Most corporate FUD is actually lies and smokescreen, intended to promote the other corporation. Most people who talk about the government in a less-than-flattering way do so because there is copious evidence that the current government is not trustworthy, does not have the interest of its people at heart, is in bed with corporate and militaristic interests, and would like nothing more than to rape our natural resources and leave the wilderness ravaged.
Now, what does someone like, say, me, gain or benefit when I talk about how bad the current administration is? Do I do so because I want political power, because I want to be president? Because I want to have the free world at my beck and call. Well, maybe. But be that as it may, the real reason is because unlike Bush, I believe in the existence of a little thing called the Future. And the future won't exist without reasoned and careful behavior. Currently, the administration is pretty reckless, I'd say, stretching resources thin, going deep into debt while trying to permanently reduce future revenues.
These don't seem like reasonable steps to me.
Any corporation that did the things that the government has been doing for the past four years would have been tossed on its collective ass by its investors a few years ago. And who are the investors in this metaphor? Well, they're, uh, us, the voters/taxpayers. Only this year, a lot of people decided that it was more important to pay attention to the PR department than what was happening with the financials, and more interested in the CEO's personality than in the overall company's statement of purpose.
Anyone who thinks that electors might change their votes have another thing coming.
Electors are hand picked, not by the states, but by the representative parties. These are generally party loyalists, so keyed up about their candidates that they'd vote for them even if it was proven that the election was rigged.
There have been some electors who do change their minds. Read up on "Faithless Electors". You'll notice that almost none of them changed their party allegiance to the other side, however (although a few gave their vote to an independent party). Most of them simply changed *who* they wanted as president -- in one case, for example, voting for Reagan instead of Gerald Ford.
Actually you'll be surprised to know that the Indian government subsidises the education of almost every college student in India.
This does not surprise me.
However, I'd be interested in knowing how well they do in funding primary education, primarily in the poorer regions of India. Again, unless there have been massive changes recently, news stories I've read seem to indicate that many poorer areas do not have an acceptable place to teach, let alone the teachers to do so.
Look, I think we're definitely on a slippery slope here, and this begs the question: Is literary pedantry really all that useful or interesting after it's been rehashed on Slashdot 1x10^100 times?
I really don't understand why people keep bringing up whether or not this would have helped against 9/11.
Actually, I think it's a good litmus test, really. The truth is, and it's harsh, the reason that the whole 9/11 thing worked was because of stupidity. No one should be or have been able to get onto a plane with box cutters (a small penknife maybe, since you'd have to actually stab directly into someone's aorta to kill them). There were articles a few months before the incident in which box cutters were specifically cited as a weapon that children were sneaking into school, since they were less likely to be confiscated than standard knives. Once their potential as a serious weapon was raised, those should have been banned.
Sure the terrorists will try to come up with new ways of attacking the US. That's why there's an emphasis on increasing security over things like train shipments, cargo, and chemical and nuclear plants/factories around the country. Otherwise, we'd just say, "Well, I'd like to point out that the terrorists used an airplane, not a train, for their terrorism."
The ID thing is a valid point. Even US citizens joined in the attack on the US. In my opinion, the war on terrorism must be a war of the heart. We cannot anticipate every action and kill every potential terrorist. But we *can* improve our image in the world so that the terrorists have fewer potential recruits. We can make it more difficult for terrorist organizations to grow by encouraging stability and economic stability and equality in the Middle East. We can deny funds and wealth to people who will channel it into war, hatred, violence, or oppression.
[steps off of soap box]
Yeah, uh, sorry about that. But I still think 9/11 is a good litmus test. If you put in a block that didn't work against terrorists in the past, why will it work in the future?
I'm not sure whether you count among this group, but many conservatives (including Limbaugh) have often cited this kind of argument. I believe Limbaugh quoted from a few paragraphs in Crichton's Jurassic Park that expressed an opinion similar to yours -- it was Dr. Ian Malcolm who said it.
The irony here is that they themselves are being arrogant, in a sense, by assuming that they don't need to make any changes in their own lifestyles or in their behavior or life choices. I mean, if they actually don't want any great-great-grandchildren, that's fine and dandy, but I expect that they don't really consider it -- pretty much the same mentality that makes a teenager start smoking even if by now they'd actually have to be mentally retarded to not know that the cigarettes *will* eventually kill them.
