"There's no magic correlation between popularity and competence."It's quite irrelevent. If you start trying to say that only competent politicians should be allowed to hold office, we'd have to elect a whole new government.
I'm purposely not addressing the issue of whether or not competence "should be allowed," I'm addressing the issue of whether or not competence is desirable. I'm not saying that idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote, but I am saying that idiots should choose not to vote. Unfortunately, most idiots aren't aware that they are idiots. Or, to put it more politely, most uninformed voters don't care that they're uninformed. (IMHO this is what makes them idiots.)
I do not favor the government arbitrarily limiting somebody's right to vote. I wouldn't mind some kind of "voter education program" that could be similar to the kind of education that we give to immigrants who wish to become citizens, but in the absence of that I strongly oppose any attempt to prevent somebody from voting.
I think that you're confusing my use of "should" with "should be prevented from."
"Come on, if someone can't figure that out, they really shouldn't be voting."
I'm tired of this Bullshit! Everyone's votes counts, and everyone should be allowed to vote. Just because someone doesn't meet your standard of intelligence doesn't mean they're not worthy of voting for the candidate of their choice.
Your response does not match the person you're quoting. Everyone should be allowed to vote, but the only people who choose to vote should be informed voters.
We don't need or want to elect politicians based on their looks or hair style or race, we need and want to elect politicians based on their views, their character and their platforms.
If there is a deity that created/maintains our known reality, do you think he would assume that we were so ignorant that he would send us a book, and leave us be? Do you think that he would consider us his most important creation?
If there is a diety that created/maintains our known reality, I think he would *know* that we are ignorant. For him to send us a book and care about us would require superhuman characteristics... which are not out of the question for a diety to possess.:)
To put it a different way: if God exists, then Christians might be right about him/her/it.
he means megabit, obviously. A gigabit ethernet card maxes out at 1000 megabit / sec, or 125 megabytes/sec, so obviously he is not exceeding the maximum data transfer rate of the pci bus.
Actually, we are talking about megabytes per second. My situation involved a single GSN nic (6400 megabits/second) and his involved 8 GigE cards (8 * 1000 megabits/second).
I'm still not sure how he got to 370 MB/sec. 4 32bit/33MHz PCI busses maybe (AFAIK bigger PCI busses aren't available on x86 machines, but I'd love to be wrong), or maybe the GigE cards had some kind of "diagnostic mode" transmit generated by the GigE hardware that doesn't involve PCI bus activity.
Or maybe you're right and the original poster's talking about megabits while I'm talking megabytes. Oh well.
I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this and I mean it to be a serious question: have any hardware companies (D-Link, 3Com, etc) considered creating an AGP NIC? Would that solve the PCI bandwidth problem?
It's been thought of, but typically, the types of machines that need this kind of serious throughput don't have AGP slots. When the idea came up at my company, it was shelved because we had lots of PCI experience and no AGP knowledge so we'd have to start from the bottom of the learning curve.
An SGI Origin 2000, with multiple XIO busses, is the usual solution, I think. Some of the government labs have clusters of O2ks connected by a GSN network.
I test nic cards and no mater what I use gigabit or fast ethernet. I can't get a total thruput of more than 370 MBPS.
I tried similar test with kernel 2.4.0-test8 and nearly got fired for shouting.
I was able to max out my switch and there is no upper limit in sight with the Cisco hardware I curently have available to me.
How did you manage to exceed the PCI bus speed? The fastest that I've ever seen was a GSN nic running on an RS6000 with a 64 bit, 50 MHz PCI bus, transmitting at about 300 MB/sec, and that was 100% limited by the PCI bus.
I think we're looking at Linux's "success" from different perspectives. I don't care if Joe Sixpack runs Linux. I do care that monopolist "innovation" doesn't stifle the industry, and I believe that Linux, an operating system where good ideas can be reimplemented correctly and in freedom and where technical excellence is more important than marketing, moves things in a good direction. If Linux never becomes the dominant operating system, it will already have succeeded because it has already forced the "big boys" to pay more attention to the things that I value.
