traffic to provide guaranteed performance for the big four to your device.
Here's the problem. You are paying the provider for access to the internet. As in, access to whatever the hell you want. And they take your money. And they'll take the money from big corporations to get access to you (at least, more performant access). This will throttle anything you want that doesn't pay. So what you pay for will be slower access to the things you choose, and faster access for the things that the provider chooses.
Oh look. It's the false equivalence argument. Let's up that...
3. You shouldn't ban nuclear weapons. They are just devices. The fact that they can kill thousands of people doesn't mean they are inherently bad. North Korea _should_ have them as a deterrent.
4. You shouldn't prosecute murder. Some people are bad and _need_ to be removed, and you should never take away someone's rights to protect society,.
See how stupid those are? That's because making an equivalence between two things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other is a common and silly tactic used to steer the conversation away from the actual issue and towards making someone defend their position as though it were the other (e.g. making someone against restricting a network protocol defend it as though it were something that could cost hundreds of lives if someone misused it).
If you have an argument, make it on it's merits rather than this sort of tripe.
Go is not Java. The core concept of Java is the object type system using inheritance, and Go's core concept is a type system that uses composition, and allows a type to fulfill an interface by simply matching the signatures of all the methods. Go feels more like a cleaned up C than Java.
Beyond that, the attraction to Go for me is the included toolchain. Building and maintaining projects are dead simple.
No. You are wrong. He did not fire the CEO of GM. Beyond that, the situation is completely different. GM was asking the U.S. government for a multi-billion dollar loan to keep it out of bankruptcy. AT&T are attempting to get approval for a merger of two large (profitable) companies serving the same markets.
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
You don't get actual solutions by relying on "experts" that want to sell you something. Especially billions of dollars of something.
You hire experts to assess the solutions put forward by vendors.
No, but they do pay for those rights to be defended. So, if someone decides to go your (hypothetical) route, a person with a bigger gun takes your private property and kills you, and there is no recourse for your survivors because you've opted out of paying for the common good (police to enforce the laws).
Sigh. This troll again. Let's make this a simple metaphor. To state that atheism is a religion would be like stating that "off" is a TV channel or that silence is a particular sound. Absence of a thing is not a form of the thing. It is simply the absence of it, no more, no less.
Y'know, I think it is the whole dropping bombs on people thing that is bad from the hearts and minds perspective. Drones might _slightly_ make the U.S. seem like a faceless military machine, but the people having explosives rained on them would, all in all, rather not be blown up regardless of the make and model of the aircraft.
If you want to win hearts and minds, be better than the alternative.
Cloud computing is not appropriate for all types of research computing. Let's say you want to use Amazon's cloud offering, but you have a genomic and geospatial dataset of 60 TB. While not ubiquitous in research computing, it is not unheard of, especially in the fields of bioinformatics. The cost of storage and the cost of transfer will each away at whatever grant that is funding the research. This is a business decision. Does the cost of the computing resource and operation result in [ more grants / better faculty retention ] than not having it?
The cost-benefit analysis has been done, and while cloud computing has its place, there are additional costs that make it problematic. The cloud is not a panacea.
That said, in five years IU could very well be looking for its next big computer. The average lifespan of a supercomputer is 5-8 years. So, five years is on the early side of looking for the next big thing, but not outrageously so.
Disclaimer -- I run high speed data storage for a university. I've written acceptance test measures for high performance computing resources. I've done the cost-benefit analyses.
The OP is using as a server. I'd hope he is following best practices and developing locally (and securely) and deploying on the network. Especially if he is unfamiliar with the production environment.
Ultimately, the OP should probably install VirtualBox or another virtualization solution on his/her Windows 7 desktop, and figure out the deployment strategy before exposing their work on the network. It doesn't cost anything but a little bit of time, and the pay off is understanding what you are pushing out in the real world.
Look at the first bullet point of the timeline. Productivity suite approved, upgrade to Calmail cancelled. Then a week ago, they decided on an interim upgrade because not upgrading in the first place caused problems. So, rather than a planned upgrade, the IT folks were thrown into panic mode because their (probable) proposed timeline for safely doing an upgrade, including burning in and testing of new hardware, was cut to a fraction of what it should've been.
You can argue about the budgets, or the IT folks, but this is a failure of management. If (in Spring 2011) they cancelled the upgrade, and then had to have an emergency upgrade, what you have is management that fundamentally does not understand the system. This would (probably) not be the IT folks managing the system, but rather the budget and personnel management that doesn't quite grok how upgrades should be done in a safe and controlled manner. They misjudged the initial cancellation, and then (likely) pushed through a poorly planned emergency upgrade.
If the slides are correct, there is very little having to do with a failure from a technical aspect, and everything to do with a breakdown of management.
