The problem with its just a "Natural Cycle," argument is that it it isn't just a cycle. yes, there is a "carbon cycle" caused ebb and flow of CO2 based on light and plant photosynthesis, but the carbon dioxide is never 100% reabsorbed by the environment and residual CO2 is building up.
The problem with the whole global warming debate is the same for evolution, the earth being older than 5,000 years, the world being round, or any complex science. To make an "informed" decision in the debate, and to evaluate the science, one must understand the science. There are people being paid cash to create plausible "theories" to confuse ignorant and relatively informed alike. You really need to look at all the evidence and try to filter out the junk science and be careful about the things that most people assume to be true, like lightening and rubber tires, and so forth. Only then do the arguments against global warming fall apart.
I get angry when I hear nonsense like "irreducible complexity" and "natural cycle" because of one of two things, (1) the a-holes purposely obscuring science are being listened too and (2) The idiot in front of me doesn't make the effort to really understand the nonsense he/she/it is spouting.
Google is a great company with a lot of really good technology. Their search engine is the base of their business. It is their funding and their "shoe in the door" for other business.
Microsoft can't beat them.
So, create a semi-plausible legal argument that your competitor is somehow breaking the law. Come out with full guns.
This is such an utter and complete exploitation and perversion of copyright law it makes me sick. Why oh why, can't BillG and crew have a fateful day and a bad plane crash because of bad weather or something. Truly disgusting people unfortunately never seem to die in accidents. They seem to live long and despicable lives wreaking havoc in their wake.
I am so sick and tired of so many of these f&%ks gaming the legal system with mind bending interpretations laws in an effort to circumvent freedom and commerce.
"Companies that create no content of their own, and make money solely on the backs of other people's content, are raking in billions through advertising revenue and I.P.O.s"
For what it is worth, Google does make a lot of money on the work of others, but not by copying or stealing it. Google and other search engines analyze, categorize, and parse copyrighted material and create indexes that make it easy to search. Makes that one document in billions findable.
This is no small feat, and copyright holders are making more money with google than without. Google indexes about 8-10 billion documents. They make zero cash for the documents. They make money providing a service to the people searching for material. That service is finding documents. The copyright holders should count themselves fortunate.
It is a self serving argument that some of google's cash belongs to me because they use my documents. Google drives people looking for your data to you. If you don't want this service that is done for you for free, then you can opt out at any time.
Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist, I don't know, maybe I've been in the computer business too long.
Diebold should have been able to make an e-voting system. NO bank would accept the "really, really, it works" hand waving from Diebold with regards to the e-voting. All ATM machines, teller machines, and machines that handle monetary transactions somewhere along the line, produce at least one verifiable paper record of credit and debit for each party in the transaction and agents involved. To do less with voting seems completely absurd. For Diebold to even suggest a system without proper accountability makes absolutely no sense what so ever. They really do understand security and record keeping, what the hell happened with e-voting? As a corporation, e-voting should have been a slam dunk for them.
Ineptitude at such a large corporation is not unheard of, but surely someone would have said something, right? When the president of Diebold said he would do what ever he could to make sure G.W. Bush gets re-elected, it was an event that colored my "benefit of the doubt" stance on Diebold.
I honestly believe that G.W. Bush and company helped fix the election and Diebold was just one of the methods. It only takes slight tampering to sway a consensus or another. When the polling authority in ohio opened ballot boxes to "pre-screen" the supposedly "random" selection in order to avoid a full recount, one has to wonder. In 2000 it was Florida, in 2004 it was Ohio, regardless the outcome is the same.
I think in the U.S.A. we have to ensure our own democracy before we try to bring democracy elsewhere by force.
Just my $0.02
P.S. This is not a flame post, just the words of a sad and disillusioned patriotic American.
Can someone explain why this is news, I mean other than the fact that the guy is a moron.
The implementation of threads on "UNIX" varies between BSD, unix, and Linux and each have their advantages/problems. Window's threading model has its advantages and drawbacks.
Both threading systems spin off threads, and both platforms (assuming you can call UNIX a single platform) provide various mechanisms for synchronization and communication.
There is almost nothing you can do with one API that you can't do with the other. It is more your pre-existing preference for one methodology over another that would dictate your API preference.
I like pthreads better because I think there is a finer grain of control over how the thread executes.
We live in an imperfect world with hard realities. Not to get political here, but since Ronald Reagan, the social conservatives have had a strategy of starving government with deficits. We had an 8 year reversal with Clinton, but it wasn't enough.
