Mod down. I stopped reading here... "Couple of reasons: First, they're running Vista. I'm not trying to be all "You must only run Linux or ur a n00b" here -- you can run Windows servers just fine, but no reasonable IT planner should ever, *ever* consider using an OS that new for a mission-critical enterprise application. If it doesn't have two or three years in the field, don't even consider it."
First off, please read close enough to discern which VISTA they are talking about - it's kinda spelled out there.
Second, this whole "don't touch it - it's new" mindset chafes me to no end. 2-3 years in IT is an EON. For most products that leaves you at 1 or 2 releases behind, with all the security problems and bugs of 2 years ago. (Yep, that product you rely on today has just as many bugs as that new one on the shelf - they're just DIFFERENT bugs.) A product matures by being IN the field, IN use, and ACTIVELY FIXED in response to support calls. It might surprise you that software companies DO actually test their products before releasing them - no amount of testing can hit every configuration of hardware/software/business needs/obscure requirements out there.
Maybe I'm a little dense, but how did these "Meteors from Mars" escape Martian gravity and come to Earth? Marvin, with a trebuchet? Volcanic expulsion at exit velocity?
Not trolling, genuinely curious.
Very few sites even know how to enable encrypted database traffic on Oracle.
Also part of the problem is that Advanced Security Option (the part that encrypts DB traffic) is an extra-cost add-on. More cost? + More complexity? + Have to talk to my sales rep to decipher/haggle licensing? = Most shops pass on it.
This reminds me of something I've contemplated for some time. I'll toss it out and see what other folks think...
The need for a Messiah, as I see it, is strictly a Terran problem. God creates humanity on this particular planet, gives instructions (which are not followed) and, in justice, doles out the consequences. God then, in mercy, provides a Messiah as the solution to the consequences - a way to repair the God/human separation. Now on another planet, he could just as easily create life again, maybe even humanoid, in its own Eden. Maybe on this other planet the creation abides by the instructions, never entering a "fallen" state and never needing a Messiah. So if we someday find and interact with this alien species/race, there's no need to "bring them to Jesus", although I'm sure many people in this world will immediately feel the need to.
This reminds me, I'm itching for BSG season 4 to start! The whole good-guys=polytheist / bad-guys=monotheist conflict is a great element to the storyline.
Isn't a cell phone a class B computing device? (didn't check my manual first). As such isn't it required to accept any interference from another device even if it causes the class B device to malfunction?
Now, who exactly counts as a spyware "vendor"? I don't see many COTS "spyware" packages (MS products exempted for the sake of argument). I see plenty of spyware masquerading as system utilities, marketing/profiling, weather widgets, screen savers, viruses, and worms attached to things, but none of these seem to come from vendors who advertise themselves as such.
This smells of the same logic as gun control - let's make them highly regulated so we know who has them... but the ones who you don't want to have them - the problems - are most often then ones who go around the regulation to get one. Same with spyware, those that make the really effective spyware aren't going to be registered as software vendors in a way that the FTC can regulate.
I expect the majority of modern albums are digitally recorded and edited in ProTools now anyway so in many cases it will only be the mastering that is analog. Unless everyone is suddenly throwing out their digital studios. (I'm sure there are still plenty of analog-only studios, but my *guess* is they are no longer the majority.)
Thanks for elaborating. I do agree with your central point that crowds are easily manipulated. Crowds are also slow to change what they believe, even in the presence of conflicting information. "But it's ALWAYS been like X---. EVERYBODY knows Y----." I've gotten to the point where I not only look at the information I'm given, I look at the source of the information. You can (to some degree) control the decision-maker if you control the information they have to work with.
Warm up those -1:TrollInLieuOfDisagree mods, here I go...
The "Wisdom Of Crowds" put George W Bush in power, twice. Had Americans believing Saddam caused 9/11 and was a threat. Then of course there is religion.
Hold the phone, there. Did the "wisdom of the crowds" put GWB in power, or did Gore win "the popular vote" in one of those? You (the general you, not specifically the parent) can't argue it both ways. There's a difference between wisdome of the crowd/mob rule and the crowd choosing representatives (electoral college) to make the official vote. The founding fathers designed the process that way on purpose because they saw the inherent ignorance of "the crowd"
I don't think the argument was EVER that Saddam CAUSED 9/11, although there has been argument and (some claim evidence) that he was a contributing factor. Argument that he was a threat - well, based on information given at the time there was reason to be suspicious and the whole nation was still in knee-jerk mode. (I can be SINCERE and CONVINCED and still be WRONG.) The UN, not the people of one particular country, agreed he was enough of a threat to levy a series of sanctions. CONGRESS, not the people, authorized use of force in Iraq.
