And since when is "joe-random-nobody" requesting a feature/service/enhancement or pointing out a flaw/place-for-improvement a bad thing? Certainly when a company or person does a good thing it is worthy of applause and encouragement, but why do we then have to exclude all the negative? Both positive and negative feedback can help to improve a product or service. If no one ever complained about bugs in software, they would likely get overlooked in favor of shiny new features (and sometimes they do anyways).
I dont see the point of a mission to mars, you would need to live indoors, ship/generate oxygen, ship/generate food, ship/generate water, ship/generate power, etc etc
All that is true, but you forget the fact that the necessity for those technologies would spur research and development in those areas. That could mean vastly improved efficiency in how we live on Earth. The problem is motivating people to strive for that goal which also requires moving them past short-sighted views on how we need to "learn how to live on earth first."
I'm no expert but wouldn't even a simple amoeba be an important discovery? Assuming it could be proved that it did not come from Earth in some way, at the very least it would prove that life can and does exist elsewhere.
While a manned mission would be nice, I doubt that the public is ready to accept the risk and cost of such a trip, especially given the recent Shuttle problems. I hear people grumble about the amount of money being "wasted" on space as it is. That says to me that unless scientists can give people a strong reason to explore space (e.g. positive discovery of life on Mars), it's unlikely that there will be much support for a manned mission to Mars.
Indeed, when I die I'd first like to donate my body and/or organs to the needy first (if they are usable) and then to science. If they don't want my carcass they I would like my resources to be returned to the earth in a natural way, but since I doubt anyone is going to dump my body in a forest or something I guess I'll settle for being cremated.
Actually, I've had several grandparents die, an uncle killed in a car accident, and a cousin commit suicide. Age is irrelevant anyways. Children have their parents die all the time. Are you suggesting they are not old enough to have truly experienced that death?
Certainly the initial news of the person death is sad and cause for some grief. My point was intended towards funerals. I'd rather go to one where I could talk with people who knew the deceased and share memories of good times, without the grieving I have already personally experienced. I would like to leave the funeral feeling happy to have known the person instead of feeling depressed.
Hmm let's see. Large areas of land with little or no lighting and little or no security, filled with LCD screens... Sounds like the perfect opportunity for latenight theft.
More seriously: "It could be offensive to some. I don't think it's appropriate or it's been tried enough on the grounds." Mt. Elliott Cemetery Association spokesman Michael Chilcote said.
I personally find it a little odd too but who is going to be offended by this? With all the religions and traditions in our society you'd think people would be more understanding and accepting of differences. Offended by an LCD screen on a tombstone? That's as rediculous as me being offended at someone wasting flowers by placing them around a grave instead of in nice vases and pots where, you know, the living can enjoy them.
Maybe it's just that I've always found societal views on death odd. I don't understand why people sit around crying about the fact that someone has died. Why not celebrate the life they lived? If anything, it seems like these LCD screens could do that well. Short clips of happy times, playing with their children and whatnot would be a great way to paint a nice picture of the person's life. I guess that's offensive though, nevermind.
No, I think the difference is that you have invited the private citizen into your home. Unless I'm mistaken, the same would apply to a police officer. If you invite the officer into your home, they may look wherever they want (until you ask them to leave). The idea being you know they are a police officer and by accepting their entrance into your home, you also accept any duties they may carry out while inside (just as you accept the fact that the person you invite over for dinner might end up snooping through your things). The part I don't remember is whether they can arrest you on the spot or have to come back with a warrant. Anyways, I could be wrong but that's what I remember being told by an ATF agent a long time ago.
Would you prefer a 10 mph rear-end collision or the 35mph T-bone?
You conveniently ignore the fact that the vast majority of people "caught" by the red light cameras are simply average people passing safely through the intersection while it is yellow only to be caught at the last second when the light turns red. The people who are going to T-bone you at 35mph are the ones that have no respect for the traffic laws or safety in the first place (obviously so if they are going to purposefully continue on through a stale red light). I doubt they are suddenly going to become faithful servants of the law just because you stick a camera there.
If it was truly about increasing public safety and reducing accidents why did they not increase yellow light times in addition to the cameras? That way people would have sufficient time to clear the intersection or safely stop and those in the intersection after that extended time would indeed be running the red light. Oh wait, they decreased the time at some lights... can someone say free money?
