Using ATA in the enterprise is simply a matter of contingency planning. With sufficient redundancy, drive failure doesn't need to affect uptime. What determines "sufficient" varies.
The first half of your post is unintelligible; the interview did indicate that his economic opinions are pretty sensible. In addition, being an enormous cockfucking knob goblin indicates that a person does, in fact, fundamentally understand the real world.
Do the people who reject their parents' beliefs also not have free will? How do you differentiate between people who embrace and people who reject their parents' beliefs? How can one have free will while the other doesn't?
(For nit pickers who will say this is not a true "experiment", you are right - but these kind of "observational experiments" are perfectly valid when talking about cosmological experiments, such as testing the Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang Theory).
I am one of those nitpickers, and I disagree. These kinds of observations do not give the same amount of scientific validity as experiments that are repeatable under controlled conditions do. Just because they're the best that we have to go on in some areas does not make theories based on them as credible as theories based on better data.
You, and most people with your (correct) mindset fail to take into account one thing. The ID proponents for the most part believe the earth to be 6,000 years old.
No, you're thinking of young-Earth creationists. IDers believe in evolution over millions of years, with occasional divine intervention.
What it boils down to is that evolution challenges their core beliefs and in some cases their very reason to live.
What I find amazing in all of this controversy is that evolution doesn't actually challenge any core Christian beliefs. It's on the same theological level as baptism via immersion vs baptism via sprinkling (an obscure issue that people nevertheless form separate groups over.)
Women who have children are expected by many, even today, to stay home and care for their children. If they don't, they are seen as poor parents.
I agree with the word "many", but I do not agree with the word "most" as it applies to "seen as poor parents", and I think the word "most" is required to justify the conclusion that this is what "society" believes. I think that most people don't look down on a father who is primary caretaker of his children, except inasmuch as society looks down on child-rearing in general (considering it "not a job" etc.) I do think that most people would consider a couple to be poor parents if there is no primary caretaker for their children.
When both spouses want to pursue a career, the mother is often expected to sacrafice her career because she made the choice to have kids. Once this choice is made, there is some expectation that she be the one to sacrafice.
I do agree that that's the most common expectation. I think that this expectation is based on the widely-held belief (which I happen to think is true) that women tend to be better at raising children than men. There is, of course, great individual variation in the relative abilities of different people, and just because I'm better at something than my wife doesn't mean that I should be the one to do it, but it's fair to say that if I am better at doing it, then the outcome will be more optimal if I'm the one who does it, so if it's important, most people would expect me to seek the optimal outcome by doing it myself.
Richard Stallman reminds me of many of the 'intellectuals' which come out of MIT. Full of great ideas, and convction for them, but lacking some fundamental understanding of the 'real world'.
His analysis of the 'real world' seems quite insightful to me. Would you provide an example?
Wow, RMS was rather lucid in this interview. I'm impressed.
RMS interviews often impress me. Even in the areas where I disagree with him, RMS is consistent, backing up his opinions with well-reasoned arguments. In this interview, I was especially impressed when he said "I need to think about that a bit more before giving a final answer." We need more thinking-before-speaking.
The problem is that women are in essence given the choice of having children or a good career with advancement opportunities. Men aren't required to make this choice- they can have both.
I disagree. It is possible for a woman to have children and a good career with advancement opportunities; it's simply harder, because there are fewer men willing to be primary caretaker for the children. (More than one might think, though.) If a person (man or woman) wants to have children and a good career, they should find a mate willing to take care of the kids (or choose a field that allows both.)
Furthermore, it is simply not true that fathers are not responsible for taking care of their children or that they are free (as far as society is concerned) to ignore their child-rearing responsibilities. It is a problem that some people think this, though.
More women than men choose to be homemakers. If they are forced to do so, then there is a problem, but thankfully that's uncommon. Much more common is the case where someone wants to be a stay-at-home parent *and* a successful career person, and that's hard regardless of gender.
