Oracle's core product line is not built around the needs of small or medium business. I mean if you are a ten person shop is better to setup an Oracle DB or a mysql DB from a cost, ease of use, ease of install, etc. perspective?
Oracle has a sense of elitism that stems from Larry on down. I cannot seem them caring about a 35 person manufacturing plant that relies on Linux servers to keep their plant running and does it using text files instead of a DB. Rather I see Oracle as charging less and if they cannot fix the problem, saying "Sorry I cannot fix it, but if you wanted a company who cared you could have gone with a variety of other venders, instead you went with us because we were cheaper and have a bigger name. We like to think of ourselves as the Wal-Mart of linux support."
What have your experiences been with Oracle when you needed support on a problem or a bug? Did they give you attention, kick it up the line, put you in touch with a core developer on that product line? My experience is they give you the run around, put you in touch with low end support staff, have you repeat your problem, resend e-mails, and finally push blame everywhere they can and when that fails say please check back for future updates and versions. When they have had a fixes to issues, it has been my experience that it seems more involved then it should be.
Red Hat on the other hand is geared towards small and medium business. Red hat has been able to help me out through RHN a number of times with simple chats or e-mails when I have had questions. For example they helped me with getting an unsupported USB device to work on an older RHEL 3 server, do you think if you contacted Oracle's support they would have somebody interested in resolving your problem, or do you think they would say "That is an unsupported hardware device, I cannot assist you further."
You think Oracle will do that? If you do, use them.
There was one major problem that I found with a SAMBA release a few years back regarding ACL permissions in a Windows 2000 AD enviornment. I called Red Hat on the phone, got put all the way up the chain to their core SAMBA techician's line within minutes. Unfortunately he was out, so I left my number and information on his personal voice-mail and guess what, he called me back the next morning when he came into work.
You think Oracle will do that? If you do, use them.
He said he was interested in trying to reproduce the problem I had. He and I worked online and over the phone with him, he built a model of my network (Yes, he setup Windows servers to help me out) and he recreated my complex ACL settings and group permissions amd he was able to reproduce the problem with a simulated user load. He then kicked that information over to some Samba OSS programmers he had a relationship with and got the bug well documented and explained to them. He got the ball rolling, in the meantime he helped check over a script had written to check and reset ACLs if they were incorrect, basically what I had worked, be he made some changes and his script more efficiently. I placed it in a CRON job that ran every five minutes and was able to survive until the next version of Samba came out with a fix.
You think Oracle will do that? If you do, use them.
My experience is that Red Hat makes software contributions and sells a service and a personal relationship. Oracle is a big software giant that writes software and is going to try and make a quick buck here with little or no real investment in the community or their service line. Oracle will not have people contributing code especially in OSS projects that compete with their own product line.
Maverics and innovators are attracted to the smaller less bureaucratic institutions. How is Oracle going to attract the guy who gets excited and honestly loves what he does so much that he is willing to build a test enviornment to track down a linux bug and strengthen the linux community in the process? Then if Oracle did have such a guy
There is no study that says homosexual parents are better then straight couples.
I know this because I watched the NY trial where the justices asked the gay plantiffs lawyers for to produce any scientific study that showed homosexuals were at least equal to heterosexual couples when it came to child upbring.
The best the gay marriage lawyers could produce was a study that said "there is not enough evidence at this time to suggest homosexuals are not as good parents as hetersexuals". This falls far short of what the justices requested and falls far short of the supposed fact this thread debates.
I meantion this becuase it means the debate of why homosexuals are better parents is pointless and invalid since there is nothing to prove such a statement is true.
You are speculating on the cause of something that may not even be true. Sort of like trying to explain to people the cause of global warming, when you cannot explain what the correct mean temporatures should be without the presence of "green house gases".
I am an open person, I look at everything as objectively as possible and come to the logical conclusion.
It is not that I are unwilling to accept global warming exists or that homosexuals are on average better parents, it is simply that I do not see any evidence that adheres to scientific principals in either one of these debates, what I do see is a lot of "feeling" based arguements.
Where is the control group? What was the sample size? How was the experiment conducted? How do the recorded results support the written conclusion, etc.
Maybe if we had quality computers software and websites that could adapt their teaching style to the user in place of lazy union teachers using outdated technics, then future/.ers would better understand the principals behind good science.
If somebody has the time to conduct such a study please hop to it and post your results for us to critique.
- Eric
Don't bust my balls about my grammar and spelling; I when to one of the finest public schools in New Jersey and I didn't have a chance.
Let me guess you are someone who derives value from the outsider effect. It is when you use things because the majority doesn't, just to be different, to feel independent or so you can claim to be better. You fail to realize if you make your choices by picking the opposite of what others choose, you are no more free then those who choose whatever the herd does.
Truth is that if people were open minded they would see that you should pick an OS on what works for you. I have a Windows XP laptop, because there are a large number of applications and devices that only work on Windows and that I need. I do not use OpenOffice, because it is slow, not always compatible and the user interface is terrible. I am writing this post on a FC4 laptop using Firefox, because I like to hack and play with things and linux lets me get under the hood and I think it is better suited for python and ruby programming and I love being able to read through the source code and see how things work. That said, I think Windows Vista has a tremendous chance at crushing (but not killing) linux. I have installed MSH on my XP laptop and it is insane how superior an object oriented scripting engine is verses a text based engine that requires parsing and exception handling, with MSH on Windows you ask for an object and you always get it the same way every time. Not so on Linux. I have played around with SuSE in my VMware enviornment as well as Debian and others. They just do not do it for me. Finally, for Linux to a serious desktop option, your mom needs to be able to use it, write a word doc and e-mail her friends. That is not the case with Linux.
