No. The JRE (Java Runtime Environment) is for running Java applications only. The JSDK (Java Software Developers Kit), also known as the JDK or occasionally by the more generic term SDK, provides the same functionality but also the ability to compile Java code.
I understand this, now. But (at the time) there was no good way to figure this out form Sun's Java site. Now there are actually some pretty good walk-throughs.
Let's not, unless we can give examples.
Well, I don't have any Java code handy, but the stuff my wife has had to use for her Java classes (as in school) has been pretty bad. Weird capitalization, way to long without being particularly descriptive, etc.
I think we can at least agree that typical method and variable names in typical Java programs are longer (and therefore more subject to typos) than most programs. It is my opinion that in the general case there is little (if any) useful information embedded in this baggage.
Actually, here is an example from "The Practice of Programming" (Kernighan & Pike):
? class UserQueue {
? int noOfItemsInQ, frontOfTheQueue, queue Capacity;
? public int noOfUsersInQueue() {...}
? }
[comments on style]
class UserQueue {
int nitems, front, capacity;
public int nusers() {...}
}
since it leads to statments like
queue.capicty++;
n = queue.nusers();
No clarity is lost.
This quote looks pretty bad. I have the trade paperback version, and this appears on page 4.
Anyway, to my eye, the first looks distincly "Javaish" whereas the second looks like C++. I'm not sure, but I think that this code is valid in either language. That's my point about perverse, typo prone method and variable names.
I fully expect case sensitivity. I don't, however, expect 20+ character labels with "funny" caps.
Actually, in that case the compilation error would be on the line where the error occurred, as with most error reporting in Java programs.
Well, of course this isn't true. It isn't true for any language. Any compiler gives an error where the compilation error is encountered. So, if you forget to uncomment a declaration you get the error where the variable is used.
OTOH, I get the sense (after debuging my own bad syntax on C++ and Perl) that "javac" (ask me how long it took me to figure that out) encounters errors in places less inutitive, and further from the mistake than others. Again, this is a sense, I don't have examples handy.
Anyway, this is pretty far off of my core complaint, which is that Java seems to be more about buzwords and barriers to entry than about technology.
I do have one more question: is there an assembler for the JVM?
Okay, one more: is there some documentation for the JVM in terms of things like registers, service calls, etc.
Well, I expected to be modded down, but I am sincere, so I guess it depends on what, exactly, you mean by trolling. I do "hardly know Java" but hardly for lack of trying.
As to "swallow[ing] the whole thing at once." I did, in fact, expect to be able to get to "hello world" within the first day or two. Since I had gotten at least this far with several other languages I didn't think that this was unreasonable.
I am consciously biased against Java, but I am pretty sure that I'm not so sick that I burned hours of my life to prove to myself that I don't like it. I was trying to learn it for my own amusement, and would still like to.
Bruce's site (with the flash intro with the background that almost matches the background of the rest of the site) has, sadly, made my mental state worse. I hope that you, AC, aren't Bruce. (I suspect you aren't, since you can't spell subconsciously:-P )
[time passes . ..]
I'm back from the site, and I have to say that Bruce kicks ass. I downloaded the Java book (and the C++ books) and am looking forward to curling up with my laptop and checking them out.
Okay, Java code itself is pretty easy to deal with. Pretty much C++ with a few differences (final vs. const, etc.)
But geezus if they don't make up terminology just for the hell of it. I've tried and tried to get my head around a little of it. Not much luck. I must have looked at fifty block diagrams showing how the JDK, the SDK, the JRE and freaking EJB fit together, and it still makes no sense.
What am I missing here? I understand compiled languages and interpreted languages/scripts. I do a little assembly. I understand the overarching concept of the VM and "bytecode" (which, best I can tell is just machine code for an imaginary machine called "JVM") but it took me weeks of trying just to get to the point of "hello world." Do I need the JRE and the JDK? What is the difference between the SDK and the JDK? Okay, I found the download page of the JDK, but when I agree to the license it just refreshes the page! Holy shit.
