Anyone with any know how whatsoever buys their CPUs this way.
I would further state that this article is next to useless. It offers no insight, no numbers, nothing that makes a point. Given the graphs, I'd say buy the cheapest CPU, as there is nothing else to base your choice off of. Now, had they included $/task graphs, that would have been interesting, and maybe yielded a different set of daten a fps/a. Ev$ graph would have been neat, with axes like fps vs $ at several resolutions, which would create a discrete set of data so you could say for 800x600, CPU x gives best value, but @ 1280x1024, CPU x fails, and CPU y is best.
Basically, the tests presented are meaningless and add to the noise.
NAT and firewalls (FW) are 2 separate things, as you can have NAT without a FW, and you can have a FW without NAT. Now, NAT, by its nature, inherently has some features in common with FWs, such as that it effectively hides ports unless they're mapped.
A second item is that moving to IPv6 will not necessarily remove NAT or the current 1 router many PCs setup so many of us have. ISPs in general have charged per IP connection/computer, considering each IP a separate computer. Do you honestly think that will change with IPv6? That ISPs are going to be nice and just let you wire up however many systems you want to their network?
I don't think they'd give up that type of revenue stream. (Besides, think of the security nightmare of locking down and managing security for all those items, like your refrigerator! You'd want some sort of appliance FW/NAT box, both to secure you and keep you from paying extra each month. The latter would be the selling point for most normal users.)
In short - there was a good search without blogs. They added blogs, resulting in searches that were not as good (my opinion). Since blogs are a specific category that had to be added, why not have an opt in checkbox?
That seems much more in the spirit of google than forcing people to work around something.
Because blogs are personal opinions, usually, and if I want to include a search of the masses, I'd add blogs as part of what needed to be searched. It should be optional. If I'm looking for some specific documentation under Jakarta Commons, a google search will find it quite quickly. If I also have to pore through blog results.... Bleah.
Done it. With Exchange, believe it or not. 2.5M seats, in a single Exchange/NT environment (not single server farm though - it was distributed...)
You haven't defined your real requirements, nor what 99.9% uptime means, really. For such a large site, generally 99.9% uptime is defined in terms of full site responsiveness, outside of maintenance windows. Anything less is suicidal, and I'd walk away from. Maintenance windows should more than cover your backup windows, planned upgrades, etc. This doesn't mean that you'll use each available window, on, say, Sat night from 8-4am or something, but it gives you a nice window for major planned events.
I'm speaking in the sense of the collective here. If those that could did not choose to live under sea level, then those that "have no choice" according to you wouldn't be able to live under sea level either, because it wouldn't be there.
I'm also stating that they should not rebuild the city in its present location. Move it to a safer location, or at least not one that's doomed for a repeat.
Sure, natural disasters happen everywhere, but their impact can be lessened by, say, not building your city on a sinking landmass that's under sea-level to begin with.
Unlike the Dutch, those in New Orleans have a choice to not live under sea-level. Also, unlike the Dutch, those in New Orleans live in a regular "hurricane alley". Allright, so Florida took that trophy over the last two years. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to pass it on, it still doesn't change the fact that the gulf coast gets hit regularly with hurricanes.
As for helping the victims, sure, but only once, with a generic yellow truck, ie move out to a new safer place. I don't want to help them rebuild so this can happen again, perhaps as early as next year. (I'm guessing it's going to take at least past this hurricane season before anything meaningful will happen.)
At this stage you are the only one who will see this, and then only if you check... but you are reasonable enough in your writings to actually take the time on.
Kind of you to say. Sorry it took so long.
> In the case of Choice, the left is right. The individual should decide
> whether to have one. The state's role is to regulate it for safety.
Actually both sides abuse language and commit the debating faux pas of "begging the question" To say "Pro choice" assumes the entity isn't human just like "Pro Life" assumes it is. But that IS the question and entering the argument asking the opposing side to begin their argument from your conclusion just doesn't lead to healthy discourse.
I agree fully that the Pro-Life side mauls the language, using emotional context to "win" their argument. Their illogical sound bites forced the Pro-Choice side to counter. The real argument in my mind is whether anyone should be able to force another to sacrifice their body for a third. That argument is one that most on the pro-life side do not want to argue, because it quickly leads down draconian paths.
