You're probably not really afraid of the metal tube, altitude, speed, or fuel. As you noted, those are "reasonable" (i.e., based on reasons) arguments - but as you also noted they're not really true so there's something more emotional going on. You're probably afraid of the loss of control coupled with the "mystery" behind it all - knowing how aerodynamics works at the abstract level is a poor answer to the feeling in your head that it just doesn't seem like it should work, or be safe.
The thing that scares me is the knowledge that if something goes wrong I may have some time to contemplate my impending doom, as compared to an oncoming car crossing into my lane. That, the possibility that if a fire started there isn't a lot of places I can go to avoid it - the smoke goes pretty much everywhere.
Does this mean the DOJ will finally pay attention to Apple and their "fair for everyone, especially the consumers, no this isn't an abuse of power or monopolistic tendencies, hey look over there, there is nothing to see here" policies?
If Apple devices have just outsold Microsoft, then it would imply that there is a somewhat decent balance in the marketplace and the word 'monopoly' is probably misplaced here.
Fair point. But with a finite upper bound for all computation that can be performed before the entropic death of the universe, if you can make these ticks exponentially longer, you will eventually find out.
If the next tick never happens, you will never know. All you can prove is that if the next tick happened, the heat death of the "real" universe hasn't happened yet.
Spoken like someone who was neither a bully nor bullied.
Would you seek advice on the subject of stopping/avoiding a bully from someone who has failed in all their attempts to do so? Seems as smart as seeking financial advice from someone who has lost all their money. The best you'll get is a whole lot of pointers on things not to do.
My only really experience in being bullied at school was a lot of name calling and the occasional "i've got your bag, what are you going to do about it?". I avoided the worst of it often by simply by not giving a response to the namecalling and walking away from anyone who stole my stuff. NK isn't that kind of bully though.
Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.
Pretend they don't even exist.
That's the same stupid advice mothers give to their children about bullies. When has a bully actually given up because you ignored them hard enough?
As I said elsewhere, ignoring a bully is a perfectly good starting point in a schoolyard, and depending on the motivation of the bully it will work[1] and you'll be left alone. The whole point is kind of dumb though because while you might call NK a bully, they aren't a schoolyard bully, this isn't a school yard, their motives are likely somewhat different, and the stakes are somewhat higher.
[1] "work" in terms of that you have won because the bully has moved on to some other poor kid. The schoolyard is not a better place for it though.
Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.
Pretend they don't even exist.
That's bloody stupid. Has ignoring playground bullies ever worked? No, it just invites escalating provocations.
Depends on the motive of the bully. If they are looking for a reaction (eg tears) and they don't get one they will either escalate or move on to an easier target. If they are performing a show of strength to demonstrate their superiority then ignoring them won't be as useful. In the playground, _your_ objective is to not get picked on, which normally means don't be the softest target. This doesn't apply here as the objective is that nobody gets picked on.
If this does escalate and they do turn SK into a "sea of fire" then wiping NK out right now will be the option with the best net result in terms of lower loss of life, based on that this is what will happen anyway if they do make good with their threats. History won't see a pre-emptive strike that way though...
Now how could one of my simulated subjects prove or disprove that they weren't living in my intelligently designed simulated universe, with me as their god, and that the simulation hadn't only started 6 seconds ago? I can't see a way.
Easily. They would only have to start observing so many individual events at once that you'd run of out computing power trying to simulate them all in all their detail.
you don't "run out" of computing power. It's not like such a simulation would be real time or anything, each "tick" would just take a bit longer to simulate.
Of course, I could be wrong—it could really be a terrorist organization
If so, then they've really lost their way. Sure it's easier to cut an undersea cable than to blow up a nightclub or to fly a plane into a building, but where's the terror? Sure it's inconvenient to have slow internet, but they are terrorists not invonvenientists....
