When a smoker is diagnosed with lung cancer or COPD and they can't pay for health treatment, shoot them!
I'm sick and tired of smokers who claim they aren't hurting anyone else.
They affect people when they run up huge bills in the hospital. And when they stink up the air, toss their butts on the ground, and cause fires when they are careless with their cigarettes.
At first I thought that was a bong! When did this happen? Can you get these at the local head shop or do you have to order from Tommy Chong's web site?
Maybe we could let Tobacco companies turn their tobacco fields into marijuana fields and they can produce packets of marijuana cigarettes!
We know you can trust them not to add anything bad to the mix.
This is a good example of the logical mind of a pot smoker.
Potheads can't tell how much they are affected any more than drunk drivers can tell that they shouldn't be driving a car.
Some potheads even claim it enhances their motor skills?!
I used to smoke in my younger days and my naturally strong motor skills were able to compensate and I could play video games pretty good.
But when I wasn't stoned I could last for hours on a single quarter. If I pushed myself hard enough I could tell the difference, it would take at least a week of no smoking/no drinking to get back to full ability.
There came a point where I got sick of numbing my brain on a daily basis and quit smoking so that I could use my abilities to their fullest. Now I can play chess tournaments with a master performance rating, destroy video games, master new tech in a couple of days, and raise a family.
Potheads can't do that. They might lie and say they can, but they can't.
Now that Verizon is stopping unlimited data, why would you be so stupid to blast through your limit by storing your music in the cloud? My Droid X has a 16GB sdcard, unless I go crazy that's plenty of room for my music, and if it wasn't I can upgrade to 32GB.
The cloud is dead for music, why are companies too slow to understand this?
Imagine you have 4 hyperthreaded cores and you have a process that is running 7 CPU intensive threads. Because of processor affinity, 6 threads will share a processor(2 each) and one thread will have an entire processor. If they all have equal work, the one using a processor by itself will complete first, but the other 6 still need to complete for the whole set to be considered complete.
Using mpstat on AIX you can see the effect I am describing.
Also, there is some overhead, this becomes more noticable with CPU intensive processes. But you wouldn't want to use hyperthreading for that. The advantage of hyperthreading is to increase the ability to fully utilize the processors. If a thread stalls(ie:cache miss) then it can switch in the other thread.
I suspect the real reason China isn't targeted much is because they are probably supporting Anonymous. Or maybe they can't read chinese?
They hit wfaic.gov.cn, which implies that they aren't that afraid. However, I suspect that was a ploy to make it look like China was targeted as well. But if Anonymous wanted to really help the people and expose corruption and fight censorship, there's a lot to be targeted in China. They're way too obsessed with the United States. I understand that there is a lot of corruption in the U.S., but we don't have a monopoly on it.
We already know that hackers can safely operate from Russia and China without getting caught, as long as they don't target anyone within Russia or China. We also know that if a hacker in the U.S. challenged the wrong people, he'll get caught. There are hackers outside of China and Russia who are part of Anonymous, but they're the ones who get caught.
More than fair. The problem is, there is a HUGE political wing that not only believes it understands the complexities of ecological change, but understands them well enough to want to impose corrective measures. Those corrective measures themselves invariably involve "messing with" markets, economies, and yes, ecologies, all at public expense.
And the other HUGE political wing believes...
Global warming is junk science.
Tobacco doesn't cause cancer.
If you don't teach Sex Education in schools, then teenagers won't have sex.
They still don't believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States.
They think Creationism should be taught in schools, as a science.
They are against assisted suicide, but believe in capitol punishment.
They are for alcohol and tobacco, but against drugs.
They thought Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle were great VP candidates.
With a list like that, I would start to wonder if they understood anything.
I agree, they will at least learn to have a proper work ethic. There can even be a reward system to give more privileges to the hardest workers.
The way it is now, they learn to hang out doing nothing useful all day and yet still demand all the rights and luxuries of the working class. Basically, it's training them to be used to not working.
