Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday announced the launch of Internet.org, 'a global partnership with the goal of making internet access available to the next 5 billion people,' including 'those who cannot currently afford it.'
Facebook Update #247: Location: Ethiopia: Still no potable water, hoping that clicking "Like Brita filters" helps soon.
I guess that money I shelled out for an exercise bike to slouch on while I watch Food Network shows was wasted, huh?
Turn your exercise bike to face away from the TV, turn on Fox and Friends and pretend they're chasing you. Those extra pounds will come off in no time.:-)
[ Ahhhhh... Steve Doocy is right behind me.... Must... peddle... faster... ]
Filming the scene may have violated both firefighters' and victims' privacy,...
Since when are a firefighter's (or Police) actions done in the commission of their duties, especially in a public setting, private? Furthermore, since when are the victim's (or anyone's) public setting actions/circumstances private?
I agree with and understand your points, but you originally said "The Germans" and not "The present Germans". Yes a bit pedantic on my part, but I'm sure many/most pre-war Germans - especially pre-WW2 Germans - would not have been able to even imagine the atrocities committed in their name during WW2. (People that ignore history are destined to repeat it - more so for governments that ignore it.)
That said, I understand their desire to move past their own history into a, hopefully, brighter future.
The Germans don't put out flags outside their houses, don't send armies off to strange lands, don't do national anthems or celebrate Germany...
Well... except for those times in 1914–1918 and 1939–1945 when, I think, they pretty much did ALL those things. Sure that was a long time ago, but let's not get them riled up again...
more evidence: suicide survivor Ken Baldwin - 'I instantly realized that everything in my life that I'd thought was unfixable was totally fixable.....except for having just jumped.'
Achieving perspective as to what is really (un)important in life helps (tip: most things are relatively very unimportant). Unfortunately, it often only comes at these point-of-no-return moments, like the moment my wife died in my arms at exactly 3 PM, Friday, January 13, 2006. Make the most of what you learn. If possible, sit down, think ahead and figure it out before it's too late. Just my $.02.
Five star safety rating across the board. Excellent! Now if only it didn't come with a five star price tag
And are you of the opinion that improvements in safety haven't always come in on the high end first and then trickle down?
Airbags. ABS. That 3rd eye brake-light. Tire pressure sensors. Probably even more -- all of these things appeared first in higher-end cars and then made their way down to the rest of the models.
Interestingly, many of those safety innovations were developed by Mercedes:
The article is mainly talking about the Unix versions like HP-UX, Solaris, etc...
The article is mainly blowing smoke out its ass.
I'm not sure how stating the point that, though declining, there still exists a market for hardware running Unix for which Linux and x86 systems may not be adequate is blowing any smoke anywhere. Linux/x86 systems are nice and great for many/most situations, but certainly not *all*.
vSphere supports fault tolerance between hardware platforms with VMware FT. It runs two copies of the VM in lockstep. So yes, you can do complete, zero data loss resiliency in vSphere with two independent, non-fault tolerant servers, so long as there is resiliency in the network and SAN.
Great, so two virtual systems take the place of real one. Not sure that's a bonus... I had 42 Oracle databases running on my HP 9000/T600 with redundant everything, including several redundant F/W LD SCSI channels to an AutoRAID unit and SAN; what's the corresponding dual VMware FT footprint, performance and cost for that?
You can spend your time trying to make one tool work like another or understand the strengths/weakness of each and utilize them each appropriately.
I pretty much agree, but there are either special or certain applications for which Unix - on larger / more expensive hardware - surpass many/most Linux and/or x86 solutions and that's what the article went into. Most of the capability rests with the hardware and the OS modifications to handle them. A LOT of people just don't need that level of reliability and are now turning to Linux (or other x86) solutions as they tend to be smaller and less expensive.
I've worked on just about everything from PC to Cray-2 systems using Linux and almost all versions of Unix (yes, I'm old) and they each have their applications. Many (most?) things can be done on smaller (x86) systems using Linux/BSD, but when you *really* need the big iron, usually nothing else will do. Sure, some of that could be done with a large cluster of smaller systems, but sometimes 100+ small systems is more hassle and expensive and actually less reliable than 1 large one - especially when you factor in the footprint, cooling, electricity, SA costs, etc... I imagine that sometimes it breaks the other way.
