I think it's brilliant parody. Reminds me of a typical news website from the turn of the century. (This century, not the last one.) First, it was free. Then, it was free but "for your convenience" you had to create an account to participate. Later, it was paywalled "for your additional enjoyment". Extra points for saying "the paywall is so we don't have to put ads on the page" and then later, they put ads up anyway.
So... during all this falderall, we get to see a lot of photos of Young Dear Leader surrounded by elderly men in military uniforms with ridiculously large hats, pointing dramatically this way and that. Occasionally you get a side view of Dear Leader and... all I can think of is MAN he's fat. Looks like close to 300 pounds. They try to disguise it with clothes and camera angles but there's no denying that he is a Big Boy. Maybe we should just send truckloads of Cinnabuns and wait for the inevitable?
There's no reason to go undercover or assign police to track social networking. There's already an early warning system for nuisance loud music -- it's called neighbors. If you get a call that someone is playing obnoxiously loud, that's the only clue you need.
It's not raucous if nobody is disturbed. If someone is disturbed, they'll say. What undercover work is necessary here?
Windows on low end computers suck. Windows 8 would have the same market share as Windows Phone (nearly zero) if it wasn't for their Windows and MS Office monopoly. The currently available products of Microsoft I have respect for are Windows 7, Visual Studio, and MS Office. Windows 8 is horrible. Windows Phone is halfway decent. It would have been competitive in 2008.
Microsoft is going to ruin its brand even further by allowing Windows to run on crapboxes.
Um, I own a couple of those "crapboxes" and that term is dead right if one describes "crapbox" as a low end computer running Windows. Running something else, different story.
> I mean, the fact that they still have the application ecosystem problems and that Windows really is a crappy tablet OS no matter what size may still be true
Daughter had a Windows 7 tablet that was essentially shelfware. (Windows 7 tablet support is pants.) I installed Windows 8 pro a couple weeks ago to see if we could breathe new life into it. No such luck. I mean, the tiles fly about and everything, but it's so painful to do anything except the simplest of media consumption, that we end up putting it away and going back to our Windows 7 workstations. Daughter wants to try a Samsung Note next. That looks like it might be a better fit.
...of a tiny screen that holds, like, two tiles. It takes a lot of panic swiping to find an app...
But seriously, Windows 8 Pro will already work on lower resolution screens (ala netbooks). It requires a registry change (set display1_downscalingsupported to "1", reboot, set screen resolution high enough to run metro apps). I think all this means is that a future patch will have this parameter enabled by default.
I have a camera built into the front license plate bracket rather than sitting on the dashboard. This particular one has the recording device elsewhere on the vehicle, but I suspect with today's technology the entire thing could fit in the license plate bracket. Just sayin'.
Should a server really be just an appliance? Servers must be kept up-to-date with the latest security updates, etc. Appliances are plug in and forget.
In addition, at my day job, we often re-purpose servers for various uses. A non x86 server would severely limit our options when it comes to this. For example, when we outgrow our current database server, we can purchase a new one and utilize the old one as a standby web server, development server, or something similar.
An Oracle server, or a Netezza server, or a Google appliance, or a storage appliance, are purchased for a particular purpose. They're not general purpose servers, and as such, it doesn't matter what they run (assuming the admin tools are adequate to whatever administration is required) and it doesn't matter what architecture they use, as long as it's adequate to the task. That most appliances of this kind run some variation of Unix is a plus for old time Unix admins like you and me, but it's not really part of the purchasing decision.
The Oracle servers purchased on Sparc architecture running Solaris could in theory be turned into general purpose Unix servers. (There are still a lot of applications that run on Solaris) but that isn't usually what happens. Typically, the primary Oracle servers get regulated to test or development status as they're replaced with better primary Oracle servers. They're still Oracle servers.
The advantage of this mindset is that usually, USUALLY mind you, when you buy the stack (h/'w, os, app) as an integrated whole, the benefits are less work for the admin, tighter integration and better performance. Of course there are counter-examples, but that doesn't invalidate the concept.
That underlying architecture affects how likely it will "perform well." There's a reason people tend to deploy server applications on UNIX systems rather than Windows.
