It's kinda like the "things that can not break" in mechanics, I guess.
There the difference between "things that can break" and "things that never ever possibly can break" is: Every time a thing that never ever possibly can break breaks, it's impossible to get at and repair.
Ah, but those computers that made the automated card file system obsolete where basically created by other "create an automated system" projects that were going on in parallel. When all of them had said "Na, it's to complicated, we just wait for a better solution to come along" that better solution most likely would never have shown up.
Most "big leaps in progress" were made when hundreds of people (or teams) try do do something, and ONE of them creates a new an ingenious solution while the other 99 basically fail.
If the entire population of the earth stood shoulder to shoulder, they would about fit into Los Angeles. And If the entire population of Earth lived in a density like they live in New York, they would about fill up Wyoming.
But on the other hand the population level where "Overpopulation" kicks in is very dependent on technology. For example, when you have a few weeks of power outage and complete transportation breakdown in a sparsely populated country, people can still muddle through by eating stuff from the fields in the immediate vicinity, and drinking from streams. When you have a few weeks of power outage and complete transportation breakdown in Manhattan, that would probably kill most of the inhabitants that can't get out.
In that regard there might be a time "sometime in the distant future" where the level of technology needed to survive on earth is just a small step away from the level needed to build and live in those space colonies.
The funny part might be that with the current rate of "gadgetisasion" (e.g. sitting around and texting away on smart-phones instead of interacting "human-like" in the real world), the "Sentient PC sitting on (or in front of) a desk" might be what real humans in a few hundred years actually DO look like.;-P
Indeed. When you think about it, ALL the fancy consumer electronics of today is still completely based on the laws formulated by Maxwell in 1861 and 1862.
The whole "internet" thing basically still works on the principles of the telegraph, only faster, more automated, and with more connected users.
There is one areas where I could imagine something "completely groundbreaking". Something as ground-breaking as Maxwell's laws (which combined electricity, magnetism and optics into one set of equations) Before that we were able to to "somehow" use electricity and "somehow" use magnetism for some "more or less toys", but after that we were basically able to manipulate them at will, which basically started the next big technological revolution after the railroad.
I guess if someone someday figures out how gravity figures into those, it will be the next "scientific big bang" that will bring forth a new wave of completely technology.
Heck, even my *CAT* can use our iPad (to an admittedly limited extent, but it's invariably funny to watch him try to interact with what he sees on the screen).
I just got the feeling that Microsoft is probably aiming for the next big thing in their next Version: Windows K-9
I especially like that the management fronted and packages seem to be pretty much identical from the cheapest 1-bay home user thing to the biggest 36-bay enterprise rack.
Want to set up iSCSI Targets on the cheapest consumer thing? No problem. Want to use the little consumer Photo Album thing on the most expensive enterprise thing? No problem.
The only thing to look for when you want to run "more" than just simple file sharing is to get the ones with a little more RAM and CPU power.
I think it might actually be heading that way. With things like the OLPC, or the Raspberry Pi, we could be seeing the beginning of Open Hardware.
When Apple can "just design" the hardware, and then let Foxconn build it, the FSF really doesn't have to offer any physical computer, the thing that would be needed is a design. If dozens of Chinese companies can produce and sell iDevice knock-offs whenever needed I'm sure you could find one that would produce the thing if there is even a moderate demand.
You can make these benchmark categories, but they'll be mostly worthless.
They would be pretty useless at first. But once some "performance standardization" has taken place, games (and other programs) would be able to better quantify that they need at least "fifty thousand libraries of congress per furlong throughput" to be usable.
At least it might either make the hardware manufacturers aware of what performance the majority of games need, or the game writers aware of what performance the majority of hardware can achieve.
No, he's saying that a system where the the prosecutor is paying the judges salary, but only when the judge is following the prosecutors plead, is a bad system of justice.
If you want bleeding edge there are other options.
The "daily svn snapshot" of e 17 for example is a package in Arch Linux, so it's an Arch package basically the second it's committed into SVN by the developers.
For any project with more than one or two developers, the more important part is the general layout of the project. Which stuff should go into which packages and even into which layers.
For example the most annoying thing I encountered was one project I inherited (and choose to ditch and re-write quite soon) was where someone had used the database layer for some calculations, the middle tier for some similar calculations, and even the client side for others that where basically duplicates of the ones already present in the database layer.
How many times did you have to type 'man' for the common commands before you didn't have to anymore?
About 5-6 times for each command. Of course, in Windows I have to look 5-6 times before I know in what sub-menu a specific thing is hidden. The difference is, in Linux 80-90% of the commands stay the same for ages, while in Windows they change 80-90% of the stuff around all the time.;-P
Definitely true. IQ is just a number. It measures the skill at solving a defined set of cognitive problems.