I couldn't agree with you more, the problem is that most Linux Admins do not think like us.
They use Linux because they like to "tweak" things and they "hate to document things" and they think "rpms and debs are for pussies", well except for that Tuesday a few weeks back when they were hungover and had to get that new proxy server in place, when they installed the rpm after they encountered problems compiling and installing it from source.
What about taxes and power concerns? You pay for real estate once, buy you pay taxes every year and if you loose power, you will loose paying customers.
One both counts, Texas wins hands down. We have low taxes and our state power grid can be disconnected from all others. There was a problem a few years back where a power issue in the mid west took out huge parts of the North East.
Then you have to think about other things like being able to fill and staff the facility.
Again, Texas wins out. We're the next Silicon Valley, I know because I lived in Mountain View and moved to Austin to avoid the BS in California.
It is 20% better then the Linux downtime. So that would be that Windows is down about 16 hours a year using the 20 for Linux in your example.
Couple of points as an RHCE that does both Windows and Linux, I can say that the more I am called to fix Linux machines as an outside consultant the more it pisses me off that each system is configured to the personality of the admin who built it and left, rather then a proven and tested standard. That adds to the amount of time it takes to get a system fixed because there are various smtp, pop and imap servers and various ways to do things that could be the issue with e-mail on a Linux machine, that adds to longer discovery time and in turn longer time to final resolution. Counter that with Exchange 2003 that has published best practices and in most cases one or two ways do do something. This should be common sense to most/.ers. Exchange will not send mail. OK, check the mail queues and the services, look in the event logs. Linux system will not send mail, OK, first figure out what smtp deamon they are using, is it sendmail or not, if not, what. Is it running? Oh, I have two sendmail services, one was installed by RPM, the other was compiled from source, but they previous root user remove those configuration files. And on and on sometimes.
Personal experience has taught me two things:
1). Just because I like Linux, doesn't mean it is perfect. Support issues like undocumented server settings, admins who delete or move the source configs they used in building a package and admins who do things "just to be different" hurt Linux uptime. Also when a company has a Linux server and Windows techs, they will let the Windows techs beat on it like monkeys before calling an outside consultant who costs money; that leads to a large part of that 20%.
2). Your post about 437 days was retarded. No doubt retards everywhere will mod you up as insightful and informative, but that makes your comment no less annoying to people with brains.
And if you favor the idea that God created animals in egg form?
Then you would have to convienently ignore the existance of mammals and marsupials. You fish smelling, lizard loving, bird watching, insect studying, hair hater.
Go wash your mouth out with milk you self-hating-mammal.
I would argue Austin is all of the things Silicon Valley once was and many positive things it will never be. Austin is the future, not them! Texans nad anti-Cali folks mod me up.
It has smart hardworking people.
It has wealth and capital.
It has business thinkers.
It has technical thinkers.
It has an incredible climate and enviornment that can attrack outside people.
It has a great university that feeds the intellectual demands of startups (Where Austin has UT, Silicon Valley had Berkley and Stanford).
It has the culture of innovative startups.
It has proven successes.
It has software companies.
It has hardware companies.
It has IBM, Microsoft, Google, Intel, AMD and other key national players with regional offices and influence.
It has hippies, gays and artists (not required, but still a focal point).
It costs so much money to start a company in Palo Alto or Mountain View, verses Austin with the same quality of techincal workers. Austin, Seattle and Raliegh-Durham give VCs more for their money, SC is dead, the only people who don't recognize this live in Palo Alto or Mountain View.
Even better unlike CA, TX has low taxes and a low cost of living. I am making what I did in California and living at a level I never could have dreamed there.
And finally, Austin has a solid power grid with affordable and relaiable power. It does not have the power problems that plagued and plague CA.
- Eric
I was hired for a job. The company admitted I was more qualified than the guy I replaced, but said HR would not let them pay me more that the previous guy.
Why? Becuase he was black and they feared that if I made more and he found out, he might sue them.
Interestingly enough I hired to Desktop techs to help me out. Both were equally quallified.
The HR department said I could pay the guy $32K and I should pay the girl $39K.
Their reasoning was that girls made less then men in the IT department and they wanted to boost the salaries of women to make them even.
Any system where pay is determined based on race or sex discrimminates regardless of the reasons.
If tempuratures are rising then why can't anybody tell me from what?
How do we know if in the process of stopping global warming we don't push it to far in the other direction without first setting a goal?
I am not asking for anything out of line here. What is our target range of acceptable tempuratures and how did we determing that?
- Eric
PS - The issue of whether or not it is a nature rise is important, because if it is a nature increase, then you are in effect asking us to regulate the global climate in an unnatural way.
The question you should ask is not what the correct temperature is (there isn't one) but how a change in climate will affect the world, or more specifically you
Why would I ask a question I already know the answer to? If temperatures change I will need to adapt. In fact if anything in my life changes, I need to adapt.
Let's run with a IT example since this is/.
If future versions of computers are analog, we'll need to adapt. As new software and ideas are introduced, we need to adapt.
