The author himself gives the reason:
"Right up until last week, this FreeBSD box had an uptime of 1,057 days, or nearly three years. This streak was broken only due to a UPS failure during a brief power outage... And this box has been rock-solid stable the entire 10 years, with only a disk failure or two in the middle."
Considering hardware failure will eventually bring down the machine anyway, there's little to no difference in uptime between a "rock solid" BSD install versus a "also-solid" Linux install.
Nice to see the soldiers will look awesome driving around in some of these amazing designs. At least, until they are killed because the vehicle is totally impractical.
In the spirit of the Golden Rule, I hope that any future alien visitors to Earth do not need to vacuum up humans before realizing we are indeed a life form. It sounds quite uncomfortable.
I challenge whether you can even trust bandwidth tests. The OOKLA-powered bandwidth test on Broadband.gov shows 80Mbit down on my 10Mbit connection. I never see similar numbers from any other source. So, perhaps my ISP (Time Warner) is pulling one over?
The 2-year chart tells the story even better. From $20 to under $4. Hate indeed!
Re:A quote to all the corporate Stalins out there
on
IBM to Lose 13,000 Jobs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you RTFA, you'll notice that 13,000 jobs constitutes only 4% of IBM's workforce. While this is by no means a small reduction, it is far from "near-cataclysmic random-act-of-God-like massive". If you apply this percentage cut to a small shop of 20 people, you've just fired 1.
Also, I am sure it is far from a "RANDOM-act-of-God" move. You don't fire your best employee. You fire the least-profitable one. And if you are the one who has been marked as the least-profitable, shame on you for not having foresight enough to view your own job in the context of the company and make alternative plans.
Though by no means the first time a major-label artist has released a track to the public for remix
It's bad enough not to RTFA, but could you even bother to read the/. post itself?
Isn't Sales Ability simply a prerequisite to Money, in an abstract sense? He who sells his idea gets his money.
And what about a product? That seems pretty integral, unless you plan to sell vaporwear, packages of happy thoughts and sweet dreams, or some other non-product. (Did you hear that HotOrNot.com now sells "virtual flowers" for "non-virtual money"? Genious!)
I have encountered several people in the audio business describe the "Sound" of different types of CDs (as you do with "bright", "neutral", etc). However, I have yet to have a single one explain to me how a media type that simply describes waveforms through a binary series (1s and 0s) could possibly influence the sound produced, assuming the binary series is stored reliably in all of them. What impact would the media have on the waveforms? And WHY?
The only audible result from different brand of media, from what I understand, would be the vibration due to poor balancing, thickness, or other physical determinates of the vibrations of actual CD as it spins.
Within your obviously biased post, you have done little to actually argue a point. If you want to convince people, take a side and then try to defend it with objective evidence... just as actual proponants of Science have done.
Now, as far as I see it, your preconceptions may be incorrect. Creationism and Evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Yet while few now would argue against most of the concepts in evolution, many evolutionists (such as yourself) ardently argue against the concepts of creationism. However, answer for me this:
Assuming that the Scientifically-based theory of human history (evolution being recent, the big-bang being the oldest conjectured event), then where did the "Cosmic Egg" that started the whole process come from? Further, and more important, why did it come about? Answer these, and then you'll probably have an arguement against Creationism.
Interesting article, true. Though the reference to increased learning (the first reference, to Hameleers) is a bit out of context as it didn't include children. This is the abstract:
Evaluated, as part of the Maastricht Aging Study, the association between habitual caffeine intake via coffee and tea and cognitive performance. A group of 1875 healthy adults (aged 24-81 yrs), stratified for age, sex, and general ability, were screened for habitual intake of coffee and tea and took part in extensive cognitive testing. After controlling for age, sex, socio-demographic variables and substance use, habitual caffeine consumption was found to be significantly related to better long-term memory performance and faster locomotor speed. No relationships were found between habitual caffeine consumption and short-term memory, information processing, planning, and attention as measured with the Stroop Test. Moreover, no difference in sensitivity to caffeine intake between different age groups was found, suggesting that caffeine intake did not counteract age-related cognitive decline. Several recommendations are made to improve the design of future studies in this field.