If Joe Sixpack does end up going with Linux because Red Hat someday has the Swedish Bikini Team in a commercial, then more power to him. And it is quite possible that Linux will replace Windows on the desktop. I would prefer that that be enabled by a general education of the computer-using population, rather than a dumbing down of linux, and I think that that is not a completely implausible thing either.
Excuse me? VSS *sucks*. Ok, it might be reasonable for one, *maybe* two people absolute max. We're (trying to) use it for ~30 people and it is awful...
I'm interested in hearing more about the problems you are having with VSS. Here at work there's a push to replace CVS with VSS and, having never used VSS, I don't have much ammunition to use against it.
If you kill ALL the bandwidth - with packets, then there is nothing the target can do. NOTHING. Nothing whatsoever.
I disagree. The target can have their upstream provider figure out where the majority of the flooding packets are coming from and filter that half of the country, etc.
In order to get around this defensive tactic, the attacker would essentially have to flood the entire internet, DOS'ing everybody. At that point it would be more practical to simply use real weapons (or a backhoe) and blow up network infrastructure.
Now instead of gunning down their classmates, high schoolers can turn them in to the authorities via this program. Got a jock bothering you? One phone call and the black helicopters will come take him away. That pretty girl likes her boyfriend more than you? See how much she likes him when he's in jail for refusing to admit he's a homicidal maniac. (See how much he likes her after being introduced to the joys of prison romance by his roommate Bubba.)
-- I knew reading The Gulag Archipelago would come in handy someday.
I don't think the original poster was objecting to them eating, merely to their use of proprietory licensing.
Then he should have stuck to that objection, instead of bringing food into it:-)
I made the (apparently false) assumption that slashdot readers would know that the "we have to eat somehow" line is a false argument. As the post you replied to stated, whether or not Troll Tech developers are able to eat has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they allow QT to be used for free in open source windows applications.
To be more explicit: in refusing to allow this, Troll Tech essentially states that they don't believe that the model they pay lip service to (free for open source, not free for closed source) is a viable one. If they did believe this, there would be no operating system restrictions on the QT license.
With QT you can use it in open source software with no charge.
It's not as simple as that. You cannot use it for making open source windows software without shelling out big bucks (relatively speaking) for the professional version (unless you port the linux version to Windows yourself, if I read the license correctly.) This is what prevented me from using QT for an open source project I was considering - I wanted to have cross-platform capability. When I asked them about it, they used the "we have to eat somehow" line. So much for believing in open source.
It's horrible to see what macho shit geeks posted.
It's amazing how much of that sort of crap I miss by setting my threshold at 2. It's so much more pleasant up here.:)
I'll bet that somebody reading at 3 or 4 would be able to reasonably conclude that most male computer geeks are accepting of everybody, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, preferred OS, etc.
1.*NO* AC posts at all for the first ten minutes 2.*NO* AC replies directly to the article (root posts) for the first twenty minutes 3.New users are subject to AC rule for the first week of their account (and must make five posts not moderated down before they lose their Newbie status)
I like these suggestions a lot. Moderate that post up!:)
Could someone please explain to us non-Americans what 'soccer moms' are, and what was their importance in the '96 elections? They were mentioned in some comments, but I still don't get it.
The "soccer mom" is the stereotypical voter who the politicians running for office in '96 were supposedly all pandering to, according to the media. A soccer mom was a woman who possibly worked part-time but spent most of her time driving kids around to various activities, such as soccer. I don't know what the stereotypical soccer mom supposedly believed in; probably whatever discredited the politician who the individual media representative currently speaking/writing opposed.
I agree. I've pondered how to successfully implement computer use in schools and the best that I've thought of is to simply concentrate computer use under the supervision of teachers who are knowledgeable. For most schools, this would mean having a "using computers" class of some sort that would teach skills usable in many classes (such as word processing, searching the internet for information, basic information about how computers work, etc.)
