"the long and short of it is that in 1812 while all of Europe and most of North Africa was firmly under the French boot and Napoleon was sitting pretty in Moscow"
Pardon me? Counting Russia under Napoleon belt is a bit of a (big) stretch. And regarding occidental Europe, you surely forgot about Spain and the strain it meant for Napoleonic army.
"When interviewing a potential Linux admin, I always ask what version and flavour of Linux that they have experience with."
When interviewing a potential Linux admin, I always ask a TECHNICAL QUESTION I know specific for the version and flavour of Linux that they claim they have experience with if I even give a damn about deep specific knowledge (which most of the time I find basically irrelevant). That's what talks about their skill, not their ability to retain some version numbers out of a fast google search.
Heck, for the most part, just asking how many options for 'ls' they know from top of their head will separate the wheat from the chaff.
"as a tech generalist, much of what I do is bleeding-edge. Old knowledge is as irrelevant to me as it would be to a potential employer."
Then I'd bet you are not so much a "tech generalist" as you think. What I learnt about 20 years ago is basically as valuable now as it was then, and I've being building what I know now upon that from then on.
Maybe the fact that I almost don't do Microsoft can help to explain it. I certainly don't value so much what I learnt about DOS 5.2 or Windows 3.11 but what I learnt about vi (and NFS, and DNS, and BSD vs SysV, and X-Window, and proper engineering practices, and...) is still as valid now as it was then -or even more since those basic bricks seem to be too hidden to the new generation so that they don't know their way out of a lot of common and easy problems.
"If the plants were not regulated to death, they would have plenty of money to spend on real safety concerns"
Yes, that's true.
But that doesn't imply -not by a very gross margin, that such money plentiness would be *in fact* spent on real safety concerns instead of, what I would say... CxO bonuses.
"Unless "mailbox" changes meaning when it's combined by the "cloud" buzzword."
It must be.
In my book a "mailbox" has nothing to do with sending emails but with *recieving and storing* them.
It's true that *usually* there's a one to one mapping between mail accounts (auth) and mailboxes (mail address incoming storage) but there's nothing forcing that to be the case.
I for one own a single account on a server with about half a dozen mailboxes for different mail addresses within.
"Just point the fingers at the sysadmins who haven't been keeping up with patches on their production systems"
Sysadmins? They really have usually the power to decide on an upgrade when...
* It's a supported version and the vendor doesn't provide an upgrade? * The app server is used to host a supported program that will break support if you don't stay at the version they say? * It's an in-house app and the developers still are using -and depending on, the unpatched version and don't give a damn? * His manager is a control freak that won't give a damn about the security problem unless it is exploited but will cry as crazy if there's a service halt because of an unforeseen problem about the update?
Usually the sysadmin is a "mere" executioner but it is not up to him to decide what -or when to do.
Yes. Unless we forget the fact it is not, that is.
"it's completely random which cards come out."
Yes, but it is not completly random what the contenders will bet against their respective odds.
"If hit and play until end of the hand, it's completely random which cards come out"
If you promise me that you will stick to that behaviour you can play poker with me whenever you want.
"You can't win the game with skill"
That's right. Except that's wrong, I mean. The fact that on 500 to 1000 gamers tournaments there's a bunch of names that consistenly repeat should make you to consider that there must be something out of randomness that make this to happen.
It certainly might be that all those games are fooled but unless you have proof that's the case you must accept that it might be that the more skilled are *not* at odds with the less skilled ones. Once and if you can accept that, then we can go on what could be that makes the more skilled to win more often.
"the house always wins. You cannot control it."
That's an absolutly different thing because "the house always wins" doesn't mean that "the house always wins *all*".
So, as I stated, you thought out loud a lot but, again, where is the experiment that will show your theory -whatever it is, right and Einstein's wrong?
Newton's predicted Mercury would move in a particular, mensurable way, Einstein offered different numbers and, lo and behold, you go, take the measures and show Newton to be wrong and going as Einstein's predicts. Now Einstein is the champion and you the challenger. What's the experiment that will show you right and Einstein wrong? Without that experiment the champion retains the crown.
"the areas unaffected by the pest were not special in any way"
They obviously are. The entry point of the Black Death was the Mediterranean basin from the oriental side, Italy and Spanish shores. From there on, its spread is a function of distance, population density and commercial exchanges.
"it wouldn't take too many iterations of "watch a beloved astronaut die a slow, horrible death on live TV, with bugger all that anyone can do about it" to convince the American public that their dime is better spent elsewhere"
Then how is it that not even 2000 iterations of "watch your beloved GI Joe die a horrible death" did manage to convince your American public to expend their dimes anywhere but Iraq/Afghanistan?