I respect the libertarian way of thinking, but please save the empty rhetoric for the usual two parties.
This will be HUGE in corporate IT departments. IT Managers always want to know when the next unplanned outage will be, or to identify/correct the bugs which have not been discovered yet.
hm... maybe time to pull out the HF rig and give it another shot. I always seemed to hit peak solar activity and couldn't do any more than pick out a few CW beacons. Maybe if its quiet I'll be able to have better luck.
11. The method of claim 9, wherein individuals are neurologically healthy individuals.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the neurologically healthy individuals are users in tests to evaluate user interfaces.
OK neurologically healthy can be argued in my specific case. This claim appears to be patenting just being a healthy person? I think there is plenty of prior art on #12 - just about ANY focus group?
How does a person get a PEACE prize for FURTHER POLARIZING the issue? I see both sides digging in deeper with their positions, not coming together to deal with the problem, or at least to PEACEfully disagree.
I have a problem awarding such a significant prize based on hypotheticals like "this event might, someday, lead to conflict." By the committees logic the prize should also go to GWB for the hypothetical "Iran might get Nukes which will lead to violent conflicts. SO lets raise awareness about whether Iran is trying to get Nukes, even though some people disagree with my position."
The article gives one possible approach...
'"The Chinese and the Japanese were screaming and throwing shoes at each other at their first meeting," Subbiah said. '
Giving the KID the benefit of the doubt... When I was 13 I had already used at least 3 or 4 different computer systems. I was programming basic audio on my VIC-20 and sprites on my C-64 using raw pokes and peeks. I was writing typing tutors and text-based adventure games from scratch in BASIC on an NCR 2950 (glorified cash register with proprietary O/S). I was dabbling with graphics on the TRS-80 Color Computer.
Now, none of that makes me anything special in itself. You could argue I was behind the geek curve at the time. I COULD tell the difference in the Vic-20 features, the C-64 features, the TRS-80 features. My point is... a 13-year old is perfectly capable of judging the value between different operating systems.
Whether THIS 13 year old was "knowledgeable" or whether they just "wanted a pony" is a separate discussion.
Stability. You can overclock your system of government all you want. Sure, the whole country screams for a while, but at some point/speed your whole state goes up in flames and your Central Potentate Underlord is toast.
I'm with you that if Science can improve our situation, then let's use it. Prayer can heal the sick, but so can medicine - and whose to say that God didn't "guide" people to perform the scientific research to get the medicines we have today, maybe even as an answer to somebody's prayer. (No way to prove that either way.) The same with climate change. If we are contributing and If we can measure that impact then, as stewards of the earth, we have a responsibility to clean up our mess. If we aren't really contributing Science can confirm that for us but we can still use possibly use it to improve the situation.
Thanks for the reference - I was never aware of the source.
No argument about the parent's relevance to the topic. I was simply struck by the similarity in the line of thinking.
It seems asymmetric, but then, the situation is. There is an asymmetry in the consequences of being right vs being wrong.
If I hand you a bottle of an unknown chemical and say "go on, drink it, I think it's safe." and somehow says to you "He's a good guy, trust him." and someone else says "He's a liar, don't trust him." you're stuck with what might seem (in Fair and Balanced land) like an even choice. But, you see, the truth is that you have many choices of things to drink, and the cost of not drinking is miniscule, while the cost of drinking could be fatal. So I'm betting you won't drink it. Even though it looks like symmetry.
Interesting... I've heard a similar thought process used in defense of Christianity. The matrix is:
1) God exists as described in the Bible - I choose to believe and respond accordingly - I go to heaven.
2) God does not exist as described - I chose to believe anyway and live accordingly - I cease to exist after a life of serving other people.
3) God does not exist as described in the Bible - I choose not to believe anyway - I live as I please and die and cease to exist.
4) God exits as described - I choose not to believe - I go elsewhere in eternal agony.
The thought process then assigns relative "good" or "bad" values to the outcomes to the conclusion that it is "better" to assume God and the Bible are true and be wrong than to assume they are untrue and be wrong.
Science relies on falsifiability at its core, so of course everything is a theory. That's not a condemnation, that's a statement of the bold thing that science is: a willingness to say what might be disproved and to tolerate the slings and arrows of criticism.
Interesting again... mentioning Christianity on/., let alone claiming to be one, requires similar bold willingness.
And me without mod points. Mod parent up. I would have still commented, so I couldn't have modded anyway.