Agreed, which is why our back end servers tend to be Unix or Linux. But in this case, Oracle owns both the architecture and the underlying OS, so one would think that there was some optimization going on.
To me database is just a resource, so I may be looking at this wrong, but it seems that the Oracle server is just an appliance, and it doesn't matter to me what architecture it runs on as long as it performs well. So buying an Oracle server on Sparc isn't really a matter of "it's not x86" or "it's not Power". Since I'm not going to use the box for anything except Oracle, the cpu architecture is immaterial. Not even the OS is important, as long as it works well.
> I am a private pilot, and you should be aware that without the threat of lasers shining on your windscreen, 56% of fatal aircraft accidents happen during the takeoff, initial climb, final approach and landing phases of flight (where it's possible to shine one of these lasers). This represents approximately 6% of the total time of an average flight. Let me repeat: 56% of fatal accidents happen during the same 6% of a flight.
I am not a pilot, but I have a friend who is, and I have flown with him in a private plane. I observe that you are absolutely correct, which is why I included the line "especially at low altitude approaching an airport", which according to what I've read, is when most of these laser incidents happen. It's a time when operator load is at its highest, and exactly the wrong time for an added distraction of any kind. I didn't mean to pick nits, just pointing out that often the possible results are painted as more dire than necessary, as crashing the plane due to distraction is certainly dire enough. Perhaps I didn't word it right.
It's a stupid move that really could have dire consequences, so I'm ok with offenders going to jail. Eventually the word will get around.
Sort of like robbery, rape, assault, fraud, and a whole host of other crimes, right?
Or did you mean when someone installs their computer equipment in someone elses closet, tries to hide that equipment as they suck down reams of information, then tries to give that information away because they felt is was their right to do so?
Sounds like you have some personal issues to work out, but ok, I'll bite. The difference here is that the perp has very little to gain by the stunt -- There's no material gain, no (or very little) feeling of control or domination, not even trade collateral or peer appreciation as in your last example. It's precisely the same level of stupid destructiveness as heaving rocks off a freeway overpass.
I'm aware that punishment often doesn't prevent crime, it simply makes the criminals more careful. (Or, more accurately, the threat of getting caught and the resulting punishment may stop individual crimes in certain times and places, but not crime in general.) But the factors (I just took a class in this and it's still fresh in my mind) include both (a) convincing yourself that you won't get caught, and (b) enough personal gain to warrant making the attempt. I just don't see the gain in pointing a laser at an airplane. I suspect that this is a fad that will pass soon. All the other things you describe have measurable gain (but not always in goods) and as such, will continue.
So... how did you not notice the additional heat generated by your friend's equipment in your closet?
I think it could still be about the store reps -- promising something, to get you to conclude the transaction, that the company has no intention whatsoever of delivering. And then, if you fight hard enough, they *may* deliver on the salescreature's promise, but it's considered a concession for the sake of customer service, not putting something right.
I think the activation fee (and other spurious charges) appears on your first bill. Then and only then you get to call and argue with them. Was the case with Verizon.
I'm going to take in seriousness something said in jest, but that's what geeks do... I read recently that the laser doesn't actually drill right through the cockpit window and quick-fry the retinas of the pilots, Rather, the beam splashes on the window, making it difficult or impossible to see out while the beam is in play. Which is still a really bad thing (and a phenomenally stupid thing to do at many levels) ESPECIALLY at low altitude approaching an airport, but is not exactly the same thing as smoking two sets of eyes and leaving the plane permanently pilotless. The article was making the case that the talk of permanently blinding pilots is conventional justice-system-driven hyperbole to make the crime seem worse than it is. (Which in my opinion is unnecessary. It's a stupid move that really could have dire consequences, so I'm ok with offenders going to jail. Eventually the word will get around.)
Slashdot Mirror
What? You were expecting ponies?
Nobody expected the ponies.
I think it's brilliant parody. Reminds me of a typical news website from the turn of the century. (This century, not the last one.) First, it was free. Then, it was free but "for your convenience" you had to create an account to participate. Later, it was paywalled "for your additional enjoyment". Extra points for saying "the paywall is so we don't have to put ads on the page" and then later, they put ads up anyway.
Not only that, but North Korea has nothing we could possibly want.