But what happens to those who cannot change? You know the types stuck on Windows 9x/DOS or Netware 3.12 running IPX. The kind of people are scared to change, affraid of it. Linux or Windows XP are different and these people don't do different.
Should we call a UN summit and say "wow wow wow, slow it down boys, some people cannot keep up with the latest Linux kernel, many people can handle HTML, but XML is a bit to much right now and the new Windows Start Menu freaks them out." Should we suggest a per year cap on OS changes? Should we regulate the number of universities researching analog smart devices and if they are successful set an arbitrary quota that says 10% of all computers can be analog by some arbitrary date of oh lets just pick the year 2020?
Hell no. Instead we should do our best to deal with the changes that occur both naturally and sometimes unnaturally and let eveloution and natural selection handle the rest.
Change requires people to learn and adapt and try new things; the question you should ask is 'what makes that a bad thing?'
"What [global warming] will likely do, though, is require change in human activity to cope with the changing geography on the world which may impose additional costs on the economy above any possible additional advantage for some nations (and vice versa for others)."
Dealing with change is what life is all about. The climate of the world has never been static, it is unnatural to try to make it that way, especially when you admit there is no correct temp.
Last point volcanos release more greenhouse gases each year then all the nations of the world combined. Maybe we should ban or regulate valcanos?
First, can you prove that man made greenhouse gases are the sole reason behind global temp. increases, can you prove it isn't volcanos or decomposing plant matter?
Second, what temp. is the correct temp. for the Earth? I mean if you go back to the start of the planet when it was a ball of molten lava, tempuratures were way hirer, so maybe we should push to get the temp. right back up there. Course during the ice age, Europe was frozen over, so maybe we should cool the planet, or if we look back to the start of the industrial revolution, the average temp. was 1.2% lower. So what should the correct temp. be?
Liberal types need to ask themselves this "Why do the see a need to pass laws and regulations in an effort to keep the natural temp. right? Wouldn't the naturally temp. be whatever naturally occurs?
Oh, how the hippie tree huggers are silly. They talk about science, when they cannot even follow the basic concepts behind science. Where is the control experiment? What is the proper temp. for the Earth in its controlled state? How do we determine that temp.? How do they conduct experiments in the atomsphere and only change one variable at a time?
Here is a fact: People who worry about things like global warming are dumb. Before global warming it was over crowding, in time I am sure it will be something else, probably something anti-meat.
Can you image if the French built the Internet instead of the Americans?
The Internet would consist of a large array of unprotected unorganized computers that rely on a single firewall for security and in the end the Germans would just go around it.
The computers would only work 35 hours a week and not a nanosecond more.
The computers would smoke all the time.
The computers would always complain about being broke.
No computer would view itself as an individual machine, rather they would talk about the greater network and the collective thread.
Secretly all the computers would dream of being the head unit, while preaching the joy of being a common node to others.
Most computers would have small processors, selective memory, and no male connectors.
10% of the computers would be dependent on goverment subsidized cabling.
Despite all of the flashy lights and beep beeps, no user would have a clue what the computer was saying.
All of the French PCs will pretend not to understand the American PCs until German PCs show up on their subnet. Then it will be all 1s and 0s this and 1s and 0s that "We love you Americans".
They would not use Windows because the Americans invented it.
They would not use Linux because the Finns invented it and the Germans made it better.
They would not use BSD, because BSD works and is not sexy enough.
They would not use Solaris, becuase Solaris is crap.
They might use OS X, but they would call it "Le X".
Instead of an "Enter" key you would have to hit the "wee wee" key.
Instead of Ctrl+Alt+Del you would have to hit Shift+Beret.
How can there be a truly scientific study of global warming?
What is the control?
What is the timeline?
What is the proper temp.? on average? per time of year? per location?
Isn't nature always changing?
When in the history of the Earth have tempuratures not been in flux?
In order to prove temps. are rising, then you should able to define what the "correct" temp. should be per time of year per location.
Then and only if you can prove tempuratures are rising can you begin to investigate if human activities are responsible.
Then we can debate if government or the private sector can or should fix it.
Liberals are just getting way ahead of the ball on this one.
I personally think it is BS, given that the whole "world will not be able to feed itself" thing turned out to be BS and then the whole "world will run out of oil in 20 years" I heard in the early 80s turned out to be BS.
Oh, and the fact that it has snowed more in the last 10 years in my hometown then it did when I lived there.
Oh, and the fact that where I live the average temps are down over the past two years.
Oh, and the point that temp. is not something that is not static in the eviornments we are talking about.
Oh and that liberals seem to have picked the "optimal temp." to be defined as the average temp. recorded just prior to the industrial revolution, which is a very arbitrary point if you think about it.
Why not pick 50 BC or 1038 AD or 1,000,000 years ago or last Tuesday? It is just silly.
Still, if you can prove scientifically that global warming exists then I will be open to accept it, and we move to the next area of debate that discussed whether or not the government should/can try to regulate or reverse it.
I guess this is Intel's idea of "innovation" adapted from Microsoft's early version of "innovation" where they sit back, look at what other developers create and then repackage/rebrand an inferior copycat with a large marketing campaign.
Seems with the Mac mini, Intel noticed it was "small" and attributed that to its sales numbers. Seems Intell failed to notice other attributes like "it is the first truly entry level Mac" or "it runs OS X" or "it is only $499" or "many Wintel users got it to as a second machine to test the Apple waters" or countless other reasons for its success.
