Fit guys get drafted and send to the front, unfit guys stay home and comfort the women.
That merely means that in times of war in the kind of society where this pattern occurs and wars are fought at fronts instead of globally, the ones unfit to go to the front are the fittest as far as overall survival is concerned. That is, in fact, nothing new. Being fittest should in no way be seen as "being in excellent physical condition", but as "being best adapted to the circumstances at hand".
Survival of the fittest/strongest also is a statistical thing, strongly influenced by the circumstances and luck. The accidental death of an individual that many would consider very fit does not disclaim the theory. Neither does the mass-extinction of a ruling species like the dinosaurs triggered to a one-in-a-billion-days accident over which they had no control. They ruled the earth until that day and would have done so for a lot longer had that rock passed by a few hours earlier of later. But it didn't and thus at that point in time the dinosaurs suddenly became unfit.
You already had disks to run to and write on? Jeez, I guess it shows that my 3-digit slashdot ID is considerably lower than yours.:-) Back when I started, we had to use our brain. That good ol'technology did save us a lot of useless running, though...
A good night's sleep consists of a periodic succession of phases of more or less deep sleep on the one hand and REM sleep on the other. Each cycle lasts about 90 minutes, starts with a descent into a deep sleep phase and ends with a REM one. As the night progresses, the deep sleep phases progressively become shorter and less deep. Dreaming occurs during REM sleep, which another indicator that this is not a deep sleep phase.
You may or may not believe it, but due to (private) family reasons I do happen to know a reasonable bit about this topic. But you do not have to trust me. A simple google search will tell you the very same thing over and over again.
Indeed. A related trick that I found to be useful during my high school days went as follows: study some stuff during the day or evening, then take an evening break if at all possible, then reiterate over the material (just simply reading the text again, skipping all the obvious stuff, not trying to understand bits that so far escaped me, and covering no more than one topic per day), and then immediately go to sleep. Next morning I would remember/know/... a lot more about the material in question than when not using this technique. And often the bits I failed to understand the day before had become obvious as well.
While I was at the university, (student-)life intervened and so I neglected to use this technique. Until I found myself under some considerable pressure to study a large amount of material in a short amount of time, that is. Picking up that old habbit again really helped.
Indeed. Experiments have shown that both types of sleep are needed. During the deep sleep phases, the brain processes the facts of the previous day and classified the things you have learned, thereby making sure they will be remembered. During REM sleep, it makes new mental connections between things it already knows.
Or to put it very simplistically: the deep sleep phase makes you smarter, the REM phase sleep makes you wiser. Your brain needs both for you to function properly on the longer term.
He WAS an idiot. Even when ignoring all the rest of what his deranged mind produced, attacking the Soviets was pure madness right from the start. Do you really think a country that large can be conquered? Hell, the Germans barely reached the border of Moskow. And (his management of) Stalingrad proved it all very convincingly.
And what about declaring war on the US??? Complete lunacy.
Not yet. But I did visit Dresden. And as one of my other posts in this discussion shows, I'm fully aware of Coventry. More even so than you think, since I once upon a time read every bit of data about it that I could find: the what, the when, the how (detailed technical info on location finding techniques the Germans used in those days), etc., etc. In other words: I know my history.
I'm actually a convinced non-believer and fully agree that horrific crimes have been and are being commited in the name of that idea people call god (note: no capital!). And yet I helped to fund the rebuild and would/will do so again. The church in question was an architectural masterpiece, its ruins have for tens of years been a symbol of the attrocities of war, and its reconstruction (largely funded by people from outside Germany (and specificly including the city of Coventry and the son of one of the pilots that helped to destroy it), by the way) now is a symbol of reconciliation.
I'm not sure about which side actually made the mistake and don't know how to find the proper reference on the net, but the general idea is indeed true. Somebody (the Brits IIRC, but I could well be wrong) messed up and accidently bombed a civilian target. This caused the other side to retaliate and eventually caused Hitler to change strategy in the battle of Britain and order the bombing of London. Up till that point the Gremans had focussed on destroying the RAF in general and its airfields in particular. From their point of view, the latter was the right thing to do if they wanted to have any chance of winning but, as we all know, Hitler was an idiot (military and otherwise).
Of course, all that does not change the fact that Rotterdam was severely bombed by the Luftwaffe even before all of the above happened.
I'm not German. Actually, I was born and live in one of the countries overrun by the Germans in 1914 and 1940. My grandfather spent 4 years in the trenches fighting the Germans while the rest of my family suffered the German occupation. Twice, that is. And still I stick to my opinion of the Dresden bombing.
