Besides, if you decide to flame Linux, at least know what you are talking about.
1) Mandrake, Slackware, RedHat, etc are not versions, but atonomous distributions.
2) The Mandrake distribution is specifiaclly compiled for a pentuim. Get Red Hat if you want to run it on a 386+.
3) There is no anti-virus software for Linux because there are no viruses (the concept of users and limited file access to a user prevents viruses from doing much harm).
4) Linux has an excellent firewall implementation called "iptables". Furthermore it's a stateful packet filter / NAT that does many things most firewalls can't.
5) IE is not a standard. It's a web browser.
The IETF NEVER encouraged the "adoption" of IE.
Standards are CSS, HTML, etc which the Mozilla, Netscape, Konqueror, Galeon, Nautilus web browsers all stick to.
6) As for the apps, you have many choices. Here are some of the MS counterparts:
I have often wondered if it would be technically feasible for a gnome->kde or kde->gnome translator in the source of the respective apps.
For instance I LOVE some gnome apps (such as gnumeric, evolution, galeon), however KDE is by far my desktop of choice.
How tough would it be to move a gnome app over to kde? I know there are some substantial differences (qt vs gtk, dcop vs cobra, etc) however could a translator be build to translate the source of one desktop app's use of an API to another dektop's API?
It would be so cool to have gnome apps use qt (and thus have all apps look and feel the same). . .
I'm not a high-lever programmer at all (device drivers are my suit) thus I do not know much on the subject of GUI programming.
BTW I have a feeling that gnome will be making some big strides after Sun gets the ball rolling
(hopefully HP will follow Tru64's pursuit in this also -- however I think HP may still try to milk CDE otherwise known as Dashboard for those who remember the failed Windows 3.1 program manager:))
It both fustrates and absolutely amuses me how computers are such a religion (myself included).
The ironic thing (and this is the proper use of ironic) is if M$ sued any of the upcoming "Windows clone" companies about "look and feel", the apple faiths would not be yelling about how M$ spent 'so much time and money' on developing the 'look and feel'. . .
This is a tough one from a legal standpoint, but from a marketing standpoint that was pretty stupid of Apple. No GUI-orinted mac person would ever drop a mac because *nix graphics looked like it, however there are MANY *nix users who love to have toys and a bright, shiny desktop that they are told was 'inspired' my a mac would probably make them buy the mac as a new toy (Hell, I know of MANY people who bought OS X just because it has some UNIX in her heart).
If M$ copied aqua, apple would lose a lot, however in the *nix world I feel that they would ony gain.
BTW doesn't M$ own a good chunk of apple? I wonder what they would do if apple started to get a large market share. Usually they either copy the competition and beat them at their own game, or buy controlling stock and make the company choke themselves (like the kid in "Full Metal Jacket"). . ..I'm betting on the latter (after which TrollTech would probably release OS X QT and we would have the heart of the desktop anyway). . .
I'm on the conspiracy theory side about M$. ..I'm waiting for the day that they have such a large market share that they create self-induced problems and break stuff so that they seem like "heros" when they come and "save the day". Although "Code Red" was probably not written by them, they did such a good job at saying "we saved the day" after that that I wouldn't put it by them at this point. . .
Good review. ..I agree that T'Pau is a 'moody bitch'. ..no one has yet to reproduce the stocism and pure logic of Spok, however I concede that Savok was damn good. I say drop this POA before her acting makes me puke and bring in Savok.
I don't need soft-porn to be entertained.
If they can get Archer's irrationality and stupidity to be balanced and interact smoothly with the vulcan's logic we could have a winner (like TOS). I think his stupidity and her bitchiness stood out because they did not work together well. ..which will either take time or kill the series.
Hmm. ..I agree with many of the people here. . .
this has a lot of potential and they'll need to do some character development and re-orging like in the last few series before it is comfortable.
The thing that I'm leary about is the vulcan chick. ..she fits the role well, however if she ever starts having 'human' feeling of affection (to boost ratings) we know that the series is going down. ..if she gets into a relationship we know it's toast. That 'rub down' scene was a little daring for the first show. Case and point:
1) Original Trek there was alien ass but no "love".
