Many of these were previously stated, but I'll redo them with references for those who want to look them up.
I also derive many of my views from the bible (and many other texts), but it pains me to no end when people use these to rationalize thier bigotry driven views. As a rule, I entirly discount the old testiment.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Much of my wife's family lives in Canada. Can I buy them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She 8 years old, very bright, and a hard worker, what would be a good price? Can I do this on ebay?
3. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put death, should I do it or should I ask the police to do it?
4. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
5. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20 or is there a little wiggle room there?
6. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27.
7. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
8. My family has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does my mother by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
I think the bible does teach some great lessons (and some horrible ones) but you get my point that is shouldn't be taken literally.
Actually, I think some people will disagree with you there. Not that I could prove their side, but it makes your argument have little point, doesn't it?
Not at all, that basically is my point. Its about "faith" not any science since it is not verifiable/testable/etc. Sure some people believe they find god in church. There are also tons of kids who swear they seen Santa in the sky or coming down a chimney. My point isn't that people don't believe it, its that there isn't really any difference between belief in god or belief in Santa. But for some reason adults think believing in Santa is silly, but belief in god is the core of their existance. I don't get it.
Obviously you don't like the word "evolution" so I'll just call it "changing" to hopefully help your comfort level. You don't even need to consider probabilities, we ARE "changing". Lets just look at a VERY simple sample.
Around 4 million years ago average humaniod height was around 4 feet tall (fosil records), about 2 million years ago we we averaged about 5 feet tall. Today (at least in North America) men average close to 6 feet tall.
Call it what you will but we are "changing". I'm sure you probably don't have "faith" in fossils or maybe think god just grabs us and streches us every so often so this surely won't change your mind, but we ARE "changing".
Santa Claus is claimed to live at the North Pole and common lore dispells his existence as nothing more than a story. We can go to the North Pole and we won't find him, we can observe out chimneys and we won't see him.
God is claimed to be all around us and a large segment of current thought dispells his existence as nothing more than a story. We can go to a church and we won't find him, we can observe into the heavens and we won't see him.
OK now that the post looks better I ask again, what is the difference in these two?
God is claimed to be all around us and a large segment of current thought dispells his existence as nothing more than a story. We can go to a church and we won't find him, we can observe into the heavens and we won't see him.
My choice of these models was based on the fact I've previously read reviews stating you needed to 2.6GHz chips in a system with dual CPUs to get comparable performance to a 2.2GHz single dual-core CPU (effiecicies of dual-core). This also doesn't take into account other advantages to dual core like the lessened power requirements, less heat, and ability to fit existing MOBOs when making comparisons between daul-core and dual-cpu.
"Exuse" yeah, that was pretty sad as I was explaining my spelling;-)
And you are correct. I really don't mean to say that slavery is equal to the current treatment of gays. I guess what I'm trying to say that the treatment of gays is our generations most obvious example of those same ideas (we are better than you, etc). I certainly don't mean to equate the current treatment of gays with the treatment of blacks during slavery, jews during the hologost, native americans during the expansion westward, or those who believed the earth circled the sun during the dark ages. The fact that these aren't the same I guess gives me some hope (and thus the statement that we have made progrsss during the last few hundred years), however I do think there can be parallels drawn. At least in the fact that this is primarily driven by those who believe "my way" is better then "thier way".
And also recently I have had much the same experience with gay rights. I've removed myself from situations where I would have to deal with physical violence on such people (though it does still happen all to often). But even though I don't see people being beaten, I still don't think that is good enough. Until I see 100% equality I won't be satisfied (I'd say MAYBE we are at 85% now).
Also, I don't mean to make this entirely a gay issue. Even today I would not have been able to marry my wife in my (previous) catholic church since she isn't catholic. The core issues of discrimiation and "my way is better than yours" runs much deeper.
While civil unions would be a big step forward (allowing many rights married couples enjoy today), I think either gay couples should be able to marry or marriage should completly removed from public domain (meaning its not a state sponsored institution). If a certain faith thinks this is wrong that is fine and such couples can avoid this. However, for your country says you cannot enjoy equal status I have a problem with that.
From your last few posts (which were very good and I do understand what you are saying), I think we would get along just fine;-) Sometimes/. leads you to make quick statements of your opinion without fully explaining them which lead me to reply to your inital post.
I also derive many of my views from the bible (and many other texts), but it pains me to no end when people use these to rationalize thier bigotry driven views. As a rule, I entirly discount the old testiment.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Much of my wife's family lives in Canada. Can I buy them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.
3. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put death, should I do it or should I ask the police to do it?
4. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
5. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20 or is there a little wiggle room there?
6. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27.
7. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
8. My family has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does my mother by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
I think the bible does teach some great lessons but you get my point that is shouldn't be taken literally.
I'm afraid this has come across as way too preachy, but I really do respect what you are saying and do for the most part agree with them (except the main idea that this law isn't a good idea). I gotta get to bed, but perhaps this will continue;-)
Nope you aren't rambling;-) This post makes sense and I completely agree. The proposed law certainly won't completly fix the problem. Heck it may not even help a majority of the people since even if this is passed into law and someone blatantly violates it depending on the location it could be a crap shoot at best that a jury would find them guilty.
