Because we're supposed to be a REPUBLIC of STATES, not a single entity. State lines are more than marks on paper - they delineate between entities that have choosen to band together under a common flag. There's nothing, aside from the Constitution (for as much as anyone pays attention anymore), that says that any one state has to do anything like the others.
(Ok, spare me the rhetoric about how we're no longer a republic, direct election of senators, yadda yadda yadda)
The only difference is that one has a 1 in 100 chance of failing, which isn't good odds in anyones book, anti-MS fud or not.
I'm not sure what you classify as good odds, then. If I'm in Vegas, and a random game X has less than a 1% house edge (the odds you describe), guess where I'm placing *my* bets?
The ban on sexual content was left alone because it wasn't challenged. The industry knew it would be more difficult to challenge the sexual content ban, so they didn't - lest they lose both challenges.
I'm fairly certain he means PS1. Sony is still selling enough PS2 units that they wouldn't want to intentionally create competition. The PS1, on the other hand, is old enough that licensing the technology would bring Sony some additional cash, while giving the DVD player manufacturer a way to add value (oops... that's almost a buzz word!) to their product and appeal to a wider audience.
Of course, there's several lists (each of which costs you $2-3 to get onto), and the exclusions are enough to make it basically worthless.
From the site where you can sign up (www.texasnocall.com) :
ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES FOR TELEMARKETERS?
Yes. Telemarketers may contact customers:
* with whom they have an established business relationship;
* if the customer requests contact;
* to collect a debt;
* on behalf of a non-profit organization or charity, or
* if the telemarketer is a state licensee (for example - insurance or real estate agent, etc.) and:
* the call is not made by an automated device;
* the solicited transaction is not completed without a face-to-face presentation to complete a sales transaction and make payment;
* the consumer has not previously told the licensee that the consumer does not wished to be called.
After reading all these comments, am I the only one who recognizes the absurdity of searching for TECHNICAL meaning in a POLITICIAN's decision?
There are arguments about how the equipment is in use in those countries anyway, how clusters of "legal" systems can outpower the "illegal" ones, how plenty of dastardly deeds can be done with my TRS-80, etc, etc.
What we have here is a political decision, made by a politician, on the advice and recommendation of other [aspiring] politicians about a technical subject they know nothing about.
If you're looking for deeper meaning behind this decision - you'll find none.
If you're just looking for an excuse to bitch about politicians, doesn't that get old?
If you're looking to impress the world at large with your technical understanding of the subject, and point out the obvious flaws in the politician's point of view... taking candy from a baby becomes the obvious parallel.
I guess I don't see the point of the argument. We've proven over and over again that [most] politicians don't understand the technical issues they make decisions about, but bitching on/. won't change that. If you really care, write your representatives (from the state level on up) and volunteer your technical expertise. Write papers on the subjects that concern you. Publish them. Make your voice heard, instead of shouting into the abyss about the lack of technical knowledge at the higher levels of our government.
Having worked for a hard drive manufacturer, I can tell you that this almost certainly will *not* work.
When a hard drive manufacturer sells drives to an OEM (like Dell, or Gateway, or your set-top box maker), they're sold as OEM drives with no end-user warranty.
Since we're usually talking about hundreds of thousands of drives, the drive manufacturer plans for a certain number of failures based on recorded failure data, and provides an additional number of drives in the same contract cost. Let's say the order is for 100,000 drives, and the expected failure rate is 2%. The drive manufacturer would supply 102,000 drives under the contract, obviating the need to provide warranty service. Any failed drives would be replaced by the equipment manufacturer, out of the stock of spares.
That's probably a bit harsh. You're probably right, but...
He didn't say that he had no idea where to start, nor did he say that this was his only source of information on the issue.
Having done security work in the past, I'd often solicit the advice of other security experts (ok, so maybe Slashdot isn't the place to ask) to see what directions they'd go.
