The cash injection will be used to help its customers use Linux on every type of device from handheld computers and phones right up to powerful servers.
I pledge to install Linux on at least one PC, one laptop, and one handheld. How much of the $100M do I get?
Drove the other races completely mad. "It doesn't NEED an acronym! We can just give it a name! Oh my god, is that a RECURSIVE ACRONYM? I can't work under these conditions."
I think I would side with the aliens on that one too. Especially on the recursive acronyms... The first time was clever, the second time - still cute, the third time - starting to get old.
Yes, it should. But it took a pool of congressional interns 1000 man-hours to come up with that name. If you want better names, income taxes will have to be raised by 0.1% to account for more time.
Likewise, if we didn't come up with a cutesy acronym or nickname for every bill through congress, taxes might be lowered by the same amount.
I think it is more likely that small nations will now have to take a serious look at the risk involved in supporting some of the organizations they fund.
Negotiations with a threat of force are worthless unless the parties involved really believe that a fight is possible if negotiations break down. Countries like Iran and North Korea may be just a bit on their heels right now. Before, when the world said "Don't develop nuclear weapons - there may be consequences." they shrugged it off. After all, what are the chances that any countries would have the initiative to start a war. Now those countries may be just a little more ready to negotiate - now that the use of force is a possibility, maybe even a probability.
I would aim for small to medium businesses. Many of them have data that isn't so sensitive that you would need a security clearance - yet if they lost it, their business would be ruined. Any business with web accessible data storage is a good candidate. And perhaps they'll need a little convincing. I vaguely remember some statistic of the the percentage of small businesses that never reopen after a data loss (fire, computer failure, etc.) This is a data backup issue, but also a security issue.
Of course, you'll already need to know most of what you'll be doing, as these sorts of businesses will not have a security employee to learn from. But if nothing else works out, at least its real-world experience.
You didn't read my post carefully enough. I said you can sort possible-spam this way. If you know who sent the message, and you recognize it, it isn't possible-spam.
Right. I meant looking for clues in the mail that you don't immediately recognize. When I get email from my dad, or a friend, I recognize it without giving it any thought - like you said.
It's the emails that I don't recognize that require a little thought. They might be spam, they might be worthwhile information. That's when I look to see what properties the email has that make it look good or guilty.
While they don't exactly stop spam, they do prove useful. You can immediately sort possible-spam by whether it offers an unsubscribe option. If it doesn't have it, it's definitely spam. If it does have an unsubscribe link, it's either legit (newsletter perhaps), or spam disguised with a fake unsubscribe. While the fake unsubscribe doesn't really help the end user, it offers a way to track and prosecute those who violate CANSPAM which requires that the unsubscribe option be present in some form, and that it work.
An attempt to smoothly transition customers from old to new products without too much hastle is a good sign.
Add the fact that they aren't trying to rip you off by requiring you to re-purchase everything you already own (they're actually doing the opposite) and it seems like they might be trying to please their customers!
Don't look now, but a media company might DO THE RIGHT THING.
If they continue to act appropriately like this (pleasing customers rather than bullying) I will make a note to reward them with a few purchases.
This is mostly a cultural issue, not an education system issue. As evidenced by data wherein poor countries outperform the US despite our larger budgets.
Kids, and many of their parents don't care about school or education. They will get what they want. They resist teachers and throw up roadblocks. Many parents simply won't help when a teacher explains that their child needs it. That's what's putting our education system in the toilet.
The only case of education system failure is in misapropriation of money (also a cultural issue). Sometimes a wacko or two in high places decide to fund a pet-project instead of math/reading...
If Solaris had done this TEN YEARS AGO, then maybe. As things stand today, no. It comes down to a matter of trust. Do most Linux users trust Solaris enough to let go of Linux? No.
Take a choice between A and B. A is commonly considered a better product than B. Most will choose A. But B offers something that A has never dreamed of. In fact, A hates the idea of offering what B offers. B gains a lot of support. Time ticks by, and after seeing how much B has benefitted A changes it's mind and offers something similar to what B offers - but only because it has to.
Do all those people who would have originally chosen A, but chose B go back to A? NO. Because B is of a similar mindset to the choosers. B WANTS to offer things to the chooser. A offers because it has to remain competitive. That is HUGE. And that is why Solaris will not kill Linux.
The Experts Exchange website works by credits. You help someone (answer a question) and you get credits. You can spend your credits to get help from others (ask a question and have it answered).
Implementing and OSS computing farm could run well using the same model. Offer your spare cycles for someone else's rendering and you earn some credits. You can spend your credits by running your own process on other computers. That should solve a lot of the issues with scheduling and demand, as well as give people a real incentive to put more into the pot rather than try to just take out of the pot.
Of course, security would be another issue. There would need to be some way to encrypt data, even when being processed on a machine.
Renderman uses the concept of "buckets" to limit memory usage. It essentially renders on small part of the screen at a time. If you split the scene into many buckets (already done for you) and send each bucket to a different computer (like many renderfarms already do) you would minimize the security issue. You could "view" the image you rendered by hacking the software - but even then you'd only have a small fraction of the image.