I think a lot of similarities exist between the current status of gays and the status of blacks around a centry ago. At there respective points in time, both groups were almost viewed as sub-human by society and this is/was unconcinable in both cases. This is why I think this proposed law is a good thing. Will it "solve" the problem? No. Will it help with the problem? Hopefully. To me the short-term effect of the law isn't really an issue. Giving blacks the right to vote in many places didn't accomplish much in the short-term. Many bigots were still able to find ways to limit this. However, I still think it was a good idea. Over the long-term it certainly had an effect.
I'm a huge believer in "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and I think this is really lacking. Its easy to think this is an issue with our society, but unfortuanatly it is more a fact of being human and you can very easily see it thoughout history. My favorite "deadly sin" has to be pride. Sadly there is something in us as humans which makes us want to believe we are "special". We all want to think our group is somehow better, superior, more rightous, or whatever then other groups. That my friend is exactly the pride this sin refers to and as such I think our world still has a LONG way to go in this respect (we have improved much over the past few hundred years, but still have a long way to go). Its sad that our leaders (political and religious) still peddle this type of pride as a way to hold onto thier power. It is exactly this sin which causes the need for this type of anti-descrimination laws. I think these laws are fairly flawed and can be abused by both sides, but until we as a people can stop thinking in terms of "us" and "them" its the best we can do. To not have these just legitimises the view of these people being sub-human in some way. I hate these laws! It sickens me that they are nessecary, but sadly they are. While its good if these laws help the problem, to me I don't even see that as the primary issue. These people are so "abused" in sooo many ways and have to live with a government and society that for the most part says they are evil and sub-human that any little such law (successful or not) to help them feel that they aren't completely powerless against the hatred they deal with everyday is completly nessecary.
A bit about me which may help explain my passion for this topic. I grew up in a small town in Iowa to a VERY good Catholic family (12 years of Catholic school and everything). I was a HUGE bigot! When I'd heard about some "fag" being beaten to hell for "coming on" to some straight guy, I completely thought that was OK and would do the same. Shortly after college, I went to work abroad (still do). I've traveled and lot and lived in many different socieities. It didn't take long to realize all the stereotypes I'd been "taught" were completly insane. I grew up thinking of the Russians as evil and wanted to kill us all. Now I know better and it was just my governments propoganda throwing this idea around. All of us are sooooooo similar it sickens me to think how easily we are turned against each other. My family are great people (even though we certainly have our disagreements on some topics), but they just don't have the experience to have informed judgements. I've since married a Chinese (woman by the way;-) and probably a majority of my friends are gay.
There is evil in the world, but it isn't those of different cultures, sexual orientations, races, etc. It is those who try to tell you one is good and one is bad. We are all the same on so many levels, its ju
If you want to pass legislation that says that companies can't discriminate based on sexual orientation then you'd better be prepared to have the same set of rules applied to you that are applied to everyone else who falls into a legally protected class. That means that your personal activities will be scrutinized as far as they apply to your work activities.
So if there is a law saying companies CANNOT consider your personal activities, then you have to worry about companies considering your personal activities. But if there is no such law (so companies are free to do this at will), then you are safe and don't have to worry about companies doing this?!?!?!?!
I'll assume you are actually a pretty smart person, but you were just "out screwing around all night" so you aren't really thinking clearly;-)
Pretty sad logic dude;-) So you'd like to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws since they don't work 100% of the time? How 'bout the 4th amendment (or any amendment or law for that matter)? Its not like a police officer couldn't fabricate enough evidence to get a judge to sign a search warant, so why even bother with laws meant to avoid this?
The point is to at least attempt to make such in-justices more difficult and if they do occur at least have some means try to correct it. I guess we could just realize law won't be 100% successful and not even bother. Is that what you are advocating?
And it's just as likely for a well-behaved Christian to get fired if their liberal, bigoted boss finds out what they've been doing on their own time. What's your point?
The point is the above is already illegal while firing someone for begin gay is not (my assumption based on the legislation). The point of the legislation is to extend anti-discrimination laws to also protect gays. Currently descrimination based on sex, race, religion, is already illegal. They are tring to add sexual orientation to the list of things you cannot legally discriminate for.
I guess I support this legislation as you shouldn't be able to discriminate for this, but what is up with having a list of things you cannot discriminate against? Doesn't having such a list of things basically imply it is legal to discriminate as long as the thing you want to discriminate against isn't on the list?
I guess without this list some jack-ass lawyers could bring lawsuits against a company who fires someone for stealing from the company as that would be discriminating against thieves. However, if we are supposed to be such a free and open society (and as much as we like to say such things we really aren't compared with other places) wouldn't it make more sense to create a list of things you can discriminate against and anything that isn't on that list is illegal. If there are things which can be used as a basis for discrimination legally at least the politicians should have to list them and answer for that instead of just listing a few things which the majority agree with as illegal.
"Sarcasam"
Off topic but I'd also like to congratulate all fellow catholics on the choice of the new pope. Comforting to know the in-fallible direct link to god says its a sin to use condoms even in Africa for the purpose of preventing the spread of AIDS.