I think that a person's view of what "society says" is subjective. Frankly, I don't really care what people in general think, so that may be why I don't see a huge problem in this area. I don't care if someone looks down on me for doing something that used to be reserved for women. If someone does care, and feels forced to choose a certain career path because of it, then maybe the problem isn't 100% with "society". Do what you think is right, not what you think society says you should do. In other words, maybe the problem is that women don't have enough balls. Seeking consensus (an activity traditionally associated with women) is fine, except when it leads to an incorrect action.
Yet, despite this increase in enrollment, women attorneys have been leaving the field. While nearly 50% of new associates are women, less than 10% of partners are female. This can't be blown off as being due to lack of interest. Associates at large firms put in 60+ hours a week, and are surely commited to the responsibilities of partnership. Despite this, men are dispraportionately chosen for the highest paying positions.
Part of the reason for this (but only part) is that some women choose to prioritize raising a family over their careers. When that happens, it's ok: it's her decision. (It's also ok for a man to prioritize raising a family over his career.) Until the day comes that men choose homemaking as much as women, this will necessarily lead to unequal numbers of men and women in jobs that require excessive work. Therefore, uneven numbers are not in and of themselves evidence that discrimination is taking place.
In this case, I fully agree that there are glass ceilings in some law firms. But if they all disappeared, we'll still see fewer women than men as partners in law firms.
Social skills isn't that big a factor. I find very few of my programming peers who fit the "geek programmer" stereotype. Plenty of us are married, have houses and families.
I think a critical component of the "geek programmer" stereotype is adolescence. How many of the married-housed-familied geeks that you know are under 22? How about above 30?
Lots of adolescents don't know how to tell the difference between polite behavior and romantic interest. To an adolescent male not currently in a romantic relationship, the infatuation threshold is ridiculously low, I've observed. Geeks have a prolonged adolescence, leading to the stereotype, but even geeks tend to grow up sooner or later, explaining your observations.
Looks like finding a compatible girl geek in the computer profession is becoming even harder...
Does it help that the summary itself contains a male-point-of-view sterotype?
It's only a male-point-of-view stereotype from a stereotypical-male-point-of-view. Non-stereotypical-male points of view recognize that more people than just heterosexual males are interested in finding "compatible girl geeks".
Doing this defeats what is, for many people, the reason for having a high-resolution display in the first place: displaying more text at a time.
Viewing more text at a time is not always desirable.
Allow me to repeat my claim: for many people it is.
Unfortunately, the only way that most people know how to view more text at a time is with a higher resolution display (in nontechnical terms, "a bigger monitor".)
There's a reason books tend not to be three feet wide, and it's not simply because they get cumbersome at that size.
Newspapers are often three feet wide. They use columns, just like people do when they have multiple programs open side by side in a computer's display. The size and shape of books come from marketing; when marketing reasons dictate using three foot wide pieces of paper, that's what's done.
SSH is available on the Treo, but none of the SSH implementations that I've found support port forwarding. What I'd like to be able to do is run SSH in the background and tunnel connections from various other programs over it, which isn't easy (and might not be possible) with existing PalmOS applications (though there's one for-pay VNC client that claims to have ssh tunneling capability that I have been meaning to explore.) One of the major obstacles is the PalmOS itself, which wasn't designed to have multiple programs running at once, according to the web sites of some of these SSH projects.
Doing this defeats what is, for many people, the reason for having a high-resolution display in the first place: displaying more text at a time. (Usually this is not expressed in terms of text, but of programs, e.g. having two web browsers side-by-side or having nine xterms not overlap.)
I've looked at it, but the command syntax annoys me. I have no doubt that someday, the benefits will outweigh the costs and I'll climb the learning curve.
Well this could be the other argument: "Gnome is for idiots, KDE is too, for that matter any windowing system is designed with idiots in mind. They are just dumbed down. My choice is CLI, there are so many programs written for it and it is not intuitive at all, just like a system interface should be."