It's folk like you that Alexander Pope alluded to when he wrote, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
In brief, you're wrong. But I don't have the time to explain it to you, and you likely lack the intellect to comprehend that you are wrong due to the Dunning-Kruger effect
I'm interested in your proof if you could find the time.
I've run simulations of various things on computers, and it's a huge time saver if you can start the simulation from a known starting point and take other shortcuts.
Suppose I wanted to simulate Earth. Strictly speaking, everything in the universe is related to everything else but I don't have the computing power to simulate an entire universe (in fact the entire computing power of the world isn't yet sufficient to do what i'm talking about here but stay with me). I wouldn't want to do it from the big bang either... much more sensible to start around the time of interest. And there isn't much point simulating an _entire_ universe anyway, I only need to simulate the bits that my simulated subjects can observe, and only in enough detail that the observer can't tell the difference. One optimisation i'd do is simply not bother to calculate things in precise detail when the statistical outcome is sufficient. I don't need to know what every atom (or smaller construct) in the sun is doing when the observable outcome can be simulated much more easily, and the exact slit that an electron went through doesn't actually matter unless one of my subjects is watching it right?
Now how could one of my simulated subjects prove or disprove that they weren't living in my intelligently designed simulated universe, with me as their god, and that the simulation hadn't only started 6 seconds ago? I can't see a way.
Only to those who care. Don't start arguing with an idiot, for you will look like an idiot yourself.
And "never argue with an idiot, for they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".
That's why you should never argue with a scientologist (and some of the more evangelical charismatic christians). They are so afraid of being made to appear foolish that winning arguments is part of their training and they are _very_ good at it. You can only have a logical discussion with someone if they understand and abide by the rules of logic and philosophy.
Maybe they are simply falling prey to Acts of God.
"Control experiments were done in Europe and Germany". In theory that removes the God factor, except maybe USPS is so crappy that only the will of God can get the parcels there on time, and then only the ones he cares about.
Either way I'd be suspicious about the testing methodology. Most athiests are worse than christians about preaching their beliefs at any cost.
Reading problems much? You have not addressed parent's main objection: In order to run any guest under HyperV, you still have to have a host machine running HyperV. Guess how you get that? That's right, by buying Windows.
The last few marketing campaigns have shown how dreadfully bad MS is at marketing and PR; apparently they've been cutting back on their astroturf quality as well, if you are an example.
WTF? You really don't have to buy windows to get Hyper-V. "Windows Hyper-V Server" is a separate product, and is free. It includes Windows Server Core (eg no real GUI), and is designed to be managed by a (non-free) version of windows running somewhere else, but that isn't a requirement.
It's a marketing strategy by Microsoft - the intention is that you would then buy Microsoft OS's to run on top of your free Hyper-V server, so the fact that it really is free is really not of any consequence, but it is still free and I can read just fine.
And yes I'd make a very poor quality MS astroturfer when I'm saying to use Xen in preference to Hyper-V or VMWare... but I guess you missed that part.
Big business craves stability over saving a few hundred bucks per machine. However VMware are coming up with interesting new stuff and more interestingly the more advanced features are flowing down into more basic editions.
Just my 2 cents.
As somebody who has consulted on both you're 1000% correct, more than you think, even. The real structural advantage you get out of VMware over Hyper-V is that Hyper-V is another layer of lock-in--"free" is just to reel you in. The reality is that it isn't "free"--the cost is simply built into the license they've already sold you for Windows Server, however you've bought it. I went about 50 rounds with a guy who swore up and down Hyper-V really was "free!!!" I said "Great, how do you get it?"
"Well, first you buy Windows..."
Clueless--It is incredible the marketing power of "free" and how much money it separates people from everyday. And this doesn't even include what a hyperactive piece of crap Hyper-V is to deal with if you're doing anything other than a completely vanilla implementation...
Anybody pushing Hyper-V has obviously never experienced vSphere Enterprise Plus. Me likey very much, thanks.
