But, would you like to pay $5 a AA battery? That's what the result would be. As much as we hate pollution and forced Chinese labor, we also hate high prices even more. Also, what would you do with Mexicans and Canadians smuggling batteries across the border. That's what will happen, like it or not.
Exactly, I mean a factory that employs 50 people and makes millions of batteries per year would experience significant savings if they could pay Chinese wages.
Wait a minute: Union wages x 50 employes / millions of units = very very small labor premium per unit. Turns out maybe battery manufacturing is probably dominated by the material costs, which aren't really any cheaper in China after all. All in all, it will probably add a few cents to the cost of "Made in USA" batteries.
But I'm just/. spewing right? Anyone can pull numbers out of their ass!! If only there was some American AA battery factory out there so we could see the reality. Lucky us:
"All Panasonic Alkaline batteries are made in the U.S.A. at our state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in Columbus, Georgia."
Of course, those are "Panasonic Industrial Alkalines" those are gonna cost you a fortune: Panasonic Industrial AA Batteries 24/carton - $9.60 Works out to $0.40 per battery. I think we'll cope.
Basically, think Brin's transparent society, but instead of society recording everyone, and showing it to everyone, like he hypothesizes, or the police recording everyone which is the worse case scenario, everyone would simply be recording themselves and be able to produce a recording for themselves. And various parts of that would be automatically accessible to other people.
Check out Robert J. Sawyers Neanderthal Trilogy ("Hominids", "Humans", & "Hybrids") The premise is that of a bridge to an alternate universe where Neanderthals became the dominant species... they have a society pretty much exactly as you describe. Everyone has AI assisted personal recorders, and the data is stored securely and can only be accessed via court order or reviewed by its owner.
Its one of several themes in the books, and he spends a bit of time exploring its impact on society. (Its effect on crime, and social interaction in general, etc...)
The right answer is obviously to send an automated email informing them that according to your data their computer is compromised and if the spam doesn't stop the offending ports will be locked.
That's not an obviously right answer.
First they'll ignore your email. (Assuming they even get it, because the people with zombie PCs don't check their ISP mail they mostly use hotmail/gmail/yahoo etc so they'll never see the message from their ISP.)
Then you follow through on your threat and block their access.
At which point they phone your Customer Support to complain that their 'internets is broken', bitch that you never warned them, and when your CSR tells them they need to have someone clean out their PC they go ballistic because that's hard or expensive. And the whole time they're on the phone with your CSR its costing you money, and creating an unhappy customer.
It might actually cost you less to just let the zombie spam away, and keep the customer is happy.
is the gimp 100% compatible with photoshop files? No, didn't think so.
Any developer that depends on an IDE to write code should not call him/herself a developer.
Who said one "depends" on it to write code? What if they simply depend on it to write better code faster? You know, like any good tool makes any professional job go better and faster.
IDES are something that linux is not short of, there are so many IDEs for linux, proprietary or F/OSS, I'm sure a developer could find one to work with
I'm sure a developer could too. So what? VS is a good one, that a lot of people use. While they can get by with notepad if they have to, its going to slow them down. Switching to another IDE will do the same, and really, if they are primarily targeting the windows platform anyway (and most of them are), it makes sense to be developing on it.
As a society, I think we can mostly agree that we should compensate people for entertaining us, especially if they are proficient in their craft.
This goes for an actor in a play too. After putting on a show, he gets paid. When he wakes up the next day, he has to put on another show if he wants to get paid again.
When a painter paints he sells the painting and gets paid. If he wants another cheque, he paints another painting.
Allowing entertainers to make a living isn't a right, but I'd prefer for those who want to make a living out of it to be able to do so if they're good enough.
If they are good enough, they don't need copyright protection. People will pay to see them, pay for their merchandise, pay for an official pressed CD... whatever.
It's one of those levels of convenience that seems stupid and shallow (and probably is), but it definitely drives me back to Motorola as a customer.
Agreed.
That said Motorola's Razr2 and V750 are both micro USB instead of mini USB. I can't blame them -- a minu usb wouldn't fit on the phone. And you can get an inexpensive adapter. (my razr2 even came with one). But its still a minor annoyance.