Personally, I am not sure if it is more funny or more sad that size appears to be the only thing that matters.
Lucas could have made I, II and III great if he hired a quality outside director. If you look at the books and material online, these could have been far greater movies if the direction was there for the actors; some of which are gifted in all but there Star Wars appearances. Oh, in addition to helping the actors there was also a serious need for director help in the cutting room, some of the transitions were rough.
I really liked the books, there is a story that did not translate onto the screen.
Your commment about the story focusing on Anakin/Vader is abdsolutely correct. I've read the books, seen the movies and it has always been my impression that Star Wars is mostly about father Skywalker's life and how he is saved by his son then it is about just Luke. Luke the son is important, but the story is about the father's fall and redemption.
I see the important central idea around Star Wars in how Darth Sidious's attempt to turn Luke, ends up saving Anakin's sole.
If you look at how in episode VI, Luke is in the place against Anakin that Anakin was in episode II with Count Dooku.
That was where Darth Sidious realized he could control Anakin and make him his apprentice by having him kill Dooku.
That step was Anakins last chance to resist. The difference is that Luke stops short and refuses to fight.
It drives the Sidious to start killing Luke and it gets Vader to recognize and correct his mistake years later.
Look at Luke and Anakin when Sidious tries to convert them, they are both roughfully the same age, in extremely similar positions.
Bush's judges will pass easily with majority support. In the past the filibuster was over a candidate that did not have a majority and therefore without the filibuster he still would not have been approved.
So when you qualify the question "when in the past has a judicial filibuster taken place when the majority vote would approve the candidate?" the answer is NEVER.
If you say "when in over 229 years of this great country has there ever been a judical filibuster?" the answer is once to make it a point that the candidate was that terrible.
These judges are good judges and strongly in support of the Consitution as it was writen, not in the idea of a living document, other then living document through amendements only.
The point is that science cannot disprove God. Yet people like you label Christian views as unacceptable and fairy tales and falsehoods.
I personally don't think there is a God, but I cannot prove there isn't a God, nor can you. I just feel there isn't a God. Christians feel their is a God. Science may someday prove there is and I will change my views, but even as science proves evolution and how the universe began, that does not dissprove God, it simply means that if their is a God, that is how God did it. It is an important objective observation.
My comparision of the views of Christians and Socialists was done becuase many/.ers put down the former and support the latter. As I meantioned above you cannot disprove the former, but history has already disproven the latter.
Look at North and South Korea: same race of people, same climate, same geographic size, same economic starting points, etc. etc. etc. Now look at how much better the quality of life is in the pro-Capitalism South verses the pro-Communist North.
Look at how every Communist and Socialist government in history has required strong control and regulation of the general population. That is exactly the opposite of many liberals claim to want, but it is what happens every time. It was what Orwell recognized later in life and what caused him to write 1984 and Animal Farm. He continued to like the "theory" of socalism, but if you read his works and comments he recognized it was not a realist workable solution. Never will be, it is a fairy tale.
Socialism creates a culture of state dependents and enslaves the working class with high taxation (look at European tax rates verse American tax rates). When the government takes your money it takes away your freedom, it makes you a slave without the dignity of letting you know you are a slave unless you take the time to look around. Liberals don't look around (because unlike Orwell who recognized Socialism would not work, they want to hold on to their "belief") to see what they are preaching and when the do look around they are not objective in the observations they make.
The fairy tale is that people like you cannot be objective in your evaluations of "belief systems". If you apply the same standards to socialism as you do to Christianity you would understand.
But since I am apparently "amateurish" when it comes to things that I do not agree with you on, I guess it is best we respectfully disagree.
Me, out of a willingness to not waste my time with a closed minded person and you out of a desire to hold conficting and hypocritical views.
Want to continue this debate, apply your same logic and reason to "people who believe in the power of the state" as you do to "people who believe in the power of God.
Oh and for the record, I believe in the "Power of the Individual". That is what allows me to be so open and objective.
So do socialist, the only difference is that socialism has been a proven failure, whereas there is not proof either way that Christians are right or wrong.
I believe in evolution and I happen to not believe in God, but I see on conflict with a person who says "I believe God created the universe and evolution was one method he employed in doing it"
Socialist say "Our economic system helps more people then capitalism, when history tells us otherwise." If you look at controls with North Korea verses South Korea and notice they have the same racial backgrounds, rounghly equal land mass, very similar climates, etc. etc. and the big defining difference is that one is capitalist and one is communist, you can see capitlism works better. Same with East and West Germany.
I am just saying that it makes me laugh when I see Christian views labeled as "fairy tales" while Socialist views are considered acceptable.
I'm an athiest because I feel that God is not there, just as many believe in God becuase they feel him/her/it/them are there.
Why do people jump on Christians and Jews because they apparently believe something that cannot be proven or disproven?
Want to jump on people for disproven or illogical beliefs, jump on socialists and communists who's believe in an economic system that history has proven a failure time and time again.
Libertarian Out.
PS - I am not a troll, just because I don't think like your views.
So why not let people or companies that innovate decide if they want to protect their intellectual property. Same for poets and authers. Let them decide if they want to protect their works or give it away.
Why not instead of blacketly attacking the idea of IP, we respect that people are free to protect their ideas just as you are free to protect your PC from theft?
If some freely give their innovative ideas away while others charge a fee, no harm is doen. After all they created it.