If they did work in prison, they can develop a good work history that will make it easier to get a job when they get out, as opposed to someone who did nothing while in prison. If they got additional privileges and awards because they showed good work ethic then hopefully it will positively enforce the concept of working for a living. I also think one of the privileges could be to allow them to get out of prison earlier, if they can successfully work well then they will have an easier time joining society than someone who was resistant to working.
There are those who might this is unfair, f--- em! Whenever a program is setup to over coddle people, they learn to become helpless whiny children.
I've seen this tried before and it turns out that it's a lot easier to teach sales skills to a techie than to teach techie skills to a sales person.
If you try and teach a sales person "enough to be able to converse with a tech", you'll only extend by minutes the time it takes for the techie to blow past their knowledge base.
Also, it might seem like it would be hard to find a techie to touch sales positions, and not that many like it, but the same problem occurs when trying to get them to be a manager. If you offer enough money some will go for it.
I suspect that installing and upgrading apps would exceed that. Do they actually have smartphones or did they think that texting ability qualifies it as a smartphone?
My usage is 1GB/month and I had no idea it was that high until I just checked it now. I'm just guessing, but most of my bandwidth is probably maps/navigator, web browsing, and installs/updates. I view an average of 5 youtube videos per month, if I went video crazy I guess I could really abuse the bandwidth, some people probably watch 2 hours of video while commuting to work and back on the train.
And now Amazon and Google are offering cloud based music playing, holy crap, how much bandwidth is that going to burn? I'm going to take a wild guess that cloud based music is as good as dead! Listening to your music 30 minutes a day will probably put you over your cap. Netflix is going to be available on Droids soon and they're already the number one bandwidth user on the internet, now they can be number one on the airwaves!
I'm not complaining, I actually like the idea of caps as long as they're reasonable. I suspect that there's a minority of people who abuse bandwidth as if it was an unlimited resource. If you live someplace with a great signal you can do everything with your cell phone. You can skip having a landline and use skype on your cell phone, skip cable internet and just tether, skip cable tv and just hook your Droid X hdmi cable to your flatscreen. I have the unlimited data plan(is it really unlimited?), but I prefer actual HD channels, faster internet connection(I only get 1.5Mb/s tethering), and decent phone capability that isn't owned by Microsoft.
When people abuse unlimited, it goes away! If water was free there would probably be people running water 24/7 to power their paddle-wheel generators.
I like that idea!
Maybe they can expire that New York flirting law http://www.stupidlaws.com/a-fine-of-25-can-be-levied-for-flirting/
A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law specifically prohibits men from turning around on any city street and looking “at a woman in that way.” A second conviction for a crime of this magnitude calls for the violating male to be forced to wear a “pair of horse-blinders” wherever and whenever he goes outside for a stroll.
I can't imagine the chaos that would happen if they decided to enforce that law.
The only problem I see with expiration dates is that it seems it would cause a lot of work in reviewing the expired laws. Seems easier to bounce the lawmakers the moment they even suggest a stupid law. Some laws might have made sense at the time they were made, but others seem like they would be stupid in any era. I'm sure other lawmakers would try to defend the stupid lawmaker, in which case they should be considered guilty as well.
While we are fantasizing, why not simplify all laws?
There are countless numbers of useless and stupid laws in the books that should be removed. But you know it will never happen.
The jerks who caused the problem like it this way, keeps them in business. Imagine what it would be like if software companies could make their products unnecessarily complicated and add even add useless code and functionality and bugs that would require constant updates. They would be printing money...crud, I think this might have happened already?!
It's not just IDEs that assume they have the entire screen to themselves.
It seems like a lot of applications are guilty of this. Some of these applications might be required by the person's job, whether they like it or not. Also, like you mentioned, it also seems like a lot of web sites expect you to view them with your browser at full screen and not everyone has a solution for that.