"End Sarcasam"
Whenever I hear idiots like our new pope say such things (or say being gay is a sin), I just roll my eyes and smile. I've long ago given up the idea of almost any major religion having anything to do with spiritualality. Its just a group of bigots trying to spread thier views. OK, a bit harsh and probably a bit out of line, but for all the good things most mainstream religions have as core beliefs its seems almost all of them have been corrupted by thier leaders over time. If you really want to be "religious" take the time to actually study all major religious texts (bible, koran, tora, etc) and come to your own decisions. Believing any one human is infallible and speaks for any god is a recipe for disaster and has been proven so throughout history.
I was considering what tech to go with until I saw Donald Rumsfeld was supporting CDMA over GSM (article
Since then it was an easy decision to go with GSM. I assumed he was relying on the same intelegence when making this statement as Powell when making his presentation to the UN. So I figure its a pretty safe bet to go against anything that ASS says.
Bit of a joke BTW as I know CDMA does have advantages (like increased bandwith possiblities at least in theory) but I still prefer increased inter-operability.
One thing I've always wondered about with/. and The Register./. seems to be pretty anti-patent and anti-copyright community (mostly). However, there are always lots of articles from The Register posted here.
Have you ever noticed at the end of every article on The Register they have "®"? What does this mean?
When is it proper to use the federal registration symbol (the letter R enclosed within a circle -- ® -- with the mark.
The federal registration symbol may be used once the mark is actually registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Even though an application is pending, the registration symbol may not be used before the mark has actually become registered. The federal registration symbol should only be used on goods or services that are the subject of the federal trademark registration. [Note: Several foreign countries use the letter R enclosed within a circle to indicate that a mark is registered in that country. Use of the symbol by the holder of a foreign registration may be proper.]
Is trademark law all that different in the UK where you can mark every article as trademarked as soon as you write it? No need for registration (hense the term registered trademark) before using it?
Or am I just being daft? Really I don't understand this use so if anyone does understand why this is done I'd be interested.
I've read the article and all, but I also try to apply basic critical thinking skills. Do you really expect the admins they survey to admit the reason is they are lazy? This would be like surveying microsoft employees asking "Is Microsoft anti-competitive?". Of course they'll say no, but I don't think that should be be accepted as fact.
The survey the article discusses says nothing about why, but apparently THG contacted "some admins in the trenches" who apparently gave some reasons. Of course they don't bother giving numbers of "admins in the trenches" they contacted or any relavent info.
I admin about 500 PCs, and we had NO problems. Granted almost all of the PCs have "standardized" hardware. No, not all PCs and periphials are identical but ALMOST all are from a single vendor (DELL) and have VERY similar hardware. We also have about a dozen standard software builds (with of course a number of one-off builds). We use a decent mix of MS apps, 3-rd party apps, and in-house apps.
The biggest issue we had was help-desk calls about pop-ups or ActiveX controls being blocked by default in IE. Preping for the rollout wasn't a very big task. Took under a week to fully test on standard builds.
I like/. and all, but the whole issue of SP2 seems to have a TON of FUD surrounding it on/. Now I'm not suggesting there are no issues with SP2 and I'm sure some people have had issues, but I really wonder about some of the/. posters. I have friends who had "issues" with SP2, but nothing like I've read here. The worst case I personally know of is a company who had 3 apps "broken" by SP2 but were all relativly easily "fixed" with small tweaks to SP2's defaults. These were caught during testing and roll-out went smoothly.
Maybe I (and the admins I know) were just "lucky", but based on my experience I have a really hard time accepting the crap I've read about SP2 on/. (which isn't all that unusual I guess).;-)
Exactly true, but this is why MS policy is good. The grand-parent post made zero sense to me and I also wondered how it got moded up.
The points you make above is exactly why the montly release cycle is good. If they just tossed these out one at a time as they were done you'd have to do all your testing 8 times (in this months case). By grouping them into monthly updates you've cut your work by 1/8th. This is a VERY good thing. MS used to release these updates very willy-nilly but customers complained for the above reasons.
Now if MS has a patch for a known issue then they still will release it as soon as it is ready (not always part of monthly cycle), but as is normally the case these issues aren't known publicly so they release them in an orderly fasion to make everyones life easier.
I'm not sure if you are trying to agree with the stupid grand-parent post, but if so your logic for agreeing is excatly why the post is stupid!
|sarcasm| Dude, I completly agree!!! The first time I saw this windowy thingy pop up saying I had updates and asking if I wanted to apply them it took me over three hours to apply them. I kept clicking on the button but nothing was happening. After a couple hours of reading manuals and doing research on the web the stupid thing just wouldn't work!!! Finally I had to call MS support and they explained I had to click using the "left" mouse button. HOW THE HELL DID THEY EXPECT ME TO KNOW THAT!!!! Since then though its been pretty easy. |/sarcasm|
Seriously, people used to bitch about having updates happening throughout the month. They didn't like not being able to plan their patching at all. So MS listend to thier customers and have tried to make this a once-a-month process. This works fine since the majority of the issues (at least for the last year) have been found in-house and no public knowledge of them existed. |sarcasm| Still don't know how in the hell they find this in-house. Since its not open-source with thousands of eyes looking through this how could they possbily find this issues in-house? |/sarcasm|
Now if there is a publicly announced issue, MS will fix that and release it ASAP (not always part of montly cycle). This mix of trying to follow a monthly cycle, but releasing publicly announed issues ASAP has sure made my life easier (and more predictable). Some nuts will always find something to complain about and you are free to hold that opionion, but I'm guessing you aren't an admin for a MS environment.