There are people who drive SUVs and then brag about it, and gloat about how upset hippies get when they drive their giant gleaming Hummers past the hippie's fuel-efficient compact car. It's these people that I don't really understand. I mean, that seems like the height of arrogance to me.
In my opinion, well-managed microloans are *the* way to bring developing nations out of poverty -- not necessarily large-scale foreign investment. Large-scale projects generally seem, to me, to have a 50% chance of failure, with the cost of failure being rather high. In contrast, these smaller ventures tend to be more successful because they are more compact and can deal more quickly with changing conditions (which is also the reason that small businesses in the United States pretty much power the economy even if they only make a small fraction of overall revenue). Also, the cost of failure for these ventures is much lower (although generally the failure is on a more personal, tragic level).
In many ways the Indian attitude towards education is superior to our own.
Unless things have changed drastically in the past few years or so, while the attitude towards education may be great, their willingness to supply the funding behind that attitude is not.
In my opinion, technology does not, in and of itself, solve any problems. There must be attitudinal changes, particularly in the government. Closer to (my) home, this explains why, despite spending more and more each year on computers and other technologies, the US continues to lag behind other countries in education and in how much most current students know and how well they apply that knowledge. It's an attitudinal problem. We train our children to be too focused on education as a means towards a high-paying job, so they don't value knowledge unless they feel it directly translates into acquiring wealth. And that's the *successful* students. Many others, mostly raised in poor environments with limited educational resources and households were both parents *must* work in order to feed their children, have resigned themselves to working in the service industry for the rest of their lives and thus don't take any interest in education.
I'm not sure if these same psychological dynamics have started up in India yet.
Bush did the "smart" thing, and it didn't work for him politically. It's a sad statement on the American people, but they actually (on average, at least) seem to like leaders who aren't that bright.
Also, there's no question that Bush's strong conservative stance on moral issues (do you really *have* to broach the issue of Gay Marriage during the "State of the Union" address? I think *not*) has helped him get elected. I have the utmost of respect for those who hold Christian beliefs, even conservative beliefs, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs into the political spectrum, which is what the Christian Right has been doing through the Bush administration. It even affects their environmental policy.
I would venture to say that if Microsoft were smart and if they could lose some of their stubborn pride, they would adopt a UNIX kernel the way Apple did.
Apple is a computer company. Even though I think its computers are only OK, the software it has is really, really cool. But the software they offer only runs on their machine.
Apparently, they have a version of OS X for x86's, but they haven't released it. It certainly would sell in the millions -- a user-friendly Unix based, secure and stable OS? It'd be very popular!
And yet, they haven't released it.
Is it because they're morons.
No, it's because they're a computer company. The one control they have is that only their computers can run their software. That makes their computers appealing.
I mean, there are some people out there who would go for an Apple because of its unique design and styling. But they'd be idiots. No, paradoxically, what makes Apple computers sell is the software it offers for free.
Microsoft's bread and butter is their OS. If they started offering MS Office for Linux -- which, if they were going for full compatibility, would be effectively impossible, because Office integrates things like COM objects, VisualBasic, etc. in ways which pull heavily on the OS's system -- that would kill their OS sales.
For this very reason, it would also be a bad idea for them to make a flavor of Windows running on a UNIX kernel. Most of the security issues aren't in the Windows kernel, they're in all the services running on top of the kernel. And every existing piece of software has been written to take advantage of these services, which is why in general Windows software, when running on a decent machine, is very, very fast. I haven't taken to OpenOffice much because it takes forever for it to load on my machine (granted, it's X-windows on a Mac, which I may not have tweaked correctly yet). But Office on Windows, even a relatively old machine, loads very quickly. The disadvantage, of course, is that almost every Microsoft application -- Office, Outlook, etc. -- has opened security holes to the OS because of its strong coupling with the underlying OS, and because of the huge level of control Microsoft decided to give to documents opened within Office and other applications. These strengths can be used for good -- meaning you can make what looks like an application but is really just an Excel spreadsheet or Access database, or for evil.
Okay, I'm rambling, but my point is the author of this article is an idiot. Unless Microsoft wants to go through the kind of upheavals that IBM went through (although perhaps on a bigger scale), and completely redefine its core business, then it can go ahead and do so. But it seems to be doing fine as an OS and software company, and that's where it's going to stay. Allaying itself with the Open Source movement can only hurt, not help, the company.
