Wow, it doesn't take much to get moderated up these days, as the above poster proves.
How many times do I have to say it ? Technology is just a tool, like a knife. Good or bad, it all depends on how you wield it.
Which doesn't contradict anything said in the article at all.
This is a critical point that all these "technology is evil !" articles always manage to miss.
It's a good thing this isn't one of those articles, then. Did you even READ the article? The article is a discussion of events which have already happened and not a discussion of education theory at all.
How about this... we finally find bin Laden's hideout in Afghanistan. He's tracked down while traveling in unfamiliar territory (to him). Wouldn't it be nice if we could jam that wonderful "open" GPS system that he's using to find his way somewhere else?
That's something which would never happen. There's no good way to jam a microwave satellite signal like that - you'd have to just turn the system off. Even if you could get all the GPS users in the world to agree to that, you'd end up hindering the hunters much more than the prey.
How about a situation where N. Korea or Iran launches a GPS guided nuclear missile. Wouldn't it be nice if the US could jam the GPS system in time to keep that warhead from reaching its destination?
Maybe, just maybe, news of inertial guidance has seeped down to the third world, since it's been around for decades. Sarcasm aside, you'd use an inertial guidance system as a backup even if you wanted to guide a nuclear-tipped cruise missile with GPS. And you wouldn't use GPS in an ICBM at all.
You could look at this the other way, 10% of businesses abandoned RHEL. The way the RHEL license/contract reads, if you decide not to renew, you have to remove RHEL.
How does that work for a product that's made up of GPLed software? Does RH include some non-GPL stuff that they use to keep a hold on people?
"According to this article, the University of Florida has implemented a software program known as ICARUS (Integrated Control Application for Restricting User Services) to monitor student activities on the campus network. If a user downloads music or videos the system deems to be illegal, they will lose their connection and be punished by being forced to watch industry propaganda, lengthy suspensions of access, or even a written reprimand. Yet the system hasn't resulted in an increase in CD sales? Hmm... Maybe they will figure out another way to improve their failing business model?" We covered this some months ago but the Associated Press is just catching on.
You sort of have to hope that everything after "Yet" was a joke, but it probably wasn't.
Burning petrochemicals seems like a scandalous waste when you think about everything else we do with them.
The end of oil energy would not be the end of the oil industry in total.
That this fact is overlooked so often is pretty much proof that policy makers, not to mention the general public, in our country really don't spend a lot of time thinking about what the world ought to be like several centuries from now, and what it will take to get us there.
There probably isn't a whole lot of reason to not choose Intel, other than the fact that Sun operates on religious principles rather than business ones.
Perhaps that, but also there is the fact that Intel and Sun have a long history of not making their relationship work. One of the reasons support for Solaris x86 within Sun has varied so much over the years.
I'm not a benchmarking expert, but I can't imagine that LINPACK and other number-crunching benchmarks don't even include a single if statement to verify that they got the correct answers.
Well, sure. The point is that they don't need ECC to get the correct answer. They just need to keep running the benchmark until it completes successfully.
Presumably the benchmarks were done with this enabled.
Why would they? It's not a requirement for the benchmark.
The benchmark is purely a measure of performance, not reliability or anything else. Of course the benchmark might end up being tainted by the creation of systems that just plain ignore reliability issues, but I think everyone involved in supercomputing knows to take these figures with a grain of salt.
But I think it would work for almost everyone if they only tried.
Sure. Why should they have to try, if they can just pay someone else to do it? Maybe, just maybe, some people aren't interested in working on operating systems and just want to pay for something that does what they want, and help using it.
Rather than financing RedHat and SuSE through purchase of their software, help with a true community effort: Debian. Take over management of a package, host a mirror site, write some documentation, etc.
"Don't pay for Linux services, get your Linux for free and give up your own time and effort." It should almost go without saying that that isn't going to work for everyone.
But the Windows 2000 CDs we have as part of our licensing program are different than the kind ordinary mortals obtain. They don't require product activation codes, serial numbers, etc. (or any product activation at all, actually).
Windows 2000 never uses product activation, it simply requires a serial number. It's just WinXP, OfficeXP, and their successors that require actual product activation.
they didn't treat their users very well
on
Kylix in Limbo
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The PostgreSQL drivers and IDE updates I figured I had coming when I bought Kylix 1 Desktop Developer never came. Requests for information were always met in their newsgroups with vagueness, subterfuge, or condescension. The old Borland which I remember from the Turbo Pascal days is long gone, apparently.
No attempt is made to have the numbers add up to 100%. THAT ISN'T THE POINT OF THE GRAPH.
I think the point remains, having the graph add up to 100% would be the most clear. I agree with your original assertion that a pie chart would have been best. There are a few things that the graph needs to convey here, and a pie chart could probably do that really well.
In effect, the graph says "The top 5% pays much more that the bottom 60%, and even if you restrict it to the top 1% they still pay more!" The point is to show the disparity, and the graph does that admirably.
That's the neat thing about a pie chart, you could show the top five percentiles as slices next to one another (they're big enough), and serve that purpose while keeping the total value represented by the chart at 100%. With those slices next to one another you sort of show the 5% and 1% values without duplication.
Contrary to popular Mac fanboy belief, the G5 cluster does not "compensate in software" for the lack of ECC RAM. In a recent interview Dr. Varadarajan conceded that they would need to run some problems twice because of this issue.
