What brilliant logic you use! <br><br> Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I haven't seen *you* use logic to defend *your* viewpoint, so I just figured I wouldn't waste the time/thought. <br><br> However, you have asked for my reasoning, so I will give it. Just to show you *one* of us can be logical. <br><br> My point is that you simply said that the sig was asinine. No reasons *why* they/you thought it was asinine, no logic behind the accusation; the sig was asinine. <br><br> Therefore, your response to his sig, was in fact, asinine. You didn't/couldn't defend your point, and therefore you proved his point: the smartest/.ers rarely post. Something to do with "people who are thought of as fools shouldn't open their mouths to remove any doubt". <br><br> Of course, this is the same accusation you level at me: I didn't show my reasoning. And by not showing my reasoning (just like *you* didn't), *I* have proved his sig true. Just like you have. <br><br> The difference now being I have shown my reasoning. You haven't. <br><br> And, please, close your mouth.
I was about to continue this discussion, until I realised I was beating a dead horse in my original post, and now I don't know what I am doing to this poor rotting corpse now, only that it feels *really* illegal.
Of course, since I like feeling illegal, I will continue.
You are right that H generally forms ionic bonds. Of course, *in* *any *case*, H generally forms the H+ ion, so, according to your precendent, I can ignore the whole H- ion stuff you are talking about.
If H- ion is the *result* of an ionic bond, then an ionic compound has been formed, so you are looking at an artificial ion *anyways*. And since H- ion is part of a ionic compound (key word here is *compound*), you can't look at it as a seperate entity.
An H- ion *does* want to create an ionic bond. The charge attracts a positive ion, and a ionic compound is formed do to this. Unless the H- ion is already part of an ionic compound. AFAIK, H- are not a natural occurance, and nor do you have free floating H- ions that are NOT part of a ionic compound or solutions.
Of course, I am pretty sure we have crossed the border from science into semantics several paragraphs ago, and all we need to do is to drag in a guest appearance by everybody's favorite mustached fascist to complete this arguement
Chemically, a H- ion has more in common with a He atom than a neutral H atom
So *that's* why I have this di-helium oxide compound! And helium fluoride. And...ad nauseum.
I have to say, you are wrong on that call.
H- ions do NOT have the same chemical properties as He atoms. The reason being that the charge makes them want to create ionic bonds with positively charged ions, as opposed to Helium, which has no charge.
Chemical properties - describe the way a substance may change or "react" to form other substances. (taken verbatim from my Chem 103 course text book).
Therefore chemical changes occur when chemical combine to create new chemicals. Since chemicals combine at the electron level, that is, covalent and ionic bonding of the electrons in the outer most electron shell, the Chem 101 Anonymous Coward is correct.
To a degree.
The number of electrons in the electron cloud of an atom is a one-on-one match with the number of protons in the nucleus. Even when that atom loses/gains electrons to complete shells, the atom has the same *chemical* properties (because charge is a *physical* property). Therefore, the nucleus of the atom defines the electron structure of an atom, and thus determines the chemical properties of an atom.
However, this garbage about the electrons being closer to the nucleus is a load of huey. First off, due to Heisenburg's uncertainity principle, we can never know the exact position of an electron. Therefore, our electrons cannot even be proven to be closer than their electrons, even *if* this was possible. This can't be possible, anyways, the four basic forces in the universe (weak, strong, gravitation, and electrical) are based on universal constants. Yes, universal meaning "the same everywhere", even Kansas. Since the atomic structure, both in the nucleus and in the electron structure, is built on these four basic forces, which are based on universal constants, the atomic structure is the same everywhere.
Lastly, even if our elements had closer electrons, the main method to classify elements is by atomic mass. The distance of the electrons to the nucleus does not affect the over-all mass of the atom, so there would be no creation of *new* elements because of closer electrons - they would just be the same elements as the ones we have always known and loved.
So, the author is still chemically inept, and I have lost about 30 minutes of sleep beating this dead horse.
Completely on-topic here, but the movie does look interesting, and I do intend to see it, even if the author failed Chem 103. Why? Because, I like the glitz and the FX of the movie. If I want plot and character development, I'll read a book or watch Babylon 5.
Could you toss me a couple links to these *headhunter* sites? I am about to graduate with a degree in Electronic Engineering, and am looking for a job.
Having used the Wind River Real Time OS Tornado, I have to say it is far superior to Linux in terms of memory allocation, multi-threading, and real-time applications. A bit buggy on the SLIP implementation, though.