Clustered filesystems are not designed to make your data safer, or to provide ease of recovery. In fact, they make both of those things a bit more difficult. In the case of Lustre, the point is performance -- I have N servers that I am willing to dedicate to serving the filesystem, I can therefore get N times the throughput for large distributed jobs.
File systems that provide replication help, but unless it is copy on write (COW), it does nto take the place of backups.
If you are paranoid about data safety, invest in a backup solution. The only reason to use a distributed file system is for increased performance.
MS is the same as any other large company. Outside of their proven revenue generators, they throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Not that I mind competition in any space, but still...
SImple. There are jobs that require a degree of accredited training (nurses, doctors, engineers, teachers). Those types of professions are easy to determine who meets a required set of qualifications. Those are the easy professions to target.
Folklorists that manage flower shops, write novels, or enter the diplomatic core do not require the folklore training to do their job. It may have assisted, but then their high school 4H club may have assisted as well. That's not quantifiable, and you can only run a large scale assistance program with values that are quantifiable.
The point is to try and get people to the professions that are in demand. Because our hypothetical folklorist could, because of personal qualitative measures, do good work in other professions doesn't mean that funding a gaggle of folklorists is going to produce consistent results for the in demand professions. Our example here is an outlier rather than a typical result. So when your society finds folklorists scarce and in demand, you find that. When it needs doctors, you fund that. It is simply a matter of reducing obstacles to get people to choose what you (as a society) need.
Shouldn't we be valuing each profession in terms of its value to the whole, and discounting based on necessity. For example, we need more nurses, so nursing should be considerably less expensive than a folklore major, which contributes less to the whole.
This is not to start a flame war with folklorists, just stating that our society requires more nurses than folklorists to function. The cost benefit analysis should support producing more of what we need, rather than more of what we don't.
This is familiar to the TCL plugin for Netscape way back in the '90s.
I was a big fan of the TCL plugin back then because it had greater capability (file access, rick user interface with the TK widgets available), but done with a mind to security given the Safe TCL work that had been done to run in a sandboxed environment. In terms of user interface, the plugin in 1997 was where javascript UI libraries and HTML5 are now. I always thought it was a shame that Javascript/Java was pushed into the browser, when they could have gone with this instead.
One of the original ideas behind TCL/TK by Ousterhout was the concept of "active data". One of his early examples was a coded email message that was interactive while you were reading it. Unregulated, the concept is a security nightmare, but the Safe TCL work was ahead of its time in pushing the idea that active data required security (this was before the MS Macro viruses).
All that said, I think it might be too little too late with regards to the native client. Might be good for niche applications, but the strength of the browser is good cross platform applications without having to do anything.
Here's the thing...
DRM, DPP, whatever, are attempts to technically impose the physical world onto the digital world. The physical world naturally has the notions of exclusivity of ownership and scarcity, whereas the digital world doesn't.
Trying to graft a simulation of the physical world onto the digital is cute, but won't be successful. Because of the nature of the media, it will be bypassed by those who wish to do so. The morality and desire to apply the economics of scarcity to digital media simply don't matter with regards to whether someone will or won't copy the information.
In short, it's a waste of money. Attempting to find ways to use the nature of digital media to make money would probably result in a better return on investment.
I don't know that people really want to code in perl. I think they want to use CPAN, and perl is the carrier for that. Perl's feature set is the community grown extensions to the language.
You can say that perl grew organically, and that poorly written perl is identical to line noise, but the reason folks put up with that is CPAN makes their project finish faster, with less work.
If all that were in CPAN were available to python, then python would be the "it" language for the market in between application programming and systems programming.
That (in my opinion) is what makes perl popular among certain segments (including a past iteration of me).
I don't think the term "Operating System" mean the same things to all people.
Linus was talking about the things that truly are invisible to the average user: the API, the filesystem, etc. Not the user interface. When you are speaking about operating systems with someone who has written one, it must be realized that all the terminology is not the same. Ubuntu is a distribution of linux, with a lot of work put into the UI. That is a good thing, but it is not the same thing as talking about device drivers.
OS X is, at that level, a BSD operating system, with a really good UI and a sort of half-assed filesystem (no flames, I use OS X boxes, and they work well, but the filesystem is really from an earlier era).
There is nothing that keeps the functionality of the low level OS from the elegance of a well crafted UI.
Slashdot Mirror
The bottom line is that Russia meddled to help Trump beat Clinton. There is plenty of evidence that isn't even disputed by the conservative wing of the media, or the GOP for that matter.
Clearly, you are a troll that is either delusional or in it for lulz. Either way, generally a drag on intelligent conversation and debate.
And we are supposed to believe that the owner of Fox News is the guardian of quality information presented in an unbiased format? Really?
How does that work for cable? Have a lot of choice of cable companies in your area?
You don't, because state and local governments "negotiated" cable to a regional monopoly, without any significant regulation on behavior. Which leaves us with bundles of the one channel you want, and the 50 channels that the provider is paid to carry (ie shopping networks).