That's unreasonable. I use the CLI every day, and a GUI multiplies my productivity by allowing me to have multiple terminals open simultaneously. At the moment I have 26 xterms spread among 6 workspaces.
Something I don't understand is how "designed for idiots" is considered to be a negative thing. Sometimes it's bad, but not always; I'd rather not waste time figuring out something that should be easy.
That effort suffers from a fatal flaw: it does not fund the proponents of the current effort. With enough funding, this new effort's proponents should be able to overcome this shortcoming.
Unless of course; someone at NASA did do their homework, saw the project mentioned by the grandparent, thought "hey this is a pretty good idea maybe and it can be used for more than just minefields," and are using the DARPA project's past successes (internally at least) when they pitch their idea.
How is that not consistent with what I wrote?
Nah, NO civil servant could be that competent. *roll eyes*
Civil servants *can* be competent. It's simply unlikely, thanks to how the system is set up.
Funny, it's usually the right-wingers who insist you can't have morality without religion.
I've never seen proof of this.
Neither have I, but I've seen plenty of evidence. It's not unreasonable for someone who gets their morality from their religion to believe that religion is the only source of morality. It's the only source of their morality, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Using ATA in the enterprise is simply a matter of contingency planning. With sufficient redundancy, drive failure doesn't need to affect uptime. What determines "sufficient" varies.
The first half of your post is unintelligible; the interview did indicate that his economic opinions are pretty sensible. In addition, being an enormous cockfucking knob goblin indicates that a person does, in fact, fundamentally understand the real world.
Do the people who reject their parents' beliefs also not have free will? How do you differentiate between people who embrace and people who reject their parents' beliefs? How can one have free will while the other doesn't?
I am one of those nitpickers, and I disagree. These kinds of observations do not give the same amount of scientific validity as experiments that are repeatable under controlled conditions do. Just because they're the best that we have to go on in some areas does not make theories based on them as credible as theories based on better data.
No, you're thinking of young-Earth creationists. IDers believe in evolution over millions of years, with occasional divine intervention.
What I find amazing in all of this controversy is that evolution doesn't actually challenge any core Christian beliefs. It's on the same theological level as baptism via immersion vs baptism via sprinkling (an obscure issue that people nevertheless form separate groups over.)
I agree with the word "many", but I do not agree with the word "most" as it applies to "seen as poor parents", and I think the word "most" is required to justify the conclusion that this is what "society" believes. I think that most people don't look down on a father who is primary caretaker of his children, except inasmuch as society looks down on child-rearing in general (considering it "not a job" etc.) I do think that most people would consider a couple to be poor parents if there is no primary caretaker for their children.
I do agree that that's the most common expectation. I think that this expectation is based on the widely-held belief (which I happen to think is true) that women tend to be better at raising children than men. There is, of course, great individual variation in the relative abilities of different people, and just because I'm better at something than my wife doesn't mean that I should be the one to do it, but it's fair to say that if I am better at doing it, then the outcome will be more optimal if I'm the one who does it, so if it's important, most people would expect me to seek the optimal outcome by doing it myself.
His analysis of the 'real world' seems quite insightful to me. Would you provide an example?
Absolutely. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Someone else might be ok with that on their conscience, but not me.
RMS interviews often impress me. Even in the areas where I disagree with him, RMS is consistent, backing up his opinions with well-reasoned arguments. In this interview, I was especially impressed when he said "I need to think about that a bit more before giving a final answer." We need more thinking-before-speaking.
I disagree. It is possible for a woman to have children and a good career with advancement opportunities; it's simply harder, because there are fewer men willing to be primary caretaker for the children. (More than one might think, though.) If a person (man or woman) wants to have children and a good career, they should find a mate willing to take care of the kids (or choose a field that allows both.)
Furthermore, it is simply not true that fathers are not responsible for taking care of their children or that they are free (as far as society is concerned) to ignore their child-rearing responsibilities. It is a problem that some people think this, though.
