OT: in your sig, were you using "for all intensive purposes" sarcastically as commentary on the decay of grammar in today's society? If so, carry on, but if not, please be aware that the actual phrase is "for all intents and purposes."
This was an article in the medical center's newsletter, so I think its purpose was more likely a profile of one of their internal services and the people behind it.
If it was a plant by a pneumatic tube company it was an epic fail, because one notably missing datum was the name of the vendor.
The full version is covered by the Personal Use and Evaluation License (PUEL), which technically speaking may be "restricted," but not very:
"Personal use is when you install the product on one or more PCs yourself and you make use of it (or even your friend, sister and grandmother). It doesn't matter whether you just use it for fun or run your multi-million euro business with it. Also, if you install it on your work PC at some large company, this is still personal use. However, if you are an administrator and want to deploy it to the 500 desktops in your company, this would no longer qualify as personal use. Well, you could ask each of your 500 employees to install VirtualBox but don't you think we deserve some money in this case? We'd even assist you with any issue you might have."
No, really, seriously: if you're in it for the money, why would you make it harder by pitting yourself *against* the oil companies and (at least for 2000-2008) the US Government? Wouldn't the lazy way be -- especially if as you seem to be positing, it's also the truth -- to say, "no global warming and here's my carefully cooked data to prove it. Hello, Chevron, big checks gladly accepted at the following address"?
This is where the "big bucks in AGW" theory seems to totally and irrevocably fall apart.
>I remember that Rackable bought SGI, so "Rackable nee SGI" would be somewhat logical
No, because Rackable was never previously known as SGI.
You could say that a *unit* of Rackable was previously known as SGI, except that unit would not, strictly speaking be known as just "Rackable", but rather the "SGI unit of Rackable" -- and in any event, Rackable pretty much instantly changed their name to SGI (Silicon Graphics International Corporation, to use the full name) as soon as they acquired old-SGI's assets.
It doesn't help that the "new SGI" website hops indiscriminately between servers that declare themselves to be "www.sgi.com" and "www.rackable.com" at various turns... and their "about" page, in full "new SGI" trade dress, talks about how they are "Rackable Systems Inc. (NASDAQ: RACK)". (Although it also says the company will "adopt SGI as its glogal name and brand." You glow, gal!)
"Look at the history books that refuse to mention Reagan when addressing the cold war. It's the same type of thing, just from a different groups agenda."
This sounded maybe a little far-fetched, so I went and grabbed my son's high school history textbook (we live in the SF Bay Area, which I hear is considered by some to be at least slightly to the left of center).
I wound up turning right to chapter 22, "A Conservative Era", which begins with a two-page photo of a smiling Ronald Reagan working a crowd, with the precis, "Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by appealing to a discontented electorate with the promise to return to a simpler time and conservative values. Reagan and his successor, George H.W. Bush, presided over the end of the Cold War and huge changes in economic and social policy." (American Anthem, Modern American History, Holt Rinehart Winston, California edition, 2007)
If there's a meme being spread that Evil PCers have expunged Reagan from history books, there's little evidence to support that here in California.
CDC said there were 17,000+ abortions after week 21 in 1993 and concedes that number is likely under-reported.
That would be late-term abortions, not "partial-birth abortions", of which 2,200 were reported in 2000. (I would consider that number to be an over-reporting, as there is no medically accepted definition of this procedure, and the political definition is worded such that it includes miscarriages.)
As far as epidemics are concerned: the historical human maternal death rate is 1 in 100, which would be 60,000 deaths per year in the US if that number applied today. The actual maternal death rate in the US today is fewer than 1,000. I strongly contest the implication that these procedures are being carried out frivolously, or for any other reason than proper medical procedures, unless you have proof otherwise. It is much more likely that these procedures, carried out as they must be under full medical oversight, are being chosen as a last resort to save the life of the mother.
So he promotes it, but it's a secret, but he brags about it. He sounds very confused. Or someone does.
Since this is a secret that he's bragging about, but I don't have access to this letter, maybe you can share details on just what he is promoting?
So, just so you can hate on me too, let me share my opinion first. "Partial birth abortion" is a very disturbing procedure, but many medical procedures are. Although I don't want someone running around cutting off people's legs, neither do I support an outright ban on "Live Limb Hacking Off", since people do often come to ERs with gangrenous limbs and I think medical personnel should have a range of options which they can evaluate and choose from.