Quoting from one of the links in the post that you replied to:
RAF briefing notes indicate that one of the motives was to show "the
Russians when they arrive, what Bomber Command can do" (that is, to intimidate the Soviets).
Bombing Dresden in Feruary 1945 had nothing to do with shortening the war, nor with killing Germans that would otherwise kill us. It had everything to do with making sure post-war politics would work out in the advantage of the western allies. While the latter surely was a laudable goal in itself, Stalin being not much better than Hitler, destroying Dresden and its inhabitants/refugees just for that purpose most certainly was nothing but a war crime.
Hitler and the other fascists, including those ruling Japan, had to be stopped, at any cost. The cost of defeat was
unthinkable.
Dresden, generally considered to be one of Europe's most beautiful cities before it was totally destroyed in a single night and in addition not at all a military target, was bombed on February 13, 1945. By then, allied defeat itself was unthinkable and its cost no longer an issue. By then it was the cost of victory that was the issue. In my view, the destruction of Dresden was, and will forever remain, a war crime.
Please help funding the reconstruction of Dresden's worldfamous Frauenkirche.
Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha
on
2003: Year of Apache
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
While I have no hard data to judge the intranet server market, I do know that at the place where I work Apache is used (on UNIX, no less), even though the majority of computer users over here use Windows. And I would expect a lot of places where computers are more important to the core business model than just being a comunication and/or database entry device to be doing the same thing. The reason for this is double:
Historical: Even though most people use Windows, those that actually know about computing using UNIX (for us, this used to be HP-UX, now it mostly is Linux). It are the latter ones who more than likely started the intranet effort long before management knew what a network was (over here, I myself was involved in our first intranet look-alike long before the word reached the trade-press).
Technical/Economical: If you use Apache for your external site (as we do), than it bloody well makes sense to use it internally as well, instead of wasting time and money maintaining two knowledge skills.
The only trouble here is that parents don't upgrade because you do.
I'm still using a Dual P-166 at the moment. Yes, it's damn old and I'm very
seriously thinking of replacing it soon. But I will not be able to pass it on
to my father, simply because he's still using my previous box: a 386DX running
at 33MHz, from which he removed the 387 clone because he had no use
for something that advanced. He knows DOS inside out and back (assembly level
included) and can work real miracles with things like damaged FAT floppies, but
give him a machine that requires Windows or Linux for no other
reason than a lack of DOS drivers, and he's lost to no end. He'll turn 76 soon,
by the way, so I perfectly understand him not wanting to invest in learning a
"new" OS anymore. Not even the Windows 95 that I still have sitting in a dark and dusty corner of my harddisk (and never ever use, obviously).
Well, if they are not worried about him, they should he worried about me. I'm talking tens/hundreds of machines. Desktops mostly, but some pretty beefy servers as well. And one obstacle: a CIO who very much prefers Windows and who pefers us to buy proprietary UNIX over Linux if he really has no other option than going for something UNIX-like because SUN, HP, IBM,... do not let him down 6 months down the line like RedHat is doing now. All of the desktops that I mentioned currently run 7.2 and are scheduled for an upgrade to 9.x during the first quarter of 2004. Guess what is going to happen when he gets word of what RedHat is doing? Right. OK, so that's no direct financial loss to RedHat so far, but now guess what is going to happen to the servers?
If ever a post deserved to be moderated +6 Funny, this most definitively is THE one! It is absolutely mindboggingly briliant and had me ROFLMAO totally incapable of doing anything else for over 5 minutes.
Many, many, many thanks for a great end to a bad day!
My 15C dates back to 1983 and is still going strong. It's by far the very best calculator I ever owned and as things look now also the ONLY one that I will EVER use again until I drop off this planet, even if the latter takes 40 or 50 more years to happen.
I also couldn't agree more about xhpcalc. We have Linux desktops over where I work, but whenever I need a calculator I fire up a remote shell to an old HP-UX server and run an old xhpcalc binary that I saved into a corner of my personal directory tree as soon as I found out that HP was not shipping it anymore. Hell, this reason alone will keep me pushing for continued use of HP-UX servers for our heavy duty iron as long as we have a choice between several UNIX vendors for those machines.
HP, are you reading? People WANT this thing!
Bruce P., are you reading? A long time ago I asked here on/. that HP would open up the xhpcalc source, seeing as they had already decided to kill it anyway, and you replied that you'd look into the idea. Feel encouraged to try again!
