What you get with the big names is 1: a support phone line, 2: the exact same laptop with a brand name sticker strangers will respect you for being able to afford and, of course 3: Windows.
4: A bunch of software you don't want and 5: a recovery CD instead of a real Windows CD which happens to put the aforementioned software back on your computer when you restore it to factory settings when all you want is to fix the OS.
It is spelled archaeology, not archeology. I'm surprised no one caught this or maybe no one cared enough. Seeing as how we have some BSD folks here I would think that the missing 'a' would have been obvious since 'daemon' is spelled and pronounced the same way.
I have an WRT54G. I got it a couple years ago. I had issues with it when running BT but eventually Linksys released an updated firmware. In the release notes (I forget which version the firmware was but it was released in February of 2007 I believe) it specifically mentioned fixing issues with BT. The WRT54G had issues with not properly sharing bandwidth across more than about 16 connections and we all know that BT clients open many more than that. Throughput slowed to a crawl when running BT. If your issue is your TCP connection table as others have mentioned that new firmware may be your fix assuming you still have a WRT54G. As for other brands, I can't say what would require them to be rebooted every so often, other than cheap design/manufacturing practices.
It could *EASILY* turn out that Pickens is just another participant in the public relations campaign that big oil is putting on to convince Americans that big oil isn't out to get them.
People are angry at the pump, and the more people who identify oil companies as enemies, the more people are exploring alternative fuels.
Oil companies don't set the price of oil. The market does that ever since OPEC wanted the price of oil to be publically set back in the 1970s. Because US oil companies haven't been drilling as much compared to the 1970s they are actually having to pay the same market price as other people who buy through oil contracts because they have to purchase most of their oil on the global market (i.e. foreign oil). They do that in order to have enough to put into refineries to meet supply. I can't explain their record profits but the cost they have to pay for the foreign oil they buy is passed down to the refineries and eventually down to the pump. People are indeed angry at the pump however they should be directing their anger at the pension fund managers, hedge fund managers, investors, speculators, and contract managers who run up the price of oil on the world markets (NYMEX and ICE) based on fear, specifically the fear of supply not meeting demand.
It has been reported that refineries were losing money for a little while in the recent past just because they couldn't raise the price of gasoline enough to keep up with the rising cost of the oil it takes to make gasoline. Oil prices have gone up 50% in the last year while gasoline prices have only gone up about 25% in the same time frame. That tells you that at least someone is trying to keep the consumer in mind. But keep in mind also that more than just gasoline comes out of a barrel of oil (some goes towards making asphalt, heating oil, etc.).
I could understand the oil companies as being completely evil if they were the ones who were pumping the oil and selling it on world markets for the market price ($141 as of today) however they aren't. Saudi Arabia (#1) and others are pumping the oil and raking in the cash. Therefore the oil companies have more incentive than you think for coming up with alternative methods for turning profit. Even when they are making millions or billions in profit already, it's capitalism at work that makes them want to find other sources of energy that they can sell for people to buy however, in the current world situation, the oil companies could also be considered being a little less evil as they come up with alternative sources of energy to help the world pay less for energy.
In the US, the separation of church and state should be strong; the concept's been in the US Constitution as a principle from the Articles of Confederation. Once again, a legislature tries to impose dogmatic/orthodox beliefs on others. It's been happening as long as the constitution has been around, and it will be struck down like the rest of the attempts.
The concept by which secularists define it has never been in there. This country has religious foundations whether you like it or not. Separating a state from its church so that one does not control the other (which is the separation the Founding Fathers wanted) is not the same as separation by which a state (and by extensions, its citizens) has no church at all. It is okay for a state to have a church but not for a church to run a state. A church running a state was what our Founding Fathers and their ancestors had before they moved to this country. They did not like that situation because it allowed a citizen to be punished by the state for not complying with the church and therefore wrote up the separation clause in our founding documents. You have to read the founding documents from their point of view they had during that period of time, not how you would read them now. They did not intend for there to be no church whatsoever involved with the state (i.e. the citizens or the state's leaders). View it as something similar to the separation of powers that were also built into the country using the judicial, executive, and legislative branches.