Perhaps it's the cool factor of walking into a room of machines instead of a room of machine
That's so odd, I would think the cool factor of seeing see the room of mainframe would be exponential greater than a room of PC based machines (even 1GHz Athlons w/SCSI...). A "room of machine", that's funny, like my neighbour trying to borrow a "cup of sofa" from me.:)<br><br> <i>something inside me says not to trust a single box</i><br><br> Here, Here! With any other configuration, having everything on one box would send a spike of fear into my spine. But this configuration, something says to me: "Have no worries". Must be those thrice-damned subliminal messages again. Still, mainframes were built good, and if you have ever used hot-swap-able components, you will understand the utter joy of them.
I assure you that I did read the article in its entirety(sp?) before responding
Then I apologize for accusing you with ignorance.
What good is a hot swap box if the box is flooded (water) / destroyed by fire / millitant admin with an axe, etc
A point was brought up (either by the author OR a/.er) that you should take into account proper security (rooms/locks/guards?/fire control/waterproofing/etc.) into account when spending the money to purchase a six-figure piece of equipment. I mean, that's just common sense (that I learned from the Gospel according to O'Reilly). I can't see the difference from losing one machine in a building due to fire/flood to losing 20 machines in a building for the same reason.
I would imagine delivery on a shiny new mainframe wouldn't be a next day thing
Depends. I don't have enough information about purchasing mainframes to know if IBM would toss out another expensive mainframe while the insurance claims/warranty/guarantee/etc claims get tossed around. But, I would hope that IBM would send one as soon as economically feasible.
With commodity hardware I can (at worst) steal my home machine, buy a dozen more at your local outlet and be back up and running from backups in a matter of hours.
You're kidding, right? Boy, I must be configuring something wrong; when I rebuild a system, it generally takes me a very long time to rebuild one system from backups, much less multiple systems. Of course, I am no system administrator. But truly, I think your estimate about rebuilding a network is too optimistic. Maybe you mean "kludging together something with baling twine, duct tape, and spit, until I have enough time to rebuild it properly".
I would certainly not want my router / firewall / X term / webserver / database in one box
Oops, I didn't mean it *that* way. Of course, you want all your servers and routers on seperate machines, due to redundancy, the KISS principle and security reasons. But with multiple OSes running on multiple distinct and unconnected partitions, running completely independant, but on the same hardware, that's just ideal. One instance of Linux/FreeBSD for a router, one for Apache, one for SAMBA, etc, with the same security risks as having them on seperate boxen.
But for most cases, the sheer co$t of this compared to a standard cluster and frontend/backend solution must also be addressed
Agreed, you would need to replace a lot of machines to make this a money saving, but: 1) A lot of companies have a lot of machines. Enough to make this profitable? Would the profit margin hit at 20 servers, with 200 low-end workstations? 50 servers, with 1000 LEWSs? I knew a few mid-range Canadian businesses that have the 20/200 setup. 2) Pure bragging rights. Lousy reason, sure. Something that should be taken into account. You betcha. 3) Politics. Multiply reasons in 2) by a factor of ten for reasons.
Financially, I would very much like to see the math to see where the break even line is. I smell an "Ask Slashdot" question, can you?
If anything, Tzanger, you made me think, which is more than I can accuse most of the people I have talked to today. Thanks!
I disagree with most of your ports. Some of the ideas of author of the Linux/Mainframe article (if you would have read the article) are very valid. It would be near perfection having a single piece of hardware, properly partitioned, to become your router, your DNS server, multiple and independant but linked web/ftp servers, file servers, X11 servers, print servers, and then having a couple partitions for actual user processes; all of which on a piece of hardware that is 100% hot swappable, and can have a partition rebuilt in less than a minute. And with the massive I/O of a mainframe, to boot.
Next time, read the article. Trust me, you will be a better person for it.
Yes, that was the *first* thing I thought of when I read the article; good old X-Com: UFO Defense.
The hours I have wasted on that game, TFTD (which I am still playing now), Apocalypse, and Interceptor is uncountable. And with Alliance out Real Soon Now, I can't really wait...
Didn't know about the Southam paper; generally stay away from the papers here because of that Black bastard.
And I agree; editorial pages should have a reply button. Most do; just reply to the letter, and say: "Hey, idiot, take a joke, eh?". And if the editor is okay, you might get it *moderated* up to a visible level.
We Canadians *are* a race; Nietsche's(sp?) race of supermen! Due the harsh living of -40 degree temperatures (during summer, no less!), the constant danger presented from high-velocity low flying hockey pucks, and the only companionship coming from frisky polar bears, Canadians have evolved far beyond anything you Americans hosers will *ever* approach. We are a *higher* life: homo superior canadiana.