So a better analogy might be that allowing a child to surf the net unguided is like leaving a child to play alone in a city. She might end up at the local library or she might end up at the business end of a speeding bus.
An even better analogy would be leaving a child alone at a library. Generally, the items there are informative and useful, but there are a few books that children shouldn't be allowed to read.
The problem with the Internet is that all materials are equally available, and often they come in misleading packages (i.e. www.whitehouse.com). If a library behaved this way -- with jacket covers reading "A Bedtime Story" and then containing lurid erotic tales, parents would be suing libraries left and right.
The real problem is, unlike in a real library, there's no centralized control of the materials. And there shouldn't be. *And* I tend to disagree with any forms of censorship or regulation of information on the Internet.
Oh, and just because lots of people do something doesn't make it right. Although I'm constantly surprised how many people subscribe to this world view.
Yes, it does, when it's language. With a lot of behaviors, it's what the minority does that's examplary. In language, what the majority does defines the language, for better or worse.
The use of "begs the question" that is correct sounds stupid.
The incorrect use of "begs the question" sounds good.
And, as a poster above pointed out, language changes.
Until someone gives me a good example of the phrase "begging the question" that doesn't sound totally idiotic, then I'm not going to respect you people.
It's like the people who insist that everyone is using the word "Hopefully" incorrectly, as it is an adverb. Stephen Pinker gives this example of its "correct" usage as an adverb:
Hopefully, Jim reached his arm over Sarah's shoulder.
(Okay, that's not the exact sentence, just a paraphrase).
"Nice" used to mean exact. It doesn't mean that anymore, and no amount of trying to "share knowledge" with others about its "correct" meaning is going to make you any less of a pedant.
Also, just out of curiosity cuz I don't get it, in the phrase "begging the question", who/what is doing the begging, and what exactly is the question?
I actually did read the features that were listed in the article, but many of them were over my head.
Like I said, treat me like an idiot. Kind of like if I were to go to an auto dealer, talking to me about pistons, catalytic converters, and the like would be of no help. I'd want to know about fuel efficiency, overall emissions, power when going up hills, how much you could fit in the trunk and the back seats, and its overall safety record.
So, in operating system terms, I'd want to know things like: this operating system is designed for highly secure environments, or environments where speed and system response is most crucial, or where stability is exceedingly important, or where you deal with extremely large file sizes. Would using this OS for a web server or firewall be overkill? Is the system designed to be easy to maintain -- it did look like it has a package system that they're going to make similar to Debian's, and that would be a nice feature.
I don't know hardly *anything* about SuSE or Debian, but if I were asked, I'd respond, "Well, I know that Debian has extremely easy-to-use package management. A great number of people swear by Debian as being extremely easy to install. Other people say it's slower. SuSE comes out of Germany, so it's especially popular there as a lot of the documentation is available in German. However, if you don't know German it may be difficult to find support, as it's possible a lot of the forums will be in German rather than English." If they were interested in specifics, I'd then say, "I'm sorry, I don't know enough. Check out Google for reviews/benchmarks."
People raise "SuSE vs. Debian" type questions all the time -- it's a normal question, and it's often much easier to read responses that have been distilled from personal experience than poring through each distribution's website. I *did* go to the DragonFly website, read through the intro, but didn't understand it fully -- it was definitely written for people very familiar with BSD, and with the apparent misguided path of FreeBSD-5. I also read the FAQ. I didn't realize that I should check out the "Goals" section in order to realize what DragonFly offered differently, and then again "iomodel" is not necessarily the most appealing link name for a noob luser like myself.
Since this is one of the early appearances of DragonFly BSD, I think asking for a general explanation of what makes it so damn special is not out of the question.
Uh, anyone want to give an idiot like me a concise and clear reason why DragonFly BSD is superior to the other BSD variants? What specific applications is it more suited towards?
No, I'm not trolling, but thanks for asking.
Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
And it isn't the same as spam, for God's sake--spammers are trying to sell you somthing.
Wasn't the whole problem that this guy was using this technique to market vodka? Shouldn't this guy be gassed, then?