Good article though, and on the whole it supports your point.:)
HOWEVER, there are some other articles that also reject it:
M. P. J. van Boxtel revisited the experiment of Hameleers 6 years later, but found that:
Recently, a high habitual intake of caffeine was found associated with better verbal memory performance and psychomotor speed in several cross-sectional population studies. We tested the hypothesis that habitual caffeine intake can reduce or postpone age-related cognitive decline in healthy adults. For this purpose, the cognitive performance of all participants in the Maastricht Aging Study (MAAS), aged between 24 and 81 years, was reassessed after 6 years. Information on the intake of caffeine-containing beverages was available from the baseline questionnaire. After 6 years, 1,376 (75.6%) individuals were available for reassessment. After correction for demographic characteristics, baseline performance and health status, there were small albeit significant associations between the overall estimated caffeine intake at baseline and the 6-year change in complex motor speed (motor choice reaction time). The earlier found association between caffeine intake and verbal memory performance was not apparent in this longitudinal study. These results imply that the longitudinal effect of habitual caffeine intake is limited and will not promote a substantial reduction in age-related cognitive decline at a population level.
Ronald P Gruber also cited the previous experiment of Hameleers, but the abstract reads:
The effects of caffeine on prospective and retrospective duration judgements were evaluated in a double-blind placebo-controlled experiment. After taking either 200 mg caffeine or a placebo, participants touched a 17-sided polygon for 15 s. Then they verbally estimated the number of angles and the duration. Participants in the prospective group were told in advance they would be making a duration estimate, whereas those in the retrospective group were not told. Caffeine reduced duration estimates in the prospective condition but not in the retrospective condition. The effect of caffeine on very long duration comparisons (the past year compared with a year at one-half and one-quarter of one's age) was also evaluated, but none was found. The findings do not support the hypothesis that caffeine affects duration experience by increasing the internal clock rate as a result of its dopamine D-sub-2 agonist properties. The hypothesis that caffeine produces its effect by enhancing memory was considered and rejected. The most parsimonious explanation is that caffeine increased arousal level, which led to a narrowing of the focus of attention to the most salient task.
Sadly, while your article points to an interesting psychological paper, it appears that every later paper that cited it had different results. So, while it's a nice article, it appears to be based on incorrect results.
Studies have shown that people DO perform better mentally on small doses of caffeine, so there's no real need to go completely on the wagon.
Not that I don't believe you, but where are these studies? Any clue as to where we might start to read up on this? One in particular that you enjoyed, perhaps?
It's about time someone in the computer world roughed up Gates a little bit. (http://www.shutterfly.com/my/slide2.jsp?auto=0&i= 67b0de21b35a74a7e4c1&idx=42.) Good to see Balmer has it in him.
But seriously, a story about the "Internet Security and Acceleration (ISA) Server" gets slashdotted immediately? Sounds like these guys are really going to follow through on their performance promises.
"Some 7.7 million tracks were bought and downloaded since the end of June - compared with four million CD singles sold, Billboard magazine reported. "
Unless my memory fails me, the whole "online music store" idea was first put into large-scale work with Apple's release in April... and that was only for Macs! It's amazing to think of how far it's come in only 8 months, especially given that the PC versions haven't even been out anything close to that!
It sort of lends validity to the idea that a digital distribution system -- even a legal one -- was desperately needed... rerhaps even before the RIAA even began all it's legal mumbo-jumbo that has it in such dire straights with consumers right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Federal law prohibits sharing student data. See the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
If you're going to drop that much cash, why not just get a standard 1U Atom setup. Example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101332
Judging by some of it's past inactions, it is arguable that 1,000+ UN accounts do not comprise anything of value.
The author himself gives the reason: "Right up until last week, this FreeBSD box had an uptime of 1,057 days, or nearly three years. This streak was broken only due to a UPS failure during a brief power outage... And this box has been rock-solid stable the entire 10 years, with only a disk failure or two in the middle." Considering hardware failure will eventually bring down the machine anyway, there's little to no difference in uptime between a "rock solid" BSD install versus a "also-solid" Linux install.