And let's not even start on variable names like "The_Longest_Yet_Least_Descriptive_Method_Name_I n_The_World." And don't dare drop the capital "t" in "the" in your call, or you'll get an error message in Sanskrit pointing to nine lines before your call. Oh, and you know what else is a great idea? Make everything sensitive to the freaking filenames of the source files.
Is there some mind-set thing that I am just missing? Is there some parallel-universe where this sort of stuff makes sense?
Frankly, the whole thing strikes me as being like Psychology (and a lot of semi-sciences) where perverse vocabulary is used as a barrier to entry to the field. (Oops, too many "lay people" know what MPD is! Quick, change the name to DPD!)
I think that the point is precisely that it is possible to form a request that overruns the available buffer. What's after the buffer? Something. Maybe something important.
I'm not an expert on doing this, but I know a little assembly, and it is quite feasible to do this remotely, with no access to the server. It is even possible to make something "useful" happen (like getting a remote root shell) if you have the same binary available to play with (and a debugger and a lot of free time).
For a general overview of how this sort of thing is done see this page. (Note that there is nothing disgusting on this site. Just some ASCII cows and some screen shots of windows crashing. Well, maybe kind of disgusting.)
Why not do what Linus does with Linux and make "clarifications" (aka exceptions) that allow limited slack on linking requirements for embedded systems?
That way, you can demand all distributed modifications, while removing the barriers that are troubling you.
scp is where it's at. If it doesn't have a 'net connection, it isn't really a computer, and I don't really want to use it anyway.
And yes, I use Windows sometimes. I just use pscp (just look for "putty" in Google), or, if I am really lucky, I use the Cygwin port of scp. Or, sometimes I just open my Linux desktop with any handy web browser with Java thanks to VNC.
Don't get my wrong. I have boot floppies, install CDs, backup CDs, etc. But I don't hump that crap around with me.
Hrumph. Portable media. How quaint. Or as I have seen several others say here, how 20th century.
First, use preview, then maybe you can be clear about when you are done quoting someone.
How can you say "When members of one nation attack another nation, that is a criminal act." with a straight face. I didn't say when members of one nation attack members of another nation. I said attack another nation. We, as a nation were attacked. We, as a nation are responding in a responsible way.
As to the fact that we haven't made a formal declaration of war. This is, in part, an artifact of our system, which is contentious by design. We didn't declare war in Somalia, we worked under the UN banner. We didn't declare war in Korea, but worked side by side with the English (who also didn't declare war, AFAIK) and others, to aid the Koreans in maintaining their freedom.
I'm not sure we need to make a declaration of war, since an act of war was committed against us. You don't owe someone who punched you in the face a warning before you defend yourself.
You seem to be saying that the courts are the only form of justice. Is that what you are saying? If so, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. I don't think that President Bush gave any indication that he felt that a crime occurred (in fact, I believe that he used the term "act of war"), and he did not say anything about "the criminal justice system" (which, BTW, as a foreigner not on our soil Bin Ladin is not subject to). He said justice. That's what he is delivering.
Now, AFAIK, neither of us are in Afghanistan. Perhaps we are seeing different news reports, but my impression is that innocents are not only being treated as non-combatants, but are receiving more aid from the USA than FROM THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. I'm not shedding any tears for the Afghanis who have allowed there country to be controlled by thugs, and who get better treatment from us than from their own "leaders."
When members of one nation attack another nation, that is a criminal act.
I can't let this go without a little more comment.
Let's do a little thought experiment on your thesis here. Let's say I own a boat. I live in a country where there are minimal arms laws, and I am able to purchase a rocket with a conventional warhead and, say, a couple dozen miles range. Pull up about 15 miles off of, say, Newquay, and take a pot-shot. What laws have I violated? Obviously if I haven't violated laws, I haven't committed a crime. Launching rockets is clearly allowed in international waters. I haven't stolen anything. I haven't violated any laws of my country, or any country I have stepped foot in. I don't know the answer to this.
BUT, if I did this at the behest of, permission of, or approval of a government (other than UK) it would be an act of war. So, clearly the people who committed the acts in question on September 11th committed crimes under US law. That isn't at issue, as they don't exist any more. The question at hand is if the people who ordered that act were engaging in warfare. There are about 6000 families of innocent people who, I'm sure, would answer in a resounding yes. We're at war. You saying that we aren't isn't really relevant.