Except, that at least in my case, the IP addresses say very little and in addition change all the time. I Google from 2 locations both of which do not give them a useful IP address: one uses a proxy for over 1500 people, the other is a dialup with dynamic IP. And I even use several different user agents (two at work and a third one at home). In addition, I do have a randomly generated cookie. It just so happens that it often will fail to match one in their database. But every now it will! Etc. etc.
To make a long story short: it's not because they can anyway find out the color of my eyes that I also have to tell them that I don't like spinach and have an interest in underwater space travel.
Except that each night I generate a new fake google cookie of my own with a random ID. I've been doing this for quite some time, because they also detect that I'm in a non-English speaking country and insist on showing me the local Google if I don't have their preferences cookie yet. And since I want to Google both in English and in privacy...
Whenever I want to have some horoscope fun, I read mine, map it onto real life if at all possible, and then go on to read the ones of the other people involved in that mapping. Big fun is almost guaranteed.
It worked out well particularly well this time, since these are all geek oriented, I work with nothing but geeks, and my horoscope actually happens to fit onto my current work situation extremely well (Of course that's largely because I'm doing the mapping and kind of "want" to make it fit, even in case I'm looking for evidence that it doesn't! Simple human psychology, that is.). Anyway, none of the others that I checked fit even remotely with what's going on here at the moment. Surprise...
Of course competence does not only occur at lhe lowest level. That is my entire point! The one that invalidates the original poster's claim that all bosses are idiots.
While I would not ever dare to doubt the Peter Principle (I've seen it happen with my own eyes a few times already), I must say that your logic for deciding that all bosses are idiots is flawed. If we rely only on the Peter Principle to explain things, before being promoted for the last time (i.e. to his/her level of incompetence), someone who gets promoted at least once will at sometime definitely have served in a position for which he or she was competent. If that condition were to occur at the lowest hierarchical level only, no hierarchy would have more than 2 levels, which is known not to be the case. Ergo: either the Peter Principle does explain everything, in which case your logic is flawed as concluded above, or it doesn't, in which case it flawed in a different way.
There's more to the time-spent-on-spam comparison than what you wrote. If you filter all the spam and quickly check it once a day or once a week, you only look at it whenever you "want" to: i.e. probably during a dead moment inbetween meetings or some such. But if you let it get into your inbox, whatever you're doing may needlessly get interrupted every so many minutes/hours. After all, each e-mail that reaches your inbox might (for instance) be that one important reply you're waiting for and have to process asap...
You are confusing the text of the GPL and the act of granting a license. The former is just a reusable license granting document template, not an actual grant of license. An actual license is only granted when both of the following occur: 1) the copyright holder makes his/her work available under whatever conditions (s)he sees fit; 2) the other party agrees to those terms. The actual license is the agreement between the two parties, NOT the document that describes the licensing rules. That is why it's called "granting a license".
Therefore, if I grant SCO a license to use my code under the conditions of the GPL, not only can the FSF not revoke it, but also SCO can NOT loose it by whatever nastyness they do to the Samba code. Their license to use my code remains, because that only involves them and me as parties, NOT the Samba team. This remains true independent of the fact that I did not pay a lawyer to write my own license document and instead like so many others decided to reuse the one the FSF created and kindly made available for exactly that purpose. If I were to sue SCO for violating their license on my code with their use of (for instance) the Samba code as my only argument, I would immediately get thrown out of court.
Slashdot Mirror
That merely means that in times of war in the kind of society where this pattern occurs and wars are fought at fronts instead of globally, the ones unfit to go to the front are the fittest as far as overall survival is concerned. That is, in fact, nothing new. Being fittest should in no way be seen as "being in excellent physical condition", but as "being best adapted to the circumstances at hand".
Survival of the fittest/strongest also is a statistical thing, strongly influenced by the circumstances and luck. The accidental death of an individual that many would consider very fit does not disclaim the theory. Neither does the mass-extinction of a ruling species like the dinosaurs triggered to a one-in-a-billion-days accident over which they had no control. They ruled the earth until that day and would have done so for a lot longer had that rock passed by a few hours earlier of later. But it didn't and thus at that point in time the dinosaurs suddenly became unfit.
You already had disks to run to and write on? Jeez, I guess it shows that my 3-digit slashdot ID is considerably lower than yours. :-) Back when I started, we had to use our brain. That good ol'technology did save us a lot of useless running, though...