You raise good points that people on both sides of the argument overlook - everyone seems to focus on the conflict of science v religion, trying to get one to meld with the other, or use one to disprove the other, when they are really tangential topics to each other. Now I come at this from the "Christian" point of view, but s/Christian/religionX/g and I think my points still work
(As I read my own PREVIEW I realize I don't add much substance to what the parent poster said. The process of writing it was a personal epiphany for me, so I'll submit it anyway.)
Science is about Facts. Religion is about Faith. Science, by definition, is based on observation. Faith, by definition (Hebrews 11) is based on the unobservable. Science addresses questions of WHAT? and HOW? of the world and events. It cannot assign meaning beyond physical description, laws, understanding the cause-and-effect. Science shows me "I am here. This rock is here." but cannot assign a "value" or "importance" to me or the rock - our influence on each other is irrelevant to Science other than explaining or predicting cause and effect. Religion addresses what science cannot - RIGHT and WRONG, GOOD and BAD, (and the debate rages over the definition of those terms). Morals, Spiritual understanding, things which cannot be defined or observed in the physical world. Faith is able to assign more "value" to a person than to a rock, such that I should be concerned about how my actions affect other people, and how I treat a rock only matters as it affects other people. (Or other religions do assign a value for the rock as well, such that it should influence my interactions with the rock)
Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of my God, or any other religion's God. It does not have to. When Science leaves gaps in explanation, Religion fills them in. Science can disprove Religion's explanation - geocentric theory for example. But religion can also embolden people to explore science - If I am secure in my eternal destiny I do not have to fear engaging in scientific endeavors such as sailing to the "edge of the world" or taking a possibly-one-way-trip to mars. (Admittedly weak analogy there - many people are not deterred by "certain death" exploration)
This brings up another point Truth is Truth and must be discovered, regardless of belief. Either geocentric theory is true or it is not, not matter what I believe - Science conveniently offers evidence to support/proove one answer in this case. God exists or God does not exist, no matter what I believe. If God does not exist, by definition, he cannot be observed. If God does exist he , again by definition, cannot be observed physically - so either way Science cannot offer the same level of proof/disproof for God that it can for physical phenomena. Therefore, Faith is the only other mechanism to discover God. Religion comes in to compare whose Faith is accurate regarding unobservable truth in the same way that Science came in to compare whose Observations were accurate regarding physical truth.
To mix the two, as the parent mentions, is meaningless. Like using a car repair manual to find the answer to a CowboyNeal poll. *duck and cover*
I find this bug kinda ironic since one of the big pros attributed to Excel over OO Calc is that it is so useful for data manipulation.
"data manipulation"... interesting choice of words...
I've seen Excel used to fudge numbers far too often, especially when writing reports using Reporting tools (instead of raw odbc/xl/access/blech). I don't know how many time I've had to hack SQL or a Report to get the data reported from the real source to match the data in some analysts Excel spreadsheet. "We know the algorithm is wrong, but everyone's used to the numbers this way." Aaaaaa---
Slashdot Mirror
Mod down. I stopped reading here... "Couple of reasons: First, they're running Vista. I'm not trying to be all "You must only run Linux or ur a n00b" here -- you can run Windows servers just fine, but no reasonable IT planner should ever, *ever* consider using an OS that new for a mission-critical enterprise application. If it doesn't have two or three years in the field, don't even consider it."
First off, please read close enough to discern which VISTA they are talking about - it's kinda spelled out there.
Second, this whole "don't touch it - it's new" mindset chafes me to no end. 2-3 years in IT is an EON. For most products that leaves you at 1 or 2 releases behind, with all the security problems and bugs of 2 years ago. (Yep, that product you rely on today has just as many bugs as that new one on the shelf - they're just DIFFERENT bugs.) A product matures by being IN the field, IN use, and ACTIVELY FIXED in response to support calls. It might surprise you that software companies DO actually test their products before releasing them - no amount of testing can hit every configuration of hardware/software/business needs/obscure requirements out there.
Maybe I'm a little dense, but how did these "Meteors from Mars" escape Martian gravity and come to Earth? Marvin, with a trebuchet? Volcanic expulsion at exit velocity?
Not trolling, genuinely curious.
This reminds me of something I've contemplated for some time. I'll toss it out and see what other folks think...