But seriously, I am Canadian nationalist, loved the song, think it's great for the crew at South Park to be recognized at this level. I haven't heard any bad Canadian backlash because of the song. All my Canadian friends *love* it, none are insulted by it; in fact, most were saying, "Hey, hoser, South Park's even got a song aboot us, eh?" (this is coming from people in a country that has a national apolelxy everytime Canada is refered to on the American media we watch on our bootleg mini-dishes, hooked to the top of the igloo).
I can't seem to access the page, which begs the question: Government cover-up, or/. effect gone awry? *YOU* decide!
Just to note: while I *am* in Canada, most of my traffic gets routed through the States by default <SIGH>. Maybe, one day, Canada will have its own link to Europe...
While I am meta-moderating the "off-topic" moderation on this "Fair", I must say that I really found it hilarious, and that the person who wrote it is brilliant.
I think part of the beauty of the Simpsons is the simplicity of the plots
I disagree. I think the best parts of the Simpsons are the continuous satires and parodies of real-life, and the fact that Simpsons show that even the most dysfunctional family can live and love together. I admit, the work that Matt Groening puts into the background is unbelievable and among some of the high points of the series (my favorites being the statue of Jebediah Springfield giving the finger as Little Richard sings during the "Do whatever you want" festival (which is a huge change from the "Do as we say so" festival brought over by German settlers in 1946) and the karate fighter kicking the other karate fighter in the balls as Bart goes to learn karate).
As well, the music of the show is phenomenal(sp?). Alf Clausen is a pure genius when it comes to creating music that is so tongue in cheek, but so catchy and hilarious you have to hear it again.
In closing, as long as the music in the movie is half as good as the music of the show, and the movie is poking fun at real-life, I am there in the theatres.
Slashdot Mirror
What brilliant logic you use! /.ers rarely post. Something to do with "people who are thought of as fools shouldn't open their mouths to remove any doubt".
<br><br>
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I haven't seen *you* use logic to defend *your* viewpoint, so I just figured I wouldn't waste the time/thought.
<br><br>
However, you have asked for my reasoning, so I will give it. Just to show you *one* of us can be logical.
<br><br>
My point is that you simply said that the sig was asinine. No reasons *why* they/you thought it was asinine, no logic behind the accusation; the sig was asinine.
<br><br>
Therefore, your response to his sig, was in fact, asinine. You didn't/couldn't defend your point, and therefore you proved his point: the smartest
<br><br>
Of course, this is the same accusation you level at me: I didn't show my reasoning. And by not showing my reasoning (just like *you* didn't), *I* have proved his sig true. Just like you have.
<br><br>
The difference now being I have shown my reasoning. You haven't.
<br><br>
And, please, close your mouth.
is absolutely the most asinine thing I have read all day. The only intelligent people on slashdot are the ones who do not post?
I think your post just proved him right.
Why don't we disable the message boards then?
Because, I wouldn't get my cheap thrills watching idiots like you put their foots in their mouths.
I was about to continue this discussion, until I realised I was beating a dead horse in my original post, and now I don't know what I am doing to this poor rotting corpse now, only that it feels *really* illegal.
Of course, since I like feeling illegal, I will continue.
You are right that H generally forms ionic bonds. Of course, *in* *any *case*, H generally forms the H+ ion, so, according to your precendent, I can ignore the whole H- ion stuff you are talking about.
If H- ion is the *result* of an ionic bond, then an ionic compound has been formed, so you are looking at an artificial ion *anyways*. And since H- ion is part of a ionic compound (key word here is *compound*), you can't look at it as a seperate entity.
An H- ion *does* want to create an ionic bond. The charge attracts a positive ion, and a ionic compound is formed do to this. Unless the H- ion is already part of an ionic compound. AFAIK, H- are not a natural occurance, and nor do you have free floating H- ions that are NOT part of a ionic compound or solutions.
Of course, I am pretty sure we have crossed the border from science into semantics several paragraphs ago, and all we need to do is to drag in a guest appearance by everybody's favorite mustached fascist to complete this arguement
Going to bed, I hope you are too.
Chemically, a H- ion has more in common with a He atom than a neutral H atom
So *that's* why I have this di-helium oxide compound! And helium fluoride. And...ad nauseum.
I have to say, you are wrong on that call.
H- ions do NOT have the same chemical properties as He atoms. The reason being that the charge makes them want to create ionic bonds with positively charged ions, as opposed to Helium, which has no charge.
Chemical properties - describe the way a substance may change or "react" to form other substances. (taken verbatim from my Chem 103 course text book).
Therefore chemical changes occur when chemical combine to create new chemicals. Since chemicals combine at the electron level, that is, covalent and ionic bonding of the electrons in the outer most electron shell, the Chem 101 Anonymous Coward is correct.