I also imagine that many people posting here have never actually worked on a large, expensive computer system - Unix or not... Seriously, some of the systems on which I've worked were bigger than my car - and don't get me started on EMC disk arrays (we had to reinforce the floor *and* lay steel plates just to wheel ours in).
Many installations are realizing that they don't need that all that and less "capable" Linux and/or x86 systems are just fine - for many things.
Are they? Or are they just realizing that a cluster of redundant, possibly virtualized, machines is just as reliable even if each single machine is not? Two linux boxes with 99% uptime each running the same service redundantly is equivalent to one machine with 99.99% uptime but I bet the linux boxes are cheaper.
That all really depends on the requirements and usage. The HP systems I've used are very capable with hardware and software support for redundant and/or fail-over NICs and SCSI etc... as well as a large back plane and LOTS of RAM and CPUs (I once used a Unix system at NASA with 1024 processors.) A cluster of real/virtual systems is not always equivalent. For example, we once had a CPU fail on a T600 and the system simply deconfigured it and rebooted - note: there are / were Unix systems like Tandem Non-Stop on which *any* component could be replaced on-the-fly. Most Linux systems are not as capable in this respect - perhaps we are talking about different types of "reliability."
The upshot (and the point of the article) is that there are more choices and people are taking a harder look at what's actually required. In many cases, smaller, less capable/expensive Linux (or BSD) systems are adequate, but sometimes you really do need something more. It's not a dig against Linux, just that there are different tools for different jobs.
However, some modern Linux distributions are probably much more reliable and professional than the "real" big box Unix systems were in 1990.
True, but, last time I checked, this is 2013.:-) And, while your sentiment may be valid for Linux, it's probably not for the hardware on which many/most Unix systems run.
Linux is a UNIX type of operating system, so UNIX isn't in decline.
The article is mainly talking about the Unix versions like HP-UX, Solaris, etc... and the iron used to run them, focusing on installations that require many 9s of reliability, fault-tolerance / fail-over and up time. Their argument is that those systems are more mature, reliable and capable (and more expensive) than most Linux systems. Many installations are realizing that they don't need that all that and less "capable" Linux and/or x86 systems are just fine - for many things. Personally, I believe in using the right tool for the job, not necessarily the best and/or most expensive tool. The trick is defining the job correctly.
The first few minutes of a RARE outage for me, even a single site, I often assume it might be a hiccup with my connection.
In which case I either let my PC sit for a couple of minutes (or reboot) while I grab a glass of water.
There's swim vests on planes too -- please look up for me a few examples of situations where those have saved lives ?
Reminds me of an old joke about a Lufthansa flight about to "land" in the ocean - told in a heavy German accent, of course. Over the intercom, the pilot says for those passengers that can swim to get on the left side of the plane with their vests on and, after the plans lands, to swim out to the rafts, then says, "and for those passengers that cannot swim... thank you for flying Lufthansa Airlines."
...is the seat belt the passengers are wearing, complete with little red buckle. As if only a lap belt would really protect someone (i) in a collision at 800 MPH and (ii) seated in a reclining position. Adorable.
The only way they'll learn that this system is overzealous, non-working crap is their pocketbooks. Time to sue the hell out of them for downtime losses.
Or sue the ISP for over charging customers for Internet access. Customers are paying for access to the Internet, yet their ISP is only granting access to part of the Internet. I think customers are due a refund...
Just because he is an obnoxious (fit your adjective in here) does not mean he is wrong on this. As to your "More to the point", you are trying to obfusticate the message by vilifying the (insert same adjective here).
I think you mean noun, not adjective.
I'm sure many, many people have thought about inserting something (noun or adjective) somewhere whenever Larry is around...
Slashdot Mirror
How many people have died crashing into a telephone pole? I think more then 10.
No need to bet. First Google search results show a report from NJ state gov't with the number 50-60 deaths per year in that state alone.
Many people just haven't learned that there are better ways to get out of NJ.
Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday announced the launch of Internet.org, 'a global partnership with the goal of making internet access available to the next 5 billion people,' including 'those who cannot currently afford it.'
Facebook Update #247: Location: Ethiopia: Still no potable water, hoping that clicking "Like Brita filters" helps soon.
