That's what we did back in the early 90's, the library had one small VAX cluster for the card catalog and a 56K leased line to a local university that provided a freenet connection (CWRU, the first freenet actually) from there you could dump into a text browser and surf what there was of the internet.
It's BECAUSE they are government funded that they should not be into censorship. I am 100% behind personal censorship or parental censorship of their minor children's access, however I do not believe the government has any right or responsability to censor what adults view. Do I believe that pornography should be viewed in a public library, no, but at the same time I know for a fact that there is no filtering software in existance that solely filters based on pornographic content (and even if it did it would be imperfect, missing many sites and blocking many non-pornographic sites). Maybe I'm way to libertarian in my views (the government should provide defense, infrastructure, controll and monitoring of health and wellfare, and little else)
A FEW sites that get blocked that shouldn't be!?!? Anyone who has ever done any research into internet content filters knows that they have about a 30% sucessfull block rate for objectionable content and about as high of a false block rate for legitimate content. Basically every filter the American Library Assiciation looked at sucked horribly which is one of the prime motivators of this challenge, not only is the whole idea of censorship repugnant to most librarians, but they know for a fact that no filter out there works as advertised.
Any librarian I ever worked with would have, in fact so long as the site was not pornographic I don't think they would object to unblocking ANY site. Most librarians are extremely learned and free to any intelligent viewpoint or outlook. Now you may run across mrs. kermudgens once in a while but I think they are in the vast minority.
Actually unless you are running 2.5 you probably shouldn't turn on HT either. Since 2.4 has no idea about HT it just assumes it is running on a 4-way box and will distribute the load linearly across the 4 cpu's which may mean that the HT unit on CPU 0 gets loaded before physical cpu 1, not at all a good thing. With 2.5 the physical cpu's will be dispatched to first and only after they are at a certain threshold load will the HT units be employed.
It suprises me, two double pumped ALU's on a P4 should be able to beat the snot out of a P3 if the code is worth a darn. Sure the IPC is lower but if your code isn't trashing the data cache or constantly flushing the pipeline you should be able to get a lot out of the P4. Sure a P3 of the same speed would possibly beat the P4, but there is no such beast because it's a matter of tradeoffs.
It is basically impossible to get national exposure without the media companies. There are some Indie bands and DJ's that do it, but it generally takes years of blood, sweat, tears, and Raman noodle eating to do it. The chances of "making" it are pretty low even if you do get signed with label, let alone if you try to go indie. Funnily enough it's because there are a lot of talented people out there, if you want proof check out your local concert circuit for whatever music you are into, if it's anything like Cleveland's you can usually see several talented acts per weekend for about the same as the cover to a dance club.
I would postulate that a) It's not the artists, but rather the labels that are doing this because artists usually have little say after they sign their contract over how their music gets promoted or distributed. b) If they made albums that are worth a damn there should be enough tracks that poeple will buy to offset any potential decreased sales.
p.s. funny enough two of those artists (Madonna and Jewel) are some of the few with albums strong enough that they probably COULD sell a ton of singles.
Apple works with Indie labels, so start your own label, if you can meet whatever terms Apple has set to participate then you should be good. Hell some top artists could start a co-op label that could operate sort of like a limited partnership where the overhead of things like accountants, lawyers etc could be pooled and all of the profits could be funneled to those who produced them.
I believe Sadam's quote was that he would still be drinking Coke(TM) is 20 years. Basically if you were a top Bath party official you lived the life as elites do anywhere around the globe, if you were a middle class Iraqi you went from a fairly decent life to one of a third world subsistance existance. The problem is that this would have likely happened even without the embargo (probably to a lesser degree). Oil rich nations have some of the highest rates of destitute poverty of the developing or industrial world. Basically oil wealth is more of a curse then a great resource for the common people of those nations because it leads power hungry people to controll the resouce with an iron fist and enrich themselves and those who can keep them in power and enjoying the fruits of that "free" wealth.
I think he was refering to beta sites or tester, as in customers who are running pre-production code. In that case it depends on the relationship but most closed source shops do not share their beta code with their testers.
It's the combonation of the shitty economy and the price fixing by the music industry making cd's an expensive luxury that fewer people feel they can afford? I don't know about anyone else but anymore I listen to independant (and free) net radio and download indie mp3's (legally). I can get more than my fill of the pop flavor of the week listening to the radio every once in a while and get the rest of my music online.