That's the problem I see with the EU forcing a standard... how will they balance that with the march of progress?
I'm going to come in here, rather than reply to your earlier post, because others have taken my suggestion and run with it. Firstly, fire is never a process that could accurately be described as negative entropy. It releases the energy stored in molecules and configures them into a lower energy state. If it were negative entropy, burnt fuel would have more energy stored in it than before it was burnt. That is never the case.
I'm going to stop you right there. Because that is true of life too.
Of course you may refer to things present in the fire that absorb some of the energy, but those are being burnt and aren't part of the fire.
Is that really qualitatively different from cells absorbing and using the energy given off by the oxygen-glucose reaction? Are the cells really alive independent of the reaction? After all, if the reaction ever stops so does the life. Life can't exist without the reaction.
And just because the cells themselves aren't the fuel being burnt...? Should that really matter? I think not on two fronts...
First, life DOES use its own mass as fuel in many situations. First we burn off our fat mass, then our muscle mass... without a constant influx of new and easier to break down fuels we do revert to using ourselves as fuel until we literally burn our selves out.
secondly there are many types of fire that occur in more complex arrangements... a candle or lantern that has a wick to draw the fuel to the reaction without consuming the actual wick.
Can you say of all the previous examples that the process of combustion meets your criteria for life?
Actually, yes. What really makes the slow chemical burn of life fundamentally different than that of any other cumbustion?
Granted some parlors are a front for a brothel, but that's beside the point.
I mean there are plumbers, electricians, and contractors listed there that are shitty and won't build or fix to code... surely we can't hold the yellow pages responsible.
The Pirate Bay does nothing more than a phone book does. That is, it provides a reference or index entry to an actual object.
What kind of phone book? A white pages? I can't search for plumbers, drug dealers or assassins in a phone book. If I know the specfic name of a person who offerse that service sure I can look him up, but there is no evidence that I can get assassin services from a given listing in the white pages.
Now the yellow pages, sure that's neatly organized into categories. And I can search for plumbers in one. However drug dealers and assassin's aren't listed. What if they were? Would the yellow pages be charged in connection to contributing to drug dealing or murder for hire, but selling the service of linking you to those people? I suspect they would be.
Would they be convicted? Hard to say... especially if it were completely automated online and all listings were self published by end users, and the phone book really exercised zero control over what was listed...
I'm curious though, did you configure the guest yourself, or find it as a pre-rolled virtual machine image?
I ultimately rolled it myself. Partly as a learning exercise, and partly because none of the pre-rolled VMs were quite what I needed. And I didn't know enough to reconfigure them to work the way I needed. (Although now, having rolled my own, I probably could customize a pre-rolled VM.)
There are downsides such as the overhead of emulating a whole machine for a single service, but I'm sure the benefits outweigh them if you have spare host capacity (*2 for redundancy)
Yeah, the overhead of emulating a whole machine is the downside, but the advantages in terms of flexibility, service isolation, and simplicity are clear.
...Why you would run Windows on top of Linux, given not only the stability history but also since now there are now FOSS alternatives for almost anything Windows can provide, without taking a huge hit to the "total cost of ownership".
No. There aren't. Period. There is no FOSS alterantive for LOTs of things, and even when there is switching is cost prohibitive and pointless.
accounting: nope. And migrating to a linux alternative even if one existed would be monstrously expensive for any business of size.
photoshop/illustrator: nope. sure there is the gimp etc, which is all fine and good. But you need to integrate with a workflow where you are exchanging files with other businesses etc you have to use the tools they are using.
microsoft access, filemaker pro, 4D... millions of highly custom applications exist for these to fit business needs. Even if an alternative "application building framework" exists on Linux, the cost of migrating and reimplementing these applications is prohibative. Companies that rely on these won't even consider switching until FM, 4D, etc run on linux natively.
sql server - lots of businesses rely heavily on this. And even if postgresql or mysql, etc could do the job, again, its a massive amount of work to migrate from one to the other.
exchange - nothing needs to be said.
visual studio - sure linux alternatives exist, and you can even just use vi or notepad, but VS2008 is REALLY good.