The only harm comes when someone invents a great idea and for some reason or another keeps it to themselves. What if someone discovered the cure for aids, but did want the credit taken away from them and so they kept it hidden in their mind? That is the only time harm is truly done. What if MS just took GNU code and used it without following the GNU license? Then harm would be done.
Property must be respected whether it is an idea or a computer. You need to have some security that others cannot take what is yours.
Slashdot Mirror
You are a regular Dan Brown.
Oracle's core product line is not built around the needs of small or medium business. I mean if you are a ten person shop is better to setup an Oracle DB or a mysql DB from a cost, ease of use, ease of install, etc. perspective?
Oracle has a sense of elitism that stems from Larry on down. I cannot seem them caring about a 35 person manufacturing plant that relies on Linux servers to keep their plant running and does it using text files instead of a DB. Rather I see Oracle as charging less and if they cannot fix the problem, saying "Sorry I cannot fix it, but if you wanted a company who cared you could have gone with a variety of other venders, instead you went with us because we were cheaper and have a bigger name. We like to think of ourselves as the Wal-Mart of linux support."
What have your experiences been with Oracle when you needed support on a problem or a bug? Did they give you attention, kick it up the line, put you in touch with a core developer on that product line? My experience is they give you the run around, put you in touch with low end support staff, have you repeat your problem, resend e-mails, and finally push blame everywhere they can and when that fails say please check back for future updates and versions. When they have had a fixes to issues, it has been my experience that it seems more involved then it should be.
Red Hat on the other hand is geared towards small and medium business. Red hat has been able to help me out through RHN a number of times with simple chats or e-mails when I have had questions. For example they helped me with getting an unsupported USB device to work on an older RHEL 3 server, do you think if you contacted Oracle's support they would have somebody interested in resolving your problem, or do you think they would say "That is an unsupported hardware device, I cannot assist you further."
You think Oracle will do that? If you do, use them.
There was one major problem that I found with a SAMBA release a few years back regarding ACL permissions in a Windows 2000 AD enviornment. I called Red Hat on the phone, got put all the way up the chain to their core SAMBA techician's line within minutes. Unfortunately he was out, so I left my number and information on his personal voice-mail and guess what, he called me back the next morning when he came into work.
You think Oracle will do that? If you do, use them.
He said he was interested in trying to reproduce the problem I had. He and I worked online and over the phone with him, he built a model of my network (Yes, he setup Windows servers to help me out) and he recreated my complex ACL settings and group permissions amd he was able to reproduce the problem with a simulated user load. He then kicked that information over to some Samba OSS programmers he had a relationship with and got the bug well documented and explained to them. He got the ball rolling, in the meantime he helped check over a script had written to check and reset ACLs if they were incorrect, basically what I had worked, be he made some changes and his script more efficiently. I placed it in a CRON job that ran every five minutes and was able to survive until the next version of Samba came out with a fix.
You think Oracle will do that? If you do, use them.
My experience is that Red Hat makes software contributions and sells a service and a personal relationship. Oracle is a big software giant that writes software and is going to try and make a quick buck here with little or no real investment in the community or their service line. Oracle will not have people contributing code especially in OSS projects that compete with their own product line.
Maverics and innovators are attracted to the smaller less bureaucratic institutions. How is Oracle going to attract the guy who gets excited and honestly loves what he does so much that he is willing to build a test enviornment to track down a linux bug and strengthen the linux community in the process? Then if Oracle did have such a guy
There is no study that says homosexual parents are better then straight couples.
/.ers would better understand the principals behind good science.
I know this because I watched the NY trial where the justices asked the gay plantiffs lawyers for to produce any scientific study that showed homosexuals were at least equal to heterosexual couples when it came to child upbring.
The best the gay marriage lawyers could produce was a study that said "there is not enough evidence at this time to suggest homosexuals are not as good parents as hetersexuals". This falls far short of what the justices requested and falls far short of the supposed fact this thread debates.
I meantion this becuase it means the debate of why homosexuals are better parents is pointless and invalid since there is nothing to prove such a statement is true.
You are speculating on the cause of something that may not even be true. Sort of like trying to explain to people the cause of global warming, when you cannot explain what the correct mean temporatures should be without the presence of "green house gases".
I am an open person, I look at everything as objectively as possible and come to the logical conclusion.
It is not that I are unwilling to accept global warming exists or that homosexuals are on average better parents, it is simply that I do not see any evidence that adheres to scientific principals in either one of these debates, what I do see is a lot of "feeling" based arguements.
Where is the control group? What was the sample size? How was the experiment conducted? How do the recorded results support the written conclusion, etc.
Maybe if we had quality computers software and websites that could adapt their teaching style to the user in place of lazy union teachers using outdated technics, then future
If somebody has the time to conduct such a study please hop to it and post your results for us to critique.
- Eric
Don't bust my balls about my grammar and spelling; I when to one of the finest public schools in New Jersey and I didn't have a chance.
Let me guess you are someone who derives value from the outsider effect. It is when you use things because the majority doesn't, just to be different, to feel independent or so you can claim to be better. You fail to realize if you make your choices by picking the opposite of what others choose, you are no more free then those who choose whatever the herd does.