First, we (the USA) are at war. When members of one nation attack another nation, that is an act of war. If you don't think that bin Laden is closely enough associated for us to be at war with the Taliban, then you haven't been reading the news.
Now, lawyers and judges don't run wars. Presidents and generals do. There is no "due process" or "burden of proof" involved. You get the best intell you can, and you make the best decisions you can based on that information. OTHERWISE YOU LOOSE WHILE WORRYING THAT YOU MIGHT MAKE A MISTAKE.
As for Somalia, if you think that the US is "taking away" their access because we don't like them, then perhaps you don't remember that WE SENT TROOPS THERE TO MAKE SURE THEY DIDN'T STARVE, and to try to get them to STOP KILLING EACH OTHER. People who hate Muslims don't sacrifice their own men to try to stop them from killing each other.
Finally, this was about MONEY not about internet access. Do you really think that the "common man" in Somalia has internet access?
To summarize: We are in a war. We are doing the things that must be done in a war. We only hate people who kill our people.
Oh, and on the red cross thing, you can't just paint a red cross (or star, or crescent moon and star) on all of your equipment/supplies/strongholds and then cry foul when someone bombs them. They were "rendering comfort to the enemy" which makes them the enemy by assosciation.
Have you any research (not teachers union funded) that indicates that teacher pay correlates with student achievement?
I think that the advantage of computers in schools is as a resource, not an element of the curriculum. IOW, allowing students to type papers, or use digital research materials (not the internet) is helpful. Plunking kids down in front of computers and expecting them to learn something is not.
I have one other complaint about the original post. His thesis seems to be "UNIX is inconsistent, whereas Windows, BeOS and MacOS are (each) consistent."
Uh, NO SHIT. UNIX (in the kleenex sense) is a class of operating systems, with a large number of independent implementations. The others are a single "product" from some company.
Holy shit.
In fact, in spite of this distinction, I would say that the standard deviation of UNIXes is smaller than things called "Windows." Much of the apparent consistency in Windows is due to developers going way out of their way to create this appearance. (I.e. Foosoft's Fooware comes on a single CD for Win98 and NT, but it is two distinct builds and an installer that installs the right one without user intervention.)
RAID 0+1 (stripe + mirror) for use with an even number of drives. Basically stripe as many drives together as you want, then mirror that entire array to another set of drives. You lose the capacity of half of your drives for the mirror. If a drive dies, you use the other chain.
You used the notation that is probably more sensible, but your explanation is backwards.
RAID 10 (aka RAID 0+1) is a RAID 0 of RAID 1s. IOW it is two or more mirrored pairs, with striping across them.
You have also glossed over the difference between RAID 1 - mirroring and RAID 1 - duplexing, but then assumed we are talking about duplexing (when you said "other chain").
Duplexing is when you use two controllers. The advantage is, as you mention, if one controller fails, your other member is still accessable. The down side is that all data must cross the bus twice (ugh) and it is less seamless. (Imagine duplexing / (or/boot) (or C: if that's more your speed) all of a sudden your boot drive and its controller are gone!)
I have worked with the AIM MegaRAIDs extensively. They can be a little quirky, but once you really understand how they work they are really nice.
On an un-related note, think really hard before going with RAID 0 (or before implementing one for someone else).
I describe RAID 0 as "anti-RAID" since it provides "undundancy." Which is to say it significantly increases the chance of hardware failure related data loss. Why would you want this?
Of course the reason for RAID 0 is performance. So, if you literally can't do what you need to do without RAID 0, well, then, I guess you do what you have to do. But consider that RAID 5 is nearly as fast (on a HW RAID) as RAID 0. Yes, you pay a disk space penalty, but a good controller will let you add a disk an grow the array when you have nearly filled the drive (and disk prices are probably lower). If you can spend the bucks, and you really feel like you need the speed, build a RAID 10. You get some read advantage from the 1 over 0, and the write penalty will be minimal with a decent controller.
The only time I would recommend RAID 0 would be if you have a situation where 1. the data has another "perminant" home and 2. you are in a fix for speed or capacity on the array.