> a) does the fetus/baby/not viable lifeform have rights that override
> those of the person they reside in?
That IS the million dollar question now isn't it. Finding an answer that a comfortable majority can live with should be the goal,
...
When does a fetus become begin to exhibit signs of being conscious. We know it begins before birth, but where?
...
I suspect we might still allow abortion to preserve the life of the mother (self defense) but anything else would need to real justification.
Those three points I'd like to discuss, as they're at the essence of your position, near as I can tell.
1) I do not believe that law should be whatever the majority finds "comfortable". That leads to majority rule, which the Constitution was explicity designed to counter.
2) Are you sure a fetus begins to show signs of conscience before birth? This is a TBBA (Truth by Blatant Assertion) Having personally just had a baby, I can safely say that in my personal opinion, the first signs of anything approaching the conscienceness of, say, a dog, didn't occur until around 4-5 months of age.
3) What about birth defects? The first that comes to mind is hydrocephaly, as that one in the more severe cases is 100% fatal. Who's to decide? (We'll get back to this below)
> b) does the "viability" of a fetus/baby get defined as viable by
> forced medical intervention?
Probably. After all we are already talking about a medical intervention now aren't we?...Personally I'd also support requiring sterilization at the same time to prevent future child endangerment by an obviously unfit mother. (The usual medical exception but none for rape, etc. Should have decided that issue a few months earlier.)
This may be one of the more disturbing paragraphs you've written. It shows quite a few facets that I find very troubling.
First, while an abortion is a "medical intervention", it is one done at the discretion of the woman. Second, forced sterilization? Should we go ahead and force sterilization on all "undesirables" then (which in this case sounds a lot like all people that don't share your views)? No exception for rape? You are aware that an abortion must be performed if a woman doesn't want to carry the results of a rape to term, right? Or are you confusing the generic term "abortion" with "late third trimester abortions"? In that case, you might want to go investigate just how many (few) of those are performed, and why. It will be most enlightening for you.
> c) does the state force medical support upon such a "viable" baby?
> (After all, we can do Ceasaerians or induce early labor at any point).
Yes. In exactly the same way we would force medical procedures on a baby one day after birth. By choos
While you make valid points, I think you're missing the biggest one.
Why should children be using laptops in schools prior to high school anyways? Seriously.
While pen/pencil and paper may seem so 1900s, the fact is that those items distract very little from the actual task at hand, that of learning the actual task assigned. (Whether that be writing a sentence, spelling, math functions, whatever) Also, the actual act of writing is something that is almost invaluable, even in the computer age, and will probably remain so for a considerable amount of time.
Computers should, at most, be used to enhance this process, but at this age range, that becomes merely a hi-tech equivalent of flash cards. (Ok, I could see some benefit in using them in tests as well, for reducing teacher work load, but certainly that would be school controlled computers, not personal computers....)
No one was even close to the ease of use that Windows offered.
BeOS. Apple. OS/2. Amiga. Commodore. Atari. All were easier to use than Windows. Some were easier to use than the current iteration of XP, and were more stable to boot.
2) wax poetic all you want, back-pedal, or whatever else you want to do. Information doesn't want anything, and quite a bit of information stays buried forever, like Jimmy Hoffa. People want information to be free and freely available.
3) as hundreds, nay, thousands of priests pointed out for centuries - the earth is flat. Repetition doesn't make something true. Adding modifiers to one of the positions to attempt to remove a contradiction indicates that at least one of the original positions most likely is flawed.
"Innocent" life ends all the time, heck, the system even executes some people that are innocent, at least of the crime they were executed for. So why are anti-abortion activists so against ending this "innocent" life, but actively ignore, or even participate ending other "innocent" lives? They do so even in the face of a completely hopeless case, such as a fetus with severe hydrocephaly that will die before, upon or shortly after birth despite any efforts, and they wish the woman to suffer to the end of the fetus's "natural" life. (BTW, we just touched on what started this thread - namely, that there is a dichotomy between supporting the death penalty and being actively anti-abortion/pro-life)
Quoting and/or referencing the Bible does not help you here at all, unless you wish to attempt to show that it shouldn't be used as a reference.