The state can not say to you how much you must involve yourself with the church (and punish you for lack of involvement or agreement) but there is nothing wrong with the state supporting the church or a church. Even if you want a separation, there are no laws that currently require a state to support a church, they can do so without such a law, therefore they are not violating "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion...".
Parallel evolution, immense timescales. You don't go from a door-mouse to a platypus in one step. It'll take you 10 million years, the right conditions and a shit-load of serendipity.
And yet a single God that did it all by himself in a flash of light is just uncalled for? Given your description of evolution, many people would consider creationism and evolution just as likely.
What the GP should have stated was that there is no evidence of mutations being passed on that eventually create a new species. Micro-evolution is undeniable but macro-evolution has never been observed. Of all the species we are aware of there is a good probability that within the last 2000 years of scientific study that we should have at least 1 documented case of a species changing enough to be considered another species,one that was on the verge of changing and with one last mutation the threshold of being considered a different species was magically crossed thus giving evolutionists their smoking gun.
You make fun of Christianity's aversion to homosexuality, but the fact of the matter is that the harsh restrictions on the lifestyles of Christians make the taboos such as homosexuality and miscegenation all the more attractive. Such extremes such as celibacy have forced even priests into the arms of pederasty.
Christianity and religion as a whole encourages the polarization of actions into "good" and "evil" and by forcing the pendulum to the "good" side makes the "evil" side more attractive than an a-moral philosophy can do.
Well that is one demented way of looking at it I suppose. I'm a Christian but homosexuality is not in the least bit attractive to me. I think your logic is incorrect for multiple reasons. 1) There are no harsh restrictions on the lifestyles of Christians. What is so hard about being good instead of evil? To not be a hedonist or sadist? To treat others with respect? Those are harsh restrictions? Maybe to a select few, maybe even you? 2) There is no "fact of the matter" issue linking those "harsh restrictions" to making other things more attractive.
The logic could just as well be that some people like homosexuality and just happen to also call themselves Christian but, in reality and by common definition of Christian, they are not. Many people make up their own rules for what is required to get to Heaven regardless of what the Bible says is the only and easy way. Therefore as long as they abide by their own rule they can do whatever they want, including acts that are sinful. That may be how they rationalize their behavior they know is evil or sinful. On the other hand, not everyone needs something to be taboo in order to take part in it. Some people will commit an act of evil whether it is taboo or not. It could even be argued that because they did it they don't consider it evil at all and therefore not taboo.
Really the issue at hand is not whether your faith or absence thereof is "right", it is that faith does not belong in science class. Faith belongs in church, and at home, and in bible study groups. Faith belongs in your heart, with your friends, not in science class.
So all the faith (assumptions) that geologists, biologists, etc. make about our world now because they didn't live a billion years ago is okay because it is "scientific" faith as opposed to "religious" faith? All the "must have"s (e.g. man must have came from apes because we found some organisms that look like both man and ape) that we see in/. submissions linking to scientific articles basically are implying there are assumptions being made and faith is put into those assumptions in order to build on them to create bigger assumptions and theories. Why is that faith any different?
Absolutely, because the package manager is quite clearly described in the menu as being for installing new software.
OK, I'll give you that one.
On the other hand, having downloaded and installed some random app (if the user even got this far), start/programs makes sense enough, but then you often have to remember the vendor name before you can find the app you just installed.
Typical linux menu systems are much better, since they categorise programs by their function rather than who wrote them, and presumably having installed a new app you should have some idea what it does and why you installed it.
If a user downloaded it from the vendor's site (which usually happens except for shareware or open source) then the user will know where in the Start Menu to look. The menu entry will either be listed alphabetically or at the end of the Programs list in the Start Menu. Windows also highlights the menu entry so you *can* find it easier. Itemizing programs by function works well as long as the function can be narrowed down to 1 category instead of multiple ones. Then a user has to be sure to categorize an application in their own mind the same way the author of the package did so that the user can find it in the expected application category.
If she does need additional apps which aren't included by default, which is far more likely with XP, the process to acquire them is much easier in Linux (load up the package manager, select the apps from a list and let them install) as opposed to the XP method or either buying physical media (and reading it with what, these small laptops lack optical drives) or downloading it (from where? cant expect a housewife to search for apps and download them in confidence, especially since she has always been told not to download and run things from the internet), and then manually run the installer, keep hitting next a few times, and once installed try to find out where it is (often in a subsection of the start menu labelled by the program vendor which you can't expect users to know, rather than being categorised by function or even the program's name)
You don't expect a user to know where the program got placed in the Start Menu on Windows but yet you expect her to know what a package manager is and how to get to it in the GUI?