To a degree.
The number of electrons in the electron cloud of an atom is a one-on-one match with the number of protons in the nucleus. Even when that atom loses/gains electrons to complete shells, the atom has the same *chemical* properties (because charge is a *physical* property). Therefore, the nucleus of the atom defines the electron structure of an atom, and thus determines the chemical properties of an atom.
However, this garbage about the electrons being closer to the nucleus is a load of huey. First off, due to Heisenburg's uncertainity principle, we can never know the exact position of an electron. Therefore, our electrons cannot even be proven to be closer than their electrons, even *if* this was possible. This can't be possible, anyways, the four basic forces in the universe (weak, strong, gravitation, and electrical) are based on universal constants. Yes, universal meaning "the same everywhere", even Kansas. Since the atomic structure, both in the nucleus and in the electron structure, is built on these four basic forces, which are based on universal constants, the atomic structure is the same everywhere.
Lastly, even if our elements had closer electrons, the main method to classify elements is by atomic mass. The distance of the electrons to the nucleus does not affect the over-all mass of the atom, so there would be no creation of *new* elements because of closer electrons - they would just be the same elements as the ones we have always known and loved.
So, the author is still chemically inept, and I have lost about 30 minutes of sleep beating this dead horse.
Completely on-topic here, but the movie does look interesting, and I do intend to see it, even if the author failed Chem 103. Why? Because, I like the glitz and the FX of the movie. If I want plot and character development, I'll read a book or watch Babylon 5.
Now *that's* clever!
Well, it did, something to do with 40 000 velociraptors been compared to 40 000 unique linux machines running on a "dinosaur".
LOL!
You, good person, have just made my day!
Thanks for the laugh!
Retrieving IP address....now.
D'oh! Perhaps that's why I haven't gotten a job; I don't have a Yahoo account! :)
Could you toss me a couple links to these *headhunter* sites? I am about to graduate with a degree in Electronic Engineering, and am looking for a job.
Having used the Wind River Real Time OS Tornado, I have to say it is far superior to Linux in terms of memory allocation, multi-threading, and real-time applications. A bit buggy on the SLIP implementation, though.
Of course, XFree86 *really* sucks on it...
LOL!
And my guess is that's the Smurf's song, but I think I am wrong.
Note to Rob: KEEP THESE DAMN SUBMIT AND PREVIEW BUTTONS APART! YOU HERE ME! APART!
Oh, and while you are at it, have that "No score +1 Bonus" box marked by default!
Oh, and before I forgot: "please".
Perhaps it's the cool factor of walking into a room of machines instead of a room of machine
:)<br><br>
That's so odd, I would think the cool factor of seeing see the room of mainframe would be exponential greater than a room of PC based machines (even 1GHz Athlons w/SCSI...). A "room of machine", that's funny, like my neighbour trying to borrow a "cup of sofa" from me.
<i>something inside me says not to trust a single box</i><br><br>
Here, Here! With any other configuration, having everything on one box would send a spike of fear into my spine. But this configuration, something says to me: "Have no worries". Must be those thrice-damned subliminal messages again. Still, mainframes were built good, and if you have ever used hot-swap-able components, you will understand the utter joy of them.
I assure you that I did read the article in its entirety(sp?) before responding
/.er) that you should take into account proper security (rooms/locks/guards?/fire control/waterproofing/etc.) into account when spending the money to purchase a six-figure piece of equipment. I mean, that's just common sense (that I learned from the Gospel according to O'Reilly). I can't see the difference from losing one machine in a building due to fire/flood to losing 20 machines in a building for the same reason.
Then I apologize for accusing you with ignorance.
What good is a hot swap box if the box is flooded (water) / destroyed by fire / millitant admin with an axe, etc
A point was brought up (either by the author OR a
I would imagine delivery on a shiny new mainframe wouldn't be a next day thing
Depends. I don't have enough information about purchasing mainframes to know if IBM would toss out another expensive mainframe while the insurance claims/warranty/guarantee/etc claims get tossed around. But, I would hope that IBM would send one as soon as economically feasible.
With commodity hardware I can (at worst) steal my home machine, buy a dozen more at your local outlet and be back up and running from backups in a matter of hours.
You're kidding, right? Boy, I must be configuring something wrong; when I rebuild a system, it generally takes me a very long time to rebuild one system from backups, much less multiple systems. Of course, I am no system administrator. But truly, I think your estimate about rebuilding a network is too optimistic. Maybe you mean "kludging together something with baling twine, duct tape, and spit, until I have enough time to rebuild it properly".