2) Next Gen ended when Wharf and Troy started their 'relationship'.
3) Voyager added 9 for some T+A ratings which was good, however as soon as she started having 'human' feeling it ended.
4) DS9 went severly down hill after the Kira and Odo thing.
"Love" is always a sign that the Trek producers are hurting and attempting to appeal to a wider audience. Imagine if the original Trek got to the point that Ohura (sp?) and Kirk had a "relationsip"? That would have been plain ass lame.
If they just keep her attractiveness at POA status and don't do anything with it we're cool. ..I have a feeling that they're going to try rating-boosting stuff too early, though:(.
Good question. ..there are no techie Unions are there? Perhaps programmers are too anti-social to get together, drink beer, have a good time and occasionally collectively demand somthing from the employers when things go awry. . .
Hmm. ..the spammers and flamers only come out at night. . . .
One more reason to lock my doors at night:).
It's rather amusing to see this. ..it's like children when the parents aren't looking. . .
Here's my spam for the night (while no one is moderating): Go Red Sox!
This is predictable and is transient.
on
Morals and Layoffs
·
· Score: 1
I keep saying over and over again that this 'internet' or 'information' revolution very heavily mirrors the industrial revolution. Read up on the industrial revolution and macroeconomics and you will see that this corporate behavior is almost blatantly predictable (I've been saying it for about three years now).
It's not the corporations that are to blame, but the econimic cycles that occur when a heap of new technology is invented. The corporations are just responding to the massive undulations of the economy. This is capitalism in a rarer form.
Basically when new technology is invented (such as the mills of the industrial revolution or the internet in our case), government and the general public do not understand the technology nor how to regulate it thus they take a lassiez-faire (let do) approach -- very little regulation. Corporations get bigger, government gets smaller, money starts to flow rapidly and people are happy about it. Governments attribute the growth to their 'small government' policies and the public agrees. The economy slowly moves from a more socialistic model to more and more capitalistic.
It all gets to almost to fanatical proportions to the point that the growth can no longer support itself and it collapses. The new 'smaller' government is no longer strong enough to prop the economy back up (such as they did after the Great Depression) and they attribute it to the fact that they're too big and try to make themselves smaller (under the guidance of the new, massive and powerful corporations).
Thus, the next peak of the undulation is even larger (because the fanaticism and what corporations are allowed to do is even less checked), profits are higher, there are more jobs and people are happier. . . until the next fall of the undulation which is a LOT worse then the last and tougher to get out of. . ..and the self-feeding cycle continues. . .
Pure capitalism fosters amazing innovation and huge profits overall, but pure capitalism tends to fluxuate VERY heavily from rags to riches over and over again. A more socialistic model does not foster as much innovation and profits, but has less undulations and leaves for a more steady life. Pure capitalism also fosters a class-divide where the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer, while a more socialistic approach leaves for a more even divide and a middle class.
This can be seen when you compare the US to more socialistic countries such as the UK -- they didn't get as rich as us when the 'going was good', however they're not going to be as poor as us when 'the going gets bad'.
I could go on for hours on this, but I'll quit here. Read up on the industrial revolution -- the similarities are amazing. The Bill Gates of today was like the Rockerfellas of yesterday; AOL-Time-Warner-Netscape of today is like the Carnegie Steel of yesterday. THE MASSIVE FLUCTUATIONS OF THE ECONOMY TODAY ARE LIKE THE MASSIVE FLUCTUATIONS OF THE ECONOMY IN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION -- and corporations are just reacting to it.
It was the massive fluctuations, the divide between the rich and the poor and the seeming corporate infidelity that Karl Marx proposed Communism -- we have since seen that Communism does not work (leads to an almost tyranny), and we have learned from the industrial revolution that pure capitalism does not work.
A socialistic/capitalistc mix is the best scenario (such as we have had in the past), however as more and more new technology is introduced, the government and the general public do not understand it, go for a 'lassiez-faire' approach, and the economy gets more capitalistic and then we FEEL the repercusions of it in the economic lulls of the capitalistic undulations.