IBM sold quite a few copies of AIX for x86 over the years. It would run on any compatible hardware and could be purchased seperatly from the hardware, of course most copies were bought as part of a bundle with IBM hardware but that doesn't negate the fact that they can and did sell copies without selling hardware. Solaris is an even better example because SUN sells quite a few copies of Solaris X86 that is not going to run on Sun hardware.
I think the fact that JFS and other subsystems can be so easily ported between systems proves that they are not dependant on and logically not derivitive works of UNIX. Is Veritas Volume Manager a derivitive of UNIX because it runs on several UNIX platforms? It also runs on Windows and other platforms.
You stand against an individuals right to self censorship? That's kind of weird. While I am 100% against government censorship I realize that the corporate media already censors almost everything arriving on my doorstep (thankfully with the exception of the internet) and that there are those out there who like to limit their own or their minor childrens exposure to things they dislike or disaprove of. I would object to this being sold as unedited content but as long as it is labeled as being changed and the choice to purchase it is the individuals then so be it. Btw almost all movies are already censored to some degree, remember that most movies are changed after production in order to get by the MPAA ratings board to fit into the niche that the studios are targeting (coincidently the horsetrading that goes on is often rediculous, "We''l take out 2 seconds of nipple shot if we can have 5 more curse words"). Also all history is revisionist history, any history scholar will say so, and often it is used in a positive sense not in the pejoritive sense that has become common thanks to hollocost deniers identifying themselves as historical revisionists.
Not on a DVD Consortium conforming player. There is a specific bit in the vob file that makes a scene unskippable and in order to get the shiny DVD logo you have to follow their rules. There are players with hidden features that allow you to skip these chapters, and most software players either include it as an option or can be easily modified to do it. Personally this is the #1 thing that pisses me off about DVD's.
From what I've seen most of IBM is behind Linux, with the exception of Lotus not having native clients for some things like Sametime (which they can release to customers, they have an internal build). I don't think IBM signed of for this one, they are just one little corner of this 1100 company strong industry group, chances are they didn't even have a clue about this, or if they did their objection was overruled by the other members (of course in that case they probably would have requested their name not be used in press releases)
Note: I work for IBM, but just for a small little corner of IT Services.
Actually MS has been running on server 2003 for about a year and hasn't had much trouble. Windows Server 2003 really is a pretty good platform, maybe not as slim as linux but still. Also the reason that Google beats everyone else is that they don't try to have a petabyte database, they break the data into 4GB chunks and cache it in ram on comodity rackmount boxes, they have thousands of these boxes at various datacenters around the globe so that results are returned by a machine close to the user. Also search.msn.com is pretty slim with only one large ad and some small graphics for the topbar.
What kind of beastly machine goes down because of a single bad cpu? Only Intel based machines and none of those are all that beastly anyways. Big Iron does not go down to a single cpu failure. Where clusters rule is when you can chunk datasets into the ram space of a cheap rackmount box (2-4GB) and you have low enough interprocess communications that using comodity ethernet won't totally pooch your performance. If you meet those two requirements then the incredibly low cost per MIPS of x86 hardware will make it basically a no-brainer to go with a cluster.
ABS is much better at braking then even the best driver. Car and Driver did several comparisons over the years and even professional race car drivers could not stop a vehicle faster than the ABS system could, and on top of that the ABS system will do it with near zero chance of brake lockup or steering fade from differing brake pressure (most good ABS systems will detect differences in braking force on different wheels and compensate so that the car tracks in the direction the wheels are pointing)
Vesa local bus was in fact a general bus, there were network cards, disk controllers, and other peripheral cards available for it. And the reason PCI-X isn't the next standard is Intel's Not Invented Here syndrome.
PC3200-512MB Non-ECC Generic-$66 Micron through Crucial.com (which is who they point to for consumer upgrades)-$90 If you want to pay ~40% more for your ram you are free to do so. Yeah it's better quality but if you aren't OC'ing anything that meets spec should be fine.
Hynix is NOT doing it more efficiently, they are selling below THEIR cost, they are losing money hand over fist, the only reason they aren't bankrupt is that the South Korean government won't let it happen. This is a remedy to an uneven playing field created by the South Korean government that is afraid to lose all of the jobs that Hynix represents. It's not like the American's are alone in this, the EC slapped a 37% tarrif on Hynix, almost exactly the same amount.
Micron is NOT inefficient, in fact they are one of the more healthy memory makers, it's just that they can't compete with a government propped business that dumps chips below production costs. The EU is not very happy about Hynix either so it's not just the American's protecting a weak company.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what we did back in the early 90's, the library had one small VAX cluster for the card catalog and a 56K leased line to a local university that provided a freenet connection (CWRU, the first freenet actually) from there you could dump into a text browser and surf what there was of the internet.