Such "using computers" classes would be an improvement, but they're not even close to the full potential that computers in the classroom offer. Nonetheless, I think that they're as good as we're going to get until the national computer literacy level rises a great deal...
... which touches on another subject: kids who can't read and write aren't going to be able to learn much about computers. Many public schools have bigger problems than lack of computers, and like you said, throwing computers at the problem isn't going to do any good.
Perhaps computers could be used to interest children in learning to read and write? Are special education teachers flexible enough to use computers as teaching tools well?
hushmail.com - finally, a reason to enable Java.:)
Seriously, I like it a lot because of the strong encryption that's transparent enough for my mother to use. (So far I haven't had any problems using it either.) I haven't heard of any other encryption-oriented webmail places, but I'm sure they're out there somewhere.
The justification is that the government can do just about whatever it wants, and it wants to take more of our money. Obviously, efforts to avoid internet taxation are led by ultra-right-wing types who want to defund the government in order to inflict pain and misery on the poor. (Or at least, that's what I read in the newspaper this weekend.)
Sigh.
Honestly, though, I'd rather have sales taxes (on none-necessities) than income taxes. Putting up with an internet sales tax would be a hassle, but if (and this'll never happen) it meant no longer having a federal income tax, I'd be all for it. (Barring poor implementation, of course.)
Genetic research (or, indeed, any research) does not automatically produce oppression. Science produces technology which is then able to be used for good or for ill. To imply that we should arrest or repress scientific inquiry because the fruits of that inquiry might someday be used for wrong is not the sort of thing that I would expect to hear from Jon Katz, it's the sort of thing I would expect to hear from somebody like Pat Buchanan or the Taliban.
Recently a group of bio-ethicists met with a panel drawn from the Roman Catholic, Jewish and Protestant faiths and concluded: "There is nothing in the research agenda for creating a minimal genome that is automatically prohibited by legitimate religous considerations." So what? Is that the only major ethical issue?
You imply that there are other major ethical issues. I'd be interested in hearing of any "major ethical issues" not addressed or at least recognized by any of the major world religions.
And why put this discussion in the hands of scientists and members of organized religion -- the latter probably responsible for more hatred, bloodshed and cruelty than any other single force in human history?
Actually, I think that human beings are responsible for more hatred, bloodshed and cruelty than any other single force in human history. But that's beside the point - are you actually advocating preventing somebody from discussing the ethics of something because of the actions of their ancestors? I thought the point was to not discriminate unfairly?
Apparently you believe that society's ethical decisions should be made only by people who are part of disorganized religions? "The world would be a much better place if my minority were in charge." Right.
In any case, it is the organized religions who spend most of their time thinking about ethics. Who better to provide a baseline (from which we may vary our own opinions) for judging whether a new thing is ethical?
To stop the research would be to deny one of the noblest traits of the human character - to figure out the world and make it better.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm purposely not addressing the issue of whether or not competence "should be allowed," I'm addressing the issue of whether or not competence is desirable. I'm not saying that idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote, but I am saying that idiots should choose not to vote. Unfortunately, most idiots aren't aware that they are idiots. Or, to put it more politely, most uninformed voters don't care that they're uninformed. (IMHO this is what makes them idiots.)
I do not favor the government arbitrarily limiting somebody's right to vote. I wouldn't mind some kind of "voter education program" that could be similar to the kind of education that we give to immigrants who wish to become citizens, but in the absence of that I strongly oppose any attempt to prevent somebody from voting.
I think that you're confusing my use of "should" with "should be prevented from."
I disagree strongly. There's no magic correlation between popularity and competence. If the voters are informed, however, there might be.
I'm tired of this Bullshit! Everyone's votes counts, and everyone should be allowed to vote. Just because someone doesn't meet your standard of intelligence doesn't mean they're not worthy of voting for the candidate of their choice.
Your response does not match the person you're quoting. Everyone should be allowed to vote, but the only people who choose to vote should be informed voters.
We don't need or want to elect politicians based on their looks or hair style or race, we need and want to elect politicians based on their views, their character and their platforms.