The need for a Messiah, as I see it, is strictly a Terran problem. God creates humanity on this particular planet, gives instructions (which are not followed) and, in justice, doles out the consequences. God then, in mercy, provides a Messiah as the solution to the consequences - a way to repair the God/human separation. Now on another planet, he could just as easily create life again, maybe even humanoid, in its own Eden. Maybe on this other planet the creation abides by the instructions, never entering a "fallen" state and never needing a Messiah. So if we someday find and interact with this alien species/race, there's no need to "bring them to Jesus", although I'm sure many people in this world will immediately feel the need to.
This reminds me, I'm itching for BSG season 4 to start! The whole good-guys=polytheist / bad-guys=monotheist conflict is a great element to the storyline.
I'll show my ignorance here...
Isn't a cell phone a class B computing device? (didn't check my manual first). As such isn't it required to accept any interference from another device even if it causes the class B device to malfunction?
Now, who exactly counts as a spyware "vendor"? I don't see many COTS "spyware" packages (MS products exempted for the sake of argument). I see plenty of spyware masquerading as system utilities, marketing/profiling, weather widgets, screen savers, viruses, and worms attached to things, but none of these seem to come from vendors who advertise themselves as such.
This smells of the same logic as gun control - let's make them highly regulated so we know who has them... but the ones who you don't want to have them - the problems - are most often then ones who go around the regulation to get one. Same with spyware, those that make the really effective spyware aren't going to be registered as software vendors in a way that the FTC can regulate.
I expect the majority of modern albums are digitally recorded and edited in ProTools now anyway so in many cases it will only be the mastering that is analog. Unless everyone is suddenly throwing out their digital studios. (I'm sure there are still plenty of analog-only studios, but my *guess* is they are no longer the majority.)
Thanks for elaborating. I do agree with your central point that crowds are easily manipulated. Crowds are also slow to change what they believe, even in the presence of conflicting information. "But it's ALWAYS been like X---. EVERYBODY knows Y----." I've gotten to the point where I not only look at the information I'm given, I look at the source of the information. You can (to some degree) control the decision-maker if you control the information they have to work with.
Warm up those -1:TrollInLieuOfDisagree mods, here I go...
Hold the phone, there. Did the "wisdom of the crowds" put GWB in power, or did Gore win "the popular vote" in one of those? You (the general you, not specifically the parent) can't argue it both ways. There's a difference between wisdome of the crowd/mob rule and the crowd choosing representatives (electoral college) to make the official vote. The founding fathers designed the process that way on purpose because they saw the inherent ignorance of "the crowd"
I don't think the argument was EVER that Saddam CAUSED 9/11, although there has been argument and (some claim evidence) that he was a contributing factor. Argument that he was a threat - well, based on information given at the time there was reason to be suspicious and the whole nation was still in knee-jerk mode. (I can be SINCERE and CONVINCED and still be WRONG.) The UN, not the people of one particular country, agreed he was enough of a threat to levy a series of sanctions. CONGRESS, not the people, authorized use of force in Iraq.
I respect the libertarian way of thinking, but please save the empty rhetoric for the usual two parties.
This will be HUGE in corporate IT departments. IT Managers always want to know when the next unplanned outage will be, or to identify/correct the bugs which have not been discovered yet.
hm... maybe time to pull out the HF rig and give it another shot. I always seemed to hit peak solar activity and couldn't do any more than pick out a few CW beacons. Maybe if its quiet I'll be able to have better luck.
From the patent... OK neurologically healthy can be argued in my specific case. This claim appears to be patenting just being a healthy person? I think there is plenty of prior art on #12 - just about ANY focus group?
How does a person get a PEACE prize for FURTHER POLARIZING the issue? I see both sides digging in deeper with their positions, not coming together to deal with the problem, or at least to PEACEfully disagree.
I have a problem awarding such a significant prize based on hypotheticals like "this event might, someday, lead to conflict." By the committees logic the prize should also go to GWB for the hypothetical "Iran might get Nukes which will lead to violent conflicts. SO lets raise awareness about whether Iran is trying to get Nukes, even though some people disagree with my position."
The article gives one possible approach... '"The Chinese and the Japanese were screaming and throwing shoes at each other at their first meeting," Subbiah said. '
Giving the KID the benefit of the doubt... When I was 13 I had already used at least 3 or 4 different computer systems. I was programming basic audio on my VIC-20 and sprites on my C-64 using raw pokes and peeks. I was writing typing tutors and text-based adventure games from scratch in BASIC on an NCR 2950 (glorified cash register with proprietary O/S). I was dabbling with graphics on the TRS-80 Color Computer.
Now, none of that makes me anything special in itself. You could argue I was behind the geek curve at the time. I COULD tell the difference in the Vic-20 features, the C-64 features, the TRS-80 features. My point is... a 13-year old is perfectly capable of judging the value between different operating systems.