It's BECAUSE they are government funded that they should not be into censorship. I am 100% behind personal censorship or parental censorship of their minor children's access, however I do not believe the government has any right or responsability to censor what adults view. Do I believe that pornography should be viewed in a public library, no, but at the same time I know for a fact that there is no filtering software in existance that solely filters based on pornographic content (and even if it did it would be imperfect, missing many sites and blocking many non-pornographic sites). Maybe I'm way to libertarian in my views (the government should provide defense, infrastructure, controll and monitoring of health and wellfare, and little else)
A FEW sites that get blocked that shouldn't be!?!? Anyone who has ever done any research into internet content filters knows that they have about a 30% sucessfull block rate for objectionable content and about as high of a false block rate for legitimate content. Basically every filter the American Library Assiciation looked at sucked horribly which is one of the prime motivators of this challenge, not only is the whole idea of censorship repugnant to most librarians, but they know for a fact that no filter out there works as advertised.
Any librarian I ever worked with would have, in fact so long as the site was not pornographic I don't think they would object to unblocking ANY site. Most librarians are extremely learned and free to any intelligent viewpoint or outlook. Now you may run across mrs. kermudgens once in a while but I think they are in the vast minority.
Actually unless you are running 2.5 you probably shouldn't turn on HT either. Since 2.4 has no idea about HT it just assumes it is running on a 4-way box and will distribute the load linearly across the 4 cpu's which may mean that the HT unit on CPU 0 gets loaded before physical cpu 1, not at all a good thing. With 2.5 the physical cpu's will be dispatched to first and only after they are at a certain threshold load will the HT units be employed.
It suprises me, two double pumped ALU's on a P4 should be able to beat the snot out of a P3 if the code is worth a darn. Sure the IPC is lower but if your code isn't trashing the data cache or constantly flushing the pipeline you should be able to get a lot out of the P4. Sure a P3 of the same speed would possibly beat the P4, but there is no such beast because it's a matter of tradeoffs.
It is basically impossible to get national exposure without the media companies. There are some Indie bands and DJ's that do it, but it generally takes years of blood, sweat, tears, and Raman noodle eating to do it. The chances of "making" it are pretty low even if you do get signed with label, let alone if you try to go indie. Funnily enough it's because there are a lot of talented people out there, if you want proof check out your local concert circuit for whatever music you are into, if it's anything like Cleveland's you can usually see several talented acts per weekend for about the same as the cover to a dance club.
I would postulate that
a) It's not the artists, but rather the labels that are doing this because artists usually have little say after they sign their contract over how their music gets promoted or distributed.
b) If they made albums that are worth a damn there should be enough tracks that poeple will buy to offset any potential decreased sales.
p.s.
funny enough two of those artists (Madonna and Jewel) are some of the few with albums strong enough that they probably COULD sell a ton of singles.
Apple works with Indie labels, so start your own label, if you can meet whatever terms Apple has set to participate then you should be good. Hell some top artists could start a co-op label that could operate sort of like a limited partnership where the overhead of things like accountants, lawyers etc could be pooled and all of the profits could be funneled to those who produced them.
I believe Sadam's quote was that he would still be drinking Coke(TM) is 20 years. Basically if you were a top Bath party official you lived the life as elites do anywhere around the globe, if you were a middle class Iraqi you went from a fairly decent life to one of a third world subsistance existance. The problem is that this would have likely happened even without the embargo (probably to a lesser degree). Oil rich nations have some of the highest rates of destitute poverty of the developing or industrial world. Basically oil wealth is more of a curse then a great resource for the common people of those nations because it leads power hungry people to controll the resouce with an iron fist and enrich themselves and those who can keep them in power and enjoying the fruits of that "free" wealth.
I think he was refering to beta sites or tester, as in customers who are running pre-production code. In that case it depends on the relationship but most closed source shops do not share their beta code with their testers.
It's the combonation of the shitty economy and the price fixing by the music industry making cd's an expensive luxury that fewer people feel they can afford? I don't know about anyone else but anymore I listen to independant (and free) net radio and download indie mp3's (legally). I can get more than my fill of the pop flavor of the week listening to the radio every once in a while and get the rest of my music online.