I was about to mod you funny but then I tought it better: while he's not on peasant wages, the fact remains that even "just" senior engineers from Opera will probably earn more than that guy.
How the hell am I going to mod something funny when it makes me feel so depressed?
"Basically, a theory that has never been proved says it to be so"
Only if you forget the minor detail that it *has* been proved... by predicting everything that Newton's did and then something where Newton was wrong (i.e. Mercury's orbit). Now it's your turn.
"So, let's just say some faster than light strings perturbed the sensors"
Let' say so, why not... Oh, wait! We already stated that it was your turn! It is YOU the one that has to tell us how these "some" particles look like and how an experiment should have to be laid out to offer different results than those predicted by Einstein's, oec else Mr. Occam will get really ungry.
" In other words, c isn't a constant in all cases depending on the frame of reference. At least for now that's my opinion, and there has been an oversight."
Except that it is. Unless, of course, you can offer us an experiment where two different observers do in fact get a different value of c (that is, speed of light in vacuum). You can think loud all you want, but show me the experiment.
"He can ride the "me too train" on hating anything new."
Anything? Maybe the problem is not "novelty" but "novelty for the sake of novelty". And certainly when "novelty for the sake of novelty" happens on already standardized fields *is* worth hating.
"Your eyes do not. UV light damages your eyes. That's why all but the most rubbish shades include a UV filter."
While it is true that UV exposition might damage your eyes, that's not why shades should have an UV filter.
Think: have you heard of all people being blind before somebody invented them?
The point is that vogues filter *visible* light and thus avoid the natural reflex of both your iris contracting at high light intensities and/or your eyes blinking. Wearing sunglasses your eyes remain wide open so a higher than usual UV will pass through. *That* is why sunglasses should have an extra UV filter that pairs to their visible-spectrum filters.
Slashdot Mirror
"just send business logic via the connection instead of the bloated insanity of html."
That would be good but I don't see how this would reduce datacenter size since you should compute again your business logic again at the datacenter.
"the long and short of it is that in 1812 while all of Europe and most of North Africa was firmly under the French boot and Napoleon was sitting pretty in Moscow"
Pardon me? Counting Russia under Napoleon belt is a bit of a (big) stretch. And regarding occidental Europe, you surely forgot about Spain and the strain it meant for Napoleonic army.
But, but... that can't be! We never were at war against Eurasia... now, were we?
"When interviewing a potential Linux admin, I always ask what version and flavour of Linux that they have experience with."
When interviewing a potential Linux admin, I always ask a TECHNICAL QUESTION I know specific for the version and flavour of Linux that they claim they have experience with if I even give a damn about deep specific knowledge (which most of the time I find basically irrelevant). That's what talks about their skill, not their ability to retain some version numbers out of a fast google search.
Heck, for the most part, just asking how many options for 'ls' they know from top of their head will separate the wheat from the chaff.
"A coder should also be a damn good system admin"
Show me one. Just damn one.
"as a tech generalist, much of what I do is bleeding-edge. Old knowledge is as irrelevant to me as it would be to a potential employer."
Then I'd bet you are not so much a "tech generalist" as you think. What I learnt about 20 years ago is basically as valuable now as it was then, and I've being building what I know now upon that from then on.
Maybe the fact that I almost don't do Microsoft can help to explain it. I certainly don't value so much what I learnt about DOS 5.2 or Windows 3.11 but what I learnt about vi (and NFS, and DNS, and BSD vs SysV, and X-Window, and proper engineering practices, and...) is still as valid now as it was then -or even more since those basic bricks seem to be too hidden to the new generation so that they don't know their way out of a lot of common and easy problems.
"If the plants were not regulated to death, they would have plenty of money to spend on real safety concerns"
Yes, that's true.
But that doesn't imply -not by a very gross margin, that such money plentiness would be *in fact* spent on real safety concerns instead of, what I would say... CxO bonuses.
"Something like... Gmail?"
It's obviously a choice, and a popular one at that. Good luck if your needs are somehow non-standard.
" I happen to live in an area where there are maybe 5 people that could competently run a mail server of any size"
As if there were the slightest need for your mail service administrator to live anywhere near a 2000 miles radius from your place.
"If it's 500 recipients total, wouldn't a mail list actually just sent to those 500 emails with one click?"
Surely yes... only it wouldn't be 500 recipients (only one, the list server address).
"Unless "mailbox" changes meaning when it's combined by the "cloud" buzzword."
It must be.
In my book a "mailbox" has nothing to do with sending emails but with *recieving and storing* them.
It's true that *usually* there's a one to one mapping between mail accounts (auth) and mailboxes (mail address incoming storage) but there's nothing forcing that to be the case.
I for one own a single account on a server with about half a dozen mailboxes for different mail addresses within.
"The moon's orbit is actually increasing it's distance from Earth."