The solution, as indirect as it seems, is to educate the government and the public on technology and discourage the lassiez-faire approach. Otherwise, as seen in the past, the undulations will get worse and worse, peaks higher and lower, the divide between the rich and poor steeper until th general public can not stand it any more and either suddenly become ultra-liberal or we get another Karl Marx.
It amazes me -- politics and economics never seem to take the middle-road (which has proven to be the best) -- they always seem to swing between faiths and cause havoc for us all (the pendulum theory). . .
Excellent. I'm happy that all is resolved and everyone involved is happy. I'm saddened, however that this turned out to be such a hoopla after-the-fact. I hope that this does not deter the ambitions of either party involved to continue wrtiting open-source software -- which I truly appreciate!
As a former USB 1.x developer, OHCI vs UHCI has nothing to do with the compatabilty of end devices. A keyboard will work the same for both implementations.
The difference lies in how the chip handles the USB "packets" in reagrds to DMA. OCHI slapps the "packets" into memory in a different fashion then the UHCI controllers -- much like different ethernet cards handle DMA differently. The main difference is in parsing the data streams.
BTW UHCI is the "intel" implementation, and ohci was the implementation of a consortium led by Compaq.
OHCI vs UHCI is much like the DEC 21143 vs the 3com 3c905b for ethernet -- both work with any other ethernet device and the fact that there is more then one ethernet card out there has not doomed ethernet. Same with USB.
3.2Gb/s sounds nice. ..it translates to about 400MB/s. ..but with a 32-bit 33Mhz PCI bus that would be restricted to AT MOST 133MB/s.
Everyone seems focused on reducing the memory, CPU or peripherial bottlenecks, however the biggest bottleneck I keep running accross is the PCI bus -- especially with storage.
I wish more vendors (especially PC mobo makers) would embrace a faster bus such as 64-bit 66Mhz PCI (which would kick it up to 532MB/s and be able to handle 1394b). Sun and DEC have been using it for years, however since mobo makers don't like it there aren't many cards for it.
I find it ironic that wires outside of the box are now faster then those hard-wired on the mobo:(.
We're unfortunately all guilty in the terrorist game which makes this 100x more complex then it looks on the surface.
Ironically, most of the recent people that the US has had problems with are their own monsters that they helped create:
1) When the US had a beef with Iran and the Iatola (sp?), they supported Sadaam Husseien -- which after Iran settled down he became an issue for the US.
2) Milosovec was seen as the strongest leader in the Balkans and the US supported him because they felt that he could possibly bring stability to the area (even if it wasn't perfect). That backfired when he decided to kill off all the Serbs.
3) When the USSR was waging war in Afghanistan, the US supported 'miltant' groups there to help fight the Soviets. After the Soviets left, Bin Laden gained much popularity as being a key player in them leaving. Once again, this back-fired on the US because undoubtedly some of those miltant groups are under Bin Laden now.
This is such a mess and it's going to get worse and worse. Who are the terrorists? That's subjective depending upon the side that you're on.
When the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan, those militant groups were not viewed as terrorists to the US, however I'm sure they were by the Soviets.
By today's standards the "Boston Tea Party" was a terrorist attack upon the English Empire -- from the other side it was a liberation from an oppressive government.
The stuff that happened in NYC is horrible and needs to be 'fixed'; however holding governments responsible for terrorist groups is so subjective it makes my head spin:(.
Kudos to the slashdot team for keeping the website up under such an extreme load. I got my first messages about the WTC from here and the BBC when all other sites were down.
Reading over your explanation and seeing things in the past, I wonder why web accelerators aren't used more often. ..there are many positive benefits for extreme-load situations with only a small delay penalty for cache misses. . .
1) You can define dynamically in the
web-accelerator what you would like for
static and dynamic content (aka the
web-accelerator serves "static" pages from the cache).
2) The web accelerator takes a lot of load off of your web servers
3) web accelerators ease administration
4) web accelerators can take the place of your
"Local Director" or whatever you use for load-
balancing.
5) web accelerators can be set up in tandem or
accross the web to load-balance locally
or accross networks.