I'm not trying to flame you here, I just want to try to understand (I find vegan beliefs bizarre).
Do you and other vegans actually believe that stuff about animals being "enslaved?" Can it be true enslavement if the animal is not even capable of understanding that they are "enslaved," let alone what that even means? Now, I'm not saying that just because they do not have any concept of life or enslavement we should just abuse them for no reason. But how is a free-range cow harmed by being "enslaved" (in the sense that they are owned and restricted to the confines of the range)? They get to roam around, graze, and be near their kind all day long. Obviously the animal will probably eventually be killed for its meat, but how is that any different than any other predatory animal killing its prey? Is it only that we are sentient (or sapient depending on your usage)?
As far as the "do unto others" part goes, why only animals? I'm sure you get asked that a lot by people who think you're crazy but I mean it as a serious question. Why are animals the only living beings entitled to the same level of respect as those of your own species? The plants you eat must be killed before you eat them (You might even be eating a living plant since they do not immediately die upon removal from their habitat). If your answer is something like "Oh well they're just plants," what is the difference between that and carnivores saying "Oh well they're just animals?" Both are categorizing their food as a lesser form of life. I unfortunately don't have any links or much information about this but, I remember reading at one point that plants may actually communicate in some way(someone please tell me if this study turned out to be bunk). Communication would display some level of sentience and would that cause you the same ethical dilema as killing an animal?
I'm sure there are many other questions I could ask but that's probably good enough for now:)
What the hell are you talking about? If you are using Gentoo, just do "emerge nvidia-glx" and you're done (well you might have to change your X.org config file). The download provided by NVIDIA works just as well. Are you a troll or just so bad at using Linux that you can't type "sh NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-7676-pkg1.run"?
I think it says that if there was such a thing for humans, hospital emergency room admittance rates would sky rocket as men flooded in with spontaneously combusted prostates.
Would that be "Method for forced removal of practicing lawyers imposing large burdens of time and cost on the Courts of the United States (Herein, "GREEDY ASSHATS") due to repeated litigous action upon frivilous lawsuits founded upon baseless claims of US Patent Law violations of irrelevent software patents (Herein, "ASSHATERY"). Said GREEDY ASSHATS shall be removed from the self sustaining planetary ecosystem supporting various forms of life (including, but not limited to, the species Homo Sapien) (Herein, "EARTH") in a timely fashion as retribution pursuant to conviction of afformentioned ASSHATERY. Said forced removal of said GREEDY ASSHATS shall be conducted in a manner consisting of a journey aboard an enclosed capsule atop a large metallic cylinder which performs locomotion by means of a system that expels explosive propellents at high velocity (Herein, "ROCKET"). Said ROCKET shall depart from afformentioned planetary object EARTH with said GREEDY ASSHATS aboard at a time no later than seven(7) days from conviction of ASSHATERY. The final destination of said ROCKET shall be the self sustaining, gravity contained, nuclear fusion reaction location (Herein, "SUN"). Upon confirmed entry of said ROCKET carrying said GREEDY ASSHATS convicted of ASSHATERY into the SUN, all businesses shall cease operation for a holiday period of one(1) day and there shall be much rejoicing."?
Let's see... Someone posts something that has some valid points but didn't put any thought into solving the problems he mentioned, and he gets modded insightful. Someone posts a response that addresses the problem in a non-inflammatory way, and he gets modded troll... riiiight.
Well, I wasn't able to find hosting reliability stats from Netcraft but certainly good uptime is a requirement for reliability. The uptime stats I found show IIS in 6 out of the top 50 with the highest ranking at 16th. Could you give me a link to your stats? While in my experience what I've said is correct, I'd like to know if I'm actually wrong in the larger picture.
I guess maybe I'm more frustrated by the fact that you so often have to reboot Windows machines (a process that can take several minutes) if anything goes wrong. If it actually is the application's fault, you could kill and restart Apache in a few seconds.
To be honest, the biggest problem we have is from a third party app that we are thankfully moving away from. Still, there are plenty of others that were written in house that fail. One is just a registration form that checks user input for typos or just plain old duplicate registrations. What's so complicated about an approximate string matching algorithm that it would cause a lockup requiring a system reboot?