I agree it can be hard to describe, but if you just replace "communism" with "socialism" I think you make more progress.
Then have them look up what socialism is. Many of the core concepts are the same as communism, but without the negitive preceptions people have of "red" (you know world domination, Stalin killing thousands of opponents, etc);-)
You are correct, but the original article says for this survey they considered all companies with under 1 billion in revenue as "mid-sized" companies (so that would include small business).
I actually tried to post this about a week ago with a link to the actual study but was rejected:-( I guess I should have waited until there was an editorial summarizing the study then linked to that and write a summary which mis-states what the study says. Maybe then my post would have been accepted;-)
FYI. $250 million is not the lower boundry. The article explains the study includes companies from $0 to $1 billion. The article states then says many of those were from $250 - $500 million, but the posters statement that they surveyed 1,400 companies with revenue between $250 - $500 million is not correct.
They surveyed around 1,400 companies with revenue under $1 billion (but many of those happen to fall in the above stated range).
To begin, no I didn't attend any of the places mentioned in this article so I'm not biased.
Now the host placing first may seem a bit suspicious, but the other universities in the top four certainly lend some credibility to it.
I've worked with a number of russion developers which have come from those universities and they were quite brilliant. It seems they actually teach math and physics there, what a concept!;-)
I personally rate the University of Waterloo (in Canada) the top computer science university in North America. Yes high profile places like MIT have some brilliant people, but I've found the University of Waterloo has the most consistant quality of graduates. If you look at the accomplishments of Waterloo grads it pretty impressive. Research In Motion (Blackberries) are probably the most well known company founded by UofW grads, but there are lots of others which are also very impressive. Thier policy on requiring LOTS of real world experience for the degree and work/research opportunities in there technology park also gives lots of great experiance.
I've found UofW grads aren't those "fresh out of college" types who have some book knowledge, but not much practical experience. They tend to walk out after graduating ready to REALLY contribute instead of needing a lot of "mentoring" which most fresh grads need (I know I did).
Not too many years actually. Here is a study from 2002 where she certainly isn't shilling. Compare the current feelings to those in the below 2002 article. MS has been doing a much better job (gotta give it to them), and some of the bad feelings may be subsiding. Don't shoot the messanger, lets just respond to this with better products instead of whining "they are out to get us".
Here is the main article: Microsoft Corp.'s Windows desktop operating systems are and will remain the dominant client desktop standard for the foreseeable future, but don't count Linux and Apple's Mac OS/X out. That is the conclusion of a newly released Yankee Group Report, "The Desktop OS: Are There Real Alternatives to Microsoft?," which finds that interest in alternatives to Microsoft's client operating system is at the highest level in over a decade.
Apple's Macintosh has found a comfortable and committed niche among enterprise customers with sophisticated graphics and production departments. Linux, meanwhile, has gained a groundswell of support in the last three to four years due to its appeal as the "un-Windows" solution, according to Yankee Group senior analyst and Report author Laura DiDio.
"Corporate user resentment and dissatisfaction with Microsoft and some of its practices are at an all-time high," DiDio said. A myriad of issues ranging from Microsoft's perceived monopolistic practices, hyperbolic marketing, ongoing security woes, and habitually slipping ship dates of major new product releases as well as confusion surrounding the overall.NET strategy have undermined corporate customer confidence. A recent joint survey of 1,500 corporations by Sunbelt Software, Inc. and the Yankee Group found that nearly 40% of the respondents were so outraged by Microsoft's new licensing scheme that they are actively seeking alternative products.
"This cumulative dissatisfaction will not necessarily translate into corporate defections to rival operating systems. But it does open the door a crack and raises the possibility that Linux and Macintosh OS X can gain new footholds in an overwhelmingly Windows world," DiDio said.
I don't see how this survey can be considered FUD. They aren't saying anything either is better or worse than the other. They simply relay feelings of their respondants.
The whole point of this of course isn't to compare the platforms or make a suggestion on which is better, it just conveys the feelings of their respondants.
Should this be used as a basis for a decision for what to use? Of course not!!! Is this an interesting insight into the current thinking of corporate IT departments? Yes.
It isn't FUD and isn't pointless, but if you take any of this as FACT, thats your mistake. This is simply an interesting look at current thinking. If this thinking is correct or not isn't the point. Its like saying a poll finding 80% of people are against the war in Iraq is FUD. That poll wouldn't wouldn't mean we should or shouldn't be there (as the respondants may not really be qualified to know), it would just give an interesting view of what people are thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Many of these were previously stated, but I'll redo them with references for those who want to look them up.
I also derive many of my views from the bible (and many other texts), but it pains me to no end when people use these to rationalize thier bigotry driven views. As a rule, I entirly discount the old testiment.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Much of my wife's family lives in Canada. Can I buy them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She 8 years old, very bright, and a hard worker, what would be a good price? Can I do this on ebay?
3. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put death, should I do it or should I ask the police to do it?
4. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
5. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20 or is there a little wiggle room there?
6. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27.
7. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
8. My family has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does my mother by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
I think the bible does teach some great lessons (and some horrible ones) but you get my point that is shouldn't be taken literally.
Actually, I think some people will disagree with you there. Not that I could prove their side, but it makes your argument have little point, doesn't it?
Not at all, that basically is my point. Its about "faith" not any science since it is not verifiable/testable/etc. Sure some people believe they find god in church. There are also tons of kids who swear they seen Santa in the sky or coming down a chimney. My point isn't that people don't believe it, its that there isn't really any difference between belief in god or belief in Santa. But for some reason adults think believing in Santa is silly, but belief in god is the core of their existance. I don't get it.
Obviously you don't like the word "evolution" so I'll just call it "changing" to hopefully help your comfort level. You don't even need to consider probabilities, we ARE "changing". Lets just look at a VERY simple sample.
Around 4 million years ago average humaniod height was around 4 feet tall (fosil records), about 2 million years ago we we averaged about 5 feet tall. Today (at least in North America) men average close to 6 feet tall.
Call it what you will but we are "changing". I'm sure you probably don't have "faith" in fossils or maybe think god just grabs us and streches us every so often so this surely won't change your mind, but we ARE "changing".
One question I've always had about this view. Was the garden of Eden before or after the dinosaurs?
Gotta start using preview ;-)
Santa Claus is claimed to live at the North Pole and common lore dispells his existence as nothing more than a story. We can go to the North Pole and we won't find him, we can observe out chimneys and we won't see him.
God is claimed to be all around us and a large segment of current thought dispells his existence as nothing more than a story. We can go to a church and we won't find him, we can observe into the heavens and we won't see him.
OK now that the post looks better I ask again, what is the difference in these two?
God is claimed to be all around us and a large segment of current thought dispells his existence as nothing more than a story. We can go to a church and we won't find him, we can observe into the heavens and we won't see him.
What is the diffence between these two?
To give a more realistic comparison based on performance (which is not = to GHz!) and in the same family of chips:
2x Opteron 152 (@2.6GHz) => $1274 1x Opteron 175 (@2.2GHz, dual core) => $999
Or to look at the 200 series
2x Opteron 252 (@2.6GHz) => $1702 1x Opteron 275 (@2.2GHz, dual core) => $1299
And finally the 800 series
2x Opteron 852 (@2.6GHz) => $3028 1x Opteron 875 (@2.2GHz, dual core) => $2649
My choice of these models was based on the fact I've previously read reviews stating you needed to 2.6GHz chips in a system with dual CPUs to get comparable performance to a 2.2GHz single dual-core CPU (effiecicies of dual-core). This also doesn't take into account other advantages to dual core like the lessened power requirements, less heat, and ability to fit existing MOBOs when making comparisons between daul-core and dual-cpu.
There are probably more definitions for this but at least when I think of the meaning of "charisma", I think "personal magnetisim or charm".
;-)
I think that would be bit like saying the Emperor wanted Darth Vadar because of his charisma
"Exuse" yeah, that was pretty sad as I was explaining my spelling ;-)
;-) Sometimes /. leads you to make quick statements of your opinion without fully explaining them which lead me to reply to your inital post.
;-)
And you are correct. I really don't mean to say that slavery is equal to the current treatment of gays. I guess what I'm trying to say that the treatment of gays is our generations most obvious example of those same ideas (we are better than you, etc). I certainly don't mean to equate the current treatment of gays with the treatment of blacks during slavery, jews during the hologost, native americans during the expansion westward, or those who believed the earth circled the sun during the dark ages. The fact that these aren't the same I guess gives me some hope (and thus the statement that we have made progrsss during the last few hundred years), however I do think there can be parallels drawn. At least in the fact that this is primarily driven by those who believe "my way" is better then "thier way".
And also recently I have had much the same experience with gay rights. I've removed myself from situations where I would have to deal with physical violence on such people (though it does still happen all to often). But even though I don't see people being beaten, I still don't think that is good enough. Until I see 100% equality I won't be satisfied (I'd say MAYBE we are at 85% now).
Also, I don't mean to make this entirely a gay issue. Even today I would not have been able to marry my wife in my (previous) catholic church since she isn't catholic. The core issues of discrimiation and "my way is better than yours" runs much deeper.
While civil unions would be a big step forward (allowing many rights married couples enjoy today), I think either gay couples should be able to marry or marriage should completly removed from public domain (meaning its not a state sponsored institution). If a certain faith thinks this is wrong that is fine and such couples can avoid this. However, for your country says you cannot enjoy equal status I have a problem with that.
From your last few posts (which were very good and I do understand what you are saying), I think we would get along just fine
I also derive many of my views from the bible (and many other texts), but it pains me to no end when people use these to rationalize thier bigotry driven views. As a rule, I entirly discount the old testiment.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Much of my wife's family lives in Canada. Can I buy them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.
3. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put death, should I do it or should I ask the police to do it?
4. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
5. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20 or is there a little wiggle room there?
6. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27.
7. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
8. My family has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does my mother by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
I think the bible does teach some great lessons but you get my point that is shouldn't be taken literally.