Truth is that if people were open minded they would see that you should pick an OS on what works for you. I have a Windows XP laptop, because there are a large number of applications and devices that only work on Windows and that I need. I do not use OpenOffice, because it is slow, not always compatible and the user interface is terrible. I am writing this post on a FC4 laptop using Firefox, because I like to hack and play with things and linux lets me get under the hood and I think it is better suited for python and ruby programming and I love being able to read through the source code and see how things work. That said, I think Windows Vista has a tremendous chance at crushing (but not killing) linux. I have installed MSH on my XP laptop and it is insane how superior an object oriented scripting engine is verses a text based engine that requires parsing and exception handling, with MSH on Windows you ask for an object and you always get it the same way every time. Not so on Linux. I have played around with SuSE in my VMware enviornment as well as Debian and others. They just do not do it for me. Finally, for Linux to a serious desktop option, your mom needs to be able to use it, write a word doc and e-mail her friends. That is not the case with Linux.
I couldn't agree with you more, the problem is that most Linux Admins do not think like us.
They use Linux because they like to "tweak" things and they "hate to document things" and they think "rpms and debs are for pussies", well except for that Tuesday a few weeks back when they were hungover and had to get that new proxy server in place, when they installed the rpm after they encountered problems compiling and installing it from source.
- Eric
What about taxes and power concerns? You pay for real estate once, buy you pay taxes every year and if you loose power, you will loose paying customers.
One both counts, Texas wins hands down. We have low taxes and our state power grid can be disconnected from all others. There was a problem a few years back where a power issue in the mid west took out huge parts of the North East.
Then you have to think about other things like being able to fill and staff the facility.
Again, Texas wins out. We're the next Silicon Valley, I know because I lived in Mountain View and moved to Austin to avoid the BS in California.
- Eric
It is 20% better then the Linux downtime. So that would be that Windows is down about 16 hours a year using the 20 for Linux in your example.
/.ers. Exchange will not send mail. OK, check the mail queues and the services, look in the event logs. Linux system will not send mail, OK, first figure out what smtp deamon they are using, is it sendmail or not, if not, what. Is it running? Oh, I have two sendmail services, one was installed by RPM, the other was compiled from source, but they previous root user remove those configuration files. And on and on sometimes.
Couple of points as an RHCE that does both Windows and Linux, I can say that the more I am called to fix Linux machines as an outside consultant the more it pisses me off that each system is configured to the personality of the admin who built it and left, rather then a proven and tested standard. That adds to the amount of time it takes to get a system fixed because there are various smtp, pop and imap servers and various ways to do things that could be the issue with e-mail on a Linux machine, that adds to longer discovery time and in turn longer time to final resolution. Counter that with Exchange 2003 that has published best practices and in most cases one or two ways do do something. This should be common sense to most
Personal experience has taught me two things:
1). Just because I like Linux, doesn't mean it is perfect. Support issues like undocumented server settings, admins who delete or move the source configs they used in building a package and admins who do things "just to be different" hurt Linux uptime. Also when a company has a Linux server and Windows techs, they will let the Windows techs beat on it like monkeys before calling an outside consultant who costs money; that leads to a large part of that 20%.
2). Your post about 437 days was retarded. No doubt retards everywhere will mod you up as insightful and informative, but that makes your comment no less annoying to people with brains.
- Eric
Then you would have to convienently ignore the existance of mammals and marsupials. You fish smelling, lizard loving, bird watching, insect studying, hair hater.
Go wash your mouth out with milk you self-hating-mammal.
All in good fun.
- Eric
Is this a bubble?
I was hired for a job. The company admitted I was more qualified than the guy I replaced, but said HR would not let them pay me more that the previous guy.
Why? Becuase he was black and they feared that if I made more and he found out, he might sue them.
Interestingly enough I hired to Desktop techs to help me out. Both were equally quallified.
The HR department said I could pay the guy $32K and I should pay the girl $39K.
Their reasoning was that girls made less then men in the IT department and they wanted to boost the salaries of women to make them even.
Any system where pay is determined based on race or sex discrimminates regardless of the reasons.
It's bad science given that Mona is most likely a mirror image of Da Vinci's own face made out to be a woman.
If they were good scientists they would have run the mirror image against male facial expressions.
Since the "scientists" didn't understand the subject material they were studying, their results are worthless.
If tempuratures are rising then why can't anybody tell me from what?
How do we know if in the process of stopping global warming we don't push it to far in the other direction without first setting a goal?
I am not asking for anything out of line here. What is our target range of acceptable tempuratures and how did we determing that?
- Eric
PS - The issue of whether or not it is a nature rise is important, because if it is a nature increase, then you are in effect asking us to regulate the global climate in an unnatural way.
Why would I ask a question I already know the answer to? If temperatures change I will need to adapt. In fact if anything in my life changes, I need to adapt.
Let's run with a IT example since this is /.
If future versions of computers are analog, we'll need to adapt. As new software and ideas are introduced, we need to adapt.
But what happens to those who cannot change? You know the types stuck on Windows 9x/DOS or Netware 3.12 running IPX. The kind of people are scared to change, affraid of it. Linux or Windows XP are different and these people don't do different.
Should we call a UN summit and say "wow wow wow, slow it down boys, some people cannot keep up with the latest Linux kernel, many people can handle HTML, but XML is a bit to much right now and the new Windows Start Menu freaks them out." Should we suggest a per year cap on OS changes? Should we regulate the number of universities researching analog smart devices and if they are successful set an arbitrary quota that says 10% of all computers can be analog by some arbitrary date of oh lets just pick the year 2020?