Personally, I usually my laptop's monitor and an additional monitor at the same time. I usually run X Windows apps in one and email/sametime/browser in the other.
If I had a really nice, decent size monitor, I wouldn't have to do that. What happened to the old days when UNIX admins had 21" monitors?
I suspect that as long as he was alive in prison it would serve as a focal point for terrorists to take large numbers of hostages and threaten to kill them if he is not released.
If they did capture him alive it might be better to announce that he was dead then torture him for information. Burial at sea might be a ruse to hide the fact that he was still alive.
We don't have to torture him just for information. We could setup a webcam and allow people on the internet to torture him by via robotic torture tools controlled by a web interface. I feel cheated now, any chance someone come whip up an emulation of this?
I've noticed that most I.Q. tests will do something stupid like ask questions that depend on knowledge as opposed to testing problem solving(IE: knowing words like banality). But I've also noticed that people tend to go overboard in knocking them and will state that they are useless. I disagree, idiots do not do well on decent I.Q. tests, if you scored 90 or less, then you are not very bright. It's probably not your fault, hopefully your looks will compensate. Some people have huge muscle mass while others know that we actually do use more than 10% of our brain capacity.
I strongly suspect that there is a documented set of rules that is supposed to be followed for all servers/workstations on the network. You probably violated those rules the moment you put your server on the network. In some companies this would be grounds for termination. It sounds harsh, but this is one classic method for accidentally compromising security on the internal network. If there is a procedure for setting up a server, ask IT, they can probably get you the information you need.
If IT opened a port for you in the firewall and some malicious hacker used that port to hack into your server, they would then have access to everything that server had access to. After this happens, the IT department would have to explain why they allowed that port to be opened to a server they knew nothing about. If you were the person in IT who allowed that to happen without asking any questions, how would you explain your thought processes to senior management? You may think that your server is perfectly secure, but it's not. Nobody knows what security holes they have until they are later published. This is why IT needs to know what is on all of the servers so that when there is a published security weakness, they will know which servers are affected. When management asks if they are vulnerable, they will not be able to give an honest answer when there are servers they do not have access to.
If it is considered a security violation to install unapproved servers on the network, do you really want to go over IT's head so that you can publicized that you are violating security? Worse yet, you are trying to take it a step further by having that server accessible from outside the firewall?
A paradox doesn't have to involve killing your grandfather.
If I use the ability to send messages to the past, then should I be careful and not try to send myself lottery numbers that nobody won? I suspect I would be run down by a car before I had a chance to put in those numbers for a ticket.
It would probably be safer to send back numbers to a lottery that was won by only one person, and that person was me! However, this means that I would have the ability to get the winning ticket before I sent the information back in time. What would happen if I decided not to send the information back after I won? This could lead to an experiment of "free will" versus "determinism"!
Another application of the technology would be to create an infinitely fast computer. It can send back data from intermediate steps and loop chronologically. This would make it infinitely fast and would save a lot of energy. I'm not sure if it is fair to save that much energy before it's considered cheating "the law of conservation of energy". Is there a minimum amount of energy required to calculate a result? Also, in a chronologically loop, how many times did the computer send information back in time, once?
Networking protocols will normally store a local copy of the data in transit. When the receiving end acknowledges that the data was successfully received, then the local copy can be deleted. Otherwise, if a packet was dropped the data would be lost.
Ignoring that...I suspect that the amount of data that can be in transit in the world might be affected by the memory capacity of the network switches involved. The network switches make it unclear what you can store in latency. AFAIK they start dropping packets randomly depending on how much they are being utilized which causes retransmits which means redundant data on the net.
I'm sure there must be discussions on how saturated the internet can be before it starts to fail. Not Metcalfe's prediction, but something more serious;)
If you are paying a lot of money for Enterprise Class systems, then you should only have to reboot when a system patch requires it or if there is a system problem occurring that requires a reboot. But....... if you are rebooting because of a system problem, then I am assuming you are creating a system dump so that you can send it to tech support to identify what the problem was.