The idea of using "partial birth abortion" as a form of birth control is truly reprehensible, and we should all be outraged if anyone has ever, ever done so. But they haven't. In reality, this is an extremely rare procedure that is only used in the most dire of circumstances. The idea of passing a bill to ban it, to take this option off the table when a doctor may need it to save the life of a woman, is so clearly politically posturing that I find it impossible to take anyone seriously that brings it up as an issue. Pushing the idea that anyone is "promoting" this, or that they are "bragging" about it, is thus reprehensible in its own right.
Perhaps he was just saying that this bill, similar to Bill Frist's miraculous remote diagnosis of Terri Schiavo, is an outrageous attempt to use bad medicine to justify bad politics?
Oh, forgot to mention that the bigger deal at that time was not the cost, but justifying why our 15,000 student university should be assigned a class B number rather than a class C number. After all, there were significantly fewer than 255 networked systems on campus at the time -- probably fewer than 25. Credit my incredible prescience for guessing that might not be the case forever.
I only recently noticed that I'm immortalized in RFC 1117, merely for having established csun.edu (apparently sometime between August 1987 and August 1989, since I'm not in RFC 1020). It also looks like RFC 1166 in July 1990 was the last time the complete list of Internet numbers was published as a static document. -LW89
OK, so literally speaking, "for all intensive purposes" is actually a phrase. Got me there. However, it does not mean the same thing as the commonly-used phrase "for all intents and purposes." To say that the latter phrase is nearly synonymous to the former is a serious abuse of the concept of "nearly synonymous." To wit, "Jack Bauer found a 9mm pistol be useful as a debate ender for all intensive purposes" does not mean it's the proper tool for all or even most colloquy.
And while we're nitpicking: "Advanced" != "Advance". Although it was a review of an advanced gadget, the point was that the details were provided in advance, and were bogus.
Oh, and what the heck: "formally" != "formerly"; "for all intensive purposes" is not a phrase, and listen up Dan Piraro: Quakers are not "passivists."
(...and Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself, and the London Underground is not a political movement...)
If you're really a Sun engineer, you should take a look around, and quick. Sun still sells Red Hat -- and SUSE -- and Windows -- and Solaris. Check with Sun's customers; they get it.
If by "when they were bothering to pay Linux more than just trendy buzz-word lip-service," you mean when Sun was going to build its own Linux distro, take another look around and see which of the other big system vendors still do that. And check with customers again: in the overwhelming majority, they didn't want a new Linux distro from Sun. If they wanted something different, there was Solaris. If they wanted Linux, they wanted Red Hat, or SUSE, or...the list tailed off pretty quickly from there in terms of actual potential sales.
Sun and IBM and HP have essentially the same Linux sales strategy -- they sell the distros their customers want. The differentiator for Sun is Solaris, and Sun figured out that they could sell both Linux and Solaris. This appears to confuse some, but it's really not all that complicated, and selling both doesn't mean Sun is just giving "lip-service" to one or the other.
Why did he use the acronym if he defines it directly after use.
Simple: he's addressing two audiences. The first is comprised of those familiar with the initialism (not "acronym" -- there's a difference), so he's now established his street cred, and everyone in the know can say to themselves "NFSW, heh heh." The second is those unacquainted with the term; he's kind enough to not leave them in the dark. NFSW is a popular slang term, so it should be used here; explaining it as well is a courtesy to those who haven't seen it before or always wondered what it meant.
If you're going to expend energy on grammar crusades, may I suggest working on "its/it's" confusion -- which almost seems to be a badge of honor among Slashdot editors -- "you/you're" confusion, and the rising tide of "formerly/formally" confusion, which is the one that's really starting to bug me.
if you do a google image search on the words: bosnia pyramid
You'll find pictures of it. I'm kind of surprised nobody has considered the possibility before. If you see some pictures that give you a better 3D view of it, it very clearly has 4 slopes at 90 degree angles.
Indeed -- after studying the remarkable remarkable imagery that Google found I don't see how this can be a hoax at all -- I've packed up my razor blades and it's off to Visoko!
Not to ruin a real kneeslapper, but the Sun 600MP systems (codenamed "Galaxy" as you say) were symmetric MP, not asymmetric.
Even under SunOS 4.x, which did not have a multithreaded kernel, the kernel would not be bound to a specific processor, nor was there any performance differences associated with processes being scheduled on different processors.
Under 4.x your performance gains would come from running multiple processes simultaneously rather than running a single process on multiple processes, but this still didn't add up to seeing a performance degradation of any kind by adding CPUs.
Once Solaris 2.x came out, the true performance benefits of the 600MP came into play with a multithreaded kernel and the ability to build true multithreaded applications.