Anyone who's hired by a company to manage a system like that shouldn't be hired on the basis of whether they think Tommy Hilfiger products are trendy, cool, or whatever.
You're right about that, I meant the "common folk" though. I know plenty of people who read stuff like the WSJ and plenty of people who are easily influenced by big brand names. I just meant that it helps Microsoft's anti-OSS goals by planting that little evil seed of "Microsoft is more reliable than Linux." Besides that statement being wrong in most cases, it's annoying to have that crap thrown at you by someone after you just fixed their Windows computer of malware or some other problem that requires them to reboot frequently.
You might also be right about the justifying the move to the bigwigs part. I just don't see how anyone could justify it to themselves.
Would your boss be happy if you were just throwing money around?
It doesn't matter what you're running, it's how you keep it running... and Microsoft has the market on their side.
Interesting... If Apache is just SO hard to keep running that it takes at least one Linux C programmer on site to hold the thing together (although I really don't see what Linux or C have to do with web programming) and Microsoft is so easy that all you need is a pretty 1-800 number to make it all work, would you care to explain to me why Apache is running on ~70% of Internet servers while Microsoft's IIS is running on ~20%? Yes, it's true that you'll need someone who knows how to use and configure Apache, but how is that any different than needing someone who knows how to use and configure IIS? If you have to call some hotline to solve your problem, you're going to have to sit through a pleasant game of phone tag before you ever "get in touch with programmers" who will be unable to solve any issue with IIS (short of saying they'll build and release a patch sometime next month). If it's your website design team you're contacting... well that's entirely unrelated to the web server in the first place.
The fact is, in my experience, having a phone number to call is not all that helpful; what I can learn through that can be learned in half the time through the Internet. The only thing it's good for is making management happy but, IMHO, they should not be involved in the IT decision process to begin with (except perhaps for defining a budget limit).
Well, in any case I'm glad to know that millions of Linux C programmers are employed thanks to the use of this inferior F/OSS.
Or maybe Mr. Big Shot CIO of Hilfiger Eric Singleton was paid a lot of money by Microsoft to switch and make a public statement about how Linux is just not reliable enough? I generally try to stay away from making such unfounded claims but it really does make sense.
1. I mostly ignore fashion and trends and fads and whatever the hell else these idiots provide for people to gobble up, but I understand that Tommy Hilfiger is popular with people in varying age groups. At least some significant portion of these people will find out about this and, since they won't understand any of it, will hear "Hilfiger uses Microsoft because it's more reliable than Linux." This would be a good enough reason for Microsoft to drop some funds into what they would probably call targeted marketing.
2. Why the hell else would this happen? What knowledgable CIO would switch from using Apache (presumably) in a stable Linux server environment to using the disaster that is IIS on a Windows Server? And before you say "Oh you're just a M$ sucks lololz1! troll," consider that I work with this crap everyday. My job is to code and maintain ASP.NET pages hosted on IIS 5.0 and IIS 6.0 running on Windows 2000 and 2003 servers. The company I work for runs enterprise class hardware but we don't get enterprise level traffic. And yet server OS/software problems are the primary issue we have to deal with. The IIS web applications regularly freeze up and hang which at best requires a web service restart and at worst a full server reboot (of which we do several a day - not really a problem for the end user since we have multiple servers but still rediculous nonetheless).
Needless to say, I frown on our own use of IIS so I just can't understand why someone would use it to "bet a multibillion-dollar corporation's future on."
Yes, that is really frustrating and I've lost more than one game to that. That and some random Windows popup like automatic update that I said no to earlier but it decided to check in just to see if I'd changed my mind...
Yes. Hell, most of the middle schoolers around here are half way to being alcoholics. Often, with age, one realizes that it isn't all that great wasting your hard earned money on something that will progressively slow your mind and damage your liver. Still, I know plenty of parents who don't care and even occasionally drink with their kids. Kind of sad, really.
Except of course there have been plenty of studies that moderate use of alcohol is beneficial (less risk of heart disease, social lubricant, etc). If it wasn't so taboo, I'm confident that there would be similar studies for marijuana. Obviously, excessive use of the drug is bad and would be damaging but since when is excessive [anything] good? Hopefully these parents are teaching their children responsible use of the substance and in that case, what is sad?