Because of this, our nation looked richer than it was. Before Reagan, we were the #1 creditor nation, since we are the #1 debtor nation. Its like we've been living off a home equity loan.
The practical upshot of this is that "lower priority" expenditures at the state and local levels have suffered. Fire departments, police departments, and schools have suffered. There may be trillions for an unjustified war, but there isn't $3,000 for text books, let alone the teachers, paper, and pencils.
Pepsi and coke have vending machines in the schools. There's always talk about more.
I don't like it, but it is better than not having books or teachers.
Come on, I don't see the problem. Get something like google adsense and fund he project, so what? My son's school gets ad money. It isn't perfect, but neither is the world.
IMHO this is is the crux of the "Microsoft Problem" in entirety.
First: They have no idea how to document file formats, this is mostly because of their file format model. I worked as a contractor, indirectly, for Microsoft a long time ago. Their file formats are not "documented" per se'. They are program structure based and can change on the whim of a developer, their name at the time was "chunk format." This works well if you don't expect anyone to use your document format or you supply the access library.
At its core it is because they do not design formats, they code them as needed. Need a feature or special case? Just add a struct, an ID, and a chunk of read/write code and it works. How the hell do you document the outcome of that process? This isn't a bad methodology for internal state or temporary files, but it is a disaster for any sort of long term accessibility and interoperability.
Microsoft develops software like a small company because as long as they have the monopoly, they don't *need* to supply document format information in order to compete. Everyone else has to understand their formats and they aren't going to help at all. Their 'XML' format shows they have not changed one bit. Rather than "design" the document format, they are merely documenting what they have which is just a bunch of special cases.
Second: A true open office document format, usable by everyone, will spawn amazing amounts of innovations. Everything from document searching to intelligent document processing. When anyone can read and create documents on any platform or programming language than everyone else's programs can use as well, just think of what people will come up with. If that's going to happen, Microsoft has to make sure that they are the only benefactor, because except for the monopoly, Microsoft has no inherent value in the face of Linux and OpenOffice.org. At least Apple makes a nice computer.
It rejects "experts" in favor of consensus. Finding facts is not a democratic process. It is often an intrusive and offensive process. "Facts" have to be protected from people with ulterior motives.
Most people think they are safe in a car from lightening because of the rubber tires. General consensus where critical thinking and science are involved is typically wrong.
No one except Novell and Microsoft know what is in the agreement. That is a problem. There are thousands of copyright holders involved in Linux. Novell has no right to alter the agreement between the copyright holder and the end user. Novell has no right to enter into an agreement that either provides or denies rights to the end user that the copyright holder has not endorsed.
Linux is a collaborative work, it does not belong to Novell. Novell gets to use it as long as it abides by the wishes, as embodied by the GPL, of the copyright owners.
Every viable free environment has practical limits on freedom that prevents one from using their freedom to usurp the freedom of another.
If Novell has entered into an agreement that means that "non-Novell" Linux is less "free" than a Novell version of Linux, then Novell has violated the GPL and should not be allowed to distribute Linux.
If someone is "ignorant," that means they "ignore." Being merely stupid is a condition outside of someone's control. You can feel sorry and understand a stupid person, but scorn is appropriate for the ignorant.
The problem with the IT field is that we work with complex networks of increasingly complex systems. It takes a LOT of study to keep up with the changes.
IMHO, too often, managers and users, get a free pass because of our "attitudes." Hey look, its like a car. If you don't want to know how to change your tires, you are going to need to pay a lot for something like AAA. IT should be the same thing, if you want to live in ignorance of the systems with which you work, you need to pay for some support dedicated to do the equivalent of towing your busted ass car to a mechanic. The IT worker is the mechanic, the tow truck driver is the customer service, don't confuse them.
Secondly, IT workers and software developers, again, spend almost as much time learning and keeping up, typically on their own time, as they do actually working. It is *our* job to know things. We, more often than not, have to deal with people who don't know what we know, and unless they wanted to spend 8 hours a day for 10 years reading the sorts of things we read, they aren't going too. But, that doesn't stop them from reducing the whole of our knowledge and experience to something they expect to understand and can make an informed decision on a two or three page memo. Its not going to happen, and "lusers" are responsible for their wrong decisions.
Computer Science, and the practical application of "Information Technology" is complex, there are lots of serious issues from memory management, to disk I/O, to stuff like processor 2 caching, SMP, and so on. The affects of which take years to develop "intuitive" knowledge. Sometimes it can't be summed up easily and neatly in a form people can understand if they don't already understand. An "obvious" problem to someone like me, sometimes is impossible in any reasonable length of time to explain to someone else. This is fundamentally true in every knowledge based industry.