Okay, any activity that involves someone selling something is evil? I like TV ads, a hell of a lot better than I would probably enjoy some antisocial anarchists taking over the TV station and broadcasting videos of themselves jumping around to bad music.
Keep in mind, I really love nice graffiti, and I think it should be allowed on public, unadorned property -- such as the underside of bridges, trains, along freeways and anywhere else where otherwise you'd just see wide swaths of blank concrete. But I'm against just using a privately owned, occupied building. At that point, you're infringing on the owner's expression (i.e., I like brick walls, so I don't paint my house. I like purple, so I paint my house purple). Personally, if I ever own a wharehouse sized building, I will invite people to come and put whatever kind of mural they want on the side, so long as it's not offensive or mean-spirited. And guess what? If someone comes by and tags that wall or paints over it, yes, I will be pissed off.
So I guess I like controlled graffiti, just like I like people following all the other damn laws we have around.
Re:Political commentary at the Key Bridge in DC
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 3, Funny
When I first looked at the first photo, there's a sign on the left that reads "Report Suspicious Activity".
I thought, "Oh neat, they're parodying the whole paranoia thing. It's neat how they made it look like LED lights, too."
Then I saw the sign you were talking about was on the right.
Currently there are laws in place which govern truth in advertising. What if it was made illegal to intentionally misspell words with the goal of circumventing content filters?
Also, can't we just file civil suits against companies who sell their products through spammers? I know that currently companies that have insufficient corporate ethics facilites set up (i.e., an ethics officer, a company ethics statement) can be held liable when one of their employees engages in unethical behavior, as there is a "culture" of non-ethical behavior in that company. Doesn't the same apply to companies that allow resellers or distributors to spam customers?
Slashdot Mirror
Most corporate FUD is actually lies and smokescreen, intended to promote the other corporation. Most people who talk about the government in a less-than-flattering way do so because there is copious evidence that the current government is not trustworthy, does not have the interest of its people at heart, is in bed with corporate and militaristic interests, and would like nothing more than to rape our natural resources and leave the wilderness ravaged.
Now, what does someone like, say, me, gain or benefit when I talk about how bad the current administration is? Do I do so because I want political power, because I want to be president? Because I want to have the free world at my beck and call. Well, maybe. But be that as it may, the real reason is because unlike Bush, I believe in the existence of a little thing called the Future. And the future won't exist without reasoned and careful behavior. Currently, the administration is pretty reckless, I'd say, stretching resources thin, going deep into debt while trying to permanently reduce future revenues.
These don't seem like reasonable steps to me.
Any corporation that did the things that the government has been doing for the past four years would have been tossed on its collective ass by its investors a few years ago. And who are the investors in this metaphor? Well, they're, uh, us, the voters/taxpayers. Only this year, a lot of people decided that it was more important to pay attention to the PR department than what was happening with the financials, and more interested in the CEO's personality than in the overall company's statement of purpose.
Anyone who thinks that electors might change their votes have another thing coming.
Electors are hand picked, not by the states, but by the representative parties. These are generally party loyalists, so keyed up about their candidates that they'd vote for them even if it was proven that the election was rigged.
There have been some electors who do change their minds. Read up on "Faithless Electors". You'll notice that almost none of them changed their party allegiance to the other side, however (although a few gave their vote to an independent party). Most of them simply changed *who* they wanted as president -- in one case, for example, voting for Reagan instead of Gerald Ford.
Actually you'll be surprised to know that the Indian government subsidises the education of almost every college student in India.
This does not surprise me.
However, I'd be interested in knowing how well they do in funding primary education, primarily in the poorer regions of India. Again, unless there have been massive changes recently, news stories I've read seem to indicate that many poorer areas do not have an acceptable place to teach, let alone the teachers to do so.
Look, I think we're definitely on a slippery slope here, and this begs the question: Is literary pedantry really all that useful or interesting after it's been rehashed on Slashdot 1x10^100 times?
I really don't understand why people keep bringing up whether or not this would have helped against 9/11.
Actually, I think it's a good litmus test, really. The truth is, and it's harsh, the reason that the whole 9/11 thing worked was because of stupidity. No one should be or have been able to get onto a plane with box cutters (a small penknife maybe, since you'd have to actually stab directly into someone's aorta to kill them). There were articles a few months before the incident in which box cutters were specifically cited as a weapon that children were sneaking into school, since they were less likely to be confiscated than standard knives. Once their potential as a serious weapon was raised, those should have been banned.