If there is a diety that created/maintains our known reality, I think he would *know* that we are ignorant. For him to send us a book and care about us would require superhuman characteristics... which are not out of the question for a diety to possess. :)
To put it a different way: if God exists, then Christians might be right about him/her/it.
This is why those people are incorrect. :)
In a sense it's quite funny and in a sense it's absolutely maddening.
Actually, we are talking about megabytes per second. My situation involved a single GSN nic (6400 megabits/second) and his involved 8 GigE cards (8 * 1000 megabits/second).
I'm still not sure how he got to 370 MB/sec. 4 32bit/33MHz PCI busses maybe (AFAIK bigger PCI busses aren't available on x86 machines, but I'd love to be wrong), or maybe the GigE cards had some kind of "diagnostic mode" transmit generated by the GigE hardware that doesn't involve PCI bus activity.
Or maybe you're right and the original poster's talking about megabits while I'm talking megabytes. Oh well.
It's been thought of, but typically, the types of machines that need this kind of serious throughput don't have AGP slots. When the idea came up at my company, it was shelved because we had lots of PCI experience and no AGP knowledge so we'd have to start from the bottom of the learning curve.
An SGI Origin 2000, with multiple XIO busses, is the usual solution, I think. Some of the government labs have clusters of O2ks connected by a GSN network.
I tried similar test with kernel 2.4.0-test8 and nearly got fired for shouting.
I was able to max out my switch and there is no upper limit in sight with the Cisco hardware I curently have available to me.
How did you manage to exceed the PCI bus speed? The fastest that I've ever seen was a GSN nic running on an RS6000 with a 64 bit, 50 MHz PCI bus, transmitting at about 300 MB/sec, and that was 100% limited by the PCI bus.
If Joe Sixpack does end up going with Linux because Red Hat someday has the Swedish Bikini Team in a commercial, then more power to him. And it is quite possible that Linux will replace Windows on the desktop. I would prefer that that be enabled by a general education of the computer-using population, rather than a dumbing down of linux, and I think that that is not a completely implausible thing either.
Linux has already succeeded, and because of the proliferation of choices, not in spite of it.
The Gen Con game fair is supposed to be moving to Indianapolis in a couple of years. I wonder if this law will affect that decision at all.
I'm interested in hearing more about the problems you are having with VSS. Here at work there's a push to replace CVS with VSS and, having never used VSS, I don't have much ammunition to use against it.
Reply via email if you like.
I really like that phrase, infinite resource.
I disagree. The target can have their upstream provider figure out where the majority of the flooding packets are coming from and filter that half of the country, etc.
In order to get around this defensive tactic, the attacker would essentially have to flood the entire internet, DOS'ing everybody. At that point it would be more practical to simply use real weapons (or a backhoe) and blow up network infrastructure.
--
I knew reading The Gulag Archipelago would come in handy someday.
Well obviously they'd choose my religion, 'cause I'm right. :)
Then he should have stuck to that objection, instead of bringing food into it :-)
I made the (apparently false) assumption that slashdot readers would know that the "we have to eat somehow" line is a false argument. As the post you replied to stated, whether or not Troll Tech developers are able to eat has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they allow QT to be used for free in open source windows applications.
To be more explicit: in refusing to allow this, Troll Tech essentially states that they don't believe that the model they pay lip service to (free for open source, not free for closed source) is a viable one. If they did believe this, there would be no operating system restrictions on the QT license.
It's not as simple as that. You cannot use it for making open source windows software without shelling out big bucks (relatively speaking) for the professional version (unless you port the linux version to Windows yourself, if I read the license correctly.) This is what prevented me from using QT for an open source project I was considering - I wanted to have cross-platform capability. When I asked them about it, they used the "we have to eat somehow" line. So much for believing in open source.
It's horrible to see what macho shit geeks posted.
It's amazing how much of that sort of crap I miss by setting my threshold at 2. It's so much more pleasant up here. :)
I'll bet that somebody reading at 3 or 4 would be able to reasonably conclude that most male computer geeks are accepting of everybody, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, preferred OS, etc.