That's either a really tall tripod or image stabilization has come a lot farther than I thought.
Image stabilization has come a lot further than you thought. If you saw the Discovery series Planet Earth you will have seen what the latest image stabilization can do. I don't know if the gyroscope-based camera mount works with both still and video cameras but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.
I wonder how big the market is for people that really NEED that much resolution?
Market size doesn't matter when your product is a couple orders of magnitude more expensive than mainstream models. This is for the extreme, just like a Ferrari is for the extreme. Quantity doesn't matter. It's the quality and you will pay dearly for it.
Yes I want that but wanting something and being able to afford it are 2 different things. If I had the money to buy a car with a price like that I'd buy a Dodge Viper. That's because I wouldn't care how much I was spending on gas in the first place unless I wanted it for the novelty factor. For the Tesla car, it wouldn't be bad to have it for just the novelty factor but, then again, a Dodge Viper has a nice novelty to it too, about 600 novelties to it.
It goes the other way all the time - we just don't care about that. Almost all good deeds go unnoticed; only some evil deeds don't.
Without my response to the original comment, we would have only focused on the evil. It's people like that who put the focus on the evil deeds, only talking about the statistical odds of bad people instead of the good when I believe that the majority of people are good. I think human nature makes people have to try extra hard to be evil especially if you don't want to get caught.
I'm just saying that given enough people in a community, you'll certain amounts of people who lie, cheat, steal and even murder.
Statistically, given enough people in a community, you'll find certain amount of people who are nice, moral, and respectful of others. This could have easily gone the other way.
If your girlfriend has an account at a dating service, you don't have a girlfriend, you have a fuckbuddy. Nothing wrong with that, just be sure to use a condom.
Even that may soon end if she is on a dating site. He better get in his licks now (and savor them) while he still can.
It breaks the rule that the server name should be easy to say over the phone, and that no single typo should cause an issue.
Try playing chinese whispers over the phone with sjcmarkfilep01 a few times, and you'll see why it is stupid. Heck, just try to talk someone through entering the name.
And then someone makes a typo, instructing support to install a new card in sfcmarkfilep01, which also happens to exist, and be vital for San Fransisco operations. An oops that could have been avoided with a smarter and typo-resistant naming system.
Only new employees should have issues with this scheme and really only until they are familiar with your environment. It is useful and helpful to have information coded into the hostnames however too much info is overload and doesn't belong in a hostname. Location, function, and node # (if more than 1 server does a function) is sufficient in my opinion. If you have a single site then you can ignore location. For a medium business there probably isn't more than 1 site. Yes there could be typos but I believe that is acceptable risk given the amount of information provided in the hostname using that scheme. If you do your scheme right you will come up with 1 or 2 letter codes that can't be mixed up accidentally through typos. One rule could be to never use vowels.
And as far as mentioning these names over the phone, well, every admin should be familiar with the phonetic alphabet. Some people don't spell common/theme words correctly whether it be the admin or the person on the other end of the line the admin is talking to so you should be spelling out hostnames anyway. The best way to do that accurately and quickly, whatever the hostname, is using the phonetic alphabet. Hopefully the person on the other end of the line knows it too so you don't have to make up your own alphabet while talking to them. At work, someone named a server "grendal" and we all know it is really spelled "grendel". Even if it was spelled right someone else may still spell it wrong eventually. Most people are not good spellers.
State property belongs to ALL people. Religious display on any state property enforces that religion on EVERYONE.
Feeling like you have to conform to the majority religion and actually being forced to do so are 2 diffrent things. You, my friend, are referring to the latter but in reality the former is what happens in the United States.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah me too. I mistyped. My post was supposed to be the opposite of that. I guess I didn't preview it.
What you get with the big names is 1: a support phone line, 2: the exact same laptop with a brand name sticker strangers will respect you for being able to afford and, of course 3: Windows.