The above isn't a small list of niche products or categories that only affect a handful of businesses. Millions of businesses rely on multiple of them.
Oh, and at home, there are games blocking a lot of people from leaving windows.
Why you would want to run Linux under the MS Hypervisor is the strange question, unless you just wanted a Linux "sandbox" for some reason. I suspect to get the MS stamp of approval for Windows under Linux they required the reciprocal agreement from RH.
Its not that strange. My first home linux servers ran as VMs under windows, primarily for comfort reasons. I've since gotten comfortable enough that its now linux on linux.
And at work, we have a linux spamassassin VM running on a windows server, simply because that was the simplest deployment option. (We already had the light load Windows Server. Sure we could have installed a linux host, and then run both the Windows Server and spamassassin as VMs under it, (and we would have if we were building the box from scratch), but there wasn't any real point doing that given the windows server was already running just fine.)
And on the desktop... you want the host system to be your primary OS, and VM the others. I personally need windows enough that it would just be silly to run Linux and then VM XP or Vista. And I don't foresee being able to flip them around anytime soon.
No it's not. Because there is more than one criteria, and wind blowing a stone up a hill does not meet the others.
Ah, I wasn't aware you were just adding that criteria to the existing set.
But even so, something like fire also creates negative entropy in a lot of situations. Burn the right materials and resulting heat will result in more complex compounds as a side effect, which is negative entropy.
In fact, thinking about it more, I realize that fire effectively re-captures some of the heat energy it generates by using it to carry burning sparks away ("local negative entropy"). And this is an important part of its reproductive cycle, as by this means it can send offspring to new/distant fuel sources.
And its really no different than how we work... on some level human life is just a slow chemical burn. After all, we just 'burn' sugar by oxidizing it into carbon dioxide and water; and we radiate most of the resulting energy as waste heat, with some energy captured to power the body.
The reason fire and a mule are hard to distinguish in terms of 'life' is that when you get right down to it, its not that fire is somehow perversely life-like, but rather that life essentially IS a fire.
What trade nerf are you referring to? I actually just started the EQ2 trial, so I'm curious, not defensive.
I forgive Blizzard alot because they NEVER beat me down like EQ-EQ2 did.
I played WoW for several months, but ultimately couldn't get over how simple it was. I played EQ1 prior to WoW, and I now wonder if WoW needed the nerf bat less, because it was a lot more bland to start with so that imbalances that needed 'correction' don't crop up nearly as often.
You mean local negative entropy? Because nothing, even life, is net negative entropy. The amount of entropy created getting you to where you are now was astronomical.
Of course the trouble with local negative entropy is that then wind blowing a stone up a hill is "life".
why is there this preconception that linking to content that you know full well is illegal, is acceptable?
Because 'speech' is not 'action', and speech has special legal protections. Child porn, hate speech, and yelling fire in a crowded theatre are against the law, but pretty much anything else goes.
A website qualifies as speech.
i'm yet to see a good defense for this. your an accessory to a crime if you knowingly aid it.
Whoah. Your getting WAY ahead of yourself here.
First, TPB doesn't 'aid' anybody. Visitors helped themselves, using software that interpreted information they had on their site. Information isn't generally of its own sake illegal.
Second, you indicate that you are an accessory to a crime if you you knowingly aid it. Which crime exactly are you referring too? Even in the states the 'making available' theory is losing ground fast. If making available isn't a crime, then linking to someone who is making it available can't be an accessory to a crime.
Third, this is Sweden, not the US. The laws in Sweden are more relaxed than the US (and 'making available' is having trouble in the US... so its hard to imagine it flying in Sweden. What crime in Sweden are you referring too, exactly, that you allege they aided?
As you can see, derivative and distribution are two separate rights granted to the copyright holder.
1) It doesn't really matter. If the copyright holder is ok with them creating a derivate work, then he won't sue them. Its not like the police will intervene and stop anyone from creating a derivative work.