If I prefaced my questions with what *I* thought was important or the Right Way (tm), that could color the thought processes of my resource(s). By keeping my ideas to myself (at least early in the process), I could get their objective opinion, perhaps with ideas that I'd not previously considered.
ever expanding geeks.... you sign up with service where you give them your calorie consumption habits, and they slowly expand your jeans to keep a perfect fit...
That's just my point -- we aren't running multi-terabyte databases. We have no need for the horsepower that RS/6000 provides -- so why put up an OS that is a thorn in our side?
A valid point, indeed. Unless, of course you're *also* running multi-terabyte databases, need the horsepower, and don't want to have a mixed-OS shop for your other, smaller applications.
That is true, the vast majority of people bashing AIX haven't used it -- much like most Linux-bashers have never used Linux, and most NT-bashers can't afford NT.:-)
Wait... we're supposed to pay for NT?:-O
...but there are some aspects of AIX that differ so much from standard UNIX fare that I can't imagine what could have possibly prompted their development.
Getting a bit off topic, but out of curiousity... what aspects?
However, I have a real problem with Blue zealots who seem to think that AIX is without flaw
Zealots of any persuasion are generally unindicative of the true proponents - and are generally worth ignoring.
But you are clearly not one of these zealots, and I think we agree on most things: Linux isn't a replacement for UNIX, AIX is a good but different UNIX platform, and most AIX-bashers are morons.;-) Right?
Good summary.:)
No, I'm not a zealot. AIX does, however, provide me a nice comfortable living... it can't be all bad.:)
While the original post was 90% Troll, and my
guess is that he's never even seen a non-x86 UNIX box, he brings up a good point.
I find this to be the monkey-on-the-typewriter syndrome - through enough uneducated opinions out at the world, and at least one will eventually have some validity.
We have a "small" RS/6000 cluster here where I work ("small" as in only $900k), and ever since we switched platforms from Solaris, we've had nothing but problems. AIX is probably the most different of any of the certified UNIXes.
Absolutely. It *is* different. Why? Because IBM has *learned* something from the last 20 years, where Solaris really hasn't. Sure, there've been improvements, but Sun has tried to stay as much of a "pure" Unix as they can. IBM, right or wrong, throws a lot of that out the window to say - This is how we think it should be done. And in most cases, other OS compatibility aside, it works better than what it replaced.
IBM likes to take established practices and break them over its knees -- for instance, why the fuck does IBM's JDK make you run shell scripts in "$INSTALL/sh" in order to use the executables in "$INSTALL/bin?" Every other JDK on earth allows you to directly run "$INSTALL/bin/javac," but, no, IBM has to be different.
I don't think IBM does things differently just for the sake of being different - but in cases like this (of which there are MANY), IBM *does* need a sever beating with a clue stick.
The single biggest problem is that AIX is dead fucking last on most commercial software houses' list of platforms to port to, right after Amiga and Game Boy Advanced.
Ouch! But... not too far off base. In many cases, though, this is similar to the Mac vs. M$ debate... how many word processors do you need? How many web servers? Admittedly, things like Oracle and the various app servers out there are more critical, but the point is the same. There are enough AIX boxes out there, and enough business, that the important stuff *does* eventually get ported. No, AIX isn't the answer for every app... nor is Solaris, Linux, MS, MacOS, etc either.
As much as I hate to recommend GNU/Linux for enterprise computing, I'd much rather run Linux on these suckers than AIX.
Without questioning your judgement *or* experience (ok, maybe just a little), I would love to see a multi-terabyte database system running on Linux, with easily reconfigurable disk subsystems, etc, with fast and easily available support.
Again, no offense, but AIX is a very powerful, very stable OS. It is, as you've pointed out, non-standard (even for POSIX and SYSV) and difficult to administer for untrained admins. Put your average Solaris admin on an AIX box, and he'll be lost. There's LOTS of stuff that's different and very proprietary. But... most of that "stuff" is what makes AIX so valuable as an enterprise class OS.
The fact is that these days, unless you're a mission-critical type of shop, x86 hardware kicks ass.