Here what will happen. Your cable company is already your internet provider for most Americans. There is already no competition. The big four will pay the provider for better throughput. Think throttling other traffic to provide guaranteed performance for the big four to your device.
Here's the problem. You are paying the provider for access to the internet. As in, access to whatever the hell you want. And they take your money. And they'll take the money from big corporations to get access to you (at least, more performant access). This will throttle anything you want that doesn't pay. So what you pay for will be slower access to the things you choose, and faster access for the things that the provider chooses.
They get paid both ways, your choices get worse.
Oh look. It's the false equivalence argument. Let's up that... 3. You shouldn't ban nuclear weapons. They are just devices. The fact that they can kill thousands of people doesn't mean they are inherently bad. North Korea _should_ have them as a deterrent. 4. You shouldn't prosecute murder. Some people are bad and _need_ to be removed, and you should never take away someone's rights to protect society,. See how stupid those are? That's because making an equivalence between two things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other is a common and silly tactic used to steer the conversation away from the actual issue and towards making someone defend their position as though it were the other (e.g. making someone against restricting a network protocol defend it as though it were something that could cost hundreds of lives if someone misused it). If you have an argument, make it on it's merits rather than this sort of tripe.
Can't fix stupid. The only thing you can do is try and minimize the collateral damage.
Go is not Java. The core concept of Java is the object type system using inheritance, and Go's core concept is a type system that uses composition, and allows a type to fulfill an interface by simply matching the signatures of all the methods. Go feels more like a cleaned up C than Java. Beyond that, the attraction to Go for me is the included toolchain. Building and maintaining projects are dead simple.
No. You are wrong. He did not fire the CEO of GM. Beyond that, the situation is completely different. GM was asking the U.S. government for a multi-billion dollar loan to keep it out of bankruptcy. AT&T are attempting to get approval for a merger of two large (profitable) companies serving the same markets. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
But...it's not random chance. It's natural selection. It's not a bunch of organic chemicals thrown at the wall...
You don't get actual solutions by relying on "experts" that want to sell you something. Especially billions of dollars of something. You hire experts to assess the solutions put forward by vendors.
No, but they do pay for those rights to be defended. So, if someone decides to go your (hypothetical) route, a person with a bigger gun takes your private property and kills you, and there is no recourse for your survivors because you've opted out of paying for the common good (police to enforce the laws).
Sigh. This troll again. Let's make this a simple metaphor. To state that atheism is a religion would be like stating that "off" is a TV channel or that silence is a particular sound. Absence of a thing is not a form of the thing. It is simply the absence of it, no more, no less.
Y'know, I think it is the whole dropping bombs on people thing that is bad from the hearts and minds perspective. Drones might _slightly_ make the U.S. seem like a faceless military machine, but the people having explosives rained on them would, all in all, rather not be blown up regardless of the make and model of the aircraft.
If you want to win hearts and minds, be better than the alternative.
Cloud computing is not appropriate for all types of research computing. Let's say you want to use Amazon's cloud offering, but you have a genomic and geospatial dataset of 60 TB. While not ubiquitous in research computing, it is not unheard of, especially in the fields of bioinformatics. The cost of storage and the cost of transfer will each away at whatever grant that is funding the research. This is a business decision. Does the cost of the computing resource and operation result in [ more grants / better faculty retention ] than not having it?
The cost-benefit analysis has been done, and while cloud computing has its place, there are additional costs that make it problematic. The cloud is not a panacea.
That said, in five years IU could very well be looking for its next big computer. The average lifespan of a supercomputer is 5-8 years. So, five years is on the early side of looking for the next big thing, but not outrageously so.
Disclaimer -- I run high speed data storage for a university. I've written acceptance test measures for high performance computing resources. I've done the cost-benefit analyses.
The OP is using as a server. I'd hope he is following best practices and developing locally (and securely) and deploying on the network. Especially if he is unfamiliar with the production environment.
Ultimately, the OP should probably install VirtualBox or another virtualization solution on his/her Windows 7 desktop, and figure out the deployment strategy before exposing their work on the network. It doesn't cost anything but a little bit of time, and the pay off is understanding what you are pushing out in the real world.
Sigh...
Look at the first bullet point of the timeline. Productivity suite approved, upgrade to Calmail cancelled. Then a week ago, they decided on an interim upgrade because not upgrading in the first place caused problems. So, rather than a planned upgrade, the IT folks were thrown into panic mode because their (probable) proposed timeline for safely doing an upgrade, including burning in and testing of new hardware, was cut to a fraction of what it should've been.
You can argue about the budgets, or the IT folks, but this is a failure of management. If (in Spring 2011) they cancelled the upgrade, and then had to have an emergency upgrade, what you have is management that fundamentally does not understand the system. This would (probably) not be the IT folks managing the system, but rather the budget and personnel management that doesn't quite grok how upgrades should be done in a safe and controlled manner. They misjudged the initial cancellation, and then (likely) pushed through a poorly planned emergency upgrade.