I've never served as many pages as./ does,
however under a lighter load "squid" performs
beautifully and I've seen no evidence that it
would not work as well under./ loads (of course,
with a lot of tweaking:)).
You're right. ..I verified the stuff that you
mentioned. . . .
. ..and like I said in a previos post, I'm a member of the 267th Combat Communications Squadron of the Massachusetts Air National Guard and if there was a dire need for communications from the American Red Cross, we would be the ones to answer it. ..we would have been deployed down there long before any request on the web was made. . . .
It's very sad that people are scamming this tragic event. ..it's even worse that I have to now second-guess./ articles because they fail to verify the validity.
I have now made myself out to be a complete ass
by forwarding the request to my commanders:(.
I sent this e-mail to the red-cross, however I'm sure with the flood of e-mail they won't be able to get to it -- thus I post it here also.
BTW this also answers the questions that many/.s posted about what is done about communications during a disaster:
Hello,
I read your article that you need communications and computer equipment for your efforts.
I am a member of the 267th Combat Communications Squadron of the Massachusetts Air National Guard (http://www.267cbcs.org/) and we provide voice (telephone) and data (internet) services for the
military anywhere in the world.
Our squadron alone can support around a hundred voice and data customers, we are completely self-sufficient (our own trucks, shelters, generators, satellite links, food, etc.). We provide standard office like services (aka standard "princess" telephones and standard internet access) in non-standard scenarios anywhere in the world and train to do so within 36 hours.
I can not speak for the squadron (I am just an enlisted member), however if you contact the brass at the 253rd Combat Communications Group at Otis ANGB, Falmoth MA (our governing body), I'm sure that they will be willing and proud to offer our services as well as the services of all the rest of the Combat Communications Squadrons across the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux has nothing to do with rockets at all.
Besides, if you decide to flame Linux, at least know what you are talking about.
1) Mandrake, Slackware, RedHat, etc are not versions, but atonomous distributions.
2) The Mandrake distribution is specifiaclly compiled for a pentuim. Get Red Hat if you want to run it on a 386+.
3) There is no anti-virus software for Linux because there are no viruses (the concept of users and limited file access to a user prevents viruses from doing much harm).
4) Linux has an excellent firewall implementation called "iptables". Furthermore it's a stateful packet filter / NAT that does many things most firewalls can't.
5) IE is not a standard. It's a web browser.
The IETF NEVER encouraged the "adoption" of IE.
Standards are CSS, HTML, etc which the Mozilla, Netscape, Konqueror, Galeon, Nautilus web browsers all stick to.
6) As for the apps, you have many choices. Here are some of the MS counterparts:
IE: Mozilla, Netscape, Konqueror, Galeon, Nautilus
Outlook: Evolution, Kmail, Netscape Mail
Excel: Gnumeric, Kspread, OpenOffice
Word: Abiword, Kword, OpenOffice
Ignorant idiot!
Hell, NASCAR won't even allow their cars to surpass 1960's technology (carburators, no turbo, etc).
What makes anyone think Americans will embrace rocket racing if they can't even understand a fuel injector?
Hmm. .
ISDN = I Still Don't Know
LOL. . .better watch out. . .satan will then sue you for talking about circumventing under the DMCA :)
I have often wondered if it would be technically feasible for a gnome->kde or kde->gnome translator in the source of the respective apps.
For instance I LOVE some gnome apps (such as gnumeric, evolution, galeon), however KDE is by far my desktop of choice.
How tough would it be to move a gnome app over to kde? I know there are some substantial differences (qt vs gtk, dcop vs cobra, etc) however could a translator be build to translate the source of one desktop app's use of an API to another dektop's API?
It would be so cool to have gnome apps use qt (and thus have all apps look and feel the same). . .
I'm not a high-lever programmer at all (device drivers are my suit) thus I do not know much on the subject of GUI programming.
BTW I have a feeling that gnome will be making some big strides after Sun gets the ball rolling
(hopefully HP will follow Tru64's pursuit in this also -- however I think HP may still try to milk CDE otherwise known as Dashboard for those who remember the failed Windows 3.1 program manager
About six months ago PopSci had a good article on this task. . .they may have it on their web site by now (I'm too tired to kool right now. . .)