As for brightness, I think your bulb is failing. TBBA (Truth by Blatant Assertion) is not an effective logical argument, and pretty much has the same weight as attempting to outshout your opponent in a debate (ie, you've lost all your points and are now falling back on illogical, irrational, or unsupportable statements).
The classic knee-jerk pro-life response. Replace "babies" with "fetus", and your statement is perfectly acceptable. Why? Because "babies" relates to something everyone can see, feel, hear, and relate to as a separate living entity. "Fetus", on the other hand, connotes a living entity that must depend upon the woman's body to survive. It cannot survive on its own like a "baby".
As a last shot at injecting a true thought into your brain: At what point is it truly a baby if, for example, it's hydrocephalus and has no real brain? Should the woman be forced to carry it for the remaining months, only to have it die at birth?
In the case of Choice, the left is right. The individual should decide whether to have one. The state's role is to regulate it for safety.
In the case of capital punishment, the right has it right. For some criminals, it really is the only solution, especially given that just this Sunday there was an article in the paper that 81% of all "life sentence" prisoners walked the streets free again.
Which brings me back to #3 and a set of questions for you. At what point:
a) does the fetus/baby/not viable lifeform have rights that override those of the person they reside in?
b) does the "viability" of a fetus/baby get defined as viable by forced medical intervention?
c) does the state force medical support upon such a "viable" baby? (After all, we can do Ceasaerians or induce early labor at any point).
d) should you answer anything other than "never" to c), at what point can the state force any medical treatment on anyone?
Nice rightwing slant. You're talking about Pro-Choice people, which is not necessarily the same as pro-abortion, but that distinction probably flies right over your prejudices.
You can be pro-choice, yet be against abortion. How? Well, it's the old "if you don't like it, don't do it" argument. For instance, I may hate brussel sprouts, but I fully support anyone's desire to eat them. I don't support forcing everyone to eat them.
2) Information doesn't "want" anything. It's a thing.
3) Opposing abortion because "it ends a life" and supporting the death penalty are opposite positions. Supporting a woman's choice and opposing the death penalty are not contradictory.
I like Joel's writings. I like this article. However, the first thing I noticed that's truly missing for his point to be made is a mapping of times to individuals across multiple projects. This article displays some info, but misses proving the assertion.
The question he doesn't answer: are the same people always at the bottom of the time scale, or are all represented equally? IOW, are there truly great programmers, or do individuals just have flashes of brilliance occassionally?
OOoo, really old hardware. I was running 9 9.1GB drives in a cabinet designed to hold a hot spare. Made life much easier as to setting up the systems we needed, as we had enough drives to allocate a hot spare. This was in 98, and the cost of those things.... youch!
scanning @ 2400 dpi. The scanning program wasn't the only thing running, though I supposedly had 700MB free. I run with a very small virtual memory space though.
It depends upon what you're using the system for. If it's performance and size, go with U320 drives and multiple controllers, you can easily build a huge DB (15 drives per channel, up to 4 channels per card, up to 4 cards per box = 16 channels X 15 drives = 240 drives / 8 drives per RAID 5 array = 30 arrays, meaning you lose roughly 30 drives out of the 240 for parity, leaving you with roughly 30.6TB for a mere ~$120K in 20 packs. I'm sure you could work out a deal at 240 drives though...)
You might have trouble finding something to drive that unless you're running something like an AS400 DB/2 system.;)
For personal use, buy a few 36GB drives in a RAID 5 arrangement, and mirror your mass store drives. This gives you a cheap mass store device with backups, and a very very fast system/workspace drive array. You can get 160-300GB Seagate drives for under $100 easy now.
For the future, life will become much easier when SAS controllers and SAS drives become the standard for high end systems. SAS controllers will also accept SATA drives, thus 1 controller for both high performance and cheap mass storage, albeit on separate drive arrays.
Slashdot Mirror
One app that bears the lie to lagging behind on desktop applications.
If you know what you're doing, you can write pretty decent Java desktop apps.