If the slides are correct, there is very little having to do with a failure from a technical aspect, and everything to do with a breakdown of management.
Clustered filesystems are not designed to make your data safer, or to provide ease of recovery. In fact, they make both of those things a bit more difficult. In the case of Lustre, the point is performance -- I have N servers that I am willing to dedicate to serving the filesystem, I can therefore get N times the throughput for large distributed jobs.
File systems that provide replication help, but unless it is copy on write (COW), it does nto take the place of backups.
If you are paranoid about data safety, invest in a backup solution. The only reason to use a distributed file system is for increased performance.
Hailstorm, Silverlight, Passport, MSN, Bob...
MS is the same as any other large company. Outside of their proven revenue generators, they throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Not that I mind competition in any space, but still...
Linux is supported here for most things, and there is pretty heavy staff usage as workstations, me included.
SImple. There are jobs that require a degree of accredited training (nurses, doctors, engineers, teachers). Those types of professions are easy to determine who meets a required set of qualifications. Those are the easy professions to target.
Folklorists that manage flower shops, write novels, or enter the diplomatic core do not require the folklore training to do their job. It may have assisted, but then their high school 4H club may have assisted as well. That's not quantifiable, and you can only run a large scale assistance program with values that are quantifiable.
The point is to try and get people to the professions that are in demand. Because our hypothetical folklorist could, because of personal qualitative measures, do good work in other professions doesn't mean that funding a gaggle of folklorists is going to produce consistent results for the in demand professions. Our example here is an outlier rather than a typical result. So when your society finds folklorists scarce and in demand, you find that. When it needs doctors, you fund that. It is simply a matter of reducing obstacles to get people to choose what you (as a society) need.
Shouldn't we be valuing each profession in terms of its value to the whole, and discounting based on necessity. For example, we need more nurses, so nursing should be considerably less expensive than a folklore major, which contributes less to the whole.
This is not to start a flame war with folklorists, just stating that our society requires more nurses than folklorists to function. The cost benefit analysis should support producing more of what we need, rather than more of what we don't.
This is familiar to the TCL plugin for Netscape way back in the '90s.
I was a big fan of the TCL plugin back then because it had greater capability (file access, rick user interface with the TK widgets available), but done with a mind to security given the Safe TCL work that had been done to run in a sandboxed environment. In terms of user interface, the plugin in 1997 was where javascript UI libraries and HTML5 are now. I always thought it was a shame that Javascript/Java was pushed into the browser, when they could have gone with this instead.
One of the original ideas behind TCL/TK by Ousterhout was the concept of "active data". One of his early examples was a coded email message that was interactive while you were reading it. Unregulated, the concept is a security nightmare, but the Safe TCL work was ahead of its time in pushing the idea that active data required security (this was before the MS Macro viruses).
All that said, I think it might be too little too late with regards to the native client. Might be good for niche applications, but the strength of the browser is good cross platform applications without having to do anything.
Never seen one, heard of an emulator, or know of one still running.
Here's the thing... DRM, DPP, whatever, are attempts to technically impose the physical world onto the digital world. The physical world naturally has the notions of exclusivity of ownership and scarcity, whereas the digital world doesn't. Trying to graft a simulation of the physical world onto the digital is cute, but won't be successful. Because of the nature of the media, it will be bypassed by those who wish to do so. The morality and desire to apply the economics of scarcity to digital media simply don't matter with regards to whether someone will or won't copy the information. In short, it's a waste of money. Attempting to find ways to use the nature of digital media to make money would probably result in a better return on investment.
I don't know that people really want to code in perl. I think they want to use CPAN, and perl is the carrier for that. Perl's feature set is the community grown extensions to the language.
You can say that perl grew organically, and that poorly written perl is identical to line noise, but the reason folks put up with that is CPAN makes their project finish faster, with less work.
If all that were in CPAN were available to python, then python would be the "it" language for the market in between application programming and systems programming.
That (in my opinion) is what makes perl popular among certain segments (including a past iteration of me).
I don't think the term "Operating System" mean the same things to all people.
Linus was talking about the things that truly are invisible to the average user: the API, the filesystem, etc. Not the user interface. When you are speaking about operating systems with someone who has written one, it must be realized that all the terminology is not the same. Ubuntu is a distribution of linux, with a lot of work put into the UI. That is a good thing, but it is not the same thing as talking about device drivers.
OS X is, at that level, a BSD operating system, with a really good UI and a sort of half-assed filesystem (no flames, I use OS X boxes, and they work well, but the filesystem is really from an earlier era).
There is nothing that keeps the functionality of the low level OS from the elegance of a well crafted UI.