Managers and people dealing with these issues have a responsibility, to try to understand the technology well enough.
The problem with database articles like this is that they pretty much ignore the core objectives of a database. Wait, I hear you, "That's the point, but ignoring ACID and transactions, we can improve performance." There in lies the difference between understanding the "whole problem" vs a part of the problem.
Specialized solutions typically accomplish their objective by removing one or more aspects of good database design.
Databases are complex beasts and the good ones encompass a LOT of expertise and theory of data access, stuff that takes many months or even years to really understand. Specialized systems tend to focus exclusively on the highest level "problem" while ignoring the inherent problems of data access and modifications.
While there are specialized solutions that work within a limited range of criteria, and, in fact, improve performance, it should be the exception rather than the rule, because the good SQL databases are REALLY good (MySQL is not one of them) at parsing and creating a good query.
(1) MBAs who do not understand technology. They think of software s widgets and they expect software developers to "convince" them that one way is better than another, unfortunately, the gulf between what management knows and what it needs to know to make that decision is too vast. The MBA can't understand the reason and blames the developer for not being able to explain. This is frustrating because sometimes it takes years to understand something well enough to make decisions, but MBAs think they can be briefed.
(2) MBA negotiation. A software developer with some experience can make a good time estimate, but when the proposal is made, the management of the product says that's too long. So, they start creating hypothetical scenarios about better machines, more people, different specs, etc. until they reduce the time estimate. so, surprise! it takes longer.
(3) Bad developers. some developers just need to leave the business. they started in visual basic and have no interest in computer science or "the craft," the hack stuff together and say the things managers want to hear. Management likes these people and makes them project leads, then they get fired and move on to new unscrewed companies as "project leads.'
(4) Bad managers, some managers just don't know how to bring productivity out of people. when people are behind, they don't need nagging, they need help and they need an environment where they can talk about it.
(5) process over results, nuff said.
(6) Not enough process:-)
(7) Bad specs. A product spec is like a writing 'outline" it should be complete enough to know what to do, but be concise enough to give the developer the room to do it. specs that are too loose or too rigid make development difficult. During development, there is no possible way for a spec to encompass 100% of the possible problems, but there should not be too many surprises.
And then rip and transcode the DVD's too. Tease your friends about the lameness of their set top box.
It's funny that you mention that. DVDs aren't really worth it because of the media is usable, but i did use the TV card and my VCR to record some classics for my kids, grammar rock, etc.
also, I am able to watch the latest internet movies on my living room TV.
This has to be said, simply because I'm a Linux user:-)
I have an AMD Athlon PC in my living room connected through my stereo via digital signal from the sound card. To the TV through s-video from the display card (via Stereo). I have an Infrared keyboard. A Haupauge TV Card. I recently upgraded the data hard disk to 250G. I've had this system for years. I have ripped every single CD I own onto the disk. The system has a DVD drive as well.
So, what, I ask, does this system from AMD give me that $700 worth of parts and Linux does not. OK, at a wopping $1000 for my or someone's time to setup, and it is still about half.
And if they use that power, money, influence, and control to bring positivity to an impoverished region of the world, why do you still have such a bug up your ass about it?
That's the thing, they don't really. hey do some "good works" with very little of the money in the foundation, the lion share of the foundation's investment has not such moral regulation and thus an aggregate harm is produced. hence, the article.
The billionaires are investing in their foundations to "make money?" You do realize that they can't get it back out, right?
The kind of money we are talking about has nothing to do with "spending," but everything to do with "power."
The BILLIONAIRES are set for life, they don't need anything else to live up to anyone's most wildest fantasies, but what these cut-throat business people want is power and influence. They already have money. The money these "foundations" make is money they control, but don't pay taxes on or show as assets.
It is squeeky clean blood money used to coerce governments, corporations, and people, it is NOT about charity.
The "foundation" is a scam. It always has been. All the "charitable" foundations by the various robber barons are. They are intended to create positive press for otherwise horrible and cut-throat people or organizations.
The fact the the Gates foundation invests into questionable industries is perfect. The "good" that they supposedly do, is nothing more than a mask for what they are really about. In the case of the gates foundation, Bill has been actively recruiting billionaires to invest. Now, why would these cut-throat billionaires invest? To make money, of course.
For all the bluster of charitable works, Bill Gates could personally solve many of the problems in the U.S.A. or the world with a personal check. Obviously, not all of them, but a lot of them. Anywhere people are starving, Bill Gates could, if he were REALLY concerned with good works, spend 100 million dollars (That's like a $100 to you and me) and feed them all.