More women than men choose to be homemakers. If they are forced to do so, then there is a problem, but thankfully that's uncommon. Much more common is the case where someone wants to be a stay-at-home parent *and* a successful career person, and that's hard regardless of gender.
I think that a person's view of what "society says" is subjective. Frankly, I don't really care what people in general think, so that may be why I don't see a huge problem in this area. I don't care if someone looks down on me for doing something that used to be reserved for women. If someone does care, and feels forced to choose a certain career path because of it, then maybe the problem isn't 100% with "society". Do what you think is right, not what you think society says you should do. In other words, maybe the problem is that women don't have enough balls. Seeking consensus (an activity traditionally associated with women) is fine, except when it leads to an incorrect action.
I can, at least some of the time, which is sufficient to satisfy the stated requirements.
Part of the reason for this (but only part) is that some women choose to prioritize raising a family over their careers. When that happens, it's ok: it's her decision. (It's also ok for a man to prioritize raising a family over his career.) Until the day comes that men choose homemaking as much as women, this will necessarily lead to unequal numbers of men and women in jobs that require excessive work. Therefore, uneven numbers are not in and of themselves evidence that discrimination is taking place.
In this case, I fully agree that there are glass ceilings in some law firms. But if they all disappeared, we'll still see fewer women than men as partners in law firms.
I think a critical component of the "geek programmer" stereotype is adolescence. How many of the married-housed-familied geeks that you know are under 22? How about above 30?
Lots of adolescents don't know how to tell the difference between polite behavior and romantic interest. To an adolescent male not currently in a romantic relationship, the infatuation threshold is ridiculously low, I've observed. Geeks have a prolonged adolescence, leading to the stereotype, but even geeks tend to grow up sooner or later, explaining your observations.
Some people use "insightful" instead of "funny" to reward the poster's karma, as if it's important.
Allow me to repeat my claim: for many people it is.
Unfortunately, the only way that most people know how to view more text at a time is with a higher resolution display (in nontechnical terms, "a bigger monitor".)
Newspapers are often three feet wide. They use columns, just like people do when they have multiple programs open side by side in a computer's display. The size and shape of books come from marketing; when marketing reasons dictate using three foot wide pieces of paper, that's what's done.
SSH is available on the Treo, but none of the SSH implementations that I've found support port forwarding. What I'd like to be able to do is run SSH in the background and tunnel connections from various other programs over it, which isn't easy (and might not be possible) with existing PalmOS applications (though there's one for-pay VNC client that claims to have ssh tunneling capability that I have been meaning to explore.) One of the major obstacles is the PalmOS itself, which wasn't designed to have multiple programs running at once, according to the web sites of some of these SSH projects.
Doing this defeats what is, for many people, the reason for having a high-resolution display in the first place: displaying more text at a time. (Usually this is not expressed in terms of text, but of programs, e.g. having two web browsers side-by-side or having nine xterms not overlap.)
Apply Occam's Razor: they could just be clueless.
I've looked at it, but the command syntax annoys me. I have no doubt that someday, the benefits will outweigh the costs and I'll climb the learning curve.
That's unreasonable. I use the CLI every day, and a GUI multiplies my productivity by allowing me to have multiple terminals open simultaneously. At the moment I have 26 xterms spread among 6 workspaces.
Something I don't understand is how "designed for idiots" is considered to be a negative thing. Sometimes it's bad, but not always; I'd rather not waste time figuring out something that should be easy.
I was angling for "funny", but I've heard that some moderators use "insightful" instead of "funny" in order to reward karma.
How is that not consistent with what I wrote?
Civil servants *can* be competent. It's simply unlikely, thanks to how the system is set up.
The key to understanding my post is in the punch line:
And I'll form the head!
I make no claim about whether or not that constitutes meaningful content.
Neither have I, but I've seen plenty of evidence. It's not unreasonable for someone who gets their morality from their religion to believe that religion is the only source of morality. It's the only source of their morality, after all.