But on the other hand claiming that "IQ is a myth" is just as claiming "Height is a myth" just because there is not measurable correlation between a persons height and their overall performance in basketball. The performance in basketball is just rooted in A LOT more factors than just height, the same way that "real life" problem solving skills and success is rooted in a lot more factors than just the IQ.
Well, you're not easy to talk to either.;-) I'm talking about ONE database on MULTIPLE LVMs. (or, in the old days, on multiple RAIDs)
For example, with Oracle you can put different tables OF THE SAME DATABASE. into different table spaces, on completely different storage devices. For example, put some not-often accessed tables OF THE SAME DATABASE on one LV with a few big big and not so fast SATA disks, and put other tables OF THE SAME DATABASE on a lot of smaller, faster, fibre channel disks on a different LV. And/Or separate data and redo/undo table spaces that way. And definetly put different Online Redo logs on different physical disks / LVs like recommended here.
I don't blame any volume management that it's not possible to do consistent snapshots for those scenarios (in fact it's not possible with ANY volume management that I now of, though I don't now ZFS at all.), I just wanted to point out that it is indeed impossible do do consistent snapshots in that regard purely on the LVM level.
With a "small" database, that can be put on one single LV I can just do a snapshot of the LV, copy the content, and start the DB on another machine without a hitch. With a "big" database that is spread over multipe LVs I have to put the Database into some sort of online backup mode, do snapshots of all LVs one after the other, copy the content, and then do a database recovery when I start up the copy to iron out the "discrepancies" between the snapshots.
Sorry, but "LVM is kind of cool but if you have a single database spread across multiple LV's then you can't snapshot them all as an atomic operation" actually IMPLIES the "without even unmounting them". It also implies the "different physical disks".
If you don't know these basic concepts, then please stop with those "Of course it's possible" post, because it is not.
Slashdot Mirror
It's kinda like the "things that can not break" in mechanics, I guess.
There the difference between "things that can break" and "things that never ever possibly can break" is: Every time a thing that never ever possibly can break breaks, it's impossible to get at and repair.
I always thought they were implemented as "dude" and "man" in English. Something Like:
Oracle really ground my gears when they stopped supporting OpenSolaris, dude, OpenIndiana is going nowhere fast, man.
Well, it's almost there then, because Yahoo Mail *certainly* sucks. ;-)
Ah, but those computers that made the automated card file system obsolete where basically created by other "create an automated system" projects that were going on in parallel. When all of them had said "Na, it's to complicated, we just wait for a better solution to come along" that better solution most likely would never have shown up.
Most "big leaps in progress" were made when hundreds of people (or teams) try do do something, and ONE of them creates a new an ingenious solution while the other 99 basically fail.
I read a interesting comparison last week:
If the entire population of the earth stood shoulder to shoulder, they would about fit into Los Angeles. And If the entire population of Earth lived in a density like they live in New York, they would about fill up Wyoming.
But on the other hand the population level where "Overpopulation" kicks in is very dependent on technology. For example, when you have a few weeks of power outage and complete transportation breakdown in a sparsely populated country, people can still muddle through by eating stuff from the fields in the immediate vicinity, and drinking from streams. When you have a few weeks of power outage and complete transportation breakdown in Manhattan, that would probably kill most of the inhabitants that can't get out.
In that regard there might be a time "sometime in the distant future" where the level of technology needed to survive on earth is just a small step away from the level needed to build and live in those space colonies.
The funny part might be that with the current rate of "gadgetisasion" (e.g. sitting around and texting away on smart-phones instead of interacting "human-like" in the real world), the "Sentient PC sitting on (or in front of) a desk" might be what real humans in a few hundred years actually DO look like. ;-P
Well, Jurassic Park is from 1993, so it would probably have looked cool and futuristic then. ;-P
So we finally have a lower case smiling cat and an upper case smiling cat?
Now where is the "Shut up and take my money" Unicode glyph?
But that "asymmetrical connector that you want to put on the battery" still has to be wired to the INSIDE of the battery.
And the "asymmetrical connector that you plug into that" still has to be fitted on the cable.
Still two places where a miswirings can happen.
Indeed. When you think about it, ALL the fancy consumer electronics of today is still completely based on the laws formulated by Maxwell in 1861 and 1862.
The whole "internet" thing basically still works on the principles of the telegraph, only faster, more automated, and with more connected users.
There is one areas where I could imagine something "completely groundbreaking". Something as ground-breaking as Maxwell's laws (which combined electricity, magnetism and optics into one set of equations) Before that we were able to to "somehow" use electricity and "somehow" use magnetism for some "more or less toys", but after that we were basically able to manipulate them at will, which basically started the next big technological revolution after the railroad.
I guess if someone someday figures out how gravity figures into those, it will be the next "scientific big bang" that will bring forth a new wave of completely technology.
Heck, even my *CAT* can use our iPad (to an admittedly limited extent, but it's invariably funny to watch him try to interact with what he sees on the screen).