WWI: Germany was under the rule of Kaiser (i.e. Emperor) Wilhelm II.
WWII: After the Reichstag burned and the German parliament handed total control to the executive Hitler became the equivalent of a military dictator. (See: War powers clause)
And don't tell me people are free in Germany. They can't own guns (unless they pay an elitism fee and keep them at a hunting club). They are conformant to "the rules" beyond common sense. I've been there. I went out with an (American) friend and his German girlfriend. We came to a crosswalk late at night. There was NO traffic (and we could see quite a way in each direction). It was PERFECTLY safe to cross, far safer than when it is busy but the light is with you. We litterally couldn't drag her across the street, then the light changed and everything was fine. I guess that's how it is living in a country where beat cops carry machine guns and have a license to beat people with impunity.
Don't get me wrong, I am aware that this is the direction that the US is headed in, but I'm not happy about it.
I have to beg to differ on the USSR point as well. AFAIK they had regional commissioners, meaning men commissioned to handle a region. That is, the power flowed in the opposite direction in the USSR vs. the USA.
Anyway, I guess it is hard to have a rational world view when you are a subject.
I'm with you 100% that Communism is the ideal system on paper, but works like crap in reality. But that doesn't support your point. Maybe systems work differently for different people (the Finns, for example, seem to be doing very well with socialism.) but I'm not concerned with that, I'm concerned with how absolute rulers behave, not their subjects.
I'll concede the point on STFU though, although I think you should now more than ever. OTOH, it's not my fault that he chose to attack me and whine rather than actually present any rational arguments.
I went the PC-DVD route. It has its advantages, such as pretty easy region hacking, pretty easy macrovision hacking, really good quality (to my eyes software decoding looks good), less $$.
OTOH, I bought a macrovison/region hacked standalone because I couldn't cope with the pain-in-the-ass side effects of using the PC. The biggest ones were having something happen on the PC (oops, forgot to close my mail client, and I got new mail) and having the movie pop back into windowed mode, and trying to use a wireless (RF) keyboard for a remote. Having to listen to the PC while watching a movie (frankly, I don't watch movies turned up real loud, and the sound of the disc spinning in the standalone bugs me sometimes.) was a drag, too.
Did you have any actual rational arguments to add to that, or was your intention just to make an ad hominem attack or two and do a bit of whining about people being unfair?
BTW, it is abundantly clear from history that centralized governments are a recipe for loss of civil liberties. That's where the hostility is coming from. With a small amount of knowledge about history it is hard not to read MosesJones' original post as "Be like us, trade your liberty for some cool gadgets!" Surely he didn't mean it that way, but I find that more upsetting, not less.
Notice that I haven't called you names (like braindead, or "freeper wannabe" (BTW, WTF is a "freeper" and what gives you the impression that I want to be one?)) anywhere in this post. Neither Kymermosst nor I called have called MosesJones names either. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is coping a "confrontational attitude."
I prefer Merriam-Webster online. I find it to be more scholarly, which I guess you might appreciate.
Sure, it is a "noun in apposition." Does that make it less redundant? I wasn't questioning his grammar. I'm geeky. This is a geeky site. "Wireless 802.11b" is a distinctly un-geeky thing to say.
One thing I'm not clear on; why is it that you feel okay about posting "smug and snotty," but you don't think that I should?
Is it that you feel justified because I fired the first snot?
AFAIK AUTODIN is still where the "serious business" happens.
AUTODIN is an ancient, circuit switched network. It's a real bear to operate (I spent four years operating it) but it is genuinely secure. AFAIK the whole "packet switched so it can't be decapitated" thing that the APRANET was supposed to solve was supposed to be an answer to AUTODIN.
I hope they get something going so they can retire AUTODIN.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand this, now. But (at the time) there was no good way to figure this out form Sun's Java site. Now there are actually some pretty good walk-throughs.
Let's not, unless we can give examples.
Well, I don't have any Java code handy, but the stuff my wife has had to use for her Java classes (as in school) has been pretty bad. Weird capitalization, way to long without being particularly descriptive, etc.
I think we can at least agree that typical method and variable names in typical Java programs are longer (and therefore more subject to typos) than most programs. It is my opinion that in the general case there is little (if any) useful information embedded in this baggage.