Anyone with any know how whatsoever buys their CPUs this way.
I would further state that this article is next to useless. It offers no insight, no numbers, nothing that makes a point. Given the graphs, I'd say buy the cheapest CPU, as there is nothing else to base your choice off of. Now, had they included $/task graphs, that would have been interesting, and maybe yielded a different set of daten a fps/a. Ev$ graph would have been neat, with axes like fps vs $ at several resolutions, which would create a discrete set of data so you could say for 800x600, CPU x gives best value, but @ 1280x1024, CPU x fails, and CPU y is best.
Basically, the tests presented are meaningless and add to the noise.
Always something new to try.
NAT and firewalls (FW) are 2 separate things, as you can have NAT without a FW, and you can have a FW without NAT. Now, NAT, by its nature, inherently has some features in common with FWs, such as that it effectively hides ports unless they're mapped.
A second item is that moving to IPv6 will not necessarily remove NAT or the current 1 router many PCs setup so many of us have. ISPs in general have charged per IP connection/computer, considering each IP a separate computer. Do you honestly think that will change with IPv6? That ISPs are going to be nice and just let you wire up however many systems you want to their network?
I don't think they'd give up that type of revenue stream. (Besides, think of the security nightmare of locking down and managing security for all those items, like your refrigerator! You'd want some sort of appliance FW/NAT box, both to secure you and keep you from paying extra each month. The latter would be the selling point for most normal users.)
BTW, are there any gotchas with an HDTV card like the HD3000 or is there a better HD card out there?
you really are on a tear.
In short - there was a good search without blogs. They added blogs, resulting in searches that were not as good (my opinion). Since blogs are a specific category that had to be added, why not have an opt in checkbox?
That seems much more in the spirit of google than forcing people to work around something.
Because blogs are personal opinions, usually, and if I want to include a search of the masses, I'd add blogs as part of what needed to be searched. It should be optional. If I'm looking for some specific documentation under Jakarta Commons, a google search will find it quite quickly. If I also have to pore through blog results.... Bleah.
Done it. With Exchange, believe it or not. 2.5M seats, in a single Exchange/NT environment (not single server farm though - it was distributed...)
You haven't defined your real requirements, nor what 99.9% uptime means, really. For such a large site, generally 99.9% uptime is defined in terms of full site responsiveness, outside of maintenance windows. Anything less is suicidal, and I'd walk away from. Maintenance windows should more than cover your backup windows, planned upgrades, etc. This doesn't mean that you'll use each available window, on, say, Sat night from 8-4am or something, but it gives you a nice window for major planned events.
I'm speaking in the sense of the collective here. If those that could did not choose to live under sea level, then those that "have no choice" according to you wouldn't be able to live under sea level either, because it wouldn't be there.
I'm also stating that they should not rebuild the city in its present location. Move it to a safer location, or at least not one that's doomed for a repeat.
Sure, natural disasters happen everywhere, but their impact can be lessened by, say, not building your city on a sinking landmass that's under sea-level to begin with.
Unlike the Dutch, those in New Orleans have a choice to not live under sea-level. Also, unlike the Dutch, those in New Orleans live in a regular "hurricane alley". Allright, so Florida took that trophy over the last two years. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to pass it on, it still doesn't change the fact that the gulf coast gets hit regularly with hurricanes.
As for helping the victims, sure, but only once, with a generic yellow truck, ie move out to a new safer place. I don't want to help them rebuild so this can happen again, perhaps as early as next year. (I'm guessing it's going to take at least past this hurricane season before anything meaningful will happen.)
Kind of you to say. Sorry it took so long.
> In the case of Choice, the left is right. The individual should decide > whether to have one. The state's role is to regulate it for safety. Actually both sides abuse language and commit the debating faux pas of "begging the question" To say "Pro choice" assumes the entity isn't human just like "Pro Life" assumes it is. But that IS the question and entering the argument asking the opposing side to begin their argument from your conclusion just doesn't lead to healthy discourse.