The ability to identify system problems is an important skill, learn how to do it, don't just reboot hoping the problem will go away. Learn how to do system traces/tcpdump/etc. You should even learn how to do system traces on user processses so that you can tell them that the reason their application is failing is because it is trying to read a file that doesn't exist. Hand holding isn't in our job description, but it's better than rebooting for nothing. What do you put in your system downtime report? "Rebooted system, problem gone"? Steps taken to prevent problem from happening again, "Schedule Daily Reboots". No joke, there are "users" who think weekly reboots are a good idea. How do you manage over a thousand servers with weekly reboots, especially if there are dependencies? And why would anyone think that the admins are the only only ones who are involved in having applications coming up properly? We don't manage the databases, if the DBAs screw up a script that causes a database to not come up properly, the UNIX admins can't control that. But when some user wants a server rebooted because they don't know what they are doing and the database doesn't come back up, we still have to hang around at 03:00 in the morning while someone pages the DBAs to fix it.
Enterprise Class systems are supposed to have high uptimes. You have redundant and hot pluggable adapters, disk drives, you can even dynamically rearrange processors and memory. You have multiple fabrics leading to your SAN storage, and your SAN systems have hot swapable adapters/disk drives/control units/power supplies and RAID storage. If you feel that it's okay to have frequent reboots, then you might as well be running inexpensive x86 servers without any redundancy. Personally, I prefer more sophisticated systems that rarely go down because of hardware, and if the OS has a bug that forces a reboot, I want the OS vendor to fix it!
If an application team that is lacking in "problem determination" skills ask you to reboot a Linux server and their problem is still happening and the Linux server is actually running under VMWare, don't be surprised if they ask you to reboot the entire VMWare server and now you have just bounce all of the guest servers running on that VMWare server. Meanwhile the original problem was caused by a change made by the application team, and a reboot should not have been needed.
Can you imagine Air Traffic Controllers rebooting systems on a whim? There are plenty of important systems using computers that we would like to never have to reboot. We should be making that a goal instead of thinking reboots will always be needed at random times.
Slashdot Mirror
When a smoker is diagnosed with lung cancer or COPD and they can't pay for health treatment, shoot them!
I'm sick and tired of smokers who claim they aren't hurting anyone else.
They affect people when they run up huge bills in the hospital. And when they stink up the air, toss their butts on the ground, and cause fires when they are careless with their cigarettes.
WTF?
At first I thought that was a bong! When did this happen? Can you get these at the local head shop or do you have to order from Tommy Chong's web site?
That's a great idea!
Maybe we could let Tobacco companies turn their tobacco fields into marijuana fields and they can produce packets of marijuana cigarettes!
We know you can trust them not to add anything bad to the mix.
This is a good example of the logical mind of a pot smoker.
I think it's closer to a couple of thousand tons, which is still a ludicrous amount!.
Charlie Sheen might responsible for maybe ~2 tons/year.
What is wrong with this country?
Potheads can't tell how much they are affected any more than drunk drivers can tell that they shouldn't be driving a car.
Some potheads even claim it enhances their motor skills?!
I used to smoke in my younger days and my naturally strong motor skills were able to compensate and I could play video games pretty good. But when I wasn't stoned I could last for hours on a single quarter. If I pushed myself hard enough I could tell the difference, it would take at least a week of no smoking/no drinking to get back to full ability.
There came a point where I got sick of numbing my brain on a daily basis and quit smoking so that I could use my abilities to their fullest. Now I can play chess tournaments with a master performance rating, destroy video games, master new tech in a couple of days, and raise a family.
Potheads can't do that. They might lie and say they can, but they can't.
Seems like an extra step, with unnecessary complications, and you have to pay for it. I can sync my music without "The Cloud".
Dropbox is free and simpler if I just need intermediate storage on "The Net".
This is stupid!
