It is my understanding that the Dell servers only support detection of two-bit errors, at most, so how can you trust it's results?
Sorry, but you really have no idea what you're talking about here. Single error correction, double error detection (SECDED) is used by those Dell systems. It's also used by traditional Cray supercomputers. It works. http://www.cray.com/craydoc/20/manuals/S-2346-22/h tml-S-2346-22/z1018025656.html
Maybe you were being facetious. Maybe you really think three bits being flipped in the same instant is a common problem.
Those claims are based on the inaccurate perception that the success of Mono depends on.NET compatibility and that Mono applications are.NET applications. That's, in fact, just false. Most current uses of Mono are based on ECMA C# and Gtk#, not.NET.
If this is actually an "inaccurate perception," at least people are coming to it honestly, they are not "scare mongering." From the first sentence you read on the go-mono page:
"Ximian announced the launch of the Mono project, an effort to create an open source implementation of the.NET Development Framework."
"The author pretty much gets their way" is a very generous way of characterizing weak editing. Now, I haven't read the book, but I just don't know how else to interpret that comment.
Note that the editor file for the book will be uploaded before long, and if you have problems you are welcome to fix them like any Open Source.
It seems to me that the people who actually shell out for the book are probably quite uninterested in this, which is problematic since the freeloaders will end up with a better reference than the paying customers.
Well said. Probably the most informed reply I've seen yet. Not that I agree with everything you said, in particular the protection of telemarketers' free speech. But that aside:
But... um... telemarketers' free speech was all I was writing about. What was the part you agreed with?:)
I have a fundamental problem with the enactment of laws to fix things that people should be fixing for themselves. A legistlated DNC list with penalties attached is a perfect example of this. I won't go over the possible solutions again, we've all seen them before.
I've found no solution to keep these yahoos from ringing my phone whenever they please which doesn't interfere with the other, actually useful, functions of the phone. I have no sympathy for the view that it is their protected "right" to ring me, either. I'd be interested in hearing an explanation for that which isn't circular.
Anytime the government gets involved, quagmires tend to result.
It would be better for everyone concerned if the industry policed itself, yes. The problem we have is that they have entirely failed to do that. The fact that this legislation, which appears to do nothing more than create restrictions the industry hypocritically *claims* to adhere to already, was even passed sort of demonstrates that the industry is not policing itself.
When weighing the pros and cons, even most of the the population who prefer less government intervention in business affairs seem to have decided that it's more important to act rather than not act in this case. I think that's a measure of how badly telemarketers have managed to abuse and annoy people.
How is it right to deny free speech to some people, but not others?
There's no really good short answer to that question, to get a satisfactory answer you have to familiarize yourself with the history of free speech legislation. Tough reading but very rewarding, in my rather limited experience.
Basically, over time the courts decided that the the constitution does not protect ALL speech, and the state sometimes has a legitimate interest in regulating speech. Some of those interests are obvious: a person shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, a person slandering another person, a person threatening another person with violence, and so on.
The part about charities and political groups being able to call you matches historical court precedents which indicate that political speech is the most constitutionally protected form of speech, since it is fundamental to the function of democracy. Restricting political speech can, in some instances, damage the fabric of the republic itself, and hence it is heavily protected.
Whereas telemarketers' schlock is, in all likelihood, not constitutionally protected at all. It has never been ruled on specifically, as far as I know. I tend to think the supreme court would rule unaminously that the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining a list like this.
There is a very compelling case to be made (by the number of households enrolled on the list alone) that the list addresses a legitimate social need, and no case to be made that telemarketing is worthy of the categorical constitional protections afforded to political speech. There's no case to be made that telemarketing REQUIRES such strong protection, either, in this case: the Do Not Call list is not needlessly restrictive, it only protects the privacy of people who want to be protected, and it does it in such a way that other avenues of direct marketing are still open to companies. It's not designed to put anyone out of business, and it accomodates (indeed, facilitates nicely) the ATA's _stated_ interest of only calling people who want to be called.
The notion of leaving other avenues of speech open has also been a factor in constitutional free speech cases: state restriction of a method of speech is considered somewhat less damaging by the courts if other methods remain. In this case, marketers still have a plethora of methods available. All in all, the law seems pretty well constructed to me, from a constitutional point of view.