4: A bunch of software you don't want and 5: a recovery CD instead of a real Windows CD which happens to put the aforementioned software back on your computer when you restore it to factory settings when all you want is to fix the OS.
Who writes just 50G daily?
Probably 99.999% of laptop users. Remember, these are notebook drives.
It is spelled archaeology, not archeology. I'm surprised no one caught this or maybe no one cared enough. Seeing as how we have some BSD folks here I would think that the missing 'a' would have been obvious since 'daemon' is spelled and pronounced the same way.
But there's so many twists to the logic here that it amazes me they actually got a judge to understand it all.
I think the fact Blizzard won this one means the judge didn't understand it, or at least, understand it properly.
So why are you here posting instead of looking at another submission?
I have an WRT54G. I got it a couple years ago. I had issues with it when running BT but eventually Linksys released an updated firmware. In the release notes (I forget which version the firmware was but it was released in February of 2007 I believe) it specifically mentioned fixing issues with BT. The WRT54G had issues with not properly sharing bandwidth across more than about 16 connections and we all know that BT clients open many more than that. Throughput slowed to a crawl when running BT. If your issue is your TCP connection table as others have mentioned that new firmware may be your fix assuming you still have a WRT54G. As for other brands, I can't say what would require them to be rebooted every so often, other than cheap design/manufacturing practices.
It could *EASILY* turn out that Pickens is just another participant in the public relations campaign that big oil is putting on to convince Americans that big oil isn't out to get them. People are angry at the pump, and the more people who identify oil companies as enemies, the more people are exploring alternative fuels.
Oil companies don't set the price of oil. The market does that ever since OPEC wanted the price of oil to be publically set back in the 1970s. Because US oil companies haven't been drilling as much compared to the 1970s they are actually having to pay the same market price as other people who buy through oil contracts because they have to purchase most of their oil on the global market (i.e. foreign oil). They do that in order to have enough to put into refineries to meet supply. I can't explain their record profits but the cost they have to pay for the foreign oil they buy is passed down to the refineries and eventually down to the pump. People are indeed angry at the pump however they should be directing their anger at the pension fund managers, hedge fund managers, investors, speculators, and contract managers who run up the price of oil on the world markets (NYMEX and ICE) based on fear, specifically the fear of supply not meeting demand.
It has been reported that refineries were losing money for a little while in the recent past just because they couldn't raise the price of gasoline enough to keep up with the rising cost of the oil it takes to make gasoline. Oil prices have gone up 50% in the last year while gasoline prices have only gone up about 25% in the same time frame. That tells you that at least someone is trying to keep the consumer in mind. But keep in mind also that more than just gasoline comes out of a barrel of oil (some goes towards making asphalt, heating oil, etc.).
I could understand the oil companies as being completely evil if they were the ones who were pumping the oil and selling it on world markets for the market price ($141 as of today) however they aren't. Saudi Arabia (#1) and others are pumping the oil and raking in the cash. Therefore the oil companies have more incentive than you think for coming up with alternative methods for turning profit. Even when they are making millions or billions in profit already, it's capitalism at work that makes them want to find other sources of energy that they can sell for people to buy however, in the current world situation, the oil companies could also be considered being a little less evil as they come up with alternative sources of energy to help the world pay less for energy.
In the US, the separation of church and state should be strong; the concept's been in the US Constitution as a principle from the Articles of Confederation. Once again, a legislature tries to impose dogmatic/orthodox beliefs on others. It's been happening as long as the constitution has been around, and it will be struck down like the rest of the attempts.
The concept by which secularists define it has never been in there. This country has religious foundations whether you like it or not. Separating a state from its church so that one does not control the other (which is the separation the Founding Fathers wanted) is not the same as separation by which a state (and by extensions, its citizens) has no church at all. It is okay for a state to have a church but not for a church to run a state. A church running a state was what our Founding Fathers and their ancestors had before they moved to this country. They did not like that situation because it allowed a citizen to be punished by the state for not complying with the church and therefore wrote up the separation clause in our founding documents. You have to read the founding documents from their point of view they had during that period of time, not how you would read them now. They did not intend for there to be no church whatsoever involved with the state (i.e. the citizens or the state's leaders). View it as something similar to the separation of powers that were also built into the country using the judicial, executive, and legislative branches.