FUD much? Windows Hyper-V Server is free, as in the dollar cost to you is zero. If you want to run Windows on top of it then obviously you have to pay for that, but we're not arguing about that. You could just as easily run Linux on top of it and never pay a cent to Microsoft (although there is no good reason to do so - you'd use Xen instead).
The guy you were talking to was obviously clueless in thinking you have to buy Windows first, but he was right about Hyper-V itself being free.
Give me Hyper-V over VMWare any day, but then throw them both out and give me Xen:)
I have seen a Hyper V guest mentally shit itself and cause the host to fail in such a manner that the failed machines didn't restart. So rather than have a restart on another cluster member a guest was able to take out a host. Just wouldn't happen with VMware and it's highly advanced Virtual Machine Manager. VMware also has awesome other features including shared memory paging etc etc.
A few weekends back we had a small 2 server cluster have both nodes fail simultaneously (both failed to post until we removed their network cards). Dell was able to supply one replacement part within 8 hours which got one machine going, but vSphere didn't just automatically restart the servers that are homed on the failed node on the good node (there is plenty of resources to do so). To fix it I would have to delete the failed node from the cluster and manually add the machines. That's not HA by any stretch of the imagination. In the end it was easier to just wait the additional 8 hours for Dell to locate and ship another replacement part (we aren't exactly in the metro area so Dell's time to repair was (i think) within the agreed SLA) to get the other node up again.
We've used similar Hyper-V clusters and they "just work".
As a general rule though, I'd agree that Hyper-V is more prone to troublesome antics than... well anything else really.
Is anyone making network adapters with a built in programmable processor with an open specification these days? This particular protocol may well be compatible with some of the existing checksum offload implementations but GSO and GRO would seem to need something special especially for multiplexing across streams.
No I can't- I have Bluray in my PS3 and it can't record at all. Do you get the point now?
PS3? Isn't that a games console? So you deliberately bought a play-only device and are complaining that it won't record for you? I bet people who bought play-only VCR[1] sets were a bit smarter than that.
[1] VCR is Video Cassette Recorder, I assume the play-only versions might have been called VCP's but if I used that TLA it would probably cause more confusion...
Everyone gets the same computer, monitor, keyboard, mouse, and choice of supported OS so IT has a limited set of hardware/OS combinations to support. You break something, you get your ass to Fry's and buy the replacement on your own dime. You want something new and cool to try? You pay for it out of your own pocket. Need something different for a new project? You get your boss to budget it and work up a PO or buy it from Fry's and expense it on petty cash.
You can save buy not having vending machines and paying IT staff to supply trinkets.
How is that cheaper?
If my keyboard on my work supplied computer breaks then it needs to be replaced. If I have to argue with someone about who's fault it is that it got broken, and therefore who's 'dime' needs to pay for my time to go down to Fry's and buy a replacement then a whole lot of time and money is getting wasted. And thats without factoring in the cost of the thing that broke, which most likely doesn't change the equation in any significant way.
I bet Facebook already did the math and your way isn't cheaper. You'd have to be a large enough company to make this idea scale, but Facebook is that.
That was back when we reached the moon. Does anyone really believe that technology is only catching up to travelling to Mars now? Seriously, who could be that gullible.
And you think the world has been quietly researching life support systems for space travel for the last 60 years in the hope a market will open up before their patents expire?
The brief explicitly says "the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media, and the Court should not make a distinction between the publicâ(TM)s and the mediaâ(TM)s rights to record here".
This is all very strange. Hang on, is it Opposite Day?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that LInux now outsells Window 8
Linux has been outselling Windows 8 for at least 20 years!
You're probably not really afraid of the metal tube, altitude, speed, or fuel. As you noted, those are "reasonable" (i.e., based on reasons) arguments - but as you also noted they're not really true so there's something more emotional going on. You're probably afraid of the loss of control coupled with the "mystery" behind it all - knowing how aerodynamics works at the abstract level is a poor answer to the feeling in your head that it just doesn't seem like it should work, or be safe.