How many cities and towns need schools? How many people are dying because of no health care? How much real suffering is there that he could fix?
There are tons of things a truly charitable person could accomplish with his resources, but he is NOT a CHARITABLE PERSON, he is a cut-throat business man out to maximize his personal wealth, influence, and power.
I am concerned that the, for lack of a better phrase, "anti-global warming" people, bring up certain well phrased points in an effort to seem to make sense. Like, "disagree with the orthodoxy" or "challenging the consensus," and reasonable phrases like that.
Hey, I consider myself a scientist, and I seek out facts that disagree with my conclusions in an effort to understand more. That's what you do when you want to know the facts.
Don't be fooled, don't confuse the spew from these so called "think tanks" as science. Of course, it "sounds" scientifically viable on the surface, enough so that the vast majority of people who don't really know any better consider it valid. It isn't. It is carefully crafted hogwash.
Do not confuse these "think tanks" with institutions that seek knowledge, they have a corporate agenda, they don't study to understand the effects of something, they study the language and science used in an effort to produce something seeming plausible just long enough to stall any real action.
We do know that global warming and weather destabilization is taking place. This is a fact. The degree to which it is happening and the amount of reversibility are under debate.
Last time I had to deal with this sort of thing in Windows, you could turn of paging in the registry "somewhere."
With Linux, its easy, just don't run "swapon."
"good" compact flash drives have a life of about 10,000 writes or 100,000 writes depending on technology. Assuming 10,000 writes per byte, as long as you don't swap (which would read/write quickly), and only write to a specific block a few times a day, the disk will last you about 9 years. Longer than a physical hard disk.
Short of virtual memory, I don't see too much of a problem except for the various log files that should be sent to the bit bucket or a virtual drive (bit that wastes memory). The big hit will be journaling file systems and file inode blocks.
If anyone cares to google for "compact flash ide" you see a number of devices $20 that will allow you to use a compact flash card as an IDE hard disk. (desktop or laptop)
You can get an 8G compact flash card for about $160. Sure it isn't 32G, but it is enough to put a full install (Windows or Linux) and have some space for your stuff. Your music collection and pictures will probably have to live on the USB drive you already have because laptop dis drives usually die after a year or two anyway. (Usually from the abuse)
The post to which you responded was erroneous, but based on a sound premise. If something is delivered to you, regardless of value, you are under no obligation to return it. The key words in that sentence are "to you."
If a bank makes an error, then it is an error and should rightfully be corrected. If something is delivered to your residence, but not addressed to you, you are obligated to notify the person making the delivery. (Actually, I think this only applies to U.S.P.O., not UPS or FedEX as the U.S.P.O is a government agency.)
If, however, a properly addressed item is sent to your home, addressed to you, with no conditions placed upon reciept (COD etc.), then, sorry, no matter what the sender thinks, its yours.
That, on top of the original email that said the laptop could be kept, seals the deal. It belongs to the bloggers. They should quickly put Linux or FreeBSD on it so that they can use it to its full potential, and of course, review said laptop and compare/contrast Vista vs Kubuntu or something.
(1) If a wireless network is being used can you prove any supposed infringing activity was originated by the defendant and not a hacker with close proximity?
(2) Can you prove that any supposed infringing activity identified by IP address was not "spoofed" by a hacker to obscure origin and evade detecton?
(3) Can you prove that any supposed infringing activity was not initiated and controlled by an unknown party using one of the many documented flaws in the Windows operating system, completely out of the control and without knowlede of the defendant.
(4) Even if you can prove the defendants computer was the actual computer that performed the supposed infringing activity, with the well know security problems known to be in Windows, can you prove (as related to item #3) that the defendant was involved?
(5) Can you get records from the user's ISP that are assured to be accurate under penalty of purjury that show, unambiguosly that the user's MAC address is mapped to the TCP/IP address at the supposed time of infringement? (I.E. will someone at the ISP risk jail time for purjury on the reliability of the records? Especially when you say you intend to prove that they can't be, the ISP will run and hide and eliminate that avenue.)
(6) Can you prove that any infringing material suppossidly found on the user's machine was put there by the user?
(7) Was there "independent" monitoring of the inspection to insure that RIAA was not putting any infringing material in the computer in the first place, i.e. was the defendant represented and protected?
(8) What laws did you violate in your investigation?
Slashdot Mirror
You can't assault someone with a lawyer, everyone knows sh&^%t only smells bad.