Actually, here is an example from "The Practice of Programming" (Kernighan & Pike):
This quote looks pretty bad. I have the trade paperback version, and this appears on page 4.
Anyway, to my eye, the first looks distincly "Javaish" whereas the second looks like C++. I'm not sure, but I think that this code is valid in either language. That's my point about perverse, typo prone method and variable names.
I fully expect case sensitivity. I don't, however, expect 20+ character labels with "funny" caps.
Actually, in that case the compilation error would be on the line where the error occurred, as with most error reporting in Java programs.
Well, of course this isn't true. It isn't true for any language. Any compiler gives an error where the compilation error is encountered. So, if you forget to uncomment a declaration you get the error where the variable is used.
OTOH, I get the sense (after debuging my own bad syntax on C++ and Perl) that "javac" (ask me how long it took me to figure that out) encounters errors in places less inutitive, and further from the mistake than others. Again, this is a sense, I don't have examples handy.
Anyway, this is pretty far off of my core complaint, which is that Java seems to be more about buzwords and barriers to entry than about technology.
I do have one more question: is there an assembler for the JVM?
Okay, one more: is there some documentation for the JVM in terms of things like registers, service calls, etc.
-Peter
Well, I expected to be modded down, but I am sincere, so I guess it depends on what, exactly, you mean by trolling. I do "hardly know Java" but hardly for lack of trying.
:-P )
.]
As to "swallow[ing] the whole thing at once." I did, in fact, expect to be able to get to "hello world" within the first day or two. Since I had gotten at least this far with several other languages I didn't think that this was unreasonable.
I am consciously biased against Java, but I am pretty sure that I'm not so sick that I burned hours of my life to prove to myself that I don't like it. I was trying to learn it for my own amusement, and would still like to.
Bruce's site (with the flash intro with the background that almost matches the background of the rest of the site) has, sadly, made my mental state worse. I hope that you, AC, aren't Bruce. (I suspect you aren't, since you can't spell subconsciously
[time passes . .
I'm back from the site, and I have to say that Bruce kicks ass. I downloaded the Java book (and the C++ books) and am looking forward to curling up with my laptop and checking them out.
-Peter
Okay, Java code itself is pretty easy to deal with. Pretty much C++ with a few differences (final vs. const, etc.)
But geezus if they don't make up terminology just for the hell of it. I've tried and tried to get my head around a little of it. Not much luck. I must have looked at fifty block diagrams showing how the JDK, the SDK, the JRE and freaking EJB fit together, and it still makes no sense.
What am I missing here? I understand compiled languages and interpreted languages/scripts. I do a little assembly. I understand the overarching concept of the VM and "bytecode" (which, best I can tell is just machine code for an imaginary machine called "JVM") but it took me weeks of trying just to get to the point of "hello world." Do I need the JRE and the JDK? What is the difference between the SDK and the JDK? Okay, I found the download page of the JDK, but when I agree to the license it just refreshes the page! Holy shit.
And let's not even start on variable names like "The_Longest_Yet_Least_Descriptive_Method_Name_I n_The_World." And don't dare drop the capital "t" in "the" in your call, or you'll get an error message in Sanskrit pointing to nine lines before your call. Oh, and you know what else is a great idea? Make everything sensitive to the freaking filenames of the source files.
Is there some mind-set thing that I am just missing? Is there some parallel-universe where this sort of stuff makes sense?
Frankly, the whole thing strikes me as being like Psychology (and a lot of semi-sciences) where perverse vocabulary is used as a barrier to entry to the field. (Oops, too many "lay people" know what MPD is! Quick, change the name to DPD!)
-Peter
We don't discuss that outside the Empire.
I think that the point is precisely that it is possible to form a request that overruns the available buffer. What's after the buffer? Something. Maybe something important.
I'm not an expert on doing this, but I know a little assembly, and it is quite feasible to do this remotely, with no access to the server. It is even possible to make something "useful" happen (like getting a remote root shell) if you have the same binary available to play with (and a debugger and a lot of free time).