So... during all this falderall, we get to see a lot of photos of Young Dear Leader surrounded by elderly men in military uniforms with ridiculously large hats, pointing dramatically this way and that. Occasionally you get a side view of Dear Leader and... all I can think of is MAN he's fat. Looks like close to 300 pounds. They try to disguise it with clothes and camera angles but there's no denying that he is a Big Boy. Maybe we should just send truckloads of Cinnabuns and wait for the inevitable?
The thing is, it (disturbing the peace) is not a crime until it happens.
And not too sure which direction to turn the little handle.
There is a chance (small) that this idiot and his crew will provoke a major incident - like The Mouse That Roared...but with real blood and bodies.
And no q-bomb.
> wars are not declared with photos of the president and a map behind him showing "squadrons of airplanes" attacking the US ..
Well, right, wars are declared when the leader of a country says "we are in a state of war". (In Korean, but still.)
I would have said, wars are not *fought* by maps on the news showing squadrons of airplanes attacking the US. Except perhaps diplomatically.
Yeah, I think that's what's going to be different this time. There are signs that China is getting tired of North Korea's crap.
There's no reason to go undercover or assign police to track social networking. There's already an early warning system for nuisance loud music -- it's called neighbors. If you get a call that someone is playing obnoxiously loud, that's the only clue you need.
It's not raucous if nobody is disturbed. If someone is disturbed, they'll say. What undercover work is necessary here?
Windows on low end computers suck. Windows 8 would have the same market share as Windows Phone (nearly zero) if it wasn't for their Windows and MS Office monopoly. The currently available products of Microsoft I have respect for are Windows 7, Visual Studio, and MS Office. Windows 8 is horrible. Windows Phone is halfway decent. It would have been competitive in 2008.
Microsoft is going to ruin its brand even further by allowing Windows to run on crapboxes.
Um, I own a couple of those "crapboxes" and that term is dead right if one describes "crapbox" as a low end computer running Windows. Running something else, different story.
> I mean, the fact that they still have the application ecosystem problems and that Windows really is a crappy tablet OS no matter what size may still be true
Daughter had a Windows 7 tablet that was essentially shelfware. (Windows 7 tablet support is pants.) I installed Windows 8 pro a couple weeks ago to see if we could breathe new life into it. No such luck. I mean, the tiles fly about and everything, but it's so painful to do anything except the simplest of media consumption, that we end up putting it away and going back to our Windows 7 workstations. Daughter wants to try a Samsung Note next. That looks like it might be a better fit.
Enh. I disagree. Hoovers are useful.
But seriously, Windows 8 Pro will already work on lower resolution screens (ala netbooks). It requires a registry change (set display1_downscalingsupported to "1", reboot, set screen resolution high enough to run metro apps). I think all this means is that a future patch will have this parameter enabled by default.
Absolutely. The Fleischmann–Pons device was not commercially viable, although it ultimately.... no, wait....
I have a camera built into the front license plate bracket rather than sitting on the dashboard. This particular one has the recording device elsewhere on the vehicle, but I suspect with today's technology the entire thing could fit in the license plate bracket. Just sayin'.
Should a server really be just an appliance? Servers must be kept up-to-date with the latest security updates, etc. Appliances are plug in and forget.
In addition, at my day job, we often re-purpose servers for various uses. A non x86 server would severely limit our options when it comes to this. For example, when we outgrow our current database server, we can purchase a new one and utilize the old one as a standby web server, development server, or something similar.
An Oracle server, or a Netezza server, or a Google appliance, or a storage appliance, are purchased for a particular purpose. They're not general purpose servers, and as such, it doesn't matter what they run (assuming the admin tools are adequate to whatever administration is required) and it doesn't matter what architecture they use, as long as it's adequate to the task. That most appliances of this kind run some variation of Unix is a plus for old time Unix admins like you and me, but it's not really part of the purchasing decision.
The Oracle servers purchased on Sparc architecture running Solaris could in theory be turned into general purpose Unix servers. (There are still a lot of applications that run on Solaris) but that isn't usually what happens. Typically, the primary Oracle servers get regulated to test or development status as they're replaced with better primary Oracle servers. They're still Oracle servers.