The problem with its just a "Natural Cycle," argument is that it it isn't just a cycle. yes, there is a "carbon cycle" caused ebb and flow of CO2 based on light and plant photosynthesis, but the carbon dioxide is never 100% reabsorbed by the environment and residual CO2 is building up.
The problem with the whole global warming debate is the same for evolution, the earth being older than 5,000 years, the world being round, or any complex science. To make an "informed" decision in the debate, and to evaluate the science, one must understand the science. There are people being paid cash to create plausible "theories" to confuse ignorant and relatively informed alike. You really need to look at all the evidence and try to filter out the junk science and be careful about the things that most people assume to be true, like lightening and rubber tires, and so forth. Only then do the arguments against global warming fall apart.
I get angry when I hear nonsense like "irreducible complexity" and "natural cycle" because of one of two things, (1) the a-holes purposely obscuring science are being listened too and (2) The idiot in front of me doesn't make the effort to really understand the nonsense he/she/it is spouting.
Google is a great company with a lot of really good technology. Their search engine is the base of their business. It is their funding and their "shoe in the door" for other business.
Microsoft can't beat them.
So, create a semi-plausible legal argument that your competitor is somehow breaking the law. Come out with full guns.
This is such an utter and complete exploitation and perversion of copyright law it makes me sick. Why oh why, can't BillG and crew have a fateful day and a bad plane crash because of bad weather or something. Truly disgusting people unfortunately never seem to die in accidents. They seem to live long and despicable lives wreaking havoc in their wake.
I am so sick and tired of so many of these f&%ks gaming the legal system with mind bending interpretations laws in an effort to circumvent freedom and commerce.
I take great issue with the statement:
"Companies that create no content of their own, and make money solely on the backs of other people's content, are raking in billions through advertising revenue and I.P.O.s"
For what it is worth, Google does make a lot of money on the work of others, but not by copying or stealing it. Google and other search engines analyze, categorize, and parse copyrighted material and create indexes that make it easy to search. Makes that one document in billions findable.
This is no small feat, and copyright holders are making more money with google than without. Google indexes about 8-10 billion documents. They make zero cash for the documents. They make money providing a service to the people searching for material. That service is finding documents. The copyright holders should count themselves fortunate.
It is a self serving argument that some of google's cash belongs to me because they use my documents. Google drives people looking for your data to you. If you don't want this service that is done for you for free, then you can opt out at any time.
Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist, I don't know, maybe I've been in the computer business too long.
Diebold should have been able to make an e-voting system. NO bank would accept the "really, really, it works" hand waving from Diebold with regards to the e-voting. All ATM machines, teller machines, and machines that handle monetary transactions somewhere along the line, produce at least one verifiable paper record of credit and debit for each party in the transaction and agents involved. To do less with voting seems completely absurd. For Diebold to even suggest a system without proper accountability makes absolutely no sense what so ever. They really do understand security and record keeping, what the hell happened with e-voting? As a corporation, e-voting should have been a slam dunk for them.
Ineptitude at such a large corporation is not unheard of, but surely someone would have said something, right? When the president of Diebold said he would do what ever he could to make sure G.W. Bush gets re-elected, it was an event that colored my "benefit of the doubt" stance on Diebold.
I honestly believe that G.W. Bush and company helped fix the election and Diebold was just one of the methods. It only takes slight tampering to sway a consensus or another. When the polling authority in ohio opened ballot boxes to "pre-screen" the supposedly "random" selection in order to avoid a full recount, one has to wonder. In 2000 it was Florida, in 2004 it was Ohio, regardless the outcome is the same.
I think in the U.S.A. we have to ensure our own democracy before we try to bring democracy elsewhere by force.
Just my $0.02
P.S. This is not a flame post, just the words of a sad and disillusioned patriotic American.
Can someone explain why this is news, I mean other than the fact that the guy is a moron.
The implementation of threads on "UNIX" varies between BSD, unix, and Linux and each have their advantages/problems.
Window's threading model has its advantages and drawbacks.
Both threading systems spin off threads, and both platforms (assuming you can call UNIX a single platform) provide various mechanisms for synchronization and communication.
There is almost nothing you can do with one API that you can't do with the other. It is more your pre-existing preference for one methodology over another that would dictate your API preference.
I like pthreads better because I think there is a finer grain of control over how the thread executes.
We live in an imperfect world with hard realities. Not to get political here, but since Ronald Reagan, the social conservatives have had a strategy of starving government with deficits. We had an 8 year reversal with Clinton, but it wasn't enough.