But before we even start talking about all this, we'd need to know HOW the software was going to communicate. Is it just sending raw scene information to be processed? Or is it sending computations to be processed at an abstract level like grid computing is supposed to? If you really are doing grid computing, your render nodes shouldn't even know they are rendering a picture, or be able to assemble their computations into a picture.
Your biggest concern would be making the rendering software grid compliant in an efficient manner. It's all downhill from there.
I just hope it is TRUE grid computing - as in following a standard communcation so that any application that is grid compliant can take advantage of the farm.
More often than not renderfarms have a few formats that you can use (usually expensive ones) and that's it. PR-Renderman, Maya, 3dsMax, Lightwave, and a few other big ones are guaranteed to run about everywhere. Blender? Nice try, but "little" software projects like Blender don't have much of a chance at a renderfarm. Tell a renderfarm you have a Blender file to render, and that you have money in hand - they will tell you to go home.
Grid computing is slightly less efficient than a direct rendering program since it has a little extra overhead. But the ability to run ANY program on a farm is quite enticing. That's what we should be aiming for. That is a good goal.
While I never like to see sleezy behaviour, I've always thought it was a good sign when your adversary starts acting out of desperation. It means:
-you are a real threat
-their normal measures have not beaten you
-they are likely to make mistakes due to their "emotional" state
It is terrible that someone stole material and threw it away. And it is terrible that people's hard work has been set back. BUT, whoever did this is backed into a corner and feeling very threatened.
The weird thing is, most movies are remade to be better. Star Wars was great, but George Lucas thinks he can do better with the technology he has currently.
But these movies were good because they were so crappy! Are they going to try to make it a good movie? Won't that kind of spoil it? Or perhaps they are going to try to make it even crappier than the originals. Make it crappier and those who liked the crappy originals will like it even more?... ?
Slashdot Mirror
The cash injection will be used to help its customers use Linux on every type of device from handheld computers and phones right up to powerful servers.
I pledge to install Linux on at least one PC, one laptop, and one handheld. How much of the $100M do I get?
Drove the other races completely mad. "It doesn't NEED an acronym! We can just give it a name! Oh my god, is that a RECURSIVE ACRONYM? I can't work under these conditions."
I think I would side with the aliens on that one too. Especially on the recursive acronyms... The first time was clever, the second time - still cute, the third time - starting to get old.
That's a good one. I was trying to come up with a clever name for it, but I kept drawing a blank.
So wouldn't this be the SPY ACT Act?
Yes, it should. But it took a pool of congressional interns 1000 man-hours to come up with that name. If you want better names, income taxes will have to be raised by 0.1% to account for more time.
Likewise, if we didn't come up with a cutesy acronym or nickname for every bill through congress, taxes might be lowered by the same amount.
I would like to see a bill that prohibits congress from awkwardly wording bill names to create acronyms.
I think it is more likely that small nations will now have to take a serious look at the risk involved in supporting some of the organizations they fund.
Negotiations with a threat of force are worthless unless the parties involved really believe that a fight is possible if negotiations break down. Countries like Iran and North Korea may be just a bit on their heels right now. Before, when the world said "Don't develop nuclear weapons - there may be consequences." they shrugged it off. After all, what are the chances that any countries would have the initiative to start a war. Now those countries may be just a little more ready to negotiate - now that the use of force is a possibility, maybe even a probability.
That is hilarious. I'm trying not to smile - but I can't stop myself.
I would aim for small to medium businesses. Many of them have data that isn't so sensitive that you would need a security clearance - yet if they lost it, their business would be ruined. Any business with web accessible data storage is a good candidate. And perhaps they'll need a little convincing. I vaguely remember some statistic of the the percentage of small businesses that never reopen after a data loss (fire, computer failure, etc.) This is a data backup issue, but also a security issue.
Of course, you'll already need to know most of what you'll be doing, as these sorts of businesses will not have a security employee to learn from. But if nothing else works out, at least its real-world experience.
You didn't read my post carefully enough. I said you can sort possible-spam this way. If you know who sent the message, and you recognize it, it isn't possible-spam.
...and Apple will make a computer that looks like a big ice cube.
Right. I meant looking for clues in the mail that you don't immediately recognize. When I get email from my dad, or a friend, I recognize it without giving it any thought - like you said.
It's the emails that I don't recognize that require a little thought. They might be spam, they might be worthwhile information. That's when I look to see what properties the email has that make it look good or guilty.
Do Unsubscribe Links Stop Spam?
While they don't exactly stop spam, they do prove useful. You can immediately sort possible-spam by whether it offers an unsubscribe option. If it doesn't have it, it's definitely spam. If it does have an unsubscribe link, it's either legit (newsletter perhaps), or spam disguised with a fake unsubscribe. While the fake unsubscribe doesn't really help the end user, it offers a way to track and prosecute those who violate CANSPAM which requires that the unsubscribe option be present in some form, and that it work.