I guess that money I shelled out for an exercise bike to slouch on while I watch Food Network shows was wasted, huh?
Turn your exercise bike to face away from the TV, turn on Fox and Friends and pretend they're chasing you. Those extra pounds will come off in no time. :-)
[ Ahhhhh... Steve Doocy is right behind me .... Must... peddle... faster... ]
Let's also not forget we have 50 contiguous US states, ...
Um... 48 contiguous US states.
you seem to think it means they invented all of these technologies.
I'm just quoting the list on their website.
Filming the scene may have violated both firefighters' and victims' privacy, ...
Since when are a firefighter's (or Police) actions done in the commission of their duties, especially in a public setting, private? Furthermore, since when are the victim's (or anyone's) public setting actions/circumstances private?
I agree with and understand your points, but you originally said "The Germans" and not "The present Germans". Yes a bit pedantic on my part, but I'm sure many/most pre-war Germans - especially pre-WW2 Germans - would not have been able to even imagine the atrocities committed in their name during WW2. (People that ignore history are destined to repeat it - more so for governments that ignore it.)
That said, I understand their desire to move past their own history into a, hopefully, brighter future.
The Germans don't put out flags outside their houses, don't send armies off to strange lands, don't do national anthems or celebrate Germany ...
Well... except for those times in 1914–1918 and 1939–1945 when, I think, they pretty much did ALL those things. Sure that was a long time ago, but let's not get them riled up again...
more evidence: suicide survivor Ken Baldwin - 'I instantly realized that everything in my life that I'd thought was unfixable was totally fixable.....except for having just jumped.'
Achieving perspective as to what is really (un)important in life helps (tip: most things are relatively very unimportant). Unfortunately, it often only comes at these point-of-no-return moments, like the moment my wife died in my arms at exactly 3 PM, Friday, January 13, 2006. Make the most of what you learn. If possible, sit down, think ahead and figure it out before it's too late. Just my $.02.
And are you of the opinion that improvements in safety haven't always come in on the high end first and then trickle down?
Airbags. ABS. That 3rd eye brake-light. Tire pressure sensors. Probably even more -- all of these things appeared first in higher-end cars and then made their way down to the rest of the models.
Interestingly, many of those safety innovations were developed by Mercedes:
The article is mainly talking about the Unix versions like HP-UX, Solaris, etc...
The article is mainly blowing smoke out its ass.
I'm not sure how stating the point that, though declining, there still exists a market for hardware running Unix for which Linux and x86 systems may not be adequate is blowing any smoke anywhere. Linux/x86 systems are nice and great for many/most situations, but certainly not *all*.
vSphere supports fault tolerance between hardware platforms with VMware FT. It runs two copies of the VM in lockstep. So yes, you can do complete, zero data loss resiliency in vSphere with two independent, non-fault tolerant servers, so long as there is resiliency in the network and SAN.
Great, so two virtual systems take the place of real one. Not sure that's a bonus... I had 42 Oracle databases running on my HP 9000/T600 with redundant everything, including several redundant F/W LD SCSI channels to an AutoRAID unit and SAN; what's the corresponding dual VMware FT footprint, performance and cost for that?
You can spend your time trying to make one tool work like another or understand the strengths/weakness of each and utilize them each appropriately.
I pretty much agree, but there are either special or certain applications for which Unix - on larger / more expensive hardware - surpass many/most Linux and/or x86 solutions and that's what the article went into. Most of the capability rests with the hardware and the OS modifications to handle them. A LOT of people just don't need that level of reliability and are now turning to Linux (or other x86) solutions as they tend to be smaller and less expensive.
I've worked on just about everything from PC to Cray-2 systems using Linux and almost all versions of Unix (yes, I'm old) and they each have their applications. Many (most?) things can be done on smaller (x86) systems using Linux/BSD, but when you *really* need the big iron, usually nothing else will do. Sure, some of that could be done with a large cluster of smaller systems, but sometimes 100+ small systems is more hassle and expensive and actually less reliable than 1 large one - especially when you factor in the footprint, cooling, electricity, SA costs, etc... I imagine that sometimes it breaks the other way.
I also imagine that many people posting here have never actually worked on a large, expensive computer system - Unix or not ... Seriously, some of the systems on which I've worked were bigger than my car - and don't get me started on EMC disk arrays (we had to reinforce the floor *and* lay steel plates just to wheel ours in).