For a general overview of how this sort of thing is done see this page. (Note that there is nothing disgusting on this site. Just some ASCII cows and some screen shots of windows crashing. Well, maybe kind of disgusting.)
-Peter
True of falst: you didn't preview?
-Peter
Note to self: start every comment "IMHO . . ."
Why not do what Linus does with Linux and make "clarifications" (aka exceptions) that allow limited slack on linking requirements for embedded systems?
That way, you can demand all distributed modifications, while removing the barriers that are troubling you.
-Peter
Who uses this stuff?
scp is where it's at. If it doesn't have a 'net connection, it isn't really a computer, and I don't really want to use it anyway.
And yes, I use Windows sometimes. I just use pscp (just look for "putty" in Google), or, if I am really lucky, I use the Cygwin port of scp. Or, sometimes I just open my Linux desktop with any handy web browser with Java thanks to VNC.
Don't get my wrong. I have boot floppies, install CDs, backup CDs, etc. But I don't hump that crap around with me.
Hrumph. Portable media. How quaint. Or as I have seen several others say here, how 20th century.
-Peter
First, use preview, then maybe you can be clear about when you are done quoting someone.
How can you say "When members of one nation attack another nation, that is a criminal act." with a straight face. I didn't say when members of one nation attack members of another nation. I said attack another nation. We, as a nation were attacked. We, as a nation are responding in a responsible way.
As to the fact that we haven't made a formal declaration of war. This is, in part, an artifact of our system, which is contentious by design. We didn't declare war in Somalia, we worked under the UN banner. We didn't declare war in Korea, but worked side by side with the English (who also didn't declare war, AFAIK) and others, to aid the Koreans in maintaining their freedom.
I'm not sure we need to make a declaration of war, since an act of war was committed against us. You don't owe someone who punched you in the face a warning before you defend yourself.
You seem to be saying that the courts are the only form of justice. Is that what you are saying? If so, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. I don't think that President Bush gave any indication that he felt that a crime occurred (in fact, I believe that he used the term "act of war"), and he did not say anything about "the criminal justice system" (which, BTW, as a foreigner not on our soil Bin Ladin is not subject to). He said justice. That's what he is delivering.
Now, AFAIK, neither of us are in Afghanistan. Perhaps we are seeing different news reports, but my impression is that innocents are not only being treated as non-combatants, but are receiving more aid from the USA than FROM THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. I'm not shedding any tears for the Afghanis who have allowed there country to be controlled by thugs, and who get better treatment from us than from their own "leaders."
When members of one nation attack another nation, that is a criminal act.
I can't let this go without a little more comment.
Let's do a little thought experiment on your thesis here. Let's say I own a boat. I live in a country where there are minimal arms laws, and I am able to purchase a rocket with a conventional warhead and, say, a couple dozen miles range. Pull up about 15 miles off of, say, Newquay, and take a pot-shot. What laws have I violated? Obviously if I haven't violated laws, I haven't committed a crime. Launching rockets is clearly allowed in international waters. I haven't stolen anything. I haven't violated any laws of my country, or any country I have stepped foot in. I don't know the answer to this.
BUT, if I did this at the behest of, permission of, or approval of a government (other than UK) it would be an act of war. So, clearly the people who committed the acts in question on September 11th committed crimes under US law. That isn't at issue, as they don't exist any more. The question at hand is if the people who ordered that act were engaging in warfare. There are about 6000 families of innocent people who, I'm sure, would answer in a resounding yes. We're at war. You saying that we aren't isn't really relevant.
-Peter
I really can't believe what is being said here.
The moderation is even worse.
First, we (the USA) are at war. When members of one nation attack another nation, that is an act of war. If you don't think that bin Laden is closely enough associated for us to be at war with the Taliban, then you haven't been reading the news.
Now, lawyers and judges don't run wars. Presidents and generals do. There is no "due process" or "burden of proof" involved. You get the best intell you can, and you make the best decisions you can based on that information. OTHERWISE YOU LOOSE WHILE WORRYING THAT YOU MIGHT MAKE A MISTAKE.
As for Somalia, if you think that the US is "taking away" their access because we don't like them, then perhaps you don't remember that WE SENT TROOPS THERE TO MAKE SURE THEY DIDN'T STARVE, and to try to get them to STOP KILLING EACH OTHER. People who hate Muslims don't sacrifice their own men to try to stop them from killing each other.