The underlying sun4m processor bus architecture lived on in Sun desktop systems long after the 600MP line was superseded, and was quite effective for 4-way and smaller MP systems.
Slashdot Mirror
It didn't help because it was too honest?
Seriously, I see this quote get resurrected from time to time, but: is it wrong? If so, why?
Perhaps it would've been better if he'd said, "You have zero privacy anyway. Be prepared to deal with it." But he tends to err on the side of brevity.
Disclaimer: he and I once worked for the same company, albeit at slightly different strata.
OT: in your sig, were you using "for all intensive purposes" sarcastically as commentary on the decay of grammar in today's society? If so, carry on, but if not, please be aware that the actual phrase is "for all intents and purposes."
This was an article in the medical center's newsletter, so I think its purpose was more likely a profile of one of their internal services and the people behind it.
If it was a plant by a pneumatic tube company it was an epic fail, because one notably missing datum was the name of the vendor.
The full version is covered by the Personal Use and Evaluation License (PUEL), which technically speaking may be "restricted," but not very:
"Personal use is when you install the product on one or more PCs yourself and you make use of it (or even your friend, sister and grandmother). It doesn't matter whether you just use it for fun or run your multi-million euro business with it. Also, if you install it on your work PC at some large company, this is still personal use. However, if you are an administrator and want to deploy it to the 500 desktops in your company, this would no longer qualify as personal use. Well, you could ask each of your 500 employees to install VirtualBox but don't you think we deserve some money in this case? We'd even assist you with any issue you might have."
No, really, seriously: if you're in it for the money, why would you make it harder by pitting yourself *against* the oil companies and (at least for 2000-2008) the US Government? Wouldn't the lazy way be -- especially if as you seem to be positing, it's also the truth -- to say, "no global warming and here's my carefully cooked data to prove it. Hello, Chevron, big checks gladly accepted at the following address"?
This is where the "big bucks in AGW" theory seems to totally and irrevocably fall apart.
>I remember that Rackable bought SGI, so "Rackable nee SGI" would be somewhat logical
No, because Rackable was never previously known as SGI.
You could say that a *unit* of Rackable was previously known as SGI, except that unit would not, strictly speaking be known as just "Rackable", but rather the "SGI unit of Rackable" -- and in any event, Rackable pretty much instantly changed their name to SGI (Silicon Graphics International Corporation, to use the full name) as soon as they acquired old-SGI's assets.
It doesn't help that the "new SGI" website hops indiscriminately between servers that declare themselves to be "www.sgi.com" and "www.rackable.com" at various turns ... and their "about" page, in full "new SGI" trade dress, talks about how they are "Rackable Systems Inc. (NASDAQ: RACK)". (Although it also says the company will "adopt SGI as its glogal name and brand." You glow, gal!)
"Look at the history books that refuse to mention Reagan when addressing the cold war. It's the same type of thing, just from a different groups agenda."
This sounded maybe a little far-fetched, so I went and grabbed my son's high school history textbook (we live in the SF Bay Area, which I hear is considered by some to be at least slightly to the left of center).
I wound up turning right to chapter 22, "A Conservative Era", which begins with a two-page photo of a smiling Ronald Reagan working a crowd, with the precis, "Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by appealing to a discontented electorate with the promise to return to a simpler time and conservative values. Reagan and his successor, George H.W. Bush, presided over the end of the Cold War and huge changes in economic and social policy." (American Anthem, Modern American History, Holt Rinehart Winston, California edition, 2007)
If there's a meme being spread that Evil PCers have expunged Reagan from history books, there's little evidence to support that here in California.
That would be late-term abortions, not "partial-birth abortions", of which 2,200 were reported in 2000. (I would consider that number to be an over-reporting, as there is no medically accepted definition of this procedure, and the political definition is worded such that it includes miscarriages.)
As far as epidemics are concerned: the historical human maternal death rate is 1 in 100, which would be 60,000 deaths per year in the US if that number applied today. The actual maternal death rate in the US today is fewer than 1,000. I strongly contest the implication that these procedures are being carried out frivolously, or for any other reason than proper medical procedures, unless you have proof otherwise. It is much more likely that these procedures, carried out as they must be under full medical oversight, are being chosen as a last resort to save the life of the mother.
So he promotes it, but it's a secret, but he brags about it. He sounds very confused. Or someone does.
Since this is a secret that he's bragging about, but I don't have access to this letter, maybe you can share details on just what he is promoting?