IBM sold quite a few copies of AIX for x86 over the years. It would run on any compatible hardware and could be purchased seperatly from the hardware, of course most copies were bought as part of a bundle with IBM hardware but that doesn't negate the fact that they can and did sell copies without selling hardware. Solaris is an even better example because SUN sells quite a few copies of Solaris X86 that is not going to run on Sun hardware.
I think the fact that JFS and other subsystems can be so easily ported between systems proves that they are not dependant on and logically not derivitive works of UNIX. Is Veritas Volume Manager a derivitive of UNIX because it runs on several UNIX platforms? It also runs on Windows and other platforms.
You stand against an individuals right to self censorship? That's kind of weird. While I am 100% against government censorship I realize that the corporate media already censors almost everything arriving on my doorstep (thankfully with the exception of the internet) and that there are those out there who like to limit their own or their minor childrens exposure to things they dislike or disaprove of. I would object to this being sold as unedited content but as long as it is labeled as being changed and the choice to purchase it is the individuals then so be it. Btw almost all movies are already censored to some degree, remember that most movies are changed after production in order to get by the MPAA ratings board to fit into the niche that the studios are targeting (coincidently the horsetrading that goes on is often rediculous, "We''l take out 2 seconds of nipple shot if we can have 5 more curse words"). Also all history is revisionist history, any history scholar will say so, and often it is used in a positive sense not in the pejoritive sense that has become common thanks to hollocost deniers identifying themselves as historical revisionists.
Not on a DVD Consortium conforming player. There is a specific bit in the vob file that makes a scene unskippable and in order to get the shiny DVD logo you have to follow their rules. There are players with hidden features that allow you to skip these chapters, and most software players either include it as an option or can be easily modified to do it. Personally this is the #1 thing that pisses me off about DVD's.
From what I've seen most of IBM is behind Linux, with the exception of Lotus not having native clients for some things like Sametime (which they can release to customers, they have an internal build). I don't think IBM signed of for this one, they are just one little corner of this 1100 company strong industry group, chances are they didn't even have a clue about this, or if they did their objection was overruled by the other members (of course in that case they probably would have requested their name not be used in press releases)
Note:
I work for IBM, but just for a small little corner of IT Services.
Actually MS has been running on server 2003 for about a year and hasn't had much trouble. Windows Server 2003 really is a pretty good platform, maybe not as slim as linux but still. Also the reason that Google beats everyone else is that they don't try to have a petabyte database, they break the data into 4GB chunks and cache it in ram on comodity rackmount boxes, they have thousands of these boxes at various datacenters around the globe so that results are returned by a machine close to the user. Also search.msn.com is pretty slim with only one large ad and some small graphics for the topbar.
What kind of beastly machine goes down because of a single bad cpu? Only Intel based machines and none of those are all that beastly anyways. Big Iron does not go down to a single cpu failure. Where clusters rule is when you can chunk datasets into the ram space of a cheap rackmount box (2-4GB) and you have low enough interprocess communications that using comodity ethernet won't totally pooch your performance. If you meet those two requirements then the incredibly low cost per MIPS of x86 hardware will make it basically a no-brainer to go with a cluster.
ABS is much better at braking then even the best driver. Car and Driver did several comparisons over the years and even professional race car drivers could not stop a vehicle faster than the ABS system could, and on top of that the ABS system will do it with near zero chance of brake lockup or steering fade from differing brake pressure (most good ABS systems will detect differences in braking force on different wheels and compensate so that the car tracks in the direction the wheels are pointing)
Vesa local bus was in fact a general bus, there were network cards, disk controllers, and other peripheral cards available for it. And the reason PCI-X isn't the next standard is Intel's Not Invented Here syndrome.
PC3200-512MB Non-ECC
Generic-$66
Micron through Crucial.com (which is who they point to for consumer upgrades)-$90
If you want to pay ~40% more for your ram you are free to do so. Yeah it's better quality but if you aren't OC'ing anything that meets spec should be fine.
because after they have obtain a government subsidized monopoly they will jack up their prices to recoupe costs? That's what monopolies do.
Hynix is NOT doing it more efficiently, they are selling below THEIR cost, they are losing money hand over fist, the only reason they aren't bankrupt is that the South Korean government won't let it happen. This is a remedy to an uneven playing field created by the South Korean government that is afraid to lose all of the jobs that Hynix represents. It's not like the American's are alone in this, the EC slapped a 37% tarrif on Hynix, almost exactly the same amount.
Micron is NOT inefficient, in fact they are one of the more healthy memory makers, it's just that they can't compete with a government propped business that dumps chips below production costs. The EU is not very happy about Hynix either so it's not just the American's protecting a weak company.