I just got the feeling that Microsoft is probably aiming for the next big thing in their next Version: Windows K-9
Of course the price point of mass produced "more stuff" will almost always be higher as the price of mass produced "less stuff" in the laptop.
I'm too since last week. ;-P
I especially like that the management fronted and packages seem to be pretty much identical from the cheapest 1-bay home user thing to the biggest 36-bay enterprise rack.
Want to set up iSCSI Targets on the cheapest consumer thing? No problem. Want to use the little consumer Photo Album thing on the most expensive enterprise thing? No problem.
The only thing to look for when you want to run "more" than just simple file sharing is to get the ones with a little more RAM and CPU power.
I think it might actually be heading that way. With things like the OLPC, or the Raspberry Pi, we could be seeing the beginning of Open Hardware.
When Apple can "just design" the hardware, and then let Foxconn build it, the FSF really doesn't have to offer any physical computer, the thing that would be needed is a design. If dozens of Chinese companies can produce and sell iDevice knock-offs whenever needed I'm sure you could find one that would produce the thing if there is even a moderate demand.
You can make these benchmark categories, but they'll be mostly worthless.
They would be pretty useless at first. But once some "performance standardization" has taken place, games (and other programs) would be able to better quantify that they need at least "fifty thousand libraries of congress per furlong throughput" to be usable.
At least it might either make the hardware manufacturers aware of what performance the majority of games need, or the game writers aware of what performance the majority of hardware can achieve.
It's a sad thing, but I guess a "paint your name in the snow" game would probable be a big hit nowadays.
No, he's saying that a system where the the prosecutor is paying the judges salary, but only when the judge is following the prosecutors plead, is a bad system of justice.
Well, Debian Stable != Bleeding Edge.
If you want bleeding edge there are other options.
The "daily svn snapshot" of e 17 for example is a package in Arch Linux, so it's an Arch package basically the second it's committed into SVN by the developers.
For any project with more than one or two developers, the more important part is the general layout of the project. Which stuff should go into which packages and even into which layers.
For example the most annoying thing I encountered was one project I inherited (and choose to ditch and re-write quite soon) was where someone had used the database layer for some calculations, the middle tier for some similar calculations, and even the client side for others that where basically duplicates of the ones already present in the database layer.
How many times did you have to type 'man' for the common commands before you didn't have to anymore?
About 5-6 times for each command. Of course, in Windows I have to look 5-6 times before I know in what sub-menu a specific thing is hidden. The difference is, in Linux 80-90% of the commands stay the same for ages, while in Windows they change 80-90% of the stuff around all the time. ;-P
Definitely true. IQ is just a number. It measures the skill at solving a defined set of cognitive problems.
But on the other hand claiming that "IQ is a myth" is just as claiming "Height is a myth" just because there is not measurable correlation between a persons height and their overall performance in basketball. The performance in basketball is just rooted in A LOT more factors than just height, the same way that "real life" problem solving skills and success is rooted in a lot more factors than just the IQ.
IT rarely wins against the VIPs regardless of policy breaches.
So this could be a good thing, as the VIPs rarely win against Google. ;-)
Well, you're not easy to talk to either. ;-) I'm talking about ONE database on MULTIPLE LVMs. (or, in the old days, on multiple RAIDs)
For example, with Oracle you can put different tables OF THE SAME DATABASE. into different table spaces, on completely different storage devices. For example, put some not-often accessed tables OF THE SAME DATABASE on one LV with a few big big and not so fast SATA disks, and put other tables OF THE SAME DATABASE on a lot of smaller, faster, fibre channel disks on a different LV. And/Or separate data and redo/undo table spaces that way. And definetly put different Online Redo logs on different physical disks / LVs like recommended here.
I don't blame any volume management that it's not possible to do consistent snapshots for those scenarios (in fact it's not possible with ANY volume management that I now of, though I don't now ZFS at all.), I just wanted to point out that it is indeed impossible do do consistent snapshots in that regard purely on the LVM level.
With a "small" database, that can be put on one single LV I can just do a snapshot of the LV, copy the content, and start the DB on another machine without a hitch. With a "big" database that is spread over multipe LVs I have to put the Database into some sort of online backup mode, do snapshots of all LVs one after the other, copy the content, and then do a database recovery when I start up the copy to iron out the "discrepancies" between the snapshots.
I'm NOT talking about multiple databases, I'm talking about the SINGLE database spread across multiple LVs, like Jamesh did.
It was YOU that came up with the "OH, it's possible with LVMs" nonsense in a reply to him, not me.
Sorry, but "LVM is kind of cool but if you have a single database spread across multiple LV's then you can't snapshot them all as an atomic operation" actually IMPLIES the "without even unmounting them". It also implies the "different physical disks".
If you don't know these basic concepts, then please stop with those "Of course it's possible" post, because it is not.