Bingo! Am I going to lay my professional reputation on x86 hardware and Linux for mission critical apps? Not yet. There's the old saying, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." Well... except maybe Sun employees.:)
Well, that was quite the rant, wasn't it? Seriously, most people who bash AIX have never used it - and those who have used it, usually came from another Un*x and are pissed because things are "different". Not worse, just different. Mission critical app? Give me AIX over Solaris or HP anyday. Budget constraints? I'm going with the x86 stuff and Linux.
At least, that's what some of the media says. I, however, take a slightly more grounded view.
Personally, I support this decision strongly - regardless of my personal views on the subject (of which I'm sure you're just dying to hear, right? Hello?)
It's in the President's best interest to appeal to as many groups as possible... after all, he does want to get re-elected (we assume).
I think this decision appeals to the largest possible group of Americans... including those who don't necessarily support it. The absolute conservatives will (and have) denounce this as a moral travesty, while the pro-research groups will lament the limited viability of the exisiting stem cell lines (claimed to be anywhere from 10 to 80, depending on who you ask).
What some people are forgetting is that no laws have been passed restricting the research - all that has been done is that FEDERAL funds have been restricted to a subset of the research. Private organizations are welcome to fund any type of research they want.
The pro-research groups need to realize that they're getting funding for a controversial line of research, and are welcome to do whatever research they'd like with private funds.
The pro-life groups need to realize that regardless of their feelings on the method of obtaining the existing stem cell lines, they *do* exist - abandoning them will not repair the moral injustice they feel has been done. The new guidlines on federal funding acts to represent their views by not supporting the destruction of human embryos (or "pre-embryos").
Frankly, I think Mr. Bush has dodged a major bullet here. Important research will continue with the federal government's assistance, and major moral questions will remain at least partially unchallenged.
Slashdot Mirror
Because we're supposed to be a REPUBLIC of STATES, not a single entity. State lines are more than marks on paper - they delineate between entities that have choosen to band together under a common flag. There's nothing, aside from the Constitution (for as much as anyone pays attention anymore), that says that any one state has to do anything like the others.
(Ok, spare me the rhetoric about how we're no longer a republic, direct election of senators, yadda yadda yadda)
I'm not sure what you classify as good odds, then. If I'm in Vegas, and a random game X has less than a 1% house edge (the odds you describe), guess where I'm placing *my* bets?
Artichoke.
So what's you're point, AC?
The ban on sexual content was left alone because it wasn't challenged. The industry knew it would be more difficult to challenge the sexual content ban, so they didn't - lest they lose both challenges.
Yeah, there is that. :) Doh.
I'm fairly certain he means PS1. Sony is still selling enough PS2 units that they wouldn't want to intentionally create competition. The PS1, on the other hand, is old enough that licensing the technology would bring Sony some additional cash, while giving the DVD player manufacturer a way to add value (oops... that's almost a buzz word!) to their product and appeal to a wider audience.
Of course, there's several lists (each of which costs you $2-3 to get onto), and the exclusions are enough to make it basically worthless.
From the site where you can sign up (www.texasnocall.com) :
ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES FOR TELEMARKETERS?
Yes. Telemarketers may contact customers:
* with whom they have an established business relationship;
* if the customer requests contact;
* to collect a debt;
* on behalf of a non-profit organization or charity, or
* if the telemarketer is a state licensee (for example - insurance or real estate agent, etc.) and:
* the call is not made by an automated device;
* the solicited transaction is not completed without a face-to-face presentation to complete a sales transaction and make payment;
* the consumer has not previously told the licensee that the consumer does not wished to be called.
Oh well. It was a nice thought.
- Dave
After reading all these comments, am I the only one who recognizes the absurdity of searching for TECHNICAL meaning in a POLITICIAN's decision?
/. won't change that. If you really care, write your representatives (from the state level on up) and volunteer your technical expertise. Write papers on the subjects that concern you. Publish them. Make your voice heard, instead of shouting into the abyss about the lack of technical knowledge at the higher levels of our government.