The state can not say to you how much you must involve yourself with the church (and punish you for lack of involvement or agreement) but there is nothing wrong with the state supporting the church or a church. Even if you want a separation, there are no laws that currently require a state to support a church, they can do so without such a law, therefore they are not violating "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion...".
Parallel evolution, immense timescales. You don't go from a door-mouse to a platypus in one step. It'll take you 10 million years, the right conditions and a shit-load of serendipity.
And yet a single God that did it all by himself in a flash of light is just uncalled for? Given your description of evolution, many people would consider creationism and evolution just as likely.
What the GP should have stated was that there is no evidence of mutations being passed on that eventually create a new species. Micro-evolution is undeniable but macro-evolution has never been observed. Of all the species we are aware of there is a good probability that within the last 2000 years of scientific study that we should have at least 1 documented case of a species changing enough to be considered another species,one that was on the verge of changing and with one last mutation the threshold of being considered a different species was magically crossed thus giving evolutionists their smoking gun.
You make fun of Christianity's aversion to homosexuality, but the fact of the matter is that the harsh restrictions on the lifestyles of Christians make the taboos such as homosexuality and miscegenation all the more attractive. Such extremes such as celibacy have forced even priests into the arms of pederasty.
Christianity and religion as a whole encourages the polarization of actions into "good" and "evil" and by forcing the pendulum to the "good" side makes the "evil" side more attractive than an a-moral philosophy can do.
Well that is one demented way of looking at it I suppose. I'm a Christian but homosexuality is not in the least bit attractive to me. I think your logic is incorrect for multiple reasons. 1) There are no harsh restrictions on the lifestyles of Christians. What is so hard about being good instead of evil? To not be a hedonist or sadist? To treat others with respect? Those are harsh restrictions? Maybe to a select few, maybe even you? 2) There is no "fact of the matter" issue linking those "harsh restrictions" to making other things more attractive.
The logic could just as well be that some people like homosexuality and just happen to also call themselves Christian but, in reality and by common definition of Christian, they are not. Many people make up their own rules for what is required to get to Heaven regardless of what the Bible says is the only and easy way. Therefore as long as they abide by their own rule they can do whatever they want, including acts that are sinful. That may be how they rationalize their behavior they know is evil or sinful. On the other hand, not everyone needs something to be taboo in order to take part in it. Some people will commit an act of evil whether it is taboo or not. It could even be argued that because they did it they don't consider it evil at all and therefore not taboo.
Really the issue at hand is not whether your faith or absence thereof is "right", it is that faith does not belong in science class. Faith belongs in church, and at home, and in bible study groups. Faith belongs in your heart, with your friends, not in science class.
So all the faith (assumptions) that geologists, biologists, etc. make about our world now because they didn't live a billion years ago is okay because it is "scientific" faith as opposed to "religious" faith? All the "must have"s (e.g. man must have came from apes because we found some organisms that look like both man and ape) that we see in /. submissions linking to scientific articles basically are implying there are assumptions being made and faith is put into those assumptions in order to build on them to create bigger assumptions and theories. Why is that faith any different?
Absolutely, because the package manager is quite clearly described in the menu as being for installing new software.
OK, I'll give you that one.
On the other hand, having downloaded and installed some random app (if the user even got this far), start/programs makes sense enough, but then you often have to remember the vendor name before you can find the app you just installed. Typical linux menu systems are much better, since they categorise programs by their function rather than who wrote them, and presumably having installed a new app you should have some idea what it does and why you installed it.
If a user downloaded it from the vendor's site (which usually happens except for shareware or open source) then the user will know where in the Start Menu to look. The menu entry will either be listed alphabetically or at the end of the Programs list in the Start Menu. Windows also highlights the menu entry so you *can* find it easier. Itemizing programs by function works well as long as the function can be narrowed down to 1 category instead of multiple ones. Then a user has to be sure to categorize an application in their own mind the same way the author of the package did so that the user can find it in the expected application category.