2) While the author may hold the rights to derivate works, fair use could be used as a defense for a modified/derivative work used within the company made from a legitimately purchased copy.
So its perefectly ok to buy a book, and highlight the passages you like, and cut out the pages you don't like, creating a derivative work, regardless of what the original author wants.
(Its not ok, to turn around and start renting those copies out... however, as the blockbuster case determined, but that is a separate issue.)
No, it is not. It means that the quanta of control are larger.
That's one meaning. Its not the only one.
More granular means more grain like (not more grains)
No. "granular" doesn't mean "grain like". So "more granular" doesn't mean "more 'grain like'"
Granular means "made up of grains"; so "more granular" means "more 'made up of grains'" and that's ambiguous. The more could refer to the number of grains, or it could refer to to more pronounced grains.
Same goes for "spikey". If I tell my stylist I want my hair to be "more spikey" that's ambiguous -- do I want more spikes (more in number), more pointy spikes (more spike pointiness)? or bigger spikes (more spike size)? Any interpretation is reasonable.
More granular means more grain like (not more grains), which means the grains are more evident. Because they are... LARGER.
Still ambiguous. If I wanted wood with 'more grain', that means more stripes, not fewer larger ones. Or it might mean that I want the same number of stripes but with greater contrast between them. In any case I can't recall ever hearing someone say they want 'more grain' in connection with 'LARGER' stripes.
For a fixed parameter range more granular means the quanta are larger,
No. Its ambiguous. I don't know if you want more grains, or larger grains, or in fact whether you want the same number of grains the same size but with more definition between them.
and higher resolution means they are smaller.
That's correct. "Higher resolution" is unambiguous. "more granular" isn't.
If we're going to argue about the meaning of the word...
When something is granular, it is made up of chunks.
When something is granular it is made of granules, or 'grains'. Typically something granular is made of numerous grains that form a larger unit.
When something is more granular, the chunks are larger, it has more of the characteristics of being grainy.
That doesn't really follow. The characteristic of being granular is that it has granules or grains. "More granular" is actually ambiguous.
It could mean: more granules or grains -- ie more of the actual characteristic that makes it granular. Or it could mean, as you say, larger granules or grains -- ie more pronounced characteristics
Granular and continuous are antonyms.
So? More grains doesn't make it 'more opposite', in fact, the fundamental theorem of calculus is that you can approximate continuity with lots of small discontunities... and if you let the number of discontinuites rise to infinity, their size goes zero and it becomes continuous.
What the OP meant is that he achieved more fine grained control.
Correct. And fine grained is a better way of putting it because its not ambiguous.
Not more granular control; more granular control would be worse control than the original resolution.
More granular control is ambiguous. Although easily understood from the context.
It's one thing to speak in abstract probabilities, make historical references to plagues that ended before you were born, talk about the greater good, etc. etc. When you're the one on the front line watching human beings be maimed in the name of "the greater good," you start to question whose greater good is really being served, and do I really want to participate?
You raise a valid point. The further removed from the carnage of those decisions the easier it is to make those decisions without feeling the consequences.
But still, can you really say they are making the wrong decisions?
There was a rather grisly murder on a bus in Canada a few months ago. A passenger, pulled a knife and killed and decapitated a fellow passenger. Horrific stuff.
What should they do about it? The family will have to bear this tragedy for the rest of their lives, and I'm sure we can all agree that no one should ever have to experience this.
But in reality, what should we REALLY do about it? Nothing. We should do nothing. As hard as it is to accept, especially for the people who suffered the most, its the right course of action. We can't make the world safe from a crazy person. Even if we went to the trouble of screening and searching every passenger who ever gets on a bus in North America (and just think what that would mean; think of all the greyhounds stopping in buttfuck nowhere...). The crazy person would have just killed somone somere where else...maybe at a McDonalds. Maybe at the theatre. Maybe at the mall. Maybe in line to get searched for weapons before getting on a bus.