Slashdot Mirror
And since when is "joe-random-nobody" requesting a feature/service/enhancement or pointing out a flaw/place-for-improvement a bad thing? Certainly when a company or person does a good thing it is worthy of applause and encouragement, but why do we then have to exclude all the negative? Both positive and negative feedback can help to improve a product or service. If no one ever complained about bugs in software, they would likely get overlooked in favor of shiny new features (and sometimes they do anyways).
Lies! Porn isn't addictive, I can quit whenever I want!
I dont see the point of a mission to mars, you would need to live indoors, ship/generate oxygen, ship/generate food, ship/generate water, ship/generate power, etc etc
All that is true, but you forget the fact that the necessity for those technologies would spur research and development in those areas. That could mean vastly improved efficiency in how we live on Earth. The problem is motivating people to strive for that goal which also requires moving them past short-sighted views on how we need to "learn how to live on earth first."
I'm no expert but wouldn't even a simple amoeba be an important discovery? Assuming it could be proved that it did not come from Earth in some way, at the very least it would prove that life can and does exist elsewhere.
While a manned mission would be nice, I doubt that the public is ready to accept the risk and cost of such a trip, especially given the recent Shuttle problems. I hear people grumble about the amount of money being "wasted" on space as it is. That says to me that unless scientists can give people a strong reason to explore space (e.g. positive discovery of life on Mars), it's unlikely that there will be much support for a manned mission to Mars.
Ageia is one company. I saw their demo system at Quakecon. Seems pretty neat but I'm skeptical about a long term market for them.
Indeed, when I die I'd first like to donate my body and/or organs to the needy first (if they are usable) and then to science. If they don't want my carcass they I would like my resources to be returned to the earth in a natural way, but since I doubt anyone is going to dump my body in a forest or something I guess I'll settle for being cremated.
Actually, I've had several grandparents die, an uncle killed in a car accident, and a cousin commit suicide. Age is irrelevant anyways. Children have their parents die all the time. Are you suggesting they are not old enough to have truly experienced that death?
Certainly the initial news of the person death is sad and cause for some grief. My point was intended towards funerals. I'd rather go to one where I could talk with people who knew the deceased and share memories of good times, without the grieving I have already personally experienced. I would like to leave the funeral feeling happy to have known the person instead of feeling depressed.
Hmm let's see. Large areas of land with little or no lighting and little or no security, filled with LCD screens... Sounds like the perfect opportunity for latenight theft.
More seriously:
"It could be offensive to some. I don't think it's appropriate or it's been tried enough on the grounds." Mt. Elliott Cemetery Association spokesman Michael Chilcote said.
I personally find it a little odd too but who is going to be offended by this? With all the religions and traditions in our society you'd think people would be more understanding and accepting of differences. Offended by an LCD screen on a tombstone? That's as rediculous as me being offended at someone wasting flowers by placing them around a grave instead of in nice vases and pots where, you know, the living can enjoy them.
Maybe it's just that I've always found societal views on death odd. I don't understand why people sit around crying about the fact that someone has died. Why not celebrate the life they lived? If anything, it seems like these LCD screens could do that well. Short clips of happy times, playing with their children and whatnot would be a great way to paint a nice picture of the person's life. I guess that's offensive though, nevermind.
No, I think the difference is that you have invited the private citizen into your home. Unless I'm mistaken, the same would apply to a police officer. If you invite the officer into your home, they may look wherever they want (until you ask them to leave). The idea being you know they are a police officer and by accepting their entrance into your home, you also accept any duties they may carry out while inside (just as you accept the fact that the person you invite over for dinner might end up snooping through your things). The part I don't remember is whether they can arrest you on the spot or have to come back with a warrant. Anyways, I could be wrong but that's what I remember being told by an ATF agent a long time ago.
Would you prefer a 10 mph rear-end collision or the 35mph T-bone?
You conveniently ignore the fact that the vast majority of people "caught" by the red light cameras are simply average people passing safely through the intersection while it is yellow only to be caught at the last second when the light turns red. The people who are going to T-bone you at 35mph are the ones that have no respect for the traffic laws or safety in the first place (obviously so if they are going to purposefully continue on through a stale red light). I doubt they are suddenly going to become faithful servants of the law just because you stick a camera there.