I actually paid for BeOS 5. I'm not terribly interested in the new stuff going on, I've more or less given up on BeOS. Still, it irks me a little that I can't even check it out, since all these new developments seem to be released as modifications to the freeloader version of BeOS, rather than the "pro ediition" that genuine Be enthusiasts paid for.
bind others to some sort of unspoken social contract
I'm sure the people who documented the free rider problem had just that sort of horrible plot in mind when they called it a free rider "problem," completely not taking into account the feelings of the free riders of the world. Because... they were really bastards like that. Or something.
This is true. However, when the constitutionality of restrictions to speech has been taken into consideration by the supreme court in the past, they have considered a number of factors. One factor they have considered at times when deciding whether certain restrictions should be considered constitutional is whether alternate means of getting the same message out exist. If they do, the court has been more inclined to accept the restrictions.
So, the audience thing is at least a consideration.
What's petty about a hearty dislike for the pampered and coddled set who have a knowledge of thte world and politics that's no deeper than the foam on their three dollar lattes?
Serious and real leftists get my respect and, sometimes, my agreement. People who parade under a leftist banner simply because they feel alienated get my disdain.
Haha. You really don't get "prejudice," do you?
a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known; preconceived idea, favorable or, more usually, unfavorable
a) a judgment or opinion held in disregard of facts that contradict it; unreasonable bias b) the holding of such judgments or opinions
suspicion, intolerance, or irrational hatred of other races, creeds, regions, occupations, etc.
Now, your statements about leftists and the Village Voice readership seem to be pretty well represented here. Good job!
I don't think you understand. It is not a "problem", because it is not worth any price at all to me to fund them on the free market. What's the problem? Yet, we will not fail to fund what we must.
Read what was linked to. Whether it's an emotionally-charged "problem" for you or anyone else, the situation described does fall under the definition of the free rider problem. You are benefitting from a resource but others are paying your way. You are riding for free, as it were.
I won't be the popular one around here, but I thought this quote was the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The mother thinks the daughter's age allows her (the daughter) to do whatever she wishes! Hey, she's 12, give her a gun and tell her to shoot the number - it's not like she's doing anything illegal, she's a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud!
Also, we don't have Oracle on any of these systems, but we will need it in the future.
Well, stop worrying about your Linux licenses and start worrying about your Oracle licenses. Oracle will end up costing you much, much more than Redhat will.
You have already mention the need to use Oracle which is $5k per cpu..
It's much, much more than that in my experience. You can get a rough idea of how much a license will cost using their "store" on the Oracle web page, which I can't link to since their "unbreakable" site seems to be having problems right now.
They are simply affraid that someone, somwhere, MIGHT aquire a SAM missile capapble of reaching commercial airline cruising altitudes and that (communist/drug warlord/terrorist/muslim) MIGHT just blow a 747 full of innocent little children out of the sky.
What a crazy thing to be afraid of! Someone needs to tell these people that there isn't a huge surplus of cold-war armaments on the world market! Right.
Uh, sorry, but this isn't just FUD or paranoia.
Shoulder-launcher SAM systems having an amazing range of 10k feet, for the most common SAM system for ground personell, the US Stinger.
So that means the guy firing the thing would only need to get within, what, 2 miles of the airport? That's not too hard where I live and I suspect the guy could get away easily. Realistically you'd want to sweeten the shot by being closer and in line with the airplane's flight path, I suspect.
Of course a skilled person not worried about being caught could do a lot more damage, and wreak a lot more terror, if they got up close with a mortar. Blow up some planes on the ground, put a few rounds into the terminal, etc. Luckily there's at least some evidence that the airports are considering those sorts of things in their security plans, although the focus is still unfortunately on stupid searches of individuals.
I tend to think that none of that is a factor in FAA concerns about rockets which follow a ballistic path. Those rockets are something which will potentially set off alarms not with airport security or whatever, but with worldwide satelite tracking of ICBM launches.
What we need is some sort of streamlined and cheap procedure for clearing amateur rocket flights with the government, and eventually maybe some sort of IFF system, as used on military aircraft. It's not an unreasonable requirement when you stop and think about it.