The point I'm making is the people most directly affected by these sorts of things are the least rational at deciding what to do about them. You need some distance to have a practical perspective. As hard as it might be to have a child needlessly suffer, its insanity to spare them that suffering by switching to a policy that WILL lead to 10x as many to suffer, and doubly insane if you don't even know if it will actually spare the child you are trying to save. Yet, a parent, watching their child suffer will not hesitate to make that "locally optimal", "globally catastrophic" type of decision.
The difference here is that there was not anywhere near the percentage of people that preferred 98 over 2000 as there are that prefer xp over vista.
Doesn't fucking matter. MS holds the copyright to XP. They can choose to give it away, not sell it, or charge whatever they want for it until long after most of us are dead. What people prefer is completely irrelevant. We can either choose to buy what Microsoft decides to offer, or not, but we don't get to decide what they offer... at least that would be true for most companies.
This isn't that cut and dried because Microsofts status as a "monopoloy" changes the game a bit, but even so, this is bullshit.
Also back when 2000 came out, it was very easy to still obtain a machine bundled with 98se, for a long time.
That's primarily because Windows 2000 was more an upgrade to Windows NT4 not Windows 98. 98 wasn't discontinued when 2k was launched. It was discontinued when ME launched. (And it was very difficult to find a Win98 machine after ME launched.)
That sounds really stupid. People end up handling those cables.
The idea was to make eating the cable jacket toxic, not make merely touching it toxic. And going further in that vein, it would make more sense to not make it actually lethally 'toxic', but just taste repugnant to a rat (or taste like something that it would associate with toxic). Sort of like that 'anti-thumbsucking' stuff you put on a kids thumb to help keep them from sucking it...
I wish I had a source for this... but I remember reading somewhere that rats are generalist foragers who will try nibbling on just about anything they come across to see if it's edible or not. When they come across a foreign substance (a seed, a fruit, a piece of garbage, a nice shiny cable), they'll try a few bites of it. if it makes them sick, they//////////////// remember not to eat it again- apparently they have very good memory.
I crossed out the throw it up part, for ya. But it raises an interesting possibility; what if you just coated the cables in a bit of something highly poisonous... they'll take their first tiny nibble, and then leave it the hell alone. It won't get rid of the rats, but your cables will be fine.
I wonder if anyone makes cables with a rat-away coating. If not.. patent pending.;)
Slashdot Mirror
But, would you like to pay $5 a AA battery? That's what the result would be. As much as we hate pollution and forced Chinese labor, we also hate high prices even more. Also, what would you do with Mexicans and Canadians smuggling batteries across the border. That's what will happen, like it or not.
Exactly, I mean a factory that employs 50 people and makes millions of batteries per year would experience significant savings if they could pay Chinese wages.
Wait a minute: Union wages x 50 employes / millions of units = very very small labor premium per unit. Turns out maybe battery manufacturing is probably dominated by the material costs, which aren't really any cheaper in China after all. All in all, it will probably add a few cents to the cost of "Made in USA" batteries.
But I'm just /. spewing right? Anyone can pull numbers out of their ass!! If only there was some American AA battery factory out there so we could see the reality. Lucky us:
"All Panasonic Alkaline batteries are made in the U.S.A. at our state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in Columbus, Georgia."
Of course, those are "Panasonic Industrial Alkalines" those are gonna cost you a fortune:
Panasonic Industrial AA Batteries 24/carton - $9.60
Works out to $0.40 per battery. I think we'll cope.
I accept your apology.
Cites:
Made in USA claim:
http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/chem/alk/
Panasonic Industrial AA's for sale:
http://www.jirehsupplies.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=PI-AA
Basically, think Brin's transparent society, but instead of society recording everyone, and showing it to everyone, like he hypothesizes, or the police recording everyone which is the worse case scenario, everyone would simply be recording themselves and be able to produce a recording for themselves. And various parts of that would be automatically accessible to other people.
Check out Robert J. Sawyers Neanderthal Trilogy ("Hominids", "Humans", & "Hybrids") The premise is that of a bridge to an alternate universe where Neanderthals became the dominant species... they have a society pretty much exactly as you describe. Everyone has AI assisted personal recorders, and the data is stored securely and can only be accessed via court order or reviewed by its owner.