Sure the terrorists will try to come up with new ways of attacking the US. That's why there's an emphasis on increasing security over things like train shipments, cargo, and chemical and nuclear plants/factories around the country. Otherwise, we'd just say, "Well, I'd like to point out that the terrorists used an airplane, not a train, for their terrorism."
The ID thing is a valid point. Even US citizens joined in the attack on the US. In my opinion, the war on terrorism must be a war of the heart. We cannot anticipate every action and kill every potential terrorist. But we *can* improve our image in the world so that the terrorists have fewer potential recruits. We can make it more difficult for terrorist organizations to grow by encouraging stability and economic stability and equality in the Middle East. We can deny funds and wealth to people who will channel it into war, hatred, violence, or oppression.
[steps off of soap box]
Yeah, uh, sorry about that. But I still think 9/11 is a good litmus test. If you put in a block that didn't work against terrorists in the past, why will it work in the future?
I'm not sure whether you count among this group, but many conservatives (including Limbaugh) have often cited this kind of argument. I believe Limbaugh quoted from a few paragraphs in Crichton's Jurassic Park that expressed an opinion similar to yours -- it was Dr. Ian Malcolm who said it.
The irony here is that they themselves are being arrogant, in a sense, by assuming that they don't need to make any changes in their own lifestyles or in their behavior or life choices. I mean, if they actually don't want any great-great-grandchildren, that's fine and dandy, but I expect that they don't really consider it -- pretty much the same mentality that makes a teenager start smoking even if by now they'd actually have to be mentally retarded to not know that the cigarettes *will* eventually kill them.
There are people who drive SUVs and then brag about it, and gloat about how upset hippies get when they drive their giant gleaming Hummers past the hippie's fuel-efficient compact car. It's these people that I don't really understand. I mean, that seems like the height of arrogance to me.
Figures, please!
If this is true, I want to know.
In my opinion, well-managed microloans are *the* way to bring developing nations out of poverty -- not necessarily large-scale foreign investment. Large-scale projects generally seem, to me, to have a 50% chance of failure, with the cost of failure being rather high. In contrast, these smaller ventures tend to be more successful because they are more compact and can deal more quickly with changing conditions (which is also the reason that small businesses in the United States pretty much power the economy even if they only make a small fraction of overall revenue). Also, the cost of failure for these ventures is much lower (although generally the failure is on a more personal, tragic level).
In many ways the Indian attitude towards education is superior to our own.
Unless things have changed drastically in the past few years or so, while the attitude towards education may be great, their willingness to supply the funding behind that attitude is not.
In my opinion, technology does not, in and of itself, solve any problems. There must be attitudinal changes, particularly in the government. Closer to (my) home, this explains why, despite spending more and more each year on computers and other technologies, the US continues to lag behind other countries in education and in how much most current students know and how well they apply that knowledge. It's an attitudinal problem. We train our children to be too focused on education as a means towards a high-paying job, so they don't value knowledge unless they feel it directly translates into acquiring wealth. And that's the *successful* students. Many others, mostly raised in poor environments with limited educational resources and households were both parents *must* work in order to feed their children, have resigned themselves to working in the service industry for the rest of their lives and thus don't take any interest in education.
I'm not sure if these same psychological dynamics have started up in India yet.
Uh, so what do they do with all of their Budweisers then?
Probably surreptitiously drink them when everybody's left.
My college was yuppie school...[snip]...On our honeymoon, I introduced her to iced tea a la Long Island.
Uh, us normal people just say "Long Island Ice Tea". Thanks.
For an interesting take on Dubya's "dumb" factor, this article on George W Bush's political background is pretty interesting:
Bush did the "smart" thing, and it didn't work for him politically. It's a sad statement on the American people, but they actually (on average, at least) seem to like leaders who aren't that bright.
Also, there's no question that Bush's strong conservative stance on moral issues (do you really *have* to broach the issue of Gay Marriage during the "State of the Union" address? I think *not*) has helped him get elected. I have the utmost of respect for those who hold Christian beliefs, even conservative beliefs, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs into the political spectrum, which is what the Christian Right has been doing through the Bush administration. It even affects their environmental policy.