Finally, this was about MONEY not about internet access. Do you really think that the "common man" in Somalia has internet access?
To summarize: We are in a war. We are doing the things that must be done in a war. We only hate people who kill our people.
Oh, and on the red cross thing, you can't just paint a red cross (or star, or crescent moon and star) on all of your equipment/supplies/strongholds and then cry foul when someone bombs them. They were "rendering comfort to the enemy" which makes them the enemy by assosciation.
-Peter
What is it that you need those 30/100 NT servers for? What are the "specialist things" that you are talking about?
-Peter
I really hope you meant decreased class size.
Have you any research (not teachers union funded) that indicates that teacher pay correlates with student achievement?
I think that the advantage of computers in schools is as a resource, not an element of the curriculum. IOW, allowing students to type papers, or use digital research materials (not the internet) is helpful. Plunking kids down in front of computers and expecting them to learn something is not.
-Peter
All very well said.
I have one other complaint about the original post. His thesis seems to be "UNIX is inconsistent, whereas Windows, BeOS and MacOS are (each) consistent."
Uh, NO SHIT. UNIX (in the kleenex sense) is a class of operating systems, with a large number of independent implementations. The others are a single "product" from some company.
Holy shit.
In fact, in spite of this distinction, I would say that the standard deviation of UNIXes is smaller than things called "Windows." Much of the apparent consistency in Windows is due to developers going way out of their way to create this appearance. (I.e. Foosoft's Fooware comes on a single CD for Win98 and NT, but it is two distinct builds and an installer that installs the right one without user intervention.)
Geez.
-Peter
RAID 0+1 (stripe + mirror) for use with an even number of drives. Basically stripe as many drives together as you want, then mirror that entire array to another set of drives. You lose the capacity of half of your drives for the mirror. If a drive dies, you use the other chain.
/boot) (or C: if that's more your speed) all of a sudden your boot drive and its controller are gone!)
You used the notation that is probably more sensible, but your explanation is backwards.
RAID 10 (aka RAID 0+1) is a RAID 0 of RAID 1s. IOW it is two or more mirrored pairs, with striping across them.
You have also glossed over the difference between RAID 1 - mirroring and RAID 1 - duplexing, but then assumed we are talking about duplexing (when you said "other chain").
Duplexing is when you use two controllers. The advantage is, as you mention, if one controller fails, your other member is still accessable. The down side is that all data must cross the bus twice (ugh) and it is less seamless. (Imagine duplexing / (or
-Peter
I have worked with the AIM MegaRAIDs extensively. They can be a little quirky, but once you really understand how they work they are really nice.
On an un-related note, think really hard before going with RAID 0 (or before implementing one for someone else).
I describe RAID 0 as "anti-RAID" since it provides "undundancy." Which is to say it significantly increases the chance of hardware failure related data loss. Why would you want this?
Of course the reason for RAID 0 is performance. So, if you literally can't do what you need to do without RAID 0, well, then, I guess you do what you have to do. But consider that RAID 5 is nearly as fast (on a HW RAID) as RAID 0. Yes, you pay a disk space penalty, but a good controller will let you add a disk an grow the array when you have nearly filled the drive (and disk prices are probably lower). If you can spend the bucks, and you really feel like you need the speed, build a RAID 10. You get some read advantage from the 1 over 0, and the write penalty will be minimal with a decent controller.
The only time I would recommend RAID 0 would be if you have a situation where 1. the data has another "perminant" home and 2. you are in a fix for speed or capacity on the array.
Good luck!
-Peter
What planet's history are you talking about?
WWI: Germany was under the rule of Kaiser (i.e. Emperor) Wilhelm II.
WWII: After the Reichstag burned and the German parliament handed total control to the executive Hitler became the equivalent of a military dictator. (See: War powers clause)
And don't tell me people are free in Germany. They can't own guns (unless they pay an elitism fee and keep them at a hunting club). They are conformant to "the rules" beyond common sense. I've been there. I went out with an (American) friend and his German girlfriend. We came to a crosswalk late at night. There was NO traffic (and we could see quite a way in each direction). It was PERFECTLY safe to cross, far safer than when it is busy but the light is with you. We litterally couldn't drag her across the street, then the light changed and everything was fine. I guess that's how it is living in a country where beat cops carry machine guns and have a license to beat people with impunity.