A good night's sleep consists of a periodic succession of phases of more or less deep sleep on the one hand and REM sleep on the other. Each cycle lasts about 90 minutes, starts with a descent into a deep sleep phase and ends with a REM one. As the night progresses, the deep sleep phases progressively become shorter and less deep. Dreaming occurs during REM sleep, which another indicator that this is not a deep sleep phase.
You may or may not believe it, but due to (private) family reasons I do happen to know a reasonable bit about this topic. But you do not have to trust me. A simple google search will tell you the very same thing over and over again.
While I was at the university, (student-)life intervened and so I neglected to use this technique. Until I found myself under some considerable pressure to study a large amount of material in a short amount of time, that is. Picking up that old habbit again really helped.
Or to put it very simplistically: the deep sleep phase makes you smarter, the REM phase sleep makes you wiser. Your brain needs both for you to function properly on the longer term.
And what about declaring war on the US??? Complete lunacy.
Not yet. But I did visit Dresden. And as one of my other posts in this discussion shows, I'm fully aware of Coventry. More even so than you think, since I once upon a time read every bit of data about it that I could find: the what, the when, the how (detailed technical info on location finding techniques the Germans used in those days), etc., etc. In other words: I know my history.
I'm actually a convinced non-believer and fully agree that horrific crimes have been and are being commited in the name of that idea people call god (note: no capital!). And yet I helped to fund the rebuild and would/will do so again. The church in question was an architectural masterpiece, its ruins have for tens of years been a symbol of the attrocities of war, and its reconstruction (largely funded by people from outside Germany (and specificly including the city of Coventry and the son of one of the pilots that helped to destroy it), by the way) now is a symbol of reconciliation.
Of course, all that does not change the fact that Rotterdam was severely bombed by the Luftwaffe even before all of the above happened.
And let's not talk about the war in Iraq...
RAF briefing notes indicate that one of the motives was to show "the Russians when they arrive, what Bomber Command can do" (that is, to intimidate the Soviets).
Bombing Dresden in Feruary 1945 had nothing to do with shortening the war, nor with killing Germans that would otherwise kill us. It had everything to do with making sure post-war politics would work out in the advantage of the western allies. While the latter surely was a laudable goal in itself, Stalin being not much better than Hitler, destroying Dresden and its inhabitants/refugees just for that purpose most certainly was nothing but a war crime.
Dresden, generally considered to be one of Europe's most beautiful cities before it was totally destroyed in a single night and in addition not at all a military target, was bombed on February 13, 1945. By then, allied defeat itself was unthinkable and its cost no longer an issue. By then it was the cost of victory that was the issue. In my view, the destruction of Dresden was, and will forever remain, a war crime.
Please help funding the reconstruction of Dresden's worldfamous Frauenkirche.
Historical: Even though most people use Windows, those that actually know about computing using UNIX (for us, this used to be HP-UX, now it mostly is Linux). It are the latter ones who more than likely started the intranet effort long before management knew what a network was (over here, I myself was involved in our first intranet look-alike long before the word reached the trade-press).
Technical/Economical: If you use Apache for your external site (as we do), than it bloody well makes sense to use it internally as well, instead of wasting time and money maintaining two knowledge skills.
The only trouble here is that parents don't upgrade because you do.
I'm still using a Dual P-166 at the moment. Yes, it's damn old and I'm very seriously thinking of replacing it soon. But I will not be able to pass it on to my father, simply because he's still using my previous box: a 386DX running at 33MHz, from which he removed the 387 clone because he had no use for something that advanced. He knows DOS inside out and back (assembly level included) and can work real miracles with things like damaged FAT floppies, but give him a machine that requires Windows or Linux for no other reason than a lack of DOS drivers, and he's lost to no end. He'll turn 76 soon, by the way, so I perfectly understand him not wanting to invest in learning a "new" OS anymore. Not even the Windows 95 that I still have sitting in a dark and dusty corner of my harddisk (and never ever use, obviously).
No I did not plan that. The original plan was summer 2003. The CIO in question caused the delay to occur, because "Linux is not a priority".
Well, if they are not worried about him, they should he worried about me. I'm talking tens/hundreds of machines. Desktops mostly, but some pretty beefy servers as well. And one obstacle: a CIO who very much prefers Windows and who pefers us to buy proprietary UNIX over Linux if he really has no other option than going for something UNIX-like because SUN, HP, IBM, ... do not let him down 6 months down the line like RedHat is doing now. All of the desktops that I mentioned currently run 7.2 and are scheduled for an upgrade to 9.x during the first quarter of 2004. Guess what is going to happen when he gets word of what RedHat is doing? Right. OK, so that's no direct financial loss to RedHat so far, but now guess what is going to happen to the servers?