Hummm... maybe she's taking a step back for a run-up.
"Just point the fingers at the sysadmins who haven't been keeping up with patches on their production systems"
Sysadmins? They really have usually the power to decide on an upgrade when...
* It's a supported version and the vendor doesn't provide an upgrade?
* The app server is used to host a supported program that will break support if you don't stay at the version they say?
* It's an in-house app and the developers still are using -and depending on, the unpatched version and don't give a damn?
* His manager is a control freak that won't give a damn about the security problem unless it is exploited but will cry as crazy if there's a service halt because of an unforeseen problem about the update?
Usually the sysadmin is a "mere" executioner but it is not up to him to decide what -or when to do.
"How is the contesnts of this website any different than someone compiling the same information and releasing it in print?"
They are not. That's why it would be prosecuted in any case under European privacy laws.
"No chairs in the United States are rated healthy for 8 hours or more of sitting unless..."
Probably a better point is that no chair should be rated healthy for 8 hours or more, full stop.
"Poker is also just a game based on pure luck"
Yes. Unless we forget the fact it is not, that is.
"it's completely random which cards come out."
Yes, but it is not completly random what the contenders will bet against their respective odds.
"If hit and play until end of the hand, it's completely random which cards come out"
If you promise me that you will stick to that behaviour you can play poker with me whenever you want.
"You can't win the game with skill"
That's right. Except that's wrong, I mean. The fact that on 500 to 1000 gamers tournaments there's a bunch of names that consistenly repeat should make you to consider that there must be something out of randomness that make this to happen.
It certainly might be that all those games are fooled but unless you have proof that's the case you must accept that it might be that the more skilled are *not* at odds with the less skilled ones. Once and if you can accept that, then we can go on what could be that makes the more skilled to win more often.
"the house always wins. You cannot control it."
That's an absolutly different thing because "the house always wins" doesn't mean that "the house always wins *all*".
So, as I stated, you thought out loud a lot but, again, where is the experiment that will show your theory -whatever it is, right and Einstein's wrong?
Newton's predicted Mercury would move in a particular, mensurable way, Einstein offered different numbers and, lo and behold, you go, take the measures and show Newton to be wrong and going as Einstein's predicts. Now Einstein is the champion and you the challenger. What's the experiment that will show you right and Einstein wrong? Without that experiment the champion retains the crown.
Are you talking to me?
"the areas unaffected by the pest were not special in any way"
They obviously are. The entry point of the Black Death was the Mediterranean basin from the oriental side, Italy and Spanish shores. From there on, its spread is a function of distance, population density and commercial exchanges.
"it wouldn't take too many iterations of "watch a beloved astronaut die a slow, horrible death on live TV, with bugger all that anyone can do about it" to convince the American public that their dime is better spent elsewhere"
Then how is it that not even 2000 iterations of "watch your beloved GI Joe die a horrible death" did manage to convince your American public to expend their dimes anywhere but Iraq/Afghanistan?
I was about to mod you funny but then I tought it better: while he's not on peasant wages, the fact remains that even "just" senior engineers from Opera will probably earn more than that guy.
How the hell am I going to mod something funny when it makes me feel so depressed?
"Basically, a theory that has never been proved says it to be so"
Only if you forget the minor detail that it *has* been proved... by predicting everything that Newton's did and then something where Newton was wrong (i.e. Mercury's orbit). Now it's your turn.
"So, let's just say some faster than light strings perturbed the sensors"
Let' say so, why not... Oh, wait! We already stated that it was your turn! It is YOU the one that has to tell us how these "some" particles look like and how an experiment should have to be laid out to offer different results than those predicted by Einstein's, oec else Mr. Occam will get really ungry.
" In other words, c isn't a constant in all cases depending on the frame of reference. At least for now that's my opinion, and there has been an oversight."
Except that it is. Unless, of course, you can offer us an experiment where two different observers do in fact get a different value of c (that is, speed of light in vacuum). You can think loud all you want, but show me the experiment.
"He can ride the "me too train" on hating anything new."
Anything? Maybe the problem is not "novelty" but "novelty for the sake of novelty". And certainly when "novelty for the sake of novelty" happens on already standardized fields *is* worth hating.
"Your eyes do not. UV light damages your eyes. That's why all but the most rubbish shades include a UV filter."
While it is true that UV exposition might damage your eyes, that's not why shades should have an UV filter.
Think: have you heard of all people being blind before somebody invented them?
The point is that vogues filter *visible* light and thus avoid the natural reflex of both your iris contracting at high light intensities and/or your eyes blinking. Wearing sunglasses your eyes remain wide open so a higher than usual UV will pass through. *That* is why sunglasses should have an extra UV filter that pairs to their visible-spectrum filters.