Don't get me wrong, I am aware that this is the direction that the US is headed in, but I'm not happy about it.
I have to beg to differ on the USSR point as well. AFAIK they had regional commissioners, meaning men commissioned to handle a region. That is, the power flowed in the opposite direction in the USSR vs. the USA.
Anyway, I guess it is hard to have a rational world view when you are a subject.
I'm with you 100% that Communism is the ideal system on paper, but works like crap in reality. But that doesn't support your point. Maybe systems work differently for different people (the Finns, for example, seem to be doing very well with socialism.) but I'm not concerned with that, I'm concerned with how absolute rulers behave, not their subjects.
I'll concede the point on STFU though, although I think you should now more than ever. OTOH, it's not my fault that he chose to attack me and whine rather than actually present any rational arguments.
-Peter
I went the PC-DVD route. It has its advantages, such as pretty easy region hacking, pretty easy macrovision hacking, really good quality (to my eyes software decoding looks good), less $$.
OTOH, I bought a macrovison/region hacked standalone because I couldn't cope with the pain-in-the-ass side effects of using the PC. The biggest ones were having something happen on the PC (oops, forgot to close my mail client, and I got new mail) and having the movie pop back into windowed mode, and trying to use a wireless (RF) keyboard for a remote. Having to listen to the PC while watching a movie (frankly, I don't watch movies turned up real loud, and the sound of the disc spinning in the standalone bugs me sometimes.) was a drag, too.
So, I don't recommend the PC method.
-Peter
That is a real interesting post.
Did you have any actual rational arguments to add to that, or was your intention just to make an ad hominem attack or two and do a bit of whining about people being unfair?
BTW, it is abundantly clear from history that centralized governments are a recipe for loss of civil liberties. That's where the hostility is coming from. With a small amount of knowledge about history it is hard not to read MosesJones' original post as "Be like us, trade your liberty for some cool gadgets!" Surely he didn't mean it that way, but I find that more upsetting, not less.
Notice that I haven't called you names (like braindead, or "freeper wannabe" (BTW, WTF is a "freeper" and what gives you the impression that I want to be one?)) anywhere in this post. Neither Kymermosst nor I called have called MosesJones names either. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is coping a "confrontational attitude."
-Peter
Wow, you have quite a command of the language.
I prefer Merriam-Webster online. I find it to be more scholarly, which I guess you might appreciate.
Sure, it is a "noun in apposition." Does that make it less redundant? I wasn't questioning his grammar. I'm geeky. This is a geeky site. "Wireless 802.11b" is a distinctly un-geeky thing to say.
One thing I'm not clear on; why is it that you feel okay about posting "smug and snotty," but you don't think that I should?
Is it that you feel justified because I fired the first snot?
-Peter
I can't remember ever seeing anyone miss the point so deftly.
The question was "wireless 802.11b vs. what?" In other words, what other kind of 802.11b is there?
Christ, almighty; I need a drink.
-Peter
Who? The name doesn't ring a bell.
;-)
Been in any wars I might of heard of?
Just kidding. East of Alaska, right?
I thought you guys used francs. HA!
Kidding again. Seriously, I like you guys. And I know you were in the French and Indian war
Keep warm, eh?
-Peter
wireless 802.11b
Uh . . . as opposed to what?
So are you saying the "other" stuff (i.e. SCI) is still on AUTODIN?
Are you a 74C/B by chance (I think that C has been collapsed into B, hasn't it?)
Anyway, I was a Chuck.
-Peter
AFAIK AUTODIN is still where the "serious business" happens.
AUTODIN is an ancient, circuit switched network. It's a real bear to operate (I spent four years operating it) but it is genuinely secure. AFAIK the whole "packet switched so it can't be decapitated" thing that the APRANET was supposed to solve was supposed to be an answer to AUTODIN.
I hope they get something going so they can retire AUTODIN.
-Peter