2.*NO* AC replies directly to the article (root posts) for the first twenty minutes
3.New users are subject to AC rule for the first week of their account (and must make five posts not moderated down before they lose their Newbie status)
I like these suggestions a lot. Moderate that post up! :)
Could someone please explain to us non-Americans what 'soccer moms' are, and what was their importance in the '96 elections? They were mentioned in some comments, but I still don't get it.
The "soccer mom" is the stereotypical voter who the politicians running for office in '96 were supposedly all pandering to, according to the media. A soccer mom was a woman who possibly worked part-time but spent most of her time driving kids around to various activities, such as soccer. I don't know what the stereotypical soccer mom supposedly believed in; probably whatever discredited the politician who the individual media representative currently speaking/writing opposed.
I agree. I've pondered how to successfully implement computer use in schools and the best that I've thought of is to simply concentrate computer use under the supervision of teachers who are knowledgeable. For most schools, this would mean having a "using computers" class of some sort that would teach skills usable in many classes (such as word processing, searching the internet for information, basic information about how computers work, etc.)
Such "using computers" classes would be an improvement, but they're not even close to the full potential that computers in the classroom offer. Nonetheless, I think that they're as good as we're going to get until the national computer literacy level rises a great deal...
... which touches on another subject: kids who can't read and write aren't going to be able to learn much about computers. Many public schools have bigger problems than lack of computers, and like you said, throwing computers at the problem isn't going to do any good.
Perhaps computers could be used to interest children in learning to read and write? Are special education teachers flexible enough to use computers as teaching tools well?
hushmail.com - finally, a reason to enable Java. :)
Seriously, I like it a lot because of the strong encryption that's transparent enough for my mother to use. (So far I haven't had any problems using it either.) I haven't heard of any other encryption-oriented webmail places, but I'm sure they're out there somewhere.
The justification is that the government can do just about whatever it wants, and it wants to take more of our money. Obviously, efforts to avoid internet taxation are led by ultra-right-wing types who want to defund the government in order to inflict pain and misery on the poor. (Or at least, that's what I read in the newspaper this weekend.)
Sigh.
Honestly, though, I'd rather have sales taxes (on none-necessities) than income taxes. Putting up with an internet sales tax would be a hassle, but if (and this'll never happen) it meant no longer having a federal income tax, I'd be all for it. (Barring poor implementation, of course.)
My goodness, where to start?
Genetic research (or, indeed, any research) does not automatically produce oppression. Science produces technology which is then able to be used for good or for ill. To imply that we should arrest or repress scientific inquiry because the fruits of that inquiry might someday be used for wrong is not the sort of thing that I would expect to hear from Jon Katz, it's the sort of thing I would expect to hear from somebody like Pat Buchanan or the Taliban.
Recently a group of bio-ethicists met with a panel drawn from the Roman Catholic, Jewish and Protestant faiths and concluded: "There is nothing in the research agenda for creating a minimal genome that is automatically prohibited by legitimate religous considerations." So what? Is that the only major ethical issue?
You imply that there are other major ethical issues. I'd be interested in hearing of any "major ethical issues" not addressed or at least recognized by any of the major world religions.
And why put this discussion in the hands of scientists and members of organized religion -- the latter probably responsible for more hatred, bloodshed and cruelty than any other single force in human history?
Actually, I think that human beings are responsible for more hatred, bloodshed and cruelty than any other single force in human history. But that's beside the point - are you actually advocating preventing somebody from discussing the ethics of something because of the actions of their ancestors? I thought the point was to not discriminate unfairly?
Apparently you believe that society's ethical decisions should be made only by people who are part of disorganized religions? "The world would be a much better place if my minority were in charge." Right.
In any case, it is the organized religions who spend most of their time thinking about ethics. Who better to provide a baseline (from which we may vary our own opinions) for judging whether a new thing is ethical?
To stop the research would be to deny one of the noblest traits of the human character - to figure out the world and make it better.
At least you haven't completely lost your mind.