It both fustrates and absolutely amuses me how computers are such a religion (myself included).
.I'm betting on the latter (after which TrollTech would probably release OS X QT and we would have the heart of the desktop anyway). . .
.I'm waiting for the day that they have such a large market share that they create self-induced problems and break stuff so that they seem like "heros" when they come and "save the day". Although "Code Red" was probably not written by them, they did such a good job at saying "we saved the day" after that that I wouldn't put it by them at this point. . .
The ironic thing (and this is the proper use of ironic) is if M$ sued any of the upcoming "Windows clone" companies about "look and feel", the apple faiths would not be yelling about how M$ spent 'so much time and money' on developing the 'look and feel'. . .
This is a tough one from a legal standpoint, but from a marketing standpoint that was pretty stupid of Apple. No GUI-orinted mac person would ever drop a mac because *nix graphics looked like it, however there are MANY *nix users who love to have toys and a bright, shiny desktop that they are told was 'inspired' my a mac would probably make them buy the mac as a new toy (Hell, I know of MANY people who bought OS X just because it has some UNIX in her heart).
If M$ copied aqua, apple would lose a lot, however in the *nix world I feel that they would ony gain.
BTW doesn't M$ own a good chunk of apple? I wonder what they would do if apple started to get a large market share. Usually they either copy the competition and beat them at their own game, or buy controlling stock and make the company choke themselves (like the kid in "Full Metal Jacket"). . .
I'm on the conspiracy theory side about M$. .
Good review. . .I agree that T'Pau is a 'moody bitch'. . .no one has yet to reproduce the stocism and pure logic of Spok, however I concede that Savok was damn good. I say drop this POA before her acting makes me puke and bring in Savok.
.which will either take time or kill the series.
I don't need soft-porn to be entertained.
If they can get Archer's irrationality and stupidity to be balanced and interact smoothly with the vulcan's logic we could have a winner (like TOS). I think his stupidity and her bitchiness stood out because they did not work together well. .
Hmm. . .I agree with many of the people here. . .
.she fits the role well, however if she ever starts having 'human' feeling of affection (to boost ratings) we know that the series is going down. . .if she gets into a relationship we know it's toast. That 'rub down' scene was a little daring for the first show. Case and point:
.I have a feeling that they're going to try rating-boosting stuff too early, though :(.
this has a lot of potential and they'll need to do some character development and re-orging like in the last few series before it is comfortable.
The thing that I'm leary about is the vulcan chick. .
1) Original Trek there was alien ass but no "love".
2) Next Gen ended when Wharf and Troy started their 'relationship'.
3) Voyager added 9 for some T+A ratings which was good, however as soon as she started having 'human' feeling it ended.
4) DS9 went severly down hill after the Kira and Odo thing.
"Love" is always a sign that the Trek producers are hurting and attempting to appeal to a wider audience. Imagine if the original Trek got to the point that Ohura (sp?) and Kirk had a "relationsip"? That would have been plain ass lame.
If they just keep her attractiveness at POA status and don't do anything with it we're cool. .
Good question. . .there are no techie Unions are there? Perhaps programmers are too anti-social to get together, drink beer, have a good time and occasionally collectively demand somthing from the employers when things go awry. . .
Or perhaps we're too cheap to pay union dues. . .
Hmm. . .the spammers and flamers only come out at night. . . .
:).
.it's like children when the parents aren't looking. . .
One more reason to lock my doors at night
It's rather amusing to see this. .
Here's my spam for the night (while no one is moderating): Go Red Sox!
I keep saying over and over again that this 'internet' or 'information' revolution very heavily mirrors the industrial revolution. Read up on the industrial revolution and macroeconomics and you will see that this corporate behavior is almost blatantly predictable (I've been saying it for about three years now).
.and the self-feeding cycle continues. . .
It's not the corporations that are to blame, but the econimic cycles that occur when a heap of new technology is invented. The corporations are just responding to the massive undulations of the economy. This is capitalism in a rarer form.