Because of this, our nation looked richer than it was. Before Reagan, we were the #1 creditor nation, since we are the #1 debtor nation. Its like we've been living off a home equity loan.
The practical upshot of this is that "lower priority" expenditures at the state and local levels have suffered. Fire departments, police departments, and schools have suffered. There may be trillions for an unjustified war, but there isn't $3,000 for text books, let alone the teachers, paper, and pencils.
Pepsi and coke have vending machines in the schools. There's always talk about more.
I don't like it, but it is better than not having books or teachers.
Come on, I don't see the problem. Get something like google adsense and fund he project, so what? My son's school gets ad money. It isn't perfect, but neither is the world.
IMHO this is is the crux of the "Microsoft Problem" in entirety.
First: They have no idea how to document file formats, this is mostly because of their file format model. I worked as a contractor, indirectly, for Microsoft a long time ago. Their file formats are not "documented" per se'. They are program structure based and can change on the whim of a developer, their name at the time was "chunk format." This works well if you don't expect anyone to use your document format or you supply the access library.
At its core it is because they do not design formats, they code them as needed. Need a feature or special case? Just add a struct, an ID, and a chunk of read/write code and it works. How the hell do you document the outcome of that process? This isn't a bad methodology for internal state or temporary files, but it is a disaster for any sort of long term accessibility and interoperability.
Microsoft develops software like a small company because as long as they have the monopoly, they don't *need* to supply document format information in order to compete. Everyone else has to understand their formats and they aren't going to help at all. Their 'XML' format shows they have not changed one bit. Rather than "design" the document format, they are merely documenting what they have which is just a bunch of special cases.
Second: A true open office document format, usable by everyone, will spawn amazing amounts of innovations. Everything from document searching to intelligent document processing. When anyone can read and create documents on any platform or programming language than everyone else's programs can use as well, just think of what people will come up with. If that's going to happen, Microsoft has to make sure that they are the only benefactor, because except for the monopoly, Microsoft has no inherent value in the face of Linux and OpenOffice.org. At least Apple makes a nice computer.
Wikipedia is at best flawed, at worst dangerous.
It rejects "experts" in favor of consensus. Finding facts is not a democratic process. It is often an intrusive and offensive process. "Facts" have to be protected from people with ulterior motives.
Most people think they are safe in a car from lightening because of the rubber tires. General consensus where critical thinking and science are involved is typically wrong.
No one except Novell and Microsoft know what is in the agreement. That is a problem. There are thousands of copyright holders involved in Linux. Novell has no right to alter the agreement between the copyright holder and the end user. Novell has no right to enter into an agreement that either provides or denies rights to the end user that the copyright holder has not endorsed.
Linux is a collaborative work, it does not belong to Novell. Novell gets to use it as long as it abides by the wishes, as embodied by the GPL, of the copyright owners.
Every viable free environment has practical limits on freedom that prevents one from using their freedom to usurp the freedom of another.
If Novell has entered into an agreement that means that "non-Novell" Linux is less "free" than a Novell version of Linux, then Novell has violated the GPL and should not be allowed to distribute Linux.
Wasn't development supposed to be delayed or stalled because of license issues?
If someone is "ignorant," that means they "ignore." Being merely stupid is a condition outside of someone's control. You can feel sorry and understand a stupid person, but scorn is appropriate for the ignorant.
The problem with the IT field is that we work with complex networks of increasingly complex systems. It takes a LOT of study to keep up with the changes.
IMHO, too often, managers and users, get a free pass because of our "attitudes." Hey look, its like a car. If you don't want to know how to change your tires, you are going to need to pay a lot for something like AAA. IT should be the same thing, if you want to live in ignorance of the systems with which you work, you need to pay for some support dedicated to do the equivalent of towing your busted ass car to a mechanic. The IT worker is the mechanic, the tow truck driver is the customer service, don't confuse them.
Secondly, IT workers and software developers, again, spend almost as much time learning and keeping up, typically on their own time, as they do actually working. It is *our* job to know things. We, more often than not, have to deal with people who don't know what we know, and unless they wanted to spend 8 hours a day for 10 years reading the sorts of things we read, they aren't going too. But, that doesn't stop them from reducing the whole of our knowledge and experience to something they expect to understand and can make an informed decision on a two or three page memo. Its not going to happen, and "lusers" are responsible for their wrong decisions.
Computer Science, and the practical application of "Information Technology" is complex, there are lots of serious issues from memory management, to disk I/O, to stuff like processor 2 caching, SMP, and so on. The affects of which take years to develop "intuitive" knowledge. Sometimes it can't be summed up easily and neatly in a form people can understand if they don't already understand. An "obvious" problem to someone like me, sometimes is impossible in any reasonable length of time to explain to someone else. This is fundamentally true in every knowledge based industry.