The thing that scares me is the knowledge that if something goes wrong I may have some time to contemplate my impending doom, as compared to an oncoming car crossing into my lane. That, the possibility that if a fire started there isn't a lot of places I can go to avoid it - the smoke goes pretty much everywhere.
But you're right, it's not really a rational fear
I'm with you. Haterbase would be a much cooler name.
Does this mean the DOJ will finally pay attention to Apple and their "fair for everyone, especially the consumers, no this isn't an abuse of power or monopolistic tendencies, hey look over there, there is nothing to see here" policies?
If Apple devices have just outsold Microsoft, then it would imply that there is a somewhat decent balance in the marketplace and the word 'monopoly' is probably misplaced here.
Fair point. But with a finite upper bound for all computation that can be performed before the entropic death of the universe, if you can make these ticks exponentially longer, you will eventually find out.
If the next tick never happens, you will never know. All you can prove is that if the next tick happened, the heat death of the "real" universe hasn't happened yet.
Spoken like someone who was neither a bully nor bullied.
Would you seek advice on the subject of stopping/avoiding a bully from someone who has failed in all their attempts to do so? Seems as smart as seeking financial advice from someone who has lost all their money. The best you'll get is a whole lot of pointers on things not to do.
My only really experience in being bullied at school was a lot of name calling and the occasional "i've got your bag, what are you going to do about it?". I avoided the worst of it often by simply by not giving a response to the namecalling and walking away from anyone who stole my stuff. NK isn't that kind of bully though.
Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.
Pretend they don't even exist.
That's the same stupid advice mothers give to their children about bullies. When has a bully actually given up because you ignored them hard enough?
As I said elsewhere, ignoring a bully is a perfectly good starting point in a schoolyard, and depending on the motivation of the bully it will work[1] and you'll be left alone. The whole point is kind of dumb though because while you might call NK a bully, they aren't a schoolyard bully, this isn't a school yard, their motives are likely somewhat different, and the stakes are somewhat higher.
[1] "work" in terms of that you have won because the bully has moved on to some other poor kid. The schoolyard is not a better place for it though.
Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.
Pretend they don't even exist.
That's bloody stupid. Has ignoring playground bullies ever worked? No, it just invites escalating provocations.
Depends on the motive of the bully. If they are looking for a reaction (eg tears) and they don't get one they will either escalate or move on to an easier target. If they are performing a show of strength to demonstrate their superiority then ignoring them won't be as useful. In the playground, _your_ objective is to not get picked on, which normally means don't be the softest target. This doesn't apply here as the objective is that nobody gets picked on.
If this does escalate and they do turn SK into a "sea of fire" then wiping NK out right now will be the option with the best net result in terms of lower loss of life, based on that this is what will happen anyway if they do make good with their threats. History won't see a pre-emptive strike that way though...
Now how could one of my simulated subjects prove or disprove that they weren't living in my intelligently designed simulated universe, with me as their god, and that the simulation hadn't only started 6 seconds ago? I can't see a way.
Easily. They would only have to start observing so many individual events at once that you'd run of out computing power trying to simulate them all in all their detail.
you don't "run out" of computing power. It's not like such a simulation would be real time or anything, each "tick" would just take a bit longer to simulate.
Of course, I could be wrong—it could really be a terrorist organization
If so, then they've really lost their way. Sure it's easier to cut an undersea cable than to blow up a nightclub or to fly a plane into a building, but where's the terror? Sure it's inconvenient to have slow internet, but they are terrorists not invonvenientists....
It's folk like you that Alexander Pope alluded to when he wrote, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
In brief, you're wrong. But I don't have the time to explain it to you, and you likely lack the intellect to comprehend that you are wrong due to the Dunning-Kruger effect
I'm interested in your proof if you could find the time.