If ever a post deserved to be moderated +6 Funny, this most definitively is THE one! It is absolutely mindboggingly briliant and had me ROFLMAO totally incapable of doing anything else for over 5 minutes.
Many, many, many thanks for a great end to a bad day!
My 15C dates back to 1983 and is still going strong. It's by far the very best calculator I ever owned and as things look now also the ONLY one that I will EVER use again until I drop off this planet, even if the latter takes 40 or 50 more years to happen.
/. that HP would open up the xhpcalc source, seeing as they had already decided to kill it anyway, and you replied that you'd look into the idea. Feel encouraged to try again!
I also couldn't agree more about xhpcalc. We have Linux desktops over where I work, but whenever I need a calculator I fire up a remote shell to an old HP-UX server and run an old xhpcalc binary that I saved into a corner of my personal directory tree as soon as I found out that HP was not shipping it anymore. Hell, this reason alone will keep me pushing for continued use of HP-UX servers for our heavy duty iron as long as we have a choice between several UNIX vendors for those machines.
HP, are you reading? People WANT this thing!
Bruce P., are you reading? A long time ago I asked here on
Except, that at least in my case, the IP addresses say very little and in addition change all the time. I Google from 2 locations both of which do not give them a useful IP address: one uses a proxy for over 1500 people, the other is a dialup with dynamic IP. And I even use several different user agents (two at work and a third one at home). In addition, I do have a randomly generated cookie. It just so happens that it often will fail to match one in their database. But every now it will! Etc. etc.
To make a long story short: it's not because they can anyway find out the color of my eyes that I also have to tell them that I don't like spinach and have an interest in underwater space travel.
Except that each night I generate a new fake google cookie of my own with a random ID. I've been doing this for quite some time, because they also detect that I'm in a non-English speaking country and insist on showing me the local Google if I don't have their preferences cookie yet. And since I want to Google both in English and in privacy...
It worked out well particularly well this time, since these are all geek oriented, I work with nothing but geeks, and my horoscope actually happens to fit onto my current work situation extremely well (Of course that's largely because I'm doing the mapping and kind of "want" to make it fit, even in case I'm looking for evidence that it doesn't! Simple human psychology, that is.). Anyway, none of the others that I checked fit even remotely with what's going on here at the moment. Surprise...
Of course competence does not only occur at lhe lowest level. That is my entire point! The one that invalidates the original poster's claim that all bosses are idiots.
While I would not ever dare to doubt the Peter Principle (I've seen it happen with my own eyes a few times already), I must say that your logic for deciding that all bosses are idiots is flawed. If we rely only on the Peter Principle to explain things, before being promoted for the last time (i.e. to his/her level of incompetence), someone who gets promoted at least once will at sometime definitely have served in a position for which he or she was competent. If that condition were to occur at the lowest hierarchical level only, no hierarchy would have more than 2 levels, which is known not to be the case. Ergo: either the Peter Principle does explain everything, in which case your logic is flawed as concluded above, or it doesn't, in which case it flawed in a different way.
There's more to the time-spent-on-spam comparison than what you wrote. If you filter all the spam and quickly check it once a day or once a week, you only look at it whenever you "want" to: i.e. probably during a dead moment inbetween meetings or some such. But if you let it get into your inbox, whatever you're doing may needlessly get interrupted every so many minutes/hours. After all, each e-mail that reaches your inbox might (for instance) be that one important reply you're waiting for and have to process asap...
You are confusing the text of the GPL and the act of granting a license. The former is just a reusable license granting document template, not an actual grant of license. An actual license is only granted when both of the following occur: 1) the copyright holder makes his/her work available under whatever conditions (s)he sees fit; 2) the other party agrees to those terms. The actual license is the agreement between the two parties, NOT the document that describes the licensing rules. That is why it's called "granting a license".
Therefore, if I grant SCO a license to use my code under the conditions of the GPL, not only can the FSF not revoke it, but also SCO can NOT loose it by whatever nastyness they do to the Samba code. Their license to use my code remains, because that only involves them and me as parties, NOT the Samba team. This remains true independent of the fact that I did not pay a lawyer to write my own license document and instead like so many others decided to reuse the one the FSF created and kindly made available for exactly that purpose. If I were to sue SCO for violating their license on my code with their use of (for instance) the Samba code as my only argument, I would immediately get thrown out of court.