. If the cost of law weren't so prohibitive, he'd probably sue, and would be absolutely justified in doing so.
Justified perhaps, but he'd never win. First reason: the only damage seems to be that his inner child has been wounded, or something. Second reason: none of the stuff that was printed was false. It's not libel if it's true.
Thedeacon is a celebrity. Mr. Stenlund, meanwhile, feels trapped - trapped in a town too far from big cities where big things happen, trapped in a hand-to-mouth existence, trapped in a mean little culture of cheap thrills and fast-food television.
What could drive a reporter to shun their supposed "objectivity" and engage in such social denigration? Was it just making the NYT reader feel good about themselves?
It's interesting the way people can read things differently. I don't read this passage as the reporter trying to denigrate anybody. If anything I find myself having a little more empathy for the guy than I otherwise might, if no explanation of his circumstances had been offered.
Of course I don't have a strong opinion on the orginal article because I thought it was very boring and I just skimmed it.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but you really have no idea what you're talking about here. Single error correction, double error detection (SECDED) is used by those Dell systems. It's also used by traditional Cray supercomputers. It works. http://www.cray.com/craydoc/20/manuals/S-2346-22/
Maybe you were being facetious. Maybe you really think three bits being flipped in the same instant is a common problem.
If this is actually an "inaccurate perception," at least people are coming to it honestly, they are not "scare mongering." From the first sentence you read on the go-mono page:
"Ximian announced the launch of the Mono project, an effort to create an open source implementation of the
Maybe, but it sounds a lot less eXtreme when you describe it that way. =D
It's a lot funnier the way he told it.
It seems to me that the people who actually shell out for the book are probably quite uninterested in this, which is problematic since the freeloaders will end up with a better reference than the paying customers.
But... um... telemarketers' free speech was all I was writing about. What was the part you agreed with?
I've found no solution to keep these yahoos from ringing my phone whenever they please which doesn't interfere with the other, actually useful, functions of the phone. I have no sympathy for the view that it is their protected "right" to ring me, either. I'd be interested in hearing an explanation for that which isn't circular.
It would be better for everyone concerned if the industry policed itself, yes. The problem we have is that they have entirely failed to do that. The fact that this legislation, which appears to do nothing more than create restrictions the industry hypocritically *claims* to adhere to already, was even passed sort of demonstrates that the industry is not policing itself.
When weighing the pros and cons, even most of the the population who prefer less government intervention in business affairs seem to have decided that it's more important to act rather than not act in this case. I think that's a measure of how badly telemarketers have managed to abuse and annoy people.
There's no really good short answer to that question, to get a satisfactory answer you have to familiarize yourself with the history of free speech legislation. Tough reading but very rewarding, in my rather limited experience.
Basically, over time the courts decided that the the constitution does not protect ALL speech, and the state sometimes has a legitimate interest in regulating speech. Some of those interests are obvious: a person shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, a person slandering another person, a person threatening another person with violence, and so on.
The part about charities and political groups being able to call you matches historical court precedents which indicate that political speech is the most constitutionally protected form of speech, since it is fundamental to the function of democracy. Restricting political speech can, in some instances, damage the fabric of the republic itself, and hence it is heavily protected.
Whereas telemarketers' schlock is, in all likelihood, not constitutionally protected at all. It has never been ruled on specifically, as far as I know. I tend to think the supreme court would rule unaminously that the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining a list like this.
There is a very compelling case to be made (by the number of households enrolled on the list alone) that the list addresses a legitimate social need, and no case to be made that telemarketing is worthy of the categorical constitional protections afforded to political speech. There's no case to be made that telemarketing REQUIRES such strong protection, either, in this case: the Do Not Call list is not needlessly restrictive, it only protects the privacy of people who want to be protected, and it does it in such a way that other avenues of direct marketing are still open to companies. It's not designed to put anyone out of business, and it accomodates (indeed, facilitates nicely) the ATA's _stated_ interest of only calling people who want to be called.
The notion of leaving other avenues of speech open has also been a factor in constitutional free speech cases: state restriction of a method of speech is considered somewhat less damaging by the courts if other methods remain. In this case, marketers still have a plethora of methods available. All in all, the law seems pretty well constructed to me, from a constitutional point of view.