Choice quote: "We are planning on moving to ECC systems in the future. They may have to run things twice for a bit."
It tends to come out after the box, however. And it doesn't include the entire distro. It's mostly just a bootstrap to get the installation going, the rest is downloaded over the net.
Also, do they actually think that people buy it since they can't download an install iso instead of just using a differnet distro like drake?
Anyone who has used SuSE won't switch to a toy like Mandrake.
Here's a technical link that sums up some of the many ways in which you're mistaken: http://www.genitech.com.au/LIBRARY/Tech Support/inf obits/ram/ram9.html
The difference between parity (which is hardly used anymore) and ECC is significant.
it should still be noted that this is the best price/performance ratio ever achieved on a supercomputer.
That price/performance ratio is probably constantly improving in supercomputing, as it is everywhere else in computing, so it's not as if they're making history in that regard.
Can you provide any more detailed information, links etc? It would be interesting to know if the risk is on the order of being killed by a meteorite, or what.
Wow, did you even read what I wrote? You were complaining about a perception regarding Mono's relationship to.Net, I explained why the perception existed. It's due entirely to the way the software has been positioned by its authors. Try to keep up.
Slashdot Mirror
That statement is supported in the article. And it's true, too, although I suppose that doesn't matter to you.
Which doesn't contradict anything said in the article at all.
It's a good thing this isn't one of those articles, then. Did you even READ the article? The article is a discussion of events which have already happened and not a discussion of education theory at all.
That's something which would never happen. There's no good way to jam a microwave satellite signal like that - you'd have to just turn the system off. Even if you could get all the GPS users in the world to agree to that, you'd end up hindering the hunters much more than the prey.
Maybe, just maybe, news of inertial guidance has seeped down to the third world, since it's been around for decades. Sarcasm aside, you'd use an inertial guidance system as a backup even if you wanted to guide a nuclear-tipped cruise missile with GPS. And you wouldn't use GPS in an ICBM at all.
How does that work for a product that's made up of GPLed software? Does RH include some non-GPL stuff that they use to keep a hold on people?
You sort of have to hope that everything after "Yet" was a joke, but it probably wasn't.
That this fact is overlooked so often is pretty much proof that policy makers, not to mention the general public, in our country really don't spend a lot of time thinking about what the world ought to be like several centuries from now, and what it will take to get us there.
Performance.
Perhaps that, but also there is the fact that Intel and Sun have a long history of not making their relationship work. One of the reasons support for Solaris x86 within Sun has varied so much over the years.
Which is funny since there are not any Macs with ECC memory, and there never have been.
Well, sure. The point is that they don't need ECC to get the correct answer. They just need to keep running the benchmark until it completes successfully.
Why would they? It's not a requirement for the benchmark.
The benchmark is purely a measure of performance, not reliability or anything else. Of course the benchmark might end up being tainted by the creation of systems that just plain ignore reliability issues, but I think everyone involved in supercomputing knows to take these figures with a grain of salt.
On any modern processor, yes. Usually, on a PC, you'll find an option for it in the BIOS, and it's typically on by default...
Sure. Why should they have to try, if they can just pay someone else to do it? Maybe, just maybe, some people aren't interested in working on operating systems and just want to pay for something that does what they want, and help using it.
It takes all kinds.
"Don't pay for Linux services, get your Linux for free and give up your own time and effort." It should almost go without saying that that isn't going to work for everyone.
Windows 2000 never uses product activation, it simply requires a serial number. It's just WinXP, OfficeXP, and their successors that require actual product activation.
The PostgreSQL drivers and IDE updates I figured I had coming when I bought Kylix 1 Desktop Developer never came. Requests for information were always met in their newsgroups with vagueness, subterfuge, or condescension. The old Borland which I remember from the Turbo Pascal days is long gone, apparently.
I think the point remains, having the graph add up to 100% would be the most clear. I agree with your original assertion that a pie chart would have been best. There are a few things that the graph needs to convey here, and a pie chart could probably do that really well.
That's the neat thing about a pie chart, you could show the top five percentiles as slices next to one another (they're big enough), and serve that purpose while keeping the total value represented by the chart at 100%. With those slices next to one another you sort of show the 5% and 1% values without duplication.
If you know what I mean.
Contrary to popular Mac fanboy belief, the G5 cluster does not "compensate in software" for the lack of ECC RAM. In a recent interview Dr. Varadarajan conceded that they would need to run some problems twice because of this issue.
7 23 5&mode=nocomment
Choice quote: "We are planning on moving to ECC systems in the future. They may have to run things twice for a bit."
http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/28/235
Correction: Columbus went because it was there. The royals who funded him cared about more than that.
Anyone who has used SuSE won't switch to a toy like Mandrake.
Here's a technical link that sums up some of the many ways in which you're mistaken:h Support/inf obits/ram/ram9.html
http://www.genitech.com.au/LIBRARY/Tec
The difference between parity (which is hardly used anymore) and ECC is significant.
That price/performance ratio is probably constantly improving in supercomputing, as it is everywhere else in computing, so it's not as if they're making history in that regard.
Can you provide any more detailed information, links etc? It would be interesting to know if the risk is on the order of being killed by a meteorite, or what.
Well that's good to know. I sure care more about the background of the guy who wrote the article than the points raised in it!
Wow, did you even read what I wrote? You were complaining about a perception regarding Mono's relationship to .Net, I explained why the perception existed. It's due entirely to the way the software has been positioned by its authors. Try to keep up.