Basically when new technology is invented (such as the mills of the industrial revolution or the internet in our case), government and the general public do not understand the technology nor how to regulate it thus they take a lassiez-faire (let do) approach -- very little regulation. Corporations get bigger, government gets smaller, money starts to flow rapidly and people are happy about it. Governments attribute the growth to their 'small government' policies and the public agrees. The economy slowly moves from a more socialistic model to more and more capitalistic.
It all gets to almost to fanatical proportions to the point that the growth can no longer support itself and it collapses. The new 'smaller' government is no longer strong enough to prop the economy back up (such as they did after the Great Depression) and they attribute it to the fact that they're too big and try to make themselves smaller (under the guidance of the new, massive and powerful corporations).
Thus, the next peak of the undulation is even larger (because the fanaticism and what corporations are allowed to do is even less checked), profits are higher, there are more jobs and people are happier. . . until the next fall of the undulation which is a LOT worse then the last and tougher to get out of. . .
Pure capitalism fosters amazing innovation and huge profits overall, but pure capitalism tends to fluxuate VERY heavily from rags to riches over and over again. A more socialistic model does not foster as much innovation and profits, but has less undulations and leaves for a more steady life. Pure capitalism also fosters a class-divide where the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer, while a more socialistic approach leaves for a more even divide and a middle class.
This can be seen when you compare the US to more socialistic countries such as the UK -- they didn't get as rich as us when the 'going was good', however they're not going to be as poor as us when 'the going gets bad'.
I could go on for hours on this, but I'll quit here. Read up on the industrial revolution -- the similarities are amazing. The Bill Gates of today was like the Rockerfellas of yesterday; AOL-Time-Warner-Netscape of today is like the Carnegie Steel of yesterday. THE MASSIVE FLUCTUATIONS OF THE ECONOMY TODAY ARE LIKE THE MASSIVE FLUCTUATIONS OF THE ECONOMY IN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION -- and corporations are just reacting to it.
It was the massive fluctuations, the divide between the rich and the poor and the seeming corporate infidelity that Karl Marx proposed Communism -- we have since seen that Communism does not work (leads to an almost tyranny), and we have learned from the industrial revolution that pure capitalism does not work.
A socialistic/capitalistc mix is the best scenario (such as we have had in the past), however as more and more new technology is introduced, the government and the general public do not understand it, go for a 'lassiez-faire' approach, and the economy gets more capitalistic and then we FEEL the repercusions of it in the economic lulls of the capitalistic undulations.
The solution, as indirect as it seems, is to educate the government and the public on technology and discourage the lassiez-faire approach. Otherwise, as seen in the past, the undulations will get worse and worse, peaks higher and lower, the divide between the rich and poor steeper until th general public can not stand it any more and either suddenly become ultra-liberal or we get another Karl Marx.
It amazes me -- politics and economics never seem to take the middle-road (which has proven to be the best) -- they always seem to swing between faiths and cause havoc for us all (the pendulum theory). . .
Excellent. I'm happy that all is resolved and everyone involved is happy. I'm saddened, however that this turned out to be such a hoopla after-the-fact. I hope that this does not deter the ambitions of either party involved to continue wrtiting open-source software -- which I truly appreciate!
As a former USB 1.x developer, OHCI vs UHCI has nothing to do with the compatabilty of end devices. A keyboard will work the same for both implementations.
The difference lies in how the chip handles the USB "packets" in reagrds to DMA. OCHI slapps the "packets" into memory in a different fashion then the UHCI controllers -- much like different ethernet cards handle DMA differently. The main difference is in parsing the data streams.
BTW UHCI is the "intel" implementation, and ohci was the implementation of a consortium led by Compaq.
OHCI vs UHCI is much like the DEC 21143 vs the 3com 3c905b for ethernet -- both work with any other ethernet device and the fact that there is more then one ethernet card out there has not doomed ethernet. Same with USB.
3.2Gb/s sounds nice. . .it translates to about 400MB/s. . .but with a 32-bit 33Mhz PCI bus that would be restricted to AT MOST 133MB/s.
:(.
Everyone seems focused on reducing the memory, CPU or peripherial bottlenecks, however the biggest bottleneck I keep running accross is the PCI bus -- especially with storage.