I actually paid for BeOS 5. I'm not terribly interested in the new stuff going on, I've more or less given up on BeOS. Still, it irks me a little that I can't even check it out, since all these new developments seem to be released as modifications to the freeloader version of BeOS, rather than the "pro ediition" that genuine Be enthusiasts paid for.
Is there a way around this?
You're using a perl script to make this stuff up, right? If you are, post the code please! I can see this might be good for hours of entertainment...
I'm sure the people who documented the free rider problem had just that sort of horrible plot in mind when they called it a free rider "problem," completely not taking into account the feelings of the free riders of the world. Because... they were really bastards like that. Or something.
hahahahaha. Let's update the philosophy texts to call it the "Free Rider Quandry." We have to spare the free rider's feelings, after all.
This is true. However, when the constitutionality of restrictions to speech has been taken into consideration by the supreme court in the past, they have considered a number of factors. One factor they have considered at times when deciding whether certain restrictions should be considered constitutional is whether alternate means of getting the same message out exist. If they do, the court has been more inclined to accept the restrictions.
So, the audience thing is at least a consideration.
Haha. You really don't get "prejudice," do you?
a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known; preconceived idea, favorable or, more usually, unfavorable
a) a judgment or opinion held in disregard of facts that contradict it; unreasonable bias b) the holding of such judgments or opinions
suspicion, intolerance, or irrational hatred of other races, creeds, regions, occupations, etc.
Now, your statements about leftists and the Village Voice readership seem to be pretty well represented here. Good job!
Read what was linked to. Whether it's an emotionally-charged "problem" for you or anyone else, the situation described does fall under the definition of the free rider problem. You are benefitting from a resource but others are paying your way. You are riding for free, as it were.
Way to rise above petty predjudices! Good job.
Great analogy!
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=chauv inism
Why are they worried about software patents? They ought to be more worried about violating copyright, which is what most of their binary codecs do.
Based on the general theme of most of the responses, I think I know how the first genuinely funny "Dell interns" commercial might play out.
Well, stop worrying about your Linux licenses and start worrying about your Oracle licenses. Oracle will end up costing you much, much more than Redhat will.
It's much, much more than that in my experience. You can get a rough idea of how much a license will cost using their "store" on the Oracle web page, which I can't link to since their "unbreakable" site seems to be having problems right now.
That's not a gauss gun. RTFM:c hnology .html
http://www.metalstorm.com/10_technology/te
What a crazy thing to be afraid of! Someone needs to tell these people that there isn't a huge surplus of cold-war armaments on the world market! Right.
Uh, sorry, but this isn't just FUD or paranoia.
So that means the guy firing the thing would only need to get within, what, 2 miles of the airport? That's not too hard where I live and I suspect the guy could get away easily. Realistically you'd want to sweeten the shot by being closer and in line with the airplane's flight path, I suspect.
Of course a skilled person not worried about being caught could do a lot more damage, and wreak a lot more terror, if they got up close with a mortar. Blow up some planes on the ground, put a few rounds into the terminal, etc. Luckily there's at least some evidence that the airports are considering those sorts of things in their security plans, although the focus is still unfortunately on stupid searches of individuals.
I tend to think that none of that is a factor in FAA concerns about rockets which follow a ballistic path. Those rockets are something which will potentially set off alarms not with airport security or whatever, but with worldwide satelite tracking of ICBM launches.
What we need is some sort of streamlined and cheap procedure for clearing amateur rocket flights with the government, and eventually maybe some sort of IFF system, as used on military aircraft. It's not an unreasonable requirement when you stop and think about it.
Justified perhaps, but he'd never win. First reason: the only damage seems to be that his inner child has been wounded, or something. Second reason: none of the stuff that was printed was false. It's not libel if it's true.
It's interesting the way people can read things differently. I don't read this passage as the reporter trying to denigrate anybody. If anything I find myself having a little more empathy for the guy than I otherwise might, if no explanation of his circumstances had been offered.
Of course I don't have a strong opinion on the orginal article because I thought it was very boring and I just skimmed it.