If it was truly about increasing public safety and reducing accidents why did they not increase yellow light times in addition to the cameras? That way people would have sufficient time to clear the intersection or safely stop and those in the intersection after that extended time would indeed be running the red light. Oh wait, they decreased the time at some lights... can someone say free money?
I'm not trying to flame you here, I just want to try to understand (I find vegan beliefs bizarre).
:)
Do you and other vegans actually believe that stuff about animals being "enslaved?" Can it be true enslavement if the animal is not even capable of understanding that they are "enslaved," let alone what that even means? Now, I'm not saying that just because they do not have any concept of life or enslavement we should just abuse them for no reason. But how is a free-range cow harmed by being "enslaved" (in the sense that they are owned and restricted to the confines of the range)? They get to roam around, graze, and be near their kind all day long. Obviously the animal will probably eventually be killed for its meat, but how is that any different than any other predatory animal killing its prey? Is it only that we are sentient (or sapient depending on your usage)?
As far as the "do unto others" part goes, why only animals? I'm sure you get asked that a lot by people who think you're crazy but I mean it as a serious question. Why are animals the only living beings entitled to the same level of respect as those of your own species? The plants you eat must be killed before you eat them (You might even be eating a living plant since they do not immediately die upon removal from their habitat). If your answer is something like "Oh well they're just plants," what is the difference between that and carnivores saying "Oh well they're just animals?" Both are categorizing their food as a lesser form of life. I unfortunately don't have any links or much information about this but, I remember reading at one point that plants may actually communicate in some way(someone please tell me if this study turned out to be bunk). Communication would display some level of sentience and would that cause you the same ethical dilema as killing an animal?
I'm sure there are many other questions I could ask but that's probably good enough for now
What the hell are you talking about? If you are using Gentoo, just do "emerge nvidia-glx" and you're done (well you might have to change your X.org config file). The download provided by NVIDIA works just as well. Are you a troll or just so bad at using Linux that you can't type "sh NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-7676-pkg1.run"?
What are they doing right and I am doing wrong?
Running Windows?
You can be hung like a horse too, for only $99.95! Click here and order today...
I wonder what that says about humans
I think it says that if there was such a thing for humans, hospital emergency room admittance rates would sky rocket as men flooded in with spontaneously combusted prostates.
"and possibly deported to the sun"
Would that be "Method for forced removal of practicing lawyers imposing large burdens of time and cost on the Courts of the United States (Herein, "GREEDY ASSHATS") due to repeated litigous action upon frivilous lawsuits founded upon baseless claims of US Patent Law violations of irrelevent software patents (Herein, "ASSHATERY"). Said GREEDY ASSHATS shall be removed from the self sustaining planetary ecosystem supporting various forms of life (including, but not limited to, the species Homo Sapien) (Herein, "EARTH") in a timely fashion as retribution pursuant to conviction of afformentioned ASSHATERY. Said forced removal of said GREEDY ASSHATS shall be conducted in a manner consisting of a journey aboard an enclosed capsule atop a large metallic cylinder which performs locomotion by means of a system that expels explosive propellents at high velocity (Herein, "ROCKET"). Said ROCKET shall depart from afformentioned planetary object EARTH with said GREEDY ASSHATS aboard at a time no later than seven(7) days from conviction of ASSHATERY. The final destination of said ROCKET shall be the self sustaining, gravity contained, nuclear fusion reaction location (Herein, "SUN"). Upon confirmed entry of said ROCKET carrying said GREEDY ASSHATS convicted of ASSHATERY into the SUN, all businesses shall cease operation for a holiday period of one(1) day and there shall be much rejoicing."?
Let's see... Someone posts something that has some valid points but didn't put any thought into solving the problems he mentioned, and he gets modded insightful. Someone posts a response that addresses the problem in a non-inflammatory way, and he gets modded troll... riiiight.
Well, I wasn't able to find hosting reliability stats from Netcraft but certainly good uptime is a requirement for reliability. The uptime stats I found show IIS in 6 out of the top 50 with the highest ranking at 16th. Could you give me a link to your stats? While in my experience what I've said is correct, I'd like to know if I'm actually wrong in the larger picture.