Hell no. Instead we should do our best to deal with the changes that occur both naturally and sometimes unnaturally and let eveloution and natural selection handle the rest.
Change requires people to learn and adapt and try new things; the question you should ask is 'what makes that a bad thing?'
"What [global warming] will likely do, though, is require change in human activity to cope with the changing geography on the world which may impose additional costs on the economy above any possible additional advantage for some nations (and vice versa for others)."
Dealing with change is what life is all about. The climate of the world has never been static, it is unnatural to try to make it that way, especially when you admit there is no correct temp.
Last point volcanos release more greenhouse gases each year then all the nations of the world combined. Maybe we should ban or regulate valcanos?
Couple of things:
First, can you prove that man made greenhouse gases are the sole reason behind global temp. increases, can you prove it isn't volcanos or decomposing plant matter?
Second, what temp. is the correct temp. for the Earth? I mean if you go back to the start of the planet when it was a ball of molten lava, tempuratures were way hirer, so maybe we should push to get the temp. right back up there. Course during the ice age, Europe was frozen over, so maybe we should cool the planet, or if we look back to the start of the industrial revolution, the average temp. was 1.2% lower. So what should the correct temp. be?
Liberal types need to ask themselves this "Why do the see a need to pass laws and regulations in an effort to keep the natural temp. right? Wouldn't the naturally temp. be whatever naturally occurs?
Oh, how the hippie tree huggers are silly. They talk about science, when they cannot even follow the basic concepts behind science. Where is the control experiment? What is the proper temp. for the Earth in its controlled state? How do we determine that temp.? How do they conduct experiments in the atomsphere and only change one variable at a time?
Here is a fact: People who worry about things like global warming are dumb. Before global warming it was over crowding, in time I am sure it will be something else, probably something anti-meat.
Can you image if the French built the Internet instead of the Americans?
The Internet would consist of a large array of unprotected unorganized computers that rely on a single firewall for security and in the end the Germans would just go around it.
The computers would only work 35 hours a week and not a nanosecond more.
The computers would smoke all the time.
The computers would always complain about being broke.
No computer would view itself as an individual machine, rather they would talk about the greater network and the collective thread.
Secretly all the computers would dream of being the head unit, while preaching the joy of being a common node to others.
Most computers would have small processors, selective memory, and no male connectors.
10% of the computers would be dependent on goverment subsidized cabling.
Despite all of the flashy lights and beep beeps, no user would have a clue what the computer was saying.
All of the French PCs will pretend not to understand the American PCs until German PCs show up on their subnet. Then it will be all 1s and 0s this and 1s and 0s that "We love you Americans".
They would not use Windows because the Americans invented it.
They would not use Linux because the Finns invented it and the Germans made it better.
They would not use BSD, because BSD works and is not sexy enough.
They would not use Solaris, becuase Solaris is crap.
They might use OS X, but they would call it "Le X".
Instead of an "Enter" key you would have to hit the "wee wee" key.
Instead of Ctrl+Alt+Del you would have to hit Shift+Beret.
How can there be a truly scientific study of global warming?
What is the control?
What is the timeline?
What is the proper temp.? on average? per time of year? per location?
Isn't nature always changing?
When in the history of the Earth have tempuratures not been in flux?
In order to prove temps. are rising, then you should able to define what the "correct" temp. should be per time of year per location.
Then and only if you can prove tempuratures are rising can you begin to investigate if human activities are responsible.
Then we can debate if government or the private sector can or should fix it.
Liberals are just getting way ahead of the ball on this one.
I personally think it is BS, given that the whole "world will not be able to feed itself" thing turned out to be BS and then the whole "world will run out of oil in 20 years" I heard in the early 80s turned out to be BS.
Oh, and the fact that it has snowed more in the last 10 years in my hometown then it did when I lived there.
Oh, and the fact that where I live the average temps are down over the past two years.
Oh, and the point that temp. is not something that is not static in the eviornments we are talking about.
Oh and that liberals seem to have picked the "optimal temp." to be defined as the average temp. recorded just prior to the industrial revolution, which is a very arbitrary point if you think about it.
Why not pick 50 BC or 1038 AD or 1,000,000 years ago or last Tuesday? It is just silly.
Still, if you can prove scientifically that global warming exists then I will be open to accept it, and we move to the next area of debate that discussed whether or not the government should/can try to regulate or reverse it.
NPR nonbaised? ha ha
I guess this is Intel's idea of "innovation" adapted from Microsoft's early version of "innovation" where they sit back, look at what other developers create and then repackage/rebrand an inferior copycat with a large marketing campaign.
Seems with the Mac mini, Intel noticed it was "small" and attributed that to its sales numbers. Seems Intell failed to notice other attributes like "it is the first truly entry level Mac" or "it runs OS X" or "it is only $499" or "many Wintel users got it to as a second machine to test the Apple waters" or countless other reasons for its success.
Personally, I am not sure if it is more funny or more sad that size appears to be the only thing that matters.
Lucas could have made I, II and III great if he hired a quality outside director. If you look at the books and material online, these could have been far greater movies if the direction was there for the actors; some of which are gifted in all but there Star Wars appearances. Oh, in addition to helping the actors there was also a serious need for director help in the cutting room, some of the transitions were rough.
I really liked the books, there is a story that did not translate onto the screen.