I'm afraid this has come across as way too preachy, but I really do respect what you are saying and do for the most part agree with them (except the main idea that this law isn't a good idea). I gotta get to bed, but perhaps this will continue
Nope you aren't rambling ;-) This post makes sense and I completely agree. The proposed law certainly won't completly fix the problem. Heck it may not even help a majority of the people since even if this is passed into law and someone blatantly violates it depending on the location it could be a crap shoot at best that a jury would find them guilty.
;-) and probably a majority of my friends are gay.
I think a lot of similarities exist between the current status of gays and the status of blacks around a centry ago. At there respective points in time, both groups were almost viewed as sub-human by society and this is/was unconcinable in both cases. This is why I think this proposed law is a good thing. Will it "solve" the problem? No. Will it help with the problem? Hopefully. To me the short-term effect of the law isn't really an issue. Giving blacks the right to vote in many places didn't accomplish much in the short-term. Many bigots were still able to find ways to limit this. However, I still think it was a good idea. Over the long-term it certainly had an effect.
I'm a huge believer in "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and I think this is really lacking. Its easy to think this is an issue with our society, but unfortuanatly it is more a fact of being human and you can very easily see it thoughout history. My favorite "deadly sin" has to be pride. Sadly there is something in us as humans which makes us want to believe we are "special". We all want to think our group is somehow better, superior, more rightous, or whatever then other groups. That my friend is exactly the pride this sin refers to and as such I think our world still has a LONG way to go in this respect (we have improved much over the past few hundred years, but still have a long way to go). Its sad that our leaders (political and religious) still peddle this type of pride as a way to hold onto thier power. It is exactly this sin which causes the need for this type of anti-descrimination laws. I think these laws are fairly flawed and can be abused by both sides, but until we as a people can stop thinking in terms of "us" and "them" its the best we can do. To not have these just legitimises the view of these people being sub-human in some way. I hate these laws! It sickens me that they are nessecary, but sadly they are. While its good if these laws help the problem, to me I don't even see that as the primary issue. These people are so "abused" in sooo many ways and have to live with a government and society that for the most part says they are evil and sub-human that any little such law (successful or not) to help them feel that they aren't completely powerless against the hatred they deal with everyday is completly nessecary.
A bit about me which may help explain my passion for this topic. I grew up in a small town in Iowa to a VERY good Catholic family (12 years of Catholic school and everything). I was a HUGE bigot! When I'd heard about some "fag" being beaten to hell for "coming on" to some straight guy, I completely thought that was OK and would do the same. Shortly after college, I went to work abroad (still do). I've traveled and lot and lived in many different socieities. It didn't take long to realize all the stereotypes I'd been "taught" were completly insane. I grew up thinking of the Russians as evil and wanted to kill us all. Now I know better and it was just my governments propoganda throwing this idea around. All of us are sooooooo similar it sickens me to think how easily we are turned against each other. My family are great people (even though we certainly have our disagreements on some topics), but they just don't have the experience to have informed judgements. I've since married a Chinese (woman by the way
There is evil in the world, but it isn't those of different cultures, sexual orientations, races, etc. It is those who try to tell you one is good and one is bad. We are all the same on so many levels, its ju
What the heck are you talking about? ;-)
;-)
If you want to pass legislation that says that companies can't discriminate based on sexual orientation then you'd better be prepared to have the same set of rules applied to you that are applied to everyone else who falls into a legally protected class. That means that your personal activities will be scrutinized as far as they apply to your work activities.
So if there is a law saying companies CANNOT consider your personal activities, then you have to worry about companies considering your personal activities. But if there is no such law (so companies are free to do this at will), then you are safe and don't have to worry about companies doing this?!?!?!?!
I'll assume you are actually a pretty smart person, but you were just "out screwing around all night" so you aren't really thinking clearly
Pretty sad logic dude ;-) So you'd like to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws since they don't work 100% of the time? How 'bout the 4th amendment (or any amendment or law for that matter)? Its not like a police officer couldn't fabricate enough evidence to get a judge to sign a search warant, so why even bother with laws meant to avoid this?
The point is to at least attempt to make such in-justices more difficult and if they do occur at least have some means try to correct it. I guess we could just realize law won't be 100% successful and not even bother. Is that what you are advocating?
And it's just as likely for a well-behaved Christian to get fired if their liberal, bigoted boss finds out what they've been doing on their own time. What's your point?
The point is the above is already illegal while firing someone for begin gay is not (my assumption based on the legislation). The point of the legislation is to extend anti-discrimination laws to also protect gays. Currently descrimination based on sex, race, religion, is already illegal. They are tring to add sexual orientation to the list of things you cannot legally discriminate for.
I guess I support this legislation as you shouldn't be able to discriminate for this, but what is up with having a list of things you cannot discriminate against? Doesn't having such a list of things basically imply it is legal to discriminate as long as the thing you want to discriminate against isn't on the list?
I guess without this list some jack-ass lawyers could bring lawsuits against a company who fires someone for stealing from the company as that would be discriminating against thieves. However, if we are supposed to be such a free and open society (and as much as we like to say such things we really aren't compared with other places) wouldn't it make more sense to create a list of things you can discriminate against and anything that isn't on that list is illegal. If there are things which can be used as a basis for discrimination legally at least the politicians should have to list them and answer for that instead of just listing a few things which the majority agree with as illegal.