If she does need additional apps which aren't included by default, which is far more likely with XP, the process to acquire them is much easier in Linux (load up the package manager, select the apps from a list and let them install) as opposed to the XP method or either buying physical media (and reading it with what, these small laptops lack optical drives) or downloading it (from where? cant expect a housewife to search for apps and download them in confidence, especially since she has always been told not to download and run things from the internet), and then manually run the installer, keep hitting next a few times, and once installed try to find out where it is (often in a subsection of the start menu labelled by the program vendor which you can't expect users to know, rather than being categorised by function or even the program's name)
You don't expect a user to know where the program got placed in the Start Menu on Windows but yet you expect her to know what a package manager is and how to get to it in the GUI?
That's either a really tall tripod or image stabilization has come a lot farther than I thought.
Image stabilization has come a lot further than you thought. If you saw the Discovery series Planet Earth you will have seen what the latest image stabilization can do. I don't know if the gyroscope-based camera mount works with both still and video cameras but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.
I wonder how big the market is for people that really NEED that much resolution?
Market size doesn't matter when your product is a couple orders of magnitude more expensive than mainstream models. This is for the extreme, just like a Ferrari is for the extreme. Quantity doesn't matter. It's the quality and you will pay dearly for it.
Yes I want that but wanting something and being able to afford it are 2 different things. If I had the money to buy a car with a price like that I'd buy a Dodge Viper. That's because I wouldn't care how much I was spending on gas in the first place unless I wanted it for the novelty factor. For the Tesla car, it wouldn't be bad to have it for just the novelty factor but, then again, a Dodge Viper has a nice novelty to it too, about 600 novelties to it.
It goes the other way all the time - we just don't care about that. Almost all good deeds go unnoticed; only some evil deeds don't.
Without my response to the original comment, we would have only focused on the evil. It's people like that who put the focus on the evil deeds, only talking about the statistical odds of bad people instead of the good when I believe that the majority of people are good. I think human nature makes people have to try extra hard to be evil especially if you don't want to get caught.
I'm just saying that given enough people in a community, you'll certain amounts of people who lie, cheat, steal and even murder.
Statistically, given enough people in a community, you'll find certain amount of people who are nice, moral, and respectful of others. This could have easily gone the other way.
Hans did shoot first?
If your girlfriend has an account at a dating service, you don't have a girlfriend, you have a fuckbuddy. Nothing wrong with that, just be sure to use a condom.
Even that may soon end if she is on a dating site. He better get in his licks now (and savor them) while he still can.
It breaks the rule that the server name should be easy to say over the phone, and that no single typo should cause an issue. Try playing chinese whispers over the phone with sjcmarkfilep01 a few times, and you'll see why it is stupid. Heck, just try to talk someone through entering the name. And then someone makes a typo, instructing support to install a new card in sfcmarkfilep01, which also happens to exist, and be vital for San Fransisco operations. An oops that could have been avoided with a smarter and typo-resistant naming system.
Only new employees should have issues with this scheme and really only until they are familiar with your environment. It is useful and helpful to have information coded into the hostnames however too much info is overload and doesn't belong in a hostname. Location, function, and node # (if more than 1 server does a function) is sufficient in my opinion. If you have a single site then you can ignore location. For a medium business there probably isn't more than 1 site. Yes there could be typos but I believe that is acceptable risk given the amount of information provided in the hostname using that scheme. If you do your scheme right you will come up with 1 or 2 letter codes that can't be mixed up accidentally through typos. One rule could be to never use vowels.
And as far as mentioning these names over the phone, well, every admin should be familiar with the phonetic alphabet. Some people don't spell common/theme words correctly whether it be the admin or the person on the other end of the line the admin is talking to so you should be spelling out hostnames anyway. The best way to do that accurately and quickly, whatever the hostname, is using the phonetic alphabet. Hopefully the person on the other end of the line knows it too so you don't have to make up your own alphabet while talking to them. At work, someone named a server "grendal" and we all know it is really spelled "grendel". Even if it was spelled right someone else may still spell it wrong eventually. Most people are not good spellers.
Three. Anyone can get in on port 80, 22 if she knows you, and 443 requires a little bit of negotiation.
I would think port 79 would be a gimme for Jenna.
State property belongs to ALL people. Religious display on any state property enforces that religion on EVERYONE.
Feeling like you have to conform to the majority religion and actually being forced to do so are 2 diffrent things. You, my friend, are referring to the latter but in reality the former is what happens in the United States.