Whether THIS 13 year old was "knowledgeable" or whether they just "wanted a pony" is a separate discussion.
Last I checked, incompetence is still not a crime.
Stability. You can overclock your system of government all you want. Sure, the whole country screams for a while, but at some point/speed your whole state goes up in flames and your Central Potentate Underlord is toast.
I'm with you that if Science can improve our situation, then let's use it. Prayer can heal the sick, but so can medicine - and whose to say that God didn't "guide" people to perform the scientific research to get the medicines we have today, maybe even as an answer to somebody's prayer. (No way to prove that either way.) The same with climate change. If we are contributing and If we can measure that impact then, as stewards of the earth, we have a responsibility to clean up our mess. If we aren't really contributing Science can confirm that for us but we can still use possibly use it to improve the situation.
Thanks for the reference - I was never aware of the source.
No argument about the parent's relevance to the topic. I was simply struck by the similarity in the line of thinking.
1) God exists as described in the Bible - I choose to believe and respond accordingly - I go to heaven.
2) God does not exist as described - I chose to believe anyway and live accordingly - I cease to exist after a life of serving other people.
3) God does not exist as described in the Bible - I choose not to believe anyway - I live as I please and die and cease to exist.
4) God exits as described - I choose not to believe - I go elsewhere in eternal agony.
The thought process then assigns relative "good" or "bad" values to the outcomes to the conclusion that it is "better" to assume God and the Bible are true and be wrong than to assume they are untrue and be wrong.
Interesting again... mentioning Christianity on /., let alone claiming to be one, requires similar bold willingness.
And me without mod points. Mod parent up. I would have still commented, so I couldn't have modded anyway.
You raise good points that people on both sides of the argument overlook - everyone seems to focus on the conflict of science v religion, trying to get one to meld with the other, or use one to disprove the other, when they are really tangential topics to each other. Now I come at this from the "Christian" point of view, but s/Christian/religionX/g and I think my points still work
(As I read my own PREVIEW I realize I don't add much substance to what the parent poster said. The process of writing it was a personal epiphany for me, so I'll submit it anyway.)
Science is about Facts. Religion is about Faith. Science, by definition, is based on observation. Faith, by definition (Hebrews 11) is based on the unobservable. Science addresses questions of WHAT? and HOW? of the world and events. It cannot assign meaning beyond physical description, laws, understanding the cause-and-effect. Science shows me "I am here. This rock is here." but cannot assign a "value" or "importance" to me or the rock - our influence on each other is irrelevant to Science other than explaining or predicting cause and effect. Religion addresses what science cannot - RIGHT and WRONG, GOOD and BAD, (and the debate rages over the definition of those terms). Morals, Spiritual understanding, things which cannot be defined or observed in the physical world. Faith is able to assign more "value" to a person than to a rock, such that I should be concerned about how my actions affect other people, and how I treat a rock only matters as it affects other people. (Or other religions do assign a value for the rock as well, such that it should influence my interactions with the rock)
Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of my God, or any other religion's God. It does not have to. When Science leaves gaps in explanation, Religion fills them in. Science can disprove Religion's explanation - geocentric theory for example. But religion can also embolden people to explore science - If I am secure in my eternal destiny I do not have to fear engaging in scientific endeavors such as sailing to the "edge of the world" or taking a possibly-one-way-trip to mars. (Admittedly weak analogy there - many people are not deterred by "certain death" exploration)
This brings up another point Truth is Truth and must be discovered, regardless of belief. Either geocentric theory is true or it is not, not matter what I believe - Science conveniently offers evidence to support/proove one answer in this case. God exists or God does not exist, no matter what I believe. If God does not exist, by definition, he cannot be observed. If God does exist he , again by definition, cannot be observed physically - so either way Science cannot offer the same level of proof/disproof for God that it can for physical phenomena. Therefore, Faith is the only other mechanism to discover God. Religion comes in to compare whose Faith is accurate regarding unobservable truth in the same way that Science came in to compare whose Observations were accurate regarding physical truth.
To mix the two, as the parent mentions, is meaningless. Like using a car repair manual to find the answer to a CowboyNeal poll. *duck and cover*
How soon we forget Clippy -- Now brought to you by Staples(tm).
I, for one, welcome our anonymous over-reacting cliche-enriching overlords!
Scotty's ashes get the equivalent of a ride on the vomit comet and a movie prop gets the shuttle?!?
Is JarJar running NASA now?