I would venture to say that if Microsoft were smart and if they could lose some of their stubborn pride, they would adopt a UNIX kernel the way Apple did.
Apple is a computer company. Even though I think its computers are only OK, the software it has is really, really cool. But the software they offer only runs on their machine.
Apparently, they have a version of OS X for x86's, but they haven't released it. It certainly would sell in the millions -- a user-friendly Unix based, secure and stable OS? It'd be very popular!
And yet, they haven't released it.
Is it because they're morons.
No, it's because they're a computer company. The one control they have is that only their computers can run their software. That makes their computers appealing.
I mean, there are some people out there who would go for an Apple because of its unique design and styling. But they'd be idiots. No, paradoxically, what makes Apple computers sell is the software it offers for free.
Microsoft's bread and butter is their OS. If they started offering MS Office for Linux -- which, if they were going for full compatibility, would be effectively impossible, because Office integrates things like COM objects, VisualBasic, etc. in ways which pull heavily on the OS's system -- that would kill their OS sales.
For this very reason, it would also be a bad idea for them to make a flavor of Windows running on a UNIX kernel. Most of the security issues aren't in the Windows kernel, they're in all the services running on top of the kernel. And every existing piece of software has been written to take advantage of these services, which is why in general Windows software, when running on a decent machine, is very, very fast. I haven't taken to OpenOffice much because it takes forever for it to load on my machine (granted, it's X-windows on a Mac, which I may not have tweaked correctly yet). But Office on Windows, even a relatively old machine, loads very quickly. The disadvantage, of course, is that almost every Microsoft application -- Office, Outlook, etc. -- has opened security holes to the OS because of its strong coupling with the underlying OS, and because of the huge level of control Microsoft decided to give to documents opened within Office and other applications. These strengths can be used for good -- meaning you can make what looks like an application but is really just an Excel spreadsheet or Access database, or for evil.
Okay, I'm rambling, but my point is the author of this article is an idiot. Unless Microsoft wants to go through the kind of upheavals that IBM went through (although perhaps on a bigger scale), and completely redefine its core business, then it can go ahead and do so. But it seems to be doing fine as an OS and software company, and that's where it's going to stay. Allaying itself with the Open Source movement can only hurt, not help, the company.
So a better analogy might be that allowing a child to surf the net unguided is like leaving a child to play alone in a city. She might end up at the local library or she might end up at the business end of a speeding bus.
An even better analogy would be leaving a child alone at a library. Generally, the items there are informative and useful, but there are a few books that children shouldn't be allowed to read.
The problem with the Internet is that all materials are equally available, and often they come in misleading packages (i.e. www.whitehouse.com). If a library behaved this way -- with jacket covers reading "A Bedtime Story" and then containing lurid erotic tales, parents would be suing libraries left and right.
The real problem is, unlike in a real library, there's no centralized control of the materials. And there shouldn't be. *And* I tend to disagree with any forms of censorship or regulation of information on the Internet.
But I certainly sympathize with this position.
Oh, and just because lots of people do something doesn't make it right. Although I'm constantly surprised how many people subscribe to this world view.
Yes, it does, when it's language. With a lot of behaviors, it's what the minority does that's examplary. In language, what the majority does defines the language, for better or worse.
Yeah, hi.
The use of "begs the question" that is correct sounds stupid.
The incorrect use of "begs the question" sounds good.
And, as a poster above pointed out, language changes.
Until someone gives me a good example of the phrase "begging the question" that doesn't sound totally idiotic, then I'm not going to respect you people.
It's like the people who insist that everyone is using the word "Hopefully" incorrectly, as it is an adverb. Stephen Pinker gives this example of its "correct" usage as an adverb:
Hopefully, Jim reached his arm over Sarah's shoulder.
(Okay, that's not the exact sentence, just a paraphrase).
"Nice" used to mean exact. It doesn't mean that anymore, and no amount of trying to "share knowledge" with others about its "correct" meaning is going to make you any less of a pedant.
Also, just out of curiosity cuz I don't get it, in the phrase "begging the question", who/what is doing the begging, and what exactly is the question?
Thank you for your "clear and concise" comparison of the BSDs. This is what I was looking for.