So, just so you can hate on me too, let me share my opinion first. "Partial birth abortion" is a very disturbing procedure, but many medical procedures are. Although I don't want someone running around cutting off people's legs, neither do I support an outright ban on "Live Limb Hacking Off", since people do often come to ERs with gangrenous limbs and I think medical personnel should have a range of options which they can evaluate and choose from.
The idea of using "partial birth abortion" as a form of birth control is truly reprehensible, and we should all be outraged if anyone has ever, ever done so. But they haven't. In reality, this is an extremely rare procedure that is only used in the most dire of circumstances. The idea of passing a bill to ban it, to take this option off the table when a doctor may need it to save the life of a woman, is so clearly politically posturing that I find it impossible to take anyone seriously that brings it up as an issue. Pushing the idea that anyone is "promoting" this, or that they are "bragging" about it, is thus reprehensible in its own right.
Perhaps he was just saying that this bill, similar to Bill Frist's miraculous remote diagnosis of Terri Schiavo, is an outrageous attempt to use bad medicine to justify bad politics?
Oh, forgot to mention that the bigger deal at that time was not the cost, but justifying why our 15,000 student university should be assigned a class B number rather than a class C number. After all, there were significantly fewer than 255 networked systems on campus at the time -- probably fewer than 25. Credit my incredible prescience for guessing that might not be the case forever.
$50, IIRC.
I only recently noticed that I'm immortalized in RFC 1117, merely for having established csun.edu (apparently sometime between August 1987 and August 1989, since I'm not in RFC 1020). It also looks like RFC 1166 in July 1990 was the last time the complete list of Internet numbers was published as a static document.
-LW89
OK, so literally speaking, "for all intensive purposes" is actually a phrase. Got me there. However, it does not mean the same thing as the commonly-used phrase "for all intents and purposes." To say that the latter phrase is nearly synonymous to the former is a serious abuse of the concept of "nearly synonymous." To wit, "Jack Bauer found a 9mm pistol be useful as a debate ender for all intensive purposes" does not mean it's the proper tool for all or even most colloquy.
Oh, and what the heck: "formally" != "formerly"; "for all intensive purposes" is not a phrase, and listen up Dan Piraro: Quakers are not "passivists."
(...and Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself, and the London Underground is not a political movement...)
Q:How many Ontarians does it take to screw in a CFL?
A: None!
That would be "Me Thog Like Sciens."
(ObMrWizard: I once helped Don Herbert set up a modem.)
If you're really a Sun engineer, you should take a look around, and quick. Sun still sells Red Hat -- and SUSE -- and Windows -- and Solaris. Check with Sun's customers; they get it.
If by "when they were bothering to pay Linux more than just trendy buzz-word lip-service," you mean when Sun was going to build its own Linux distro, take another look around and see which of the other big system vendors still do that. And check with customers again: in the overwhelming majority, they didn't want a new Linux distro from Sun. If they wanted something different, there was Solaris. If they wanted Linux, they wanted Red Hat, or SUSE, or...the list tailed off pretty quickly from there in terms of actual potential sales.
Sun and IBM and HP have essentially the same Linux sales strategy -- they sell the distros their customers want. The differentiator for Sun is Solaris, and Sun figured out that they could sell both Linux and Solaris. This appears to confuse some, but it's really not all that complicated, and selling both doesn't mean Sun is just giving "lip-service" to one or the other.
Every time I hear "The Linux Foundation" my brain replaces it with "The Human Fund". Stupid brain.
OK, I just read the thread, and my only remaining question is: was support for line breaks in text messages introduced after sun4m?
If you're going to expend energy on grammar crusades, may I suggest working on "its/it's" confusion -- which almost seems to be a badge of honor among Slashdot editors -- "you/you're" confusion, and the rising tide of "formerly/formally" confusion, which is the one that's really starting to bug me.
Not to ruin a real kneeslapper, but the Sun 600MP systems (codenamed "Galaxy" as you say) were symmetric MP, not asymmetric.
Even under SunOS 4.x, which did not have a multithreaded kernel, the kernel would not be bound to a specific processor, nor was there any performance differences associated with processes being scheduled on different processors.
Under 4.x your performance gains would come from running multiple processes simultaneously rather than running a single process on multiple processes, but this still didn't add up to seeing a performance degradation of any kind by adding CPUs.
Once Solaris 2.x came out, the true performance benefits of the 600MP came into play with a multithreaded kernel and the ability to build true multithreaded applications.
The underlying sun4m processor bus architecture lived on in Sun desktop systems long after the 600MP line was superseded, and was quite effective for 4-way and smaller MP systems.