I guess maybe I'm more frustrated by the fact that you so often have to reboot Windows machines (a process that can take several minutes) if anything goes wrong. If it actually is the application's fault, you could kill and restart Apache in a few seconds.
To be honest, the biggest problem we have is from a third party app that we are thankfully moving away from. Still, there are plenty of others that were written in house that fail. One is just a registration form that checks user input for typos or just plain old duplicate registrations. What's so complicated about an approximate string matching algorithm that it would cause a lockup requiring a system reboot?
Anyone who's hired by a company to manage a system like that shouldn't be hired on the basis of whether they think Tommy Hilfiger products are trendy, cool, or whatever.
:)
You're right about that, I meant the "common folk" though. I know plenty of people who read stuff like the WSJ and plenty of people who are easily influenced by big brand names. I just meant that it helps Microsoft's anti-OSS goals by planting that little evil seed of "Microsoft is more reliable than Linux." Besides that statement being wrong in most cases, it's annoying to have that crap thrown at you by someone after you just fixed their Windows computer of malware or some other problem that requires them to reboot frequently.
You might also be right about the justifying the move to the bigwigs part. I just don't see how anyone could justify it to themselves.
Would your boss be happy if you were just throwing money around?
No, but I would be
It doesn't matter what you're running, it's how you keep it running... and Microsoft has the market on their side.
Interesting... If Apache is just SO hard to keep running that it takes at least one Linux C programmer on site to hold the thing together (although I really don't see what Linux or C have to do with web programming) and Microsoft is so easy that all you need is a pretty 1-800 number to make it all work, would you care to explain to me why Apache is running on ~70% of Internet servers while Microsoft's IIS is running on ~20%? Yes, it's true that you'll need someone who knows how to use and configure Apache, but how is that any different than needing someone who knows how to use and configure IIS? If you have to call some hotline to solve your problem, you're going to have to sit through a pleasant game of phone tag before you ever "get in touch with programmers" who will be unable to solve any issue with IIS (short of saying they'll build and release a patch sometime next month). If it's your website design team you're contacting... well that's entirely unrelated to the web server in the first place.
The fact is, in my experience, having a phone number to call is not all that helpful; what I can learn through that can be learned in half the time through the Internet. The only thing it's good for is making management happy but, IMHO, they should not be involved in the IT decision process to begin with (except perhaps for defining a budget limit).
Well, in any case I'm glad to know that millions of Linux C programmers are employed thanks to the use of this inferior F/OSS.
Or maybe Mr. Big Shot CIO of Hilfiger Eric Singleton was paid a lot of money by Microsoft to switch and make a public statement about how Linux is just not reliable enough? I generally try to stay away from making such unfounded claims but it really does make sense.
1. I mostly ignore fashion and trends and fads and whatever the hell else these idiots provide for people to gobble up, but I understand that Tommy Hilfiger is popular with people in varying age groups. At least some significant portion of these people will find out about this and, since they won't understand any of it, will hear "Hilfiger uses Microsoft because it's more reliable than Linux." This would be a good enough reason for Microsoft to drop some funds into what they would probably call targeted marketing.
2. Why the hell else would this happen? What knowledgable CIO would switch from using Apache (presumably) in a stable Linux server environment to using the disaster that is IIS on a Windows Server? And before you say "Oh you're just a M$ sucks lololz1! troll," consider that I work with this crap everyday. My job is to code and maintain ASP.NET pages hosted on IIS 5.0 and IIS 6.0 running on Windows 2000 and 2003 servers. The company I work for runs enterprise class hardware but we don't get enterprise level traffic. And yet server OS/software problems are the primary issue we have to deal with. The IIS web applications regularly freeze up and hang which at best requires a web service restart and at worst a full server reboot (of which we do several a day - not really a problem for the end user since we have multiple servers but still rediculous nonetheless).
Needless to say, I frown on our own use of IIS so I just can't understand why someone would use it to "bet a multibillion-dollar corporation's future on."
Yes, that is really frustrating and I've lost more than one game to that. That and some random Windows popup like automatic update that I said no to earlier but it decided to check in just to see if I'd changed my mind...
Since when have the hippies/punks been the majority (even combined)?
You are right about the politicians in almost all cases though, you'll get no argument from me on that.