And the winner of this whole experiment ends up being ATI, who sold a bunch of GPUs to doe-eyed bitcoin miners.
Without SCO to suck dry, the world's IP lawyers might just get bored and fire the first shots in the Technology Patent Armageddon.
...Microsoft Corporation. Those guys must be Linux advocates, too.
Nice to see the soldiers will look awesome driving around in some of these amazing designs. At least, until they are killed because the vehicle is totally impractical.
In the spirit of the Golden Rule, I hope that any future alien visitors to Earth do not need to vacuum up humans before realizing we are indeed a life form. It sounds quite uncomfortable.
StopTheCap.com MAY be futile. But it also may be productive.
Whining - absent all else - is always futile.
Anyone who is offended at the behavior of these ISPs could join http://www.stopthecap.com/ It may be futile, but at least it's better than whining.
I challenge whether you can even trust bandwidth tests. The OOKLA-powered bandwidth test on Broadband.gov shows 80Mbit down on my 10Mbit connection. I never see similar numbers from any other source. So, perhaps my ISP (Time Warner) is pulling one over?
Code Error: Wrong + Wrong != Right
The 2-year chart tells the story even better. From $20 to under $4. Hate indeed!
If you RTFA, you'll notice that 13,000 jobs constitutes only 4% of IBM's workforce. While this is by no means a small reduction, it is far from "near-cataclysmic random-act-of-God-like massive". If you apply this percentage cut to a small shop of 20 people, you've just fired 1.
Also, I am sure it is far from a "RANDOM-act-of-God" move. You don't fire your best employee. You fire the least-profitable one. And if you are the one who has been marked as the least-profitable, shame on you for not having foresight enough to view your own job in the context of the company and make alternative plans.
Though by no means the first time a major-label artist has released a track to the public for remix It's bad enough not to RTFA, but could you even bother to read the /. post itself?
Isn't Sales Ability simply a prerequisite to Money, in an abstract sense? He who sells his idea gets his money. And what about a product? That seems pretty integral, unless you plan to sell vaporwear, packages of happy thoughts and sweet dreams, or some other non-product. (Did you hear that HotOrNot.com now sells "virtual flowers" for "non-virtual money"? Genious!)
Perhaps within the bounds of the law?
Perhaps ethically sound?
And since a startup that succeeds ordinarily makes its founders rich, that implies getting rich is doable too.
Perhaps at a profit?
I have encountered several people in the audio business describe the "Sound" of different types of CDs (as you do with "bright", "neutral", etc). However, I have yet to have a single one explain to me how a media type that simply describes waveforms through a binary series (1s and 0s) could possibly influence the sound produced, assuming the binary series is stored reliably in all of them. What impact would the media have on the waveforms? And WHY?
The only audible result from different brand of media, from what I understand, would be the vibration due to poor balancing, thickness, or other physical determinates of the vibrations of actual CD as it spins.
Within your obviously biased post, you have done little to actually argue a point. If you want to convince people, take a side and then try to defend it with objective evidence... just as actual proponants of Science have done.
Now, as far as I see it, your preconceptions may be incorrect. Creationism and Evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Yet while few now would argue against most of the concepts in evolution, many evolutionists (such as yourself) ardently argue against the concepts of creationism. However, answer for me this:
Assuming that the Scientifically-based theory of human history (evolution being recent, the big-bang being the oldest conjectured event), then where did the "Cosmic Egg" that started the whole process come from? Further, and more important, why did it come about? Answer these, and then you'll probably have an arguement against Creationism.