Many installations are realizing that they don't need that all that and less "capable" Linux and/or x86 systems are just fine - for many things.
Are they? Or are they just realizing that a cluster of redundant, possibly virtualized, machines is just as reliable even if each single machine is not? Two linux boxes with 99% uptime each running the same service redundantly is equivalent to one machine with 99.99% uptime but I bet the linux boxes are cheaper.
That all really depends on the requirements and usage. The HP systems I've used are very capable with hardware and software support for redundant and/or fail-over NICs and SCSI etc... as well as a large back plane and LOTS of RAM and CPUs (I once used a Unix system at NASA with 1024 processors.) A cluster of real/virtual systems is not always equivalent. For example, we once had a CPU fail on a T600 and the system simply deconfigured it and rebooted - note: there are / were Unix systems like Tandem Non-Stop on which *any* component could be replaced on-the-fly. Most Linux systems are not as capable in this respect - perhaps we are talking about different types of "reliability."
The upshot (and the point of the article) is that there are more choices and people are taking a harder look at what's actually required. In many cases, smaller, less capable/expensive Linux (or BSD) systems are adequate, but sometimes you really do need something more. It's not a dig against Linux, just that there are different tools for different jobs.
However, some modern Linux distributions are probably much more reliable and professional than the "real" big box Unix systems were in 1990.
True, but, last time I checked, this is 2013. :-) And, while your sentiment may be valid for Linux, it's probably not for the hardware on which many/most Unix systems run.
Linux is a UNIX type of operating system, so UNIX isn't in decline.
The article is mainly talking about the Unix versions like HP-UX, Solaris, etc... and the iron used to run them, focusing on installations that require many 9s of reliability, fault-tolerance / fail-over and up time. Their argument is that those systems are more mature, reliable and capable (and more expensive) than most Linux systems. Many installations are realizing that they don't need that all that and less "capable" Linux and/or x86 systems are just fine - for many things. Personally, I believe in using the right tool for the job, not necessarily the best and/or most expensive tool. The trick is defining the job correctly.
The first few minutes of a RARE outage for me, even a single site, I often assume it might be a hiccup with my connection. In which case I either let my PC sit for a couple of minutes (or reboot) while I grab a glass of water.
Reboot? Seriously?
It wasn't 1AM everywhere in the world.
More specifically, it wasn't 1AM in 96% (23/24 timezones) of the world.
[ Just sayin' that "(not) everywhere" was probably the wrong qualifier ... :-) ]
There's swim vests on planes too -- please look up for me a few examples of situations where those have saved lives ?
Reminds me of an old joke about a Lufthansa flight about to "land" in the ocean - told in a heavy German accent, of course. Over the intercom, the pilot says for those passengers that can swim to get on the left side of the plane with their vests on and, after the plans lands, to swim out to the rafts, then says, "and for those passengers that cannot swim... thank you for flying Lufthansa Airlines."
...is the seat belt the passengers are wearing, complete with little red buckle. As if only a lap belt would really protect someone (i) in a collision at 800 MPH and (ii) seated in a reclining position. Adorable.
However, none of that excuses Friar Laurence who provided the poison and hatched the whole harebrained scheme in the first place.
Obviously, Romeo and Juliet is *really* about a sadistic serial-killer who's MO is getting people to commit suicide.
The only way they'll learn that this system is overzealous, non-working crap is their pocketbooks. Time to sue the hell out of them for downtime losses.
Or sue the ISP for over charging customers for Internet access. Customers are paying for access to the Internet, yet their ISP is only granting access to part of the Internet. I think customers are due a refund...
Just because he is an obnoxious (fit your adjective in here) does not mean he is wrong on this. As to your "More to the point", you are trying to obfusticate the message by vilifying the (insert same adjective here).
I think you mean noun, not adjective.
I'm sure many, many people have thought about inserting something (noun or adjective) somewhere whenever Larry is around...
Either he did or he didn't, there's no in-between. In actuality he lied, and did it intentionally.
Technically, I don't think one can lie unintentionally.
IAB notes that 'If cookies are eliminated, it is clear to us that consumers will get a less relevant and diverse Internet experience.'
Well, someone will get less relevant, but I don't think it will be the consumers...