There are arguments about how the equipment is in use in those countries anyway, how clusters of "legal" systems can outpower the "illegal" ones, how plenty of dastardly deeds can be done with my TRS-80, etc, etc.
What we have here is a political decision, made by a politician, on the advice and recommendation of other [aspiring] politicians about a technical subject they know nothing about.
If you're looking for deeper meaning behind this decision - you'll find none.
If you're just looking for an excuse to bitch about politicians, doesn't that get old?
If you're looking to impress the world at large with your technical understanding of the subject, and point out the obvious flaws in the politician's point of view... taking candy from a baby becomes the obvious parallel.
I guess I don't see the point of the argument. We've proven over and over again that [most] politicians don't understand the technical issues they make decisions about, but bitching on
Just my $.05 (inflation, you know.)
- Dave
Having worked for a hard drive manufacturer, I can tell you that this almost certainly will *not* work.
When a hard drive manufacturer sells drives to an OEM (like Dell, or Gateway, or your set-top box maker), they're sold as OEM drives with no end-user warranty.
Since we're usually talking about hundreds of thousands of drives, the drive manufacturer plans for a certain number of failures based on recorded failure data, and provides an additional number of drives in the same contract cost. Let's say the order is for 100,000 drives, and the expected failure rate is 2%. The drive manufacturer would supply 102,000 drives under the contract, obviating the need to provide warranty service. Any failed drives would be replaced by the equipment manufacturer, out of the stock of spares.
- Dave
That's probably a bit harsh. You're probably right, but...
He didn't say that he had no idea where to start, nor did he say that this was his only source of information on the issue.
Having done security work in the past, I'd often solicit the advice of other security experts (ok, so maybe Slashdot isn't the place to ask) to see what directions they'd go.
If I prefaced my questions with what *I* thought was important or the Right Way (tm), that could color the thought processes of my resource(s). By keeping my ideas to myself (at least early in the process), I could get their objective opinion, perhaps with ideas that I'd not previously considered.
Just my $.05 (inflation, you know).
- Dave
ever expanding geeks.... you sign up with service where you give them your calorie consumption habits, and they slowly expand your jeans to keep a perfect fit...
My views on this decision are just that - about the decision, not on the administration making it. When Clinton did it, it was a wise move too. Wise politically, just as it's wise polically for Bush. A politician who lies/lied? Someone alert the media!
No, I'm not a zealot. AIX does, however, provide me a nice comfortable living... it can't be all bad.
But how do I get the monitor? :)
And you would prefer what business class OS with an LVM, JFS, on-the-fly kernel reconfiguration, and fantastic (albeit expensive) support?
wonder how fast Quake will run?
(Can I get one of these instead of my desk at work? Just give me a monitor and big stool.)
At least, that's what some of the media says. I, however, take a slightly more grounded view.
Personally, I support this decision strongly - regardless of my personal views on the subject (of which I'm sure you're just dying to hear, right? Hello?)
It's in the President's best interest to appeal to as many groups as possible... after all, he does want to get re-elected (we assume).
I think this decision appeals to the largest possible group of Americans... including those who don't necessarily support it. The absolute conservatives will (and have) denounce this as a moral travesty, while the pro-research groups will lament the limited viability of the exisiting stem cell lines (claimed to be anywhere from 10 to 80, depending on who you ask).
What some people are forgetting is that no laws have been passed restricting the research - all that has been done is that FEDERAL funds have been restricted to a subset of the research. Private organizations are welcome to fund any type of research they want.
The pro-research groups need to realize that they're getting funding for a controversial line of research, and are welcome to do whatever research they'd like with private funds.
The pro-life groups need to realize that regardless of their feelings on the method of obtaining the existing stem cell lines, they *do* exist - abandoning them will not repair the moral injustice they feel has been done. The new guidlines on federal funding acts to represent their views by not supporting the destruction of human embryos (or "pre-embryos").
Frankly, I think Mr. Bush has dodged a major bullet here. Important research will continue with the federal government's assistance, and major moral questions will remain at least partially unchallenged.