Now that Verizon is stopping unlimited data, why would you be so stupid to blast through your limit by storing your music in the cloud? My Droid X has a 16GB sdcard, unless I go crazy that's plenty of room for my music, and if it wasn't I can upgrade to 32GB.
The cloud is dead for music, why are companies too slow to understand this?
There actually can be a performance hit.
Imagine you have 4 hyperthreaded cores and you have a process that is running 7 CPU intensive threads. Because of processor affinity, 6 threads will share a processor(2 each) and one thread will have an entire processor. If they all have equal work, the one using a processor by itself will complete first, but the other 6 still need to complete for the whole set to be considered complete.
Using mpstat on AIX you can see the effect I am describing.
Also, there is some overhead, this becomes more noticable with CPU intensive processes. But you wouldn't want to use hyperthreading for that. The advantage of hyperthreading is to increase the ability to fully utilize the processors. If a thread stalls(ie:cache miss) then it can switch in the other thread.
I suspect the real reason China isn't targeted much is because they are probably supporting Anonymous. Or maybe they can't read chinese?
They hit wfaic.gov.cn, which implies that they aren't that afraid. However, I suspect that was a ploy to make it look like China was targeted as well. But if Anonymous wanted to really help the people and expose corruption and fight censorship, there's a lot to be targeted in China. They're way too obsessed with the United States. I understand that there is a lot of corruption in the U.S., but we don't have a monopoly on it.
We already know that hackers can safely operate from Russia and China without getting caught, as long as they don't target anyone within Russia or China. We also know that if a hacker in the U.S. challenged the wrong people, he'll get caught. There are hackers outside of China and Russia who are part of Anonymous, but they're the ones who get caught.
More than fair. The problem is, there is a HUGE political wing that not only believes it understands the complexities of ecological change, but understands them well enough to want to impose corrective measures. Those corrective measures themselves invariably involve "messing with" markets, economies, and yes, ecologies, all at public expense.
And the other HUGE political wing believes...
With a list like that, I would start to wonder if they understood anything.
I agree, they will at least learn to have a proper work ethic. There can even be a reward system to give more privileges to the hardest workers.
The way it is now, they learn to hang out doing nothing useful all day and yet still demand all the rights and luxuries of the working class. Basically, it's training them to be used to not working.
If they did work in prison, they can develop a good work history that will make it easier to get a job when they get out, as opposed to someone who did nothing while in prison. If they got additional privileges and awards because they showed good work ethic then hopefully it will positively enforce the concept of working for a living. I also think one of the privileges could be to allow them to get out of prison earlier, if they can successfully work well then they will have an easier time joining society than someone who was resistant to working.
There are those who might this is unfair, f--- em! Whenever a program is setup to over coddle people, they learn to become helpless whiny children.
I've seen this tried before and it turns out that it's a lot easier to teach sales skills to a techie than to teach techie skills to a sales person.
If you try and teach a sales person "enough to be able to converse with a tech", you'll only extend by minutes the time it takes for the techie to blow past their knowledge base.
Also, it might seem like it would be hard to find a techie to touch sales positions, and not that many like it, but the same problem occurs when trying to get them to be a manager. If you offer enough money some will go for it.
150MB for two people is a joke!
I suspect that installing and upgrading apps would exceed that. Do they actually have smartphones or did they think that texting ability qualifies it as a smartphone?
My usage is 1GB/month and I had no idea it was that high until I just checked it now. I'm just guessing, but most of my bandwidth is probably maps/navigator, web browsing, and installs/updates. I view an average of 5 youtube videos per month, if I went video crazy I guess I could really abuse the bandwidth, some people probably watch 2 hours of video while commuting to work and back on the train.
And now Amazon and Google are offering cloud based music playing, holy crap, how much bandwidth is that going to burn? I'm going to take a wild guess that cloud based music is as good as dead! Listening to your music 30 minutes a day will probably put you over your cap. Netflix is going to be available on Droids soon and they're already the number one bandwidth user on the internet, now they can be number one on the airwaves!