An attempt to smoothly transition customers from old to new products without too much hastle is a good sign.
Add the fact that they aren't trying to rip you off by requiring you to re-purchase everything you already own (they're actually doing the opposite) and it seems like they might be trying to please their customers!
Don't look now, but a media company might DO THE RIGHT THING.
If they continue to act appropriately like this (pleasing customers rather than bullying) I will make a note to reward them with a few purchases.
This is mostly a cultural issue, not an education system issue. As evidenced by data wherein poor countries outperform the US despite our larger budgets.
Kids, and many of their parents don't care about school or education. They will get what they want. They resist teachers and throw up roadblocks. Many parents simply won't help when a teacher explains that their child needs it. That's what's putting our education system in the toilet.
The only case of education system failure is in misapropriation of money (also a cultural issue). Sometimes a wacko or two in high places decide to fund a pet-project instead of math/reading...
Wait a minute... you lost me... which one is A and which one is B? I'm confused... why couldn't you just say "Linux" and "Solaris?"
I was worried that my post might get a little complex. At one point, I couldn't even tell what I was writing. Sorry about that.
Key:
A=Sun/Solaris
B=Linux
That should be "Do most Linux users trust Sun...".
You're right. I realized that as soon I re-read my post. There was one other place where I should have written Sun instead of Solaris as well.
Oh well.
If Solaris had done this TEN YEARS AGO, then maybe. As things stand today, no. It comes down to a matter of trust. Do most Linux users trust Solaris enough to let go of Linux? No.
Take a choice between A and B. A is commonly considered a better product than B. Most will choose A. But B offers something that A has never dreamed of. In fact, A hates the idea of offering what B offers. B gains a lot of support. Time ticks by, and after seeing how much B has benefitted A changes it's mind and offers something similar to what B offers - but only because it has to.
Do all those people who would have originally chosen A, but chose B go back to A? NO. Because B is of a similar mindset to the choosers. B WANTS to offer things to the chooser. A offers because it has to remain competitive. That is HUGE. And that is why Solaris will not kill Linux.
P.S. A is not necessarily better than B.
You know, I just had another thought.
The Experts Exchange website works by credits. You help someone (answer a question) and you get credits. You can spend your credits to get help from others (ask a question and have it answered).
Implementing and OSS computing farm could run well using the same model. Offer your spare cycles for someone else's rendering and you earn some credits. You can spend your credits by running your own process on other computers. That should solve a lot of the issues with scheduling and demand, as well as give people a real incentive to put more into the pot rather than try to just take out of the pot.
Of course, security would be another issue. There would need to be some way to encrypt data, even when being processed on a machine.
Renderman uses the concept of "buckets" to limit memory usage. It essentially renders on small part of the screen at a time. If you split the scene into many buckets (already done for you) and send each bucket to a different computer (like many renderfarms already do) you would minimize the security issue. You could "view" the image you rendered by hacking the software - but even then you'd only have a small fraction of the image.
But before we even start talking about all this, we'd need to know HOW the software was going to communicate. Is it just sending raw scene information to be processed? Or is it sending computations to be processed at an abstract level like grid computing is supposed to? If you really are doing grid computing, your render nodes shouldn't even know they are rendering a picture, or be able to assemble their computations into a picture.
Your biggest concern would be making the rendering software grid compliant in an efficient manner. It's all downhill from there.
I just hope it is TRUE grid computing - as in following a standard communcation so that any application that is grid compliant can take advantage of the farm.
More often than not renderfarms have a few formats that you can use (usually expensive ones) and that's it. PR-Renderman, Maya, 3dsMax, Lightwave, and a few other big ones are guaranteed to run about everywhere. Blender? Nice try, but "little" software projects like Blender don't have much of a chance at a renderfarm. Tell a renderfarm you have a Blender file to render, and that you have money in hand - they will tell you to go home.
Grid computing is slightly less efficient than a direct rendering program since it has a little extra overhead. But the ability to run ANY program on a farm is quite enticing. That's what we should be aiming for. That is a good goal.
While I never like to see sleezy behaviour, I've always thought it was a good sign when your adversary starts acting out of desperation. It means:
-you are a real threat
-their normal measures have not beaten you
-they are likely to make mistakes due to their "emotional" state
It is terrible that someone stole material and threw it away. And it is terrible that people's hard work has been set back. BUT, whoever did this is backed into a corner and feeling very threatened.
I have a patent pending for all uses of and references to -1.
I'm going to make millions!
I'm still on the lookout for other negations I might be able to cash in on before anyone else does.
"You ain't leadin' but two things: jack and shit.
And Jack left town."
Oh, the memories...
Yo, she-bitch.
The weird thing is, most movies are remade to be better. Star Wars was great, but George Lucas thinks he can do better with the technology he has currently.
... ?
But these movies were good because they were so crappy! Are they going to try to make it a good movie? Won't that kind of spoil it? Or perhaps they are going to try to make it even crappier than the originals. Make it crappier and those who liked the crappy originals will like it even more?