"Sarcasam"
Off topic but I'd also like to congratulate all fellow catholics on the choice of the new pope. Comforting to know the in-fallible direct link to god says its a sin to use condoms even in Africa for the purpose of preventing the spread of AIDS.
"End Sarcasam"
Whenever I hear idiots like our new pope say such things (or say being gay is a sin), I just roll my eyes and smile. I've long ago given up the idea of almost any major religion having anything to do with spiritualality. Its just a group of bigots trying to spread thier views. OK, a bit harsh and probably a bit out of line, but for all the good things most mainstream religions have as core beliefs its seems almost all of them have been corrupted by thier leaders over time. If you really want to be "religious" take the time to actually study all major religious texts (bible, koran, tora, etc) and come to your own decisions. Believing any one human is infallible and speaks for any god is a recipe for disaster and has been proven so throughout history.
I was considering what tech to go with until I saw Donald Rumsfeld was supporting CDMA over GSM (article
Since then it was an easy decision to go with GSM. I assumed he was relying on the same intelegence when making this statement as Powell when making his presentation to the UN. So I figure its a pretty safe bet to go against anything that ASS says.
Bit of a joke BTW as I know CDMA does have advantages (like increased bandwith possiblities at least in theory) but I still prefer increased inter-operability.
One thing I've always wondered about with /. and The Register. /. seems to be pretty anti-patent and anti-copyright community (mostly). However, there are always lots of articles from The Register posted here.
Have you ever noticed at the end of every article on The Register they have "®"? What does this mean?
When is it proper to use the federal registration symbol (the letter R enclosed within a circle -- ® -- with the mark.
The federal registration symbol may be used once the mark is actually registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Even though an application is pending, the registration symbol may not be used before the mark has actually become registered. The federal registration symbol should only be used on goods or services that are the subject of the federal trademark registration. [Note: Several foreign countries use the letter R enclosed within a circle to indicate that a mark is registered in that country. Use of the symbol by the holder of a foreign registration may be proper.]
Is trademark law all that different in the UK where you can mark every article as trademarked as soon as you write it? No need for registration (hense the term registered trademark) before using it?
Or am I just being daft? Really I don't understand this use so if anyone does understand why this is done I'd be interested.
I've read the article and all, but I also try to apply basic critical thinking skills. Do you really expect the admins they survey to admit the reason is they are lazy? This would be like surveying microsoft employees asking "Is Microsoft anti-competitive?". Of course they'll say no, but I don't think that should be be accepted as fact.
/. and all, but the whole issue of SP2 seems to have a TON of FUD surrounding it on /. Now I'm not suggesting there are no issues with SP2 and I'm sure some people have had issues, but I really wonder about some of the /. posters. I have friends who had "issues" with SP2, but nothing like I've read here. The worst case I personally know of is a company who had 3 apps "broken" by SP2 but were all relativly easily "fixed" with small tweaks to SP2's defaults. These were caught during testing and roll-out went smoothly.
/. (which isn't all that unusual I guess). ;-)
The survey the article discusses says nothing about why, but apparently THG contacted "some admins in the trenches" who apparently gave some reasons. Of course they don't bother giving numbers of "admins in the trenches" they contacted or any relavent info.
I admin about 500 PCs, and we had NO problems. Granted almost all of the PCs have "standardized" hardware. No, not all PCs and periphials are identical but ALMOST all are from a single vendor (DELL) and have VERY similar hardware. We also have about a dozen standard software builds (with of course a number of one-off builds). We use a decent mix of MS apps, 3-rd party apps, and in-house apps.
The biggest issue we had was help-desk calls about pop-ups or ActiveX controls being blocked by default in IE. Preping for the rollout wasn't a very big task. Took under a week to fully test on standard builds.
I like
Maybe I (and the admins I know) were just "lucky", but based on my experience I have a really hard time accepting the crap I've read about SP2 on
Exactly true, but this is why MS policy is good. The grand-parent post made zero sense to me and I also wondered how it got moded up.
The points you make above is exactly why the montly release cycle is good. If they just tossed these out one at a time as they were done you'd have to do all your testing 8 times (in this months case). By grouping them into monthly updates you've cut your work by 1/8th. This is a VERY good thing. MS used to release these updates very willy-nilly but customers complained for the above reasons.
Now if MS has a patch for a known issue then they still will release it as soon as it is ready (not always part of monthly cycle), but as is normally the case these issues aren't known publicly so they release them in an orderly fasion to make everyones life easier.
I'm not sure if you are trying to agree with the stupid grand-parent post, but if so your logic for agreeing is excatly why the post is stupid!
|sarcasm|
Dude, I completly agree!!! The first time I saw this windowy thingy pop up saying I had updates and asking if I wanted to apply them it took me over three hours to apply them. I kept clicking on the button but nothing was happening. After a couple hours of reading manuals and doing research on the web the stupid thing just wouldn't work!!! Finally I had to call MS support and they explained I had to click using the "left" mouse button. HOW THE HELL DID THEY EXPECT ME TO KNOW THAT!!!! Since then though its been pretty easy.
|/sarcasm|
Seriously, people used to bitch about having updates happening throughout the month. They didn't like not being able to plan their patching at all. So MS listend to thier customers and have tried to make this a once-a-month process. This works fine since the majority of the issues (at least for the last year) have been found in-house and no public knowledge of them existed. |sarcasm| Still don't know how in the hell they find this in-house. Since its not open-source with thousands of eyes looking through this how could they possbily find this issues in-house? |/sarcasm|
Now if there is a publicly announced issue, MS will fix that and release it ASAP (not always part of montly cycle). This mix of trying to follow a monthly cycle, but releasing publicly announed issues ASAP has sure made my life easier (and more predictable). Some nuts will always find something to complain about and you are free to hold that opionion, but I'm guessing you aren't an admin for a MS environment.