Managers and people dealing with these issues have a responsibility, to try to understand the technology well enough.
The problem with database articles like this is that they pretty much ignore the core objectives of a database. Wait, I hear you, "That's the point, but ignoring ACID and transactions, we can improve performance." There in lies the difference between understanding the "whole problem" vs a part of the problem.
Specialized solutions typically accomplish their objective by removing one or more aspects of good database design.
Databases are complex beasts and the good ones encompass a LOT of expertise and theory of data access, stuff that takes many months or even years to really understand. Specialized systems tend to focus exclusively on the highest level "problem" while ignoring the inherent problems of data access and modifications.
While there are specialized solutions that work within a limited range of criteria, and, in fact, improve performance, it should be the exception rather than the rule, because the good SQL databases are REALLY good (MySQL is not one of them) at parsing and creating a good query.
(1) MBAs who do not understand technology. They think of software s widgets and they expect software developers to "convince" them that one way is better than another, unfortunately, the gulf between what management knows and what it needs to know to make that decision is too vast. The MBA can't understand the reason and blames the developer for not being able to explain. This is frustrating because sometimes it takes years to understand something well enough to make decisions, but MBAs think they can be briefed.
:-)
(2) MBA negotiation. A software developer with some experience can make a good time estimate, but when the proposal is made, the management of the product says that's too long. So, they start creating hypothetical scenarios about better machines, more people, different specs, etc. until they reduce the time estimate. so, surprise! it takes longer.
(3) Bad developers. some developers just need to leave the business. they started in visual basic and have no interest in computer science or "the craft," the hack stuff together and say the things managers want to hear. Management likes these people and makes them project leads, then they get fired and move on to new unscrewed companies as "project leads.'
(4) Bad managers, some managers just don't know how to bring productivity out of people. when people are behind, they don't need nagging, they need help and they need an environment where they can talk about it.
(5) process over results, nuff said.
(6) Not enough process
(7) Bad specs. A product spec is like a writing 'outline" it should be complete enough to know what to do, but be concise enough to give the developer the room to do it. specs that are too loose or too rigid make development difficult. During development, there is no possible way for a spec to encompass 100% of the possible problems, but there should not be too many surprises.
And then rip and transcode the DVD's too. Tease your friends about the lameness of their set top box.
It's funny that you mention that. DVDs aren't really worth it because of the media is usable, but i did use the TV card and my VCR to record some classics for my kids, grammar rock, etc.
also, I am able to watch the latest internet movies on my living room TV.
This has to be said, simply because I'm a Linux user :-)
I have an AMD Athlon PC in my living room connected through my stereo via digital signal from the sound card. To the TV through s-video from the display card (via Stereo). I have an Infrared keyboard. A Haupauge TV Card. I recently upgraded the data hard disk to 250G. I've had this system for years. I have ripped every single CD I own onto the disk. The system has a DVD drive as well.
So, what, I ask, does this system from AMD give me that $700 worth of parts and Linux does not. OK, at a wopping $1000 for my or someone's time to setup, and it is still about half.
I don't get it.
And if they use that power, money, influence, and control to bring positivity to an impoverished region of the world, why do you still have such a bug up your ass about it?
That's the thing, they don't really. hey do some "good works" with very little of the money in the foundation, the lion share of the foundation's investment has not such moral regulation and thus an aggregate harm is produced. hence, the article.
The billionaires are investing in their foundations to "make money?" You do realize that they can't get it back out, right?
The kind of money we are talking about has nothing to do with "spending," but everything to do with "power."
The BILLIONAIRES are set for life, they don't need anything else to live up to anyone's most wildest fantasies, but what these cut-throat business people want is power and influence. They already have money. The money these "foundations" make is money they control, but don't pay taxes on or show as assets.
It is squeeky clean blood money used to coerce governments, corporations, and people, it is NOT about charity.
The "foundation" is a scam. It always has been. All the "charitable" foundations by the various robber barons are. They are intended to create positive press for otherwise horrible and cut-throat people or organizations.
The fact the the Gates foundation invests into questionable industries is perfect. The "good" that they supposedly do, is nothing more than a mask for what they are really about. In the case of the gates foundation, Bill has been actively recruiting billionaires to invest. Now, why would these cut-throat billionaires invest? To make money, of course.