I wish more vendors (especially PC mobo makers) would embrace a faster bus such as 64-bit 66Mhz PCI (which would kick it up to 532MB/s and be able to handle 1394b). Sun and DEC have been using it for years, however since mobo makers don't like it there aren't many cards for it.
I find it ironic that wires outside of the box are now faster then those hard-wired on the mobo
We're unfortunately all guilty in the terrorist game which makes this 100x more complex then it looks on the surface.
:(.
Ironically, most of the recent people that the US has had problems with are their own monsters that they helped create:
1) When the US had a beef with Iran and the Iatola (sp?), they supported Sadaam Husseien -- which after Iran settled down he became an issue for the US.
2) Milosovec was seen as the strongest leader in the Balkans and the US supported him because they felt that he could possibly bring stability to the area (even if it wasn't perfect). That backfired when he decided to kill off all the Serbs.
3) When the USSR was waging war in Afghanistan, the US supported 'miltant' groups there to help fight the Soviets. After the Soviets left, Bin Laden gained much popularity as being a key player in them leaving. Once again, this back-fired on the US because undoubtedly some of those miltant groups are under Bin Laden now.
This is such a mess and it's going to get worse and worse. Who are the terrorists? That's subjective depending upon the side that you're on.
When the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan, those militant groups were not viewed as terrorists to the US, however I'm sure they were by the Soviets.
By today's standards the "Boston Tea Party" was a terrorist attack upon the English Empire -- from the other side it was a liberation from an oppressive government.
The stuff that happened in NYC is horrible and needs to be 'fixed'; however holding governments responsible for terrorist groups is so subjective it makes my head spin
Kudos to the slashdot team for keeping the website up under such an extreme load. I got my first messages about the WTC from here and the BBC when all other sites were down.
.there are many positive benefits for extreme-load situations with only a small delay penalty for cache misses. . .
./ does,
./ loads (of course,
:)).
Reading over your explanation and seeing things in the past, I wonder why web accelerators aren't used more often. .
1) You can define dynamically in the
web-accelerator what you would like for
static and dynamic content (aka the
web-accelerator serves "static" pages from the cache).
2) The web accelerator takes a lot of load off of your web servers
3) web accelerators ease administration
4) web accelerators can take the place of your
"Local Director" or whatever you use for load-
balancing.
5) web accelerators can be set up in tandem or
accross the web to load-balance locally
or accross networks.
I've never served as many pages as
however under a lighter load "squid" performs
beautifully and I've seen no evidence that it
would not work as well under
with a lot of tweaking
You're right. . .I verified the stuff that you
.and like I said in a previos post, I'm a member of the 267th Combat Communications Squadron of the Massachusetts Air National Guard and if there was a dire need for communications from the American Red Cross, we would be the ones to answer it. . .we would have been deployed down there long before any request on the web was made. . . .
.it's even worse that I have to now second-guess ./ articles because they fail to verify the validity.
:(.
mentioned. . . .
. .
It's very sad that people are scamming this tragic event. .
I have now made myself out to be a complete ass
by forwarding the request to my commanders
I sent this e-mail to the red-cross, however I'm sure with the flood of e-mail they won't be able to get to it -- thus I post it here also.
/.s posted about what is done about communications during a disaster:
BTW this also answers the questions that many
Hello,
I read your article that you need communications and computer equipment for your efforts.
I am a member of the 267th Combat Communications Squadron of the Massachusetts Air National Guard (http://www.267cbcs.org/) and we provide voice (telephone) and data (internet) services for the
military anywhere in the world.
Our squadron alone can support around a hundred voice and data customers, we are completely self-sufficient (our own trucks, shelters, generators, satellite links, food, etc.). We provide standard office like services (aka standard "princess" telephones and standard internet access) in non-standard scenarios anywhere in the world and train to do so within 36 hours.
I can not speak for the squadron (I am just an enlisted member), however if you contact the brass at the 253rd Combat Communications Group at Otis ANGB, Falmoth MA (our governing body), I'm sure that they will be willing and proud to offer our services as well as the services of all the rest of the Combat Communications Squadrons across the country.
Sincerely,
Chris Gleba.