The advantage of this mindset is that usually, USUALLY mind you, when you buy the stack (h/'w, os, app) as an integrated whole, the benefits are less work for the admin, tighter integration and better performance. Of course there are counter-examples, but that doesn't invalidate the concept.
That underlying architecture affects how likely it will "perform well." There's a reason people tend to deploy server applications on UNIX systems rather than Windows.
Agreed, which is why our back end servers tend to be Unix or Linux. But in this case, Oracle owns both the architecture and the underlying OS, so one would think that there was some optimization going on.
To me database is just a resource, so I may be looking at this wrong, but it seems that the Oracle server is just an appliance, and it doesn't matter to me what architecture it runs on as long as it performs well. So buying an Oracle server on Sparc isn't really a matter of "it's not x86" or "it's not Power". Since I'm not going to use the box for anything except Oracle, the cpu architecture is immaterial. Not even the OS is important, as long as it works well.
> I am a private pilot, and you should be aware that without the threat of lasers shining on your windscreen, 56% of fatal aircraft accidents happen during the takeoff, initial climb, final approach and landing phases of flight (where it's possible to shine one of these lasers). This represents approximately 6% of the total time of an average flight. Let me repeat: 56% of fatal accidents happen during the same 6% of a flight.
I am not a pilot, but I have a friend who is, and I have flown with him in a private plane. I observe that you are absolutely correct, which is why I included the line "especially at low altitude approaching an airport", which according to what I've read, is when most of these laser incidents happen. It's a time when operator load is at its highest, and exactly the wrong time for an added distraction of any kind. I didn't mean to pick nits, just pointing out that often the possible results are painted as more dire than necessary, as crashing the plane due to distraction is certainly dire enough. Perhaps I didn't word it right.
It's a stupid move that really could have dire consequences, so I'm ok with offenders going to jail. Eventually the word will get around.
Sort of like robbery, rape, assault, fraud, and a whole host of other crimes, right?
Or did you mean when someone installs their computer equipment in someone elses closet, tries to hide that equipment as they suck down reams of information, then tries to give that information away because they felt is was their right to do so?
Sounds like you have some personal issues to work out, but ok, I'll bite. The difference here is that the perp has very little to gain by the stunt -- There's no material gain, no (or very little) feeling of control or domination, not even trade collateral or peer appreciation as in your last example. It's precisely the same level of stupid destructiveness as heaving rocks off a freeway overpass.
I'm aware that punishment often doesn't prevent crime, it simply makes the criminals more careful. (Or, more accurately, the threat of getting caught and the resulting punishment may stop individual crimes in certain times and places, but not crime in general.) But the factors (I just took a class in this and it's still fresh in my mind) include both (a) convincing yourself that you won't get caught, and (b) enough personal gain to warrant making the attempt. I just don't see the gain in pointing a laser at an airplane. I suspect that this is a fad that will pass soon. All the other things you describe have measurable gain (but not always in goods) and as such, will continue.
So... how did you not notice the additional heat generated by your friend's equipment in your closet?
Apparently people really are that stupid.
I think it could still be about the store reps -- promising something, to get you to conclude the transaction, that the company has no intention whatsoever of delivering. And then, if you fight hard enough, they *may* deliver on the salescreature's promise, but it's considered a concession for the sake of customer service, not putting something right.
I think the activation fee (and other spurious charges) appears on your first bill. Then and only then you get to call and argue with them. Was the case with Verizon.
I'm going to take in seriousness something said in jest, but that's what geeks do... I read recently that the laser doesn't actually drill right through the cockpit window and quick-fry the retinas of the pilots, Rather, the beam splashes on the window, making it difficult or impossible to see out while the beam is in play. Which is still a really bad thing (and a phenomenally stupid thing to do at many levels) ESPECIALLY at low altitude approaching an airport, but is not exactly the same thing as smoking two sets of eyes and leaving the plane permanently pilotless. The article was making the case that the talk of permanently blinding pilots is conventional justice-system-driven hyperbole to make the crime seem worse than it is. (Which in my opinion is unnecessary. It's a stupid move that really could have dire consequences, so I'm ok with offenders going to jail. Eventually the word will get around.)