Your commment about the story focusing on Anakin/Vader is abdsolutely correct. I've read the books, seen the movies and it has always been my impression that Star Wars is mostly about father Skywalker's life and how he is saved by his son then it is about just Luke. Luke the son is important, but the story is about the father's fall and redemption.
I see the important central idea around Star Wars in how Darth Sidious's attempt to turn Luke, ends up saving Anakin's sole.
If you look at how in episode VI, Luke is in the place against Anakin that Anakin was in episode II with Count Dooku.
That was where Darth Sidious realized he could control Anakin and make him his apprentice by having him kill Dooku.
That step was Anakins last chance to resist. The difference is that Luke stops short and refuses to fight.
It drives the Sidious to start killing Luke and it gets Vader to recognize and correct his mistake years later.
Look at Luke and Anakin when Sidious tries to convert them, they are both roughfully the same age, in extremely similar positions.
I think it adds to the whole experience.
Let me help you understand.
Bush's judges will pass easily with majority support. In the past the filibuster was over a candidate that did not have a majority and therefore without the filibuster he still would not have been approved.
So when you qualify the question "when in the past has a judicial filibuster taken place when the majority vote would approve the candidate?" the answer is NEVER.
If you say "when in over 229 years of this great country has there ever been a judical filibuster?" the answer is once to make it a point that the candidate was that terrible.
These judges are good judges and strongly in support of the Consitution as it was writen, not in the idea of a living document, other then living document through amendements only.
These judges are anti courts making law.
The point is that science cannot disprove God. Yet people like you label Christian views as unacceptable and fairy tales and falsehoods.
/.ers put down the former and support the latter. As I meantioned above you cannot disprove the former, but history has already disproven the latter.
I personally don't think there is a God, but I cannot prove there isn't a God, nor can you. I just feel there isn't a God. Christians feel their is a God. Science may someday prove there is and I will change my views, but even as science proves evolution and how the universe began, that does not dissprove God, it simply means that if their is a God, that is how God did it. It is an important objective observation.
My comparision of the views of Christians and Socialists was done becuase many
Look at North and South Korea: same race of people, same climate, same geographic size, same economic starting points, etc. etc. etc. Now look at how much better the quality of life is in the pro-Capitalism South verses the pro-Communist North.
Look at how every Communist and Socialist government in history has required strong control and regulation of the general population. That is exactly the opposite of many liberals claim to want, but it is what happens every time. It was what Orwell recognized later in life and what caused him to write 1984 and Animal Farm. He continued to like the "theory" of socalism, but if you read his works and comments he recognized it was not a realist workable solution. Never will be, it is a fairy tale.
Socialism creates a culture of state dependents and enslaves the working class with high taxation (look at European tax rates verse American tax rates). When the government takes your money it takes away your freedom, it makes you a slave without the dignity of letting you know you are a slave unless you take the time to look around. Liberals don't look around (because unlike Orwell who recognized Socialism would not work, they want to hold on to their "belief") to see what they are preaching and when the do look around they are not objective in the observations they make.
The fairy tale is that people like you cannot be objective in your evaluations of "belief systems". If you apply the same standards to socialism as you do to Christianity you would understand.
But since I am apparently "amateurish" when it comes to things that I do not agree with you on, I guess it is best we respectfully disagree.
Me, out of a willingness to not waste my time with a closed minded person and you out of a desire to hold conficting and hypocritical views.
Want to continue this debate, apply your same logic and reason to "people who believe in the power of the state" as you do to "people who believe in the power of God.
Oh and for the record, I believe in the "Power of the Individual". That is what allows me to be so open and objective.
So do socialist, the only difference is that socialism has been a proven failure, whereas there is not proof either way that Christians are right or wrong. I believe in evolution and I happen to not believe in God, but I see on conflict with a person who says "I believe God created the universe and evolution was one method he employed in doing it" Socialist say "Our economic system helps more people then capitalism, when history tells us otherwise." If you look at controls with North Korea verses South Korea and notice they have the same racial backgrounds, rounghly equal land mass, very similar climates, etc. etc. and the big defining difference is that one is capitalist and one is communist, you can see capitlism works better. Same with East and West Germany. I am just saying that it makes me laugh when I see Christian views labeled as "fairy tales" while Socialist views are considered acceptable.
There is no way for science to ever disprove God.
I'm an athiest because I feel that God is not there, just as many believe in God becuase they feel him/her/it/them are there.
Why do people jump on Christians and Jews because they apparently believe something that cannot be proven or disproven?
Want to jump on people for disproven or illogical beliefs, jump on socialists and communists who's believe in an economic system that history has proven a failure time and time again.
Libertarian Out.
PS - I am not a troll, just because I don't think like your views.
What makes software better?
Innovation, right?
So why not let people or companies that innovate decide if they want to protect their intellectual property. Same for poets and authers. Let them decide if they want to protect their works or give it away.
Why not instead of blacketly attacking the idea of IP, we respect that people are free to protect their ideas just as you are free to protect your PC from theft?
If some freely give their innovative ideas away while others charge a fee, no harm is doen. After all they created it.
The only harm comes when someone invents a great idea and for some reason or another keeps it to themselves. What if someone discovered the cure for aids, but did want the credit taken away from them and so they kept it hidden in their mind? That is the only time harm is truly done. What if MS just took GNU code and used it without following the GNU license? Then harm would be done.
Property must be respected whether it is an idea or a computer. You need to have some security that others cannot take what is yours.
Just a thought.