Not sure what you mean by "what apps is it suitable for". At current, DragonFly BSD hasn't even released version 1.0, so not suitable for production.
I suppose my question would have been better worded "What applications will it be best suited for?"
I actually did read the features that were listed in the article, but many of them were over my head.
Like I said, treat me like an idiot. Kind of like if I were to go to an auto dealer, talking to me about pistons, catalytic converters, and the like would be of no help. I'd want to know about fuel efficiency, overall emissions, power when going up hills, how much you could fit in the trunk and the back seats, and its overall safety record.
So, in operating system terms, I'd want to know things like: this operating system is designed for highly secure environments, or environments where speed and system response is most crucial, or where stability is exceedingly important, or where you deal with extremely large file sizes. Would using this OS for a web server or firewall be overkill? Is the system designed to be easy to maintain -- it did look like it has a package system that they're going to make similar to Debian's, and that would be a nice feature.
I don't know hardly *anything* about SuSE or Debian, but if I were asked, I'd respond, "Well, I know that Debian has extremely easy-to-use package management. A great number of people swear by Debian as being extremely easy to install. Other people say it's slower. SuSE comes out of Germany, so it's especially popular there as a lot of the documentation is available in German. However, if you don't know German it may be difficult to find support, as it's possible a lot of the forums will be in German rather than English." If they were interested in specifics, I'd then say, "I'm sorry, I don't know enough. Check out Google for reviews/benchmarks."
People raise "SuSE vs. Debian" type questions all the time -- it's a normal question, and it's often much easier to read responses that have been distilled from personal experience than poring through each distribution's website. I *did* go to the DragonFly website, read through the intro, but didn't understand it fully -- it was definitely written for people very familiar with BSD, and with the apparent misguided path of FreeBSD-5. I also read the FAQ. I didn't realize that I should check out the "Goals" section in order to realize what DragonFly offered differently, and then again "iomodel" is not necessarily the most appealing link name for a noob luser like myself.
Since this is one of the early appearances of DragonFly BSD, I think asking for a general explanation of what makes it so damn special is not out of the question.
Uh, anyone want to give an idiot like me a concise and clear reason why DragonFly BSD is superior to the other BSD variants? What specific applications is it more suited towards?
No, I'm not trolling, but thanks for asking.
- Wasn't the whole problem that this guy was using this technique to market vodka? Shouldn't this guy be gassed, then?
- Okay, any activity that involves someone selling something is evil? I like TV ads, a hell of a lot better than I would probably enjoy some antisocial anarchists taking over the TV station and broadcasting videos of themselves jumping around to bad music.
Keep in mind, I really love nice graffiti, and I think it should be allowed on public, unadorned property -- such as the underside of bridges, trains, along freeways and anywhere else where otherwise you'd just see wide swaths of blank concrete. But I'm against just using a privately owned, occupied building. At that point, you're infringing on the owner's expression (i.e., I like brick walls, so I don't paint my house. I like purple, so I paint my house purple). Personally, if I ever own a wharehouse sized building, I will invite people to come and put whatever kind of mural they want on the side, so long as it's not offensive or mean-spirited. And guess what? If someone comes by and tags that wall or paints over it, yes, I will be pissed off.So I guess I like controlled graffiti, just like I like people following all the other damn laws we have around.
When I first looked at the first photo, there's a sign on the left that reads "Report Suspicious Activity".
I thought, "Oh neat, they're parodying the whole paranoia thing. It's neat how they made it look like LED lights, too."
Then I saw the sign you were talking about was on the right.
The "Report Suspicious Activity" sign is real.
Hah! Some website. Looks like he hasn't been updating it. It doesn't say I'm DEAD yet.
Something just occurred to me:
Currently there are laws in place which govern truth in advertising. What if it was made illegal to intentionally misspell words with the goal of circumventing content filters?
Also, can't we just file civil suits against companies who sell their products through spammers? I know that currently companies that have insufficient corporate ethics facilites set up (i.e., an ethics officer, a company ethics statement) can be held liable when one of their employees engages in unethical behavior, as there is a "culture" of non-ethical behavior in that company. Doesn't the same apply to companies that allow resellers or distributors to spam customers?
What's that?
Uh, right. Lots of myostatin; hence, UNmuscled.
See, this is why we need a "Stupid" moderation, not just "Redundant".