If only I could eat "enhanced application".
;-)
Until computer programs become editable (or a form of currency), I still need some cash to buy food
I agree it can be hard to describe, but if you just replace "communism" with "socialism" I think you make more progress. Then have them look up what socialism is. Many of the core concepts are the same as communism, but without the negitive preceptions people have of "red" (you know world domination, Stalin killing thousands of opponents, etc) ;-)
You are correct, but the original article says for this survey they considered all companies with under 1 billion in revenue as "mid-sized" companies (so that would include small business).
:-( I guess I should have waited until there was an editorial summarizing the study then linked to that and write a summary which mis-states what the study says. Maybe then my post would have been accepted ;-)
I actually tried to post this about a week ago with a link to the actual study but was rejected
FYI. $250 million is not the lower boundry. The article explains the study includes companies from $0 to $1 billion. The article states then says many of those were from $250 - $500 million, but the posters statement that they surveyed 1,400 companies with revenue between $250 - $500 million is not correct.
They surveyed around 1,400 companies with revenue under $1 billion (but many of those happen to fall in the above stated range).
To begin, no I didn't attend any of the places mentioned in this article so I'm not biased.
;-)
Now the host placing first may seem a bit suspicious, but the other universities in the top four certainly lend some credibility to it.
I've worked with a number of russion developers which have come from those universities and they were quite brilliant. It seems they actually teach math and physics there, what a concept!
I personally rate the University of Waterloo (in Canada) the top computer science university in North America. Yes high profile places like MIT have some brilliant people, but I've found the University of Waterloo has the most consistant quality of graduates. If you look at the accomplishments of Waterloo grads it pretty impressive. Research In Motion (Blackberries) are probably the most well known company founded by UofW grads, but there are lots of others which are also very impressive. Thier policy on requiring LOTS of real world experience for the degree and work/research opportunities in there technology park also gives lots of great experiance.
I've found UofW grads aren't those "fresh out of college" types who have some book knowledge, but not much practical experience. They tend to walk out after graduating ready to REALLY contribute instead of needing a lot of "mentoring" which most fresh grads need (I know I did).
Not too many years actually. Here is a study from 2002 where she certainly isn't shilling. Compare the current feelings to those in the below 2002 article. MS has been doing a much better job (gotta give it to them), and some of the bad feelings may be subsiding. Don't shoot the messanger, lets just respond to this with better products instead of whining "they are out to get us".
.NET strategy have undermined corporate customer confidence. A recent joint survey of 1,500 corporations by Sunbelt Software, Inc. and the Yankee Group found that nearly 40% of the respondents were so outraged by Microsoft's new licensing scheme that they are actively seeking alternative products.
link to report
Here is the main article:
Microsoft Corp.'s Windows desktop operating systems are and will remain the dominant client desktop standard for the foreseeable future, but don't count Linux and Apple's Mac OS/X out. That is the conclusion of a newly released Yankee Group Report, "The Desktop OS: Are There Real Alternatives to Microsoft?," which finds that interest in alternatives to Microsoft's client operating system is at the highest level in over a decade.
Apple's Macintosh has found a comfortable and committed niche among enterprise customers with sophisticated graphics and production departments. Linux, meanwhile, has gained a groundswell of support in the last three to four years due to its appeal as the "un-Windows" solution, according to Yankee Group senior analyst and Report author Laura DiDio.
"Corporate user resentment and dissatisfaction with Microsoft and some of its practices are at an all-time high," DiDio said. A myriad of issues ranging from Microsoft's perceived monopolistic practices, hyperbolic marketing, ongoing security woes, and habitually slipping ship dates of major new product releases as well as confusion surrounding the overall
"This cumulative dissatisfaction will not necessarily translate into corporate defections to rival operating systems. But it does open the door a crack and raises the possibility that Linux and Macintosh OS X can gain new footholds in an overwhelmingly Windows world," DiDio said.
I don't see how this survey can be considered FUD. They aren't saying anything either is better or worse than the other. They simply relay feelings of their respondants.
The whole point of this of course isn't to compare the platforms or make a suggestion on which is better, it just conveys the feelings of their respondants.
Should this be used as a basis for a decision for what to use? Of course not!!! Is this an interesting insight into the current thinking of corporate IT departments? Yes.
It isn't FUD and isn't pointless, but if you take any of this as FACT, thats your mistake. This is simply an interesting look at current thinking. If this thinking is correct or not isn't the point. Its like saying a poll finding 80% of people are against the war in Iraq is FUD. That poll wouldn't wouldn't mean we should or shouldn't be there (as the respondants may not really be qualified to know), it would just give an interesting view of what people are thinking.
Read this article as such.