I agree fully that the Pro-Life side mauls the language, using emotional context to "win" their argument. Their illogical sound bites forced the Pro-Choice side to counter. The real argument in my mind is whether anyone should be able to force another to sacrifice their body for a third. That argument is one that most on the pro-life side do not want to argue, because it quickly leads down draconian paths.
> a) does the fetus/baby/not viable lifeform have rights that override > those of the person they reside in?
That IS the million dollar question now isn't it. Finding an answer that a comfortable majority can live with should be the goal,
When does a fetus become begin to exhibit signs of being conscious. We know it begins before birth, but where?
I suspect we might still allow abortion to preserve the life of the mother (self defense) but anything else would need to real justification.
Those three points I'd like to discuss, as they're at the essence of your position, near as I can tell.
1) I do not believe that law should be whatever the majority finds "comfortable". That leads to majority rule, which the Constitution was explicity designed to counter.
2) Are you sure a fetus begins to show signs of conscience before birth? This is a TBBA (Truth by Blatant Assertion) Having personally just had a baby, I can safely say that in my personal opinion, the first signs of anything approaching the conscienceness of, say, a dog, didn't occur until around 4-5 months of age.
3) What about birth defects? The first that comes to mind is hydrocephaly, as that one in the more severe cases is 100% fatal. Who's to decide? (We'll get back to this below)
> b) does the "viability" of a fetus/baby get defined as viable by > forced medical intervention?
Probably. After all we are already talking about a medical intervention now aren't we? ...Personally I'd also support requiring sterilization at the same time to prevent future child endangerment by an obviously unfit mother. (The usual medical exception but none for rape, etc. Should have decided that issue a few months earlier.)
This may be one of the more disturbing paragraphs you've written. It shows quite a few facets that I find very troubling.
First, while an abortion is a "medical intervention", it is one done at the discretion of the woman. Second, forced sterilization? Should we go ahead and force sterilization on all "undesirables" then (which in this case sounds a lot like all people that don't share your views)? No exception for rape? You are aware that an abortion must be performed if a woman doesn't want to carry the results of a rape to term, right? Or are you confusing the generic term "abortion" with "late third trimester abortions"? In that case, you might want to go investigate just how many (few) of those are performed, and why. It will be most enlightening for you.
> c) does the state force medical support upon such a "viable" baby? > (After all, we can do Ceasaerians or induce early labor at any point). Yes. In exactly the same way we would force medical procedures on a baby one day after birth. By choos
While you make valid points, I think you're missing the biggest one.
Why should children be using laptops in schools prior to high school anyways? Seriously.
While pen/pencil and paper may seem so 1900s, the fact is that those items distract very little from the actual task at hand, that of learning the actual task assigned. (Whether that be writing a sentence, spelling, math functions, whatever) Also, the actual act of writing is something that is almost invaluable, even in the computer age, and will probably remain so for a considerable amount of time.
Computers should, at most, be used to enhance this process, but at this age range, that becomes merely a hi-tech equivalent of flash cards. (Ok, I could see some benefit in using them in tests as well, for reducing teacher work load, but certainly that would be school controlled computers, not personal computers....)
I will get back to this - haven't had time yet - hopefully by tonight.
BeOS. Apple. OS/2. Amiga. Commodore. Atari. All were easier to use than Windows. Some were easier to use than the current iteration of XP, and were more stable to boot.
3) as hundreds, nay, thousands of priests pointed out for centuries - the earth is flat. Repetition doesn't make something true. Adding modifiers to one of the positions to attempt to remove a contradiction indicates that at least one of the original positions most likely is flawed.
"Innocent" life ends all the time, heck, the system even executes some people that are innocent, at least of the crime they were executed for. So why are anti-abortion activists so against ending this "innocent" life, but actively ignore, or even participate ending other "innocent" lives? They do so even in the face of a completely hopeless case, such as a fetus with severe hydrocephaly that will die before, upon or shortly after birth despite any efforts, and they wish the woman to suffer to the end of the fetus's "natural" life. (BTW, we just touched on what started this thread - namely, that there is a dichotomy between supporting the death penalty and being actively anti-abortion/pro-life)
Quoting and/or referencing the Bible does not help you here at all, unless you wish to attempt to show that it shouldn't be used as a reference.