I would certainly not want my router / firewall / X term / webserver / database in one box
Oops, I didn't mean it *that* way. Of course, you want all your servers and routers on seperate machines, due to redundancy, the KISS principle and security reasons. But with multiple OSes running on multiple distinct and unconnected partitions, running completely independant, but on the same hardware, that's just ideal. One instance of Linux/FreeBSD for a router, one for Apache, one for SAMBA, etc, with the same security risks as having them on seperate boxen.
But for most cases, the sheer co$t of this compared to a standard cluster and frontend/backend solution must also be addressed
Agreed, you would need to replace a lot of machines to make this a money saving, but:
1) A lot of companies have a lot of machines. Enough to make this profitable? Would the profit margin hit at 20 servers, with 200 low-end workstations? 50 servers, with 1000 LEWSs? I knew a few mid-range Canadian businesses that have the 20/200 setup.
2) Pure bragging rights. Lousy reason, sure. Something that should be taken into account. You betcha.
3) Politics. Multiply reasons in 2) by a factor of ten for reasons.
Financially, I would very much like to see the math to see where the break even line is. I smell an "Ask Slashdot" question, can you?
If anything, Tzanger, you made me think, which is more than I can accuse most of the people I have talked to today. Thanks!
I disagree with most of your ports. Some of the ideas of author of the Linux/Mainframe article (if you would have read the article) are very valid. It would be near perfection having a single piece of hardware, properly partitioned, to become your router, your DNS server, multiple and independant but linked web/ftp servers, file servers, X11 servers, print servers, and then having a couple partitions for actual user processes; all of which on a piece of hardware that is 100% hot swappable, and can have a partition rebuilt in less than a minute. And with the massive I/O of a mainframe, to boot.
Next time, read the article. Trust me, you will be a better person for it.
Yes, that was the *first* thing I thought of when I read the article; good old X-Com: UFO Defense.
The hours I have wasted on that game, TFTD (which I am still playing now), Apocalypse, and Interceptor is uncountable. And with Alliance out Real Soon Now, I can't really wait...
Mmmm....Sunshine Girls...
<Excerpt=Newspaper>...and when Bambi isn't striving for world peace, she enjoys waterskiing and giving fellatio</excerpt>
Didn't get the Unknown error; maybe you should be paranoid. That's all I get, too: the title and the date.
The truth is out...of sytle.
Didn't know about the Southam paper; generally stay away from the papers here because of that Black bastard.
And I agree; editorial pages should have a reply button. Most do; just reply to the letter, and say: "Hey, idiot, take a joke, eh?". And if the editor is okay, you might get it *moderated* up to a visible level.
We Canadians *are* a race; Nietsche's(sp?) race of supermen! Due the harsh living of -40 degree temperatures (during summer, no less!), the constant danger presented from high-velocity low flying hockey pucks, and the only companionship coming from frisky polar bears, Canadians have evolved far beyond anything you Americans hosers will *ever* approach. We are a *higher* life: homo superior canadiana.
But seriously, I am Canadian nationalist, loved the song, think it's great for the crew at South Park to be recognized at this level. I haven't heard any bad Canadian backlash because of the song. All my Canadian friends *love* it, none are insulted by it; in fact, most were saying, "Hey, hoser, South Park's even got a song aboot us, eh?" (this is coming from people in a country that has a national apolelxy everytime Canada is refered to on the American media we watch on our bootleg mini-dishes, hooked to the top of the igloo).
I can't seem to access the page, which begs the question: Government cover-up, or /. effect gone awry? *YOU* decide!
Just to note: while I *am* in Canada, most of my traffic gets routed through the States by default <SIGH>. Maybe, one day, Canada will have its own link to Europe...
While I am meta-moderating the "off-topic" moderation on this "Fair", I must say that I really found it hilarious, and that the person who wrote it is brilliant.
I think part of the beauty of the Simpsons is the simplicity of the plots
I disagree. I think the best parts of the Simpsons are the continuous satires and parodies of real-life, and the fact that Simpsons show that even the most dysfunctional family can live and love together. I admit, the work that Matt Groening puts into the background is unbelievable and among some of the high points of the series (my favorites being the statue of Jebediah Springfield giving the finger as Little Richard sings during the "Do whatever you want" festival (which is a huge change from the "Do as we say so" festival brought over by German settlers in 1946) and the karate fighter kicking the other karate fighter in the balls as Bart goes to learn karate).
As well, the music of the show is phenomenal(sp?). Alf Clausen is a pure genius when it comes to creating music that is so tongue in cheek, but so catchy and hilarious you have to hear it again.
In closing, as long as the music in the movie is half as good as the music of the show, and the movie is poking fun at real-life, I am there in the theatres.