I've run simulations of various things on computers, and it's a huge time saver if you can start the simulation from a known starting point and take other shortcuts.
Suppose I wanted to simulate Earth. Strictly speaking, everything in the universe is related to everything else but I don't have the computing power to simulate an entire universe (in fact the entire computing power of the world isn't yet sufficient to do what i'm talking about here but stay with me). I wouldn't want to do it from the big bang either... much more sensible to start around the time of interest. And there isn't much point simulating an _entire_ universe anyway, I only need to simulate the bits that my simulated subjects can observe, and only in enough detail that the observer can't tell the difference. One optimisation i'd do is simply not bother to calculate things in precise detail when the statistical outcome is sufficient. I don't need to know what every atom (or smaller construct) in the sun is doing when the observable outcome can be simulated much more easily, and the exact slit that an electron went through doesn't actually matter unless one of my subjects is watching it right?
Now how could one of my simulated subjects prove or disprove that they weren't living in my intelligently designed simulated universe, with me as their god, and that the simulation hadn't only started 6 seconds ago? I can't see a way.
Only to those who care. Don't start arguing with an idiot, for you will look like an idiot yourself.
And "never argue with an idiot, for they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".
That's why you should never argue with a scientologist (and some of the more evangelical charismatic christians). They are so afraid of being made to appear foolish that winning arguments is part of their training and they are _very_ good at it. You can only have a logical discussion with someone if they understand and abide by the rules of logic and philosophy.
Maybe they are simply falling prey to Acts of God.
"Control experiments were done in Europe and Germany". In theory that removes the God factor, except maybe USPS is so crappy that only the will of God can get the parcels there on time, and then only the ones he cares about.
Either way I'd be suspicious about the testing methodology. Most athiests are worse than christians about preaching their beliefs at any cost.
Reading problems much? You have not addressed parent's main objection: In order to run any guest under HyperV, you still have to have a host machine running HyperV. Guess how you get that? That's right, by buying Windows.
The last few marketing campaigns have shown how dreadfully bad MS is at marketing and PR; apparently they've been cutting back on their astroturf quality as well, if you are an example.
WTF? You really don't have to buy windows to get Hyper-V. "Windows Hyper-V Server" is a separate product, and is free. It includes Windows Server Core (eg no real GUI), and is designed to be managed by a (non-free) version of windows running somewhere else, but that isn't a requirement.
It's a marketing strategy by Microsoft - the intention is that you would then buy Microsoft OS's to run on top of your free Hyper-V server, so the fact that it really is free is really not of any consequence, but it is still free and I can read just fine.
And yes I'd make a very poor quality MS astroturfer when I'm saying to use Xen in preference to Hyper-V or VMWare... but I guess you missed that part.
Big business craves stability over saving a few hundred bucks per machine. However VMware are coming up with interesting new stuff and more interestingly the more advanced features are flowing down into more basic editions.
Just my 2 cents.
As somebody who has consulted on both you're 1000% correct, more than you think, even. The real structural advantage you get out of VMware over Hyper-V is that Hyper-V is another layer of lock-in--"free" is just to reel you in. The reality is that it isn't "free"--the cost is simply built into the license they've already sold you for Windows Server, however you've bought it. I went about 50 rounds with a guy who swore up and down Hyper-V really was "free!!!" I said "Great, how do you get it?"
"Well, first you buy Windows..."
Clueless--It is incredible the marketing power of "free" and how much money it separates people from everyday. And this doesn't even include what a hyperactive piece of crap Hyper-V is to deal with if you're doing anything other than a completely vanilla implementation...
Anybody pushing Hyper-V has obviously never experienced vSphere Enterprise Plus. Me likey very much, thanks.
FUD much? Windows Hyper-V Server is free, as in the dollar cost to you is zero. If you want to run Windows on top of it then obviously you have to pay for that, but we're not arguing about that. You could just as easily run Linux on top of it and never pay a cent to Microsoft (although there is no good reason to do so - you'd use Xen instead).