As for brightness, I think your bulb is failing. TBBA (Truth by Blatant Assertion) is not an effective logical argument, and pretty much has the same weight as attempting to outshout your opponent in a debate (ie, you've lost all your points and are now falling back on illogical, irrational, or unsupportable statements).
Thanks for playing.
I love it when moderators moderate based on their beliefs rather than on the content of a posting.
The classic knee-jerk pro-life response. Replace "babies" with "fetus", and your statement is perfectly acceptable. Why? Because "babies" relates to something everyone can see, feel, hear, and relate to as a separate living entity. "Fetus", on the other hand, connotes a living entity that must depend upon the woman's body to survive. It cannot survive on its own like a "baby".
As a last shot at injecting a true thought into your brain: At what point is it truly a baby if, for example, it's hydrocephalus and has no real brain? Should the woman be forced to carry it for the remaining months, only to have it die at birth?
3 is where your problem begins.
In the case of Choice, the left is right. The individual should decide whether to have one. The state's role is to regulate it for safety.
In the case of capital punishment, the right has it right. For some criminals, it really is the only solution, especially given that just this Sunday there was an article in the paper that 81% of all "life sentence" prisoners walked the streets free again.
Which brings me back to #3 and a set of questions for you. At what point:
a) does the fetus/baby/not viable lifeform have rights that override those of the person they reside in?
b) does the "viability" of a fetus/baby get defined as viable by forced medical intervention?
c) does the state force medical support upon such a "viable" baby? (After all, we can do Ceasaerians or induce early labor at any point).
d) should you answer anything other than "never" to c), at what point can the state force any medical treatment on anyone?
Nice rightwing slant. You're talking about Pro-Choice people, which is not necessarily the same as pro-abortion, but that distinction probably flies right over your prejudices.
You can be pro-choice, yet be against abortion. How? Well, it's the old "if you don't like it, don't do it" argument. For instance, I may hate brussel sprouts, but I fully support anyone's desire to eat them. I don't support forcing everyone to eat them.
Ignoring your trolls:
2) Information doesn't "want" anything. It's a thing.
3) Opposing abortion because "it ends a life" and supporting the death penalty are opposite positions. Supporting a woman's choice and opposing the death penalty are not contradictory.
I like Joel's writings. I like this article. However, the first thing I noticed that's truly missing for his point to be made is a mapping of times to individuals across multiple projects. This article displays some info, but misses proving the assertion.
The question he doesn't answer: are the same people always at the bottom of the time scale, or are all represented equally? IOW, are there truly great programmers, or do individuals just have flashes of brilliance occassionally?
OOoo, really old hardware. I was running 9 9.1GB drives in a cabinet designed to hold a hot spare. Made life much easier as to setting up the systems we needed, as we had enough drives to allocate a hot spare. This was in 98, and the cost of those things.... youch!
It was an experiment in scanning. Printing at that res would, as you correctly state, most likely be an experiment in ink soak-through. :)
scanning @ 2400 dpi. The scanning program wasn't the only thing running, though I supposedly had 700MB free. I run with a very small virtual memory space though.
It depends upon what you're using the system for. If it's performance and size, go with U320 drives and multiple controllers, you can easily build a huge DB (15 drives per channel, up to 4 channels per card, up to 4 cards per box = 16 channels X 15 drives = 240 drives / 8 drives per RAID 5 array = 30 arrays, meaning you lose roughly 30 drives out of the 240 for parity, leaving you with roughly 30.6TB for a mere ~$120K in 20 packs. I'm sure you could work out a deal at 240 drives though...)
;)
You might have trouble finding something to drive that unless you're running something like an AS400 DB/2 system.
For personal use, buy a few 36GB drives in a RAID 5 arrangement, and mirror your mass store drives. This gives you a cheap mass store device with backups, and a very very fast system/workspace drive array. You can get 160-300GB Seagate drives for under $100 easy now.
For the future, life will become much easier when SAS controllers and SAS drives become the standard for high end systems. SAS controllers will also accept SATA drives, thus 1 controller for both high performance and cheap mass storage, albeit on separate drive arrays.