I'm not complaining, I actually like the idea of caps as long as they're reasonable. I suspect that there's a minority of people who abuse bandwidth as if it was an unlimited resource. If you live someplace with a great signal you can do everything with your cell phone. You can skip having a landline and use skype on your cell phone, skip cable internet and just tether, skip cable tv and just hook your Droid X hdmi cable to your flatscreen. I have the unlimited data plan(is it really unlimited?), but I prefer actual HD channels, faster internet connection(I only get 1.5Mb/s tethering), and decent phone capability that isn't owned by Microsoft.
When people abuse unlimited, it goes away! If water was free there would probably be people running water 24/7 to power their paddle-wheel generators.
I like that idea!
Maybe they can expire that New York flirting law http://www.stupidlaws.com/a-fine-of-25-can-be-levied-for-flirting/
A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law specifically prohibits men from turning around on any city street and looking “at a woman in that way.” A second conviction for a crime of this magnitude calls for the violating male to be forced to wear a “pair of horse-blinders” wherever and whenever he goes outside for a stroll.
I can't imagine the chaos that would happen if they decided to enforce that law.
The only problem I see with expiration dates is that it seems it would cause a lot of work in reviewing the expired laws. Seems easier to bounce the lawmakers the moment they even suggest a stupid law. Some laws might have made sense at the time they were made, but others seem like they would be stupid in any era. I'm sure other lawmakers would try to defend the stupid lawmaker, in which case they should be considered guilty as well.
Does this mean that the business would be funded primarily by jerks?
This seems like it would have scary repercussions.
While we are fantasizing, why not simplify all laws?
There are countless numbers of useless and stupid laws in the books that should be removed. But you know it will never happen.
The jerks who caused the problem like it this way, keeps them in business. Imagine what it would be like if software companies could make their products unnecessarily complicated and add even add useless code and functionality and bugs that would require constant updates. They would be printing money...crud, I think this might have happened already?!
It's not just IDEs that assume they have the entire screen to themselves.
It seems like a lot of applications are guilty of this. Some of these applications might be required by the person's job, whether they like it or not. Also, like you mentioned, it also seems like a lot of web sites expect you to view them with your browser at full screen and not everyone has a solution for that.
Personally, I usually my laptop's monitor and an additional monitor at the same time. I usually run X Windows apps in one and email/sametime/browser in the other.
If I had a really nice, decent size monitor, I wouldn't have to do that. What happened to the old days when UNIX admins had 21" monitors?
If they did capture him alive it might be better to announce that he was dead then torture him for information. Burial at sea might be a ruse to hide the fact that he was still alive.
We don't have to torture him just for information. We could setup a webcam and allow people on the internet to torture him by via robotic torture tools controlled by a web interface. I feel cheated now, any chance someone come whip up an emulation of this?
I've noticed that most I.Q. tests will do something stupid like ask questions that depend on knowledge as opposed to testing problem solving(IE: knowing words like banality). But I've also noticed that people tend to go overboard in knocking them and will state that they are useless. I disagree, idiots do not do well on decent I.Q. tests, if you scored 90 or less, then you are not very bright. It's probably not your fault, hopefully your looks will compensate. Some people have huge muscle mass while others know that we actually do use more than 10% of our brain capacity.
I strongly suspect that there is a documented set of rules that is supposed to be followed for all servers/workstations on the network. You probably violated those rules the moment you put your server on the network. In some companies this would be grounds for termination. It sounds harsh, but this is one classic method for accidentally compromising security on the internal network. If there is a procedure for setting up a server, ask IT, they can probably get you the information you need.