:)
The guy you were talking to was obviously clueless in thinking you have to buy Windows first, but he was right about Hyper-V itself being free.
Give me Hyper-V over VMWare any day, but then throw them both out and give me Xen
I have seen a Hyper V guest mentally shit itself and cause the host to fail in such a manner that the failed machines didn't restart. So rather than have a restart on another cluster member a guest was able to take out a host. Just wouldn't happen with VMware and it's highly advanced Virtual Machine Manager. VMware also has awesome other features including shared memory paging etc etc.
A few weekends back we had a small 2 server cluster have both nodes fail simultaneously (both failed to post until we removed their network cards). Dell was able to supply one replacement part within 8 hours which got one machine going, but vSphere didn't just automatically restart the servers that are homed on the failed node on the good node (there is plenty of resources to do so). To fix it I would have to delete the failed node from the cluster and manually add the machines. That's not HA by any stretch of the imagination. In the end it was easier to just wait the additional 8 hours for Dell to locate and ship another replacement part (we aren't exactly in the metro area so Dell's time to repair was (i think) within the agreed SLA) to get the other node up again. We've used similar Hyper-V clusters and they "just work". As a general rule though, I'd agree that Hyper-V is more prone to troublesome antics than... well anything else really.
Is anyone making network adapters with a built in programmable processor with an open specification these days? This particular protocol may well be compatible with some of the existing checksum offload implementations but GSO and GRO would seem to need something special especially for multiplexing across streams.
No I can't- I have Bluray in my PS3 and it can't record at all. Do you get the point now?
PS3? Isn't that a games console? So you deliberately bought a play-only device and are complaining that it won't record for you? I bet people who bought play-only VCR[1] sets were a bit smarter than that.
[1] VCR is Video Cassette Recorder, I assume the play-only versions might have been called VCP's but if I used that TLA it would probably cause more confusion...
My question is twofold - who is arrogant enough to assume that they are interesting enough at all times to warrant 24/7/365 sousveillance
The answer to the first part of your question is anyone with a twitter account...
Swear at the person, then hit "End".
the two aren't mutually exclusive. Swearing at the person before throwing the handset down just added to the satisfaction.
Well you could record a live TV show onto a VHS, you can't do that with a Bluray. Just saying...
Sure you can. You can even get writable discs for your camcorder, if you like tinkering with old technology.
Everyone gets the same computer, monitor, keyboard, mouse, and choice of supported OS so IT has a limited set of hardware/OS combinations to support. You break something, you get your ass to Fry's and buy the replacement on your own dime. You want something new and cool to try? You pay for it out of your own pocket. Need something different for a new project? You get your boss to budget it and work up a PO or buy it from Fry's and expense it on petty cash. You can save buy not having vending machines and paying IT staff to supply trinkets.
How is that cheaper?
If my keyboard on my work supplied computer breaks then it needs to be replaced. If I have to argue with someone about who's fault it is that it got broken, and therefore who's 'dime' needs to pay for my time to go down to Fry's and buy a replacement then a whole lot of time and money is getting wasted. And thats without factoring in the cost of the thing that broke, which most likely doesn't change the equation in any significant way.
I bet Facebook already did the math and your way isn't cheaper. You'd have to be a large enough company to make this idea scale, but Facebook is that.
That was back when we reached the moon. Does anyone really believe that technology is only catching up to travelling to Mars now? Seriously, who could be that gullible.
And you think the world has been quietly researching life support systems for space travel for the last 60 years in the hope a market will open up before their patents expire?
How much money would I have to pay to balance out my blocked ads? TFA doesn't seem to say, but it's kind of all over the place so I just skimmed it.
The brief explicitly says "the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media, and the Court should not make a distinction between the publicâ(TM)s and the mediaâ(TM)s rights to record here".
This is all very strange. Hang on, is it Opposite Day?
It's NOT opposite day.