Interesting article, true. Though the reference to increased learning (the first reference, to Hameleers) is a bit out of context as it didn't include children. This is the abstract:
:)
;)
Evaluated, as part of the Maastricht Aging Study, the association between habitual caffeine intake via coffee and tea and cognitive performance. A group of 1875 healthy adults (aged 24-81 yrs), stratified for age, sex, and general ability, were screened for habitual intake of coffee and tea and took part in extensive cognitive testing. After controlling for age, sex, socio-demographic variables and substance use, habitual caffeine consumption was found to be significantly related to better long-term memory performance and faster locomotor speed. No relationships were found between habitual caffeine consumption and short-term memory, information processing, planning, and attention as measured with the Stroop Test. Moreover, no difference in sensitivity to caffeine intake between different age groups was found, suggesting that caffeine intake did not counteract age-related cognitive decline. Several recommendations are made to improve the design of future studies in this field.
Good article though, and on the whole it supports your point.
HOWEVER, there are some other articles that also reject it:
M. P. J. van Boxtel revisited the experiment of Hameleers 6 years later, but found that:
Recently, a high habitual intake of caffeine was found associated with better verbal memory performance and psychomotor speed in several cross-sectional population studies. We tested the hypothesis that habitual caffeine intake can reduce or postpone age-related cognitive decline in healthy adults. For this purpose, the cognitive performance of all participants in the Maastricht Aging Study (MAAS), aged between 24 and 81 years, was reassessed after 6 years. Information on the intake of caffeine-containing beverages was available from the baseline questionnaire. After 6 years, 1,376 (75.6%) individuals were available for reassessment. After correction for demographic characteristics, baseline performance and health status, there were small albeit significant associations between the overall estimated caffeine intake at baseline and the 6-year change in complex motor speed (motor choice reaction time). The earlier found association between caffeine intake and verbal memory performance was not apparent in this longitudinal study. These results imply that the longitudinal effect of habitual caffeine intake is limited and will not promote a substantial reduction in age-related cognitive decline at a population level.
Ronald P Gruber also cited the previous experiment of Hameleers, but the abstract reads:
The effects of caffeine on prospective and retrospective duration judgements were evaluated in a double-blind placebo-controlled experiment. After taking either 200 mg caffeine or a placebo, participants touched a 17-sided polygon for 15 s. Then they verbally estimated the number of angles and the duration. Participants in the prospective group were told in advance they would be making a duration estimate, whereas those in the retrospective group were not told. Caffeine reduced duration estimates in the prospective condition but not in the retrospective condition. The effect of caffeine on very long duration comparisons (the past year compared with a year at one-half and one-quarter of one's age) was also evaluated, but none was found. The findings do not support the hypothesis that caffeine affects duration experience by increasing the internal clock rate as a result of its dopamine D-sub-2 agonist properties. The hypothesis that caffeine produces its effect by enhancing memory was considered and rejected. The most parsimonious explanation is that caffeine increased arousal level, which led to a narrowing of the focus of attention to the most salient task.
Sadly, while your article points to an interesting psychological paper, it appears that every later paper that cited it had different results. So, while it's a nice article, it appears to be based on incorrect results.
NEXT!
Studies have shown that people DO perform better mentally on small doses of caffeine, so there's no real need to go completely on the wagon.
Not that I don't believe you, but where are these studies? Any clue as to where we might start to read up on this? One in particular that you enjoyed, perhaps?
For those of you too lazy to cut and paste the address, here is a link.
It's about time someone in the computer world roughed up Gates a little bit. (http://www.shutterfly.com/my/slide2.jsp?auto=0&i= 67b0de21b35a74a7e4c1&idx=42.) Good to see Balmer has it in him.
But seriously, a story about the "Internet Security and Acceleration (ISA) Server" gets slashdotted immediately? Sounds like these guys are really going to follow through on their performance promises.
"Some 7.7 million tracks were bought and downloaded since the end of June - compared with four million CD singles sold, Billboard magazine reported. " Unless my memory fails me, the whole "online music store" idea was first put into large-scale work with Apple's release in April... and that was only for Macs! It's amazing to think of how far it's come in only 8 months, especially given that the PC versions haven't even been out anything close to that! It sort of lends validity to the idea that a digital distribution system -- even a legal one -- was desperately needed... rerhaps even before the RIAA even began all it's legal mumbo-jumbo that has it in such dire straights with consumers right now.