For all the bluster of charitable works, Bill Gates could personally solve many of the problems in the U.S.A. or the world with a personal check. Obviously, not all of them, but a lot of them. Anywhere people are starving, Bill Gates could, if he were REALLY concerned with good works, spend 100 million dollars (That's like a $100 to you and me) and feed them all.
How many cities and towns need schools? How many people are dying because of no health care? How much real suffering is there that he could fix?
There are tons of things a truly charitable person could accomplish with his resources, but he is NOT a CHARITABLE PERSON, he is a cut-throat business man out to maximize his personal wealth, influence, and power.
I am concerned that the, for lack of a better phrase, "anti-global warming" people, bring up certain well phrased points in an effort to seem to make sense. Like, "disagree with the orthodoxy" or "challenging the consensus," and reasonable phrases like that.
Hey, I consider myself a scientist, and I seek out facts that disagree with my conclusions in an effort to understand more. That's what you do when you want to know the facts.
Don't be fooled, don't confuse the spew from these so called "think tanks" as science. Of course, it "sounds" scientifically viable on the surface, enough so that the vast majority of people who don't really know any better consider it valid. It isn't. It is carefully crafted hogwash.
Do not confuse these "think tanks" with institutions that seek knowledge, they have a corporate agenda, they don't study to understand the effects of something, they study the language and science used in an effort to produce something seeming plausible just long enough to stall any real action.
We do know that global warming and weather destabilization is taking place. This is a fact. The degree to which it is happening and the amount of reversibility are under debate.
Last time I had to deal with this sort of thing in Windows, you could turn of paging in the registry "somewhere."
With Linux, its easy, just don't run "swapon."
"good" compact flash drives have a life of about 10,000 writes or 100,000 writes depending on technology. Assuming 10,000 writes per byte, as long as you don't swap (which would read/write quickly), and only write to a specific block a few times a day, the disk will last you about 9 years. Longer than a physical hard disk.
Short of virtual memory, I don't see too much of a problem except for the various log files that should be sent to the bit bucket or a virtual drive (bit that wastes memory). The big hit will be journaling file systems and file inode blocks.
If anyone cares to google for "compact flash ide" you see a number of devices $20 that will allow you to use a compact flash card as an IDE hard disk. (desktop or laptop)
You can get an 8G compact flash card for about $160. Sure it isn't 32G, but it is enough to put a full install (Windows or Linux) and have some space for your stuff. Your music collection and pictures will probably have to live on the USB drive you already have because laptop dis drives usually die after a year or two anyway. (Usually from the abuse)
The post to which you responded was erroneous, but based on a sound premise. If something is delivered to you, regardless of value, you are under no obligation to return it. The key words in that sentence are "to you."
If a bank makes an error, then it is an error and should rightfully be corrected.
If something is delivered to your residence, but not addressed to you, you are obligated to notify the person making the delivery. (Actually, I think this only applies to U.S.P.O., not UPS or FedEX as the U.S.P.O is a government agency.)
If, however, a properly addressed item is sent to your home, addressed to you, with no conditions placed upon reciept (COD etc.), then, sorry, no matter what the sender thinks, its yours.
That, on top of the original email that said the laptop could be kept, seals the deal. It belongs to the bloggers. They should quickly put Linux or FreeBSD on it so that they can use it to its full potential, and of course, review said laptop and compare/contrast Vista vs Kubuntu or something.
(1) If a wireless network is being used can you prove any supposed infringing activity was originated by the defendant and not a hacker with close proximity?
(2) Can you prove that any supposed infringing activity identified by IP address was not "spoofed" by a hacker to obscure origin and evade detecton?
(3) Can you prove that any supposed infringing activity was not initiated and controlled by an unknown party using one of the many documented flaws in the Windows operating system, completely out of the control and without knowlede of the defendant.
(4) Even if you can prove the defendants computer was the actual computer that performed the supposed infringing activity, with the well know security problems known to be in Windows, can you prove (as related to item #3) that the defendant was involved?
(5) Can you get records from the user's ISP that are assured to be accurate under penalty of purjury that show, unambiguosly that the user's MAC address is mapped to the TCP/IP address at the supposed time of infringement? (I.E. will someone at the ISP risk jail time for purjury on the reliability of the records? Especially when you say you intend to prove that they can't be, the ISP will run and hide and eliminate that avenue.)
(6) Can you prove that any infringing material suppossidly found on the user's machine was put there by the user?
(7) Was there "independent" monitoring of the inspection to insure that RIAA was not putting any infringing material in the computer in the first place, i.e. was the defendant represented and protected?
(8) What laws did you violate in your investigation?