If IT opened a port for you in the firewall and some malicious hacker used that port to hack into your server, they would then have access to everything that server had access to. After this happens, the IT department would have to explain why they allowed that port to be opened to a server they knew nothing about. If you were the person in IT who allowed that to happen without asking any questions, how would you explain your thought processes to senior management? You may think that your server is perfectly secure, but it's not. Nobody knows what security holes they have until they are later published. This is why IT needs to know what is on all of the servers so that when there is a published security weakness, they will know which servers are affected. When management asks if they are vulnerable, they will not be able to give an honest answer when there are servers they do not have access to.
If it is considered a security violation to install unapproved servers on the network, do you really want to go over IT's head so that you can publicized that you are violating security? Worse yet, you are trying to take it a step further by having that server accessible from outside the firewall?
I wish I had mod points today! I would mod this up, someone help me out!!
Criminals aren't bad, just underpaid http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1989-11-20/
A paradox doesn't have to involve killing your grandfather.
If I use the ability to send messages to the past, then should I be careful and not try to send myself lottery numbers that nobody won? I suspect I would be run down by a car before I had a chance to put in those numbers for a ticket.
It would probably be safer to send back numbers to a lottery that was won by only one person, and that person was me! However, this means that I would have the ability to get the winning ticket before I sent the information back in time. What would happen if I decided not to send the information back after I won? This could lead to an experiment of "free will" versus "determinism"!
Another application of the technology would be to create an infinitely fast computer. It can send back data from intermediate steps and loop chronologically. This would make it infinitely fast and would save a lot of energy. I'm not sure if it is fair to save that much energy before it's considered cheating "the law of conservation of energy". Is there a minimum amount of energy required to calculate a result? Also, in a chronologically loop, how many times did the computer send information back in time, once?
Ignoring that...I suspect that the amount of data that can be in transit in the world might be affected by the memory capacity of the network switches involved. The network switches make it unclear what you can store in latency. AFAIK they start dropping packets randomly depending on how much they are being utilized which causes retransmits which means redundant data on the net.
I'm sure there must be discussions on how saturated the internet can be before it starts to fail. Not Metcalfe's prediction, but something more serious ;)
The ability to identify system problems is an important skill, learn how to do it, don't just reboot hoping the problem will go away. Learn how to do system traces/tcpdump/etc. You should even learn how to do system traces on user processses so that you can tell them that the reason their application is failing is because it is trying to read a file that doesn't exist. Hand holding isn't in our job description, but it's better than rebooting for nothing. What do you put in your system downtime report? "Rebooted system, problem gone"? Steps taken to prevent problem from happening again, "Schedule Daily Reboots". No joke, there are "users" who think weekly reboots are a good idea. How do you manage over a thousand servers with weekly reboots, especially if there are dependencies? And why would anyone think that the admins are the only only ones who are involved in having applications coming up properly? We don't manage the databases, if the DBAs screw up a script that causes a database to not come up properly, the UNIX admins can't control that. But when some user wants a server rebooted because they don't know what they are doing and the database doesn't come back up, we still have to hang around at 03:00 in the morning while someone pages the DBAs to fix it.
Enterprise Class systems are supposed to have high uptimes. You have redundant and hot pluggable adapters, disk drives, you can even dynamically rearrange processors and memory. You have multiple fabrics leading to your SAN storage, and your SAN systems have hot swapable adapters/disk drives/control units/power supplies and RAID storage. If you feel that it's okay to have frequent reboots, then you might as well be running inexpensive x86 servers without any redundancy. Personally, I prefer more sophisticated systems that rarely go down because of hardware, and if the OS has a bug that forces a reboot, I want the OS vendor to fix it!
If an application team that is lacking in "problem determination" skills ask you to reboot a Linux server and their problem is still happening and the Linux server is actually running under VMWare, don't be surprised if they ask you to reboot the entire VMWare server and now you have just bounce all of the guest servers running on that VMWare server. Meanwhile the original problem was caused by a change made by the application team, and a reboot should not have been needed.
Can you imagine Air Traffic Controllers rebooting systems on a whim? There are plenty of important systems using computers that we would like to never have to reboot. We should be making that a goal instead of thinking reboots will always be needed at random times.