Its one of several themes in the books, and he spends a bit of time exploring its impact on society. (Its effect on crime, and social interaction in general, etc...)
The right answer is obviously to send an automated email informing them that according to your data their computer is compromised and if the spam doesn't stop the offending ports will be locked.
That's not an obviously right answer.
First they'll ignore your email. (Assuming they even get it, because the people with zombie PCs don't check their ISP mail they mostly use hotmail/gmail/yahoo etc so they'll never see the message from their ISP.)
Then you follow through on your threat and block their access.
At which point they phone your Customer Support to complain that their 'internets is broken', bitch that you never warned them, and when your CSR tells them they need to have someone clean out their PC they go ballistic because that's hard or expensive. And the whole time they're on the phone with your CSR its costing you money, and creating an unhappy customer.
It might actually cost you less to just let the zombie spam away, and keep the customer is happy.
because the gimp can't open photoshop files
is the gimp 100% compatible with photoshop files? No, didn't think so.
Any developer that depends on an IDE to write code should not call him/herself a developer.
Who said one "depends" on it to write code? What if they simply depend on it to write better code faster? You know, like any good tool makes any professional job go better and faster.
IDES are something that linux is not short of, there are so many IDEs for linux, proprietary or F/OSS, I'm sure a developer could find one to work with
I'm sure a developer could too. So what? VS is a good one, that a lot of people use. While they can get by with notepad if they have to, its going to slow them down. Switching to another IDE will do the same, and really, if they are primarily targeting the windows platform anyway (and most of them are), it makes sense to be developing on it.
As a society, I think we can mostly agree that we should compensate people for entertaining us, especially if they are proficient in their craft.
This goes for an actor in a play too. After putting on a show, he gets paid. When he wakes up the next day, he has to put on another show if he wants to get paid again.
When a painter paints he sells the painting and gets paid. If he wants another cheque, he paints another painting.
Allowing entertainers to make a living isn't a right, but I'd prefer for those who want to make a living out of it to be able to do so if they're good enough.
If they are good enough, they don't need copyright protection. People will pay to see them, pay for their merchandise, pay for an official pressed CD... whatever.
It's one of those levels of convenience that seems stupid and shallow (and probably is), but it definitely drives me back to Motorola as a customer.
Agreed.
That said Motorola's Razr2 and V750 are both micro USB instead of mini USB. I can't blame them -- a minu usb wouldn't fit on the phone. And you can get an inexpensive adapter. (my razr2 even came with one). But its still a minor annoyance.
That's the problem I see with the EU forcing a standard... how will they balance that with the march of progress?
I'm going to come in here, rather than reply to your earlier post, because others have taken my suggestion and run with it. Firstly, fire is never a process that could accurately be described as negative entropy. It releases the energy stored in molecules and configures them into a lower energy state. If it were negative entropy, burnt fuel would have more energy stored in it than before it was burnt. That is never the case.
I'm going to stop you right there. Because that is true of life too.
Of course you may refer to things present in the fire that absorb some of the energy, but those are being burnt and aren't part of the fire.
Is that really qualitatively different from cells absorbing and using the energy given off by the oxygen-glucose reaction? Are the cells really alive independent of the reaction? After all, if the reaction ever stops so does the life. Life can't exist without the reaction.
And just because the cells themselves aren't the fuel being burnt...? Should that really matter? I think not on two fronts...
First, life DOES use its own mass as fuel in many situations. First we burn off our fat mass, then our muscle mass... without a constant influx of new and easier to break down fuels we do revert to using ourselves as fuel until we literally burn our selves out.
secondly there are many types of fire that occur in more complex arrangements... a candle or lantern that has a wick to draw the fuel to the reaction without consuming the actual wick.
Can you say of all the previous examples that the process of combustion meets your criteria for life?
Actually, yes. What really makes the slow chemical burn of life fundamentally different than that of any other cumbustion?
How about "massage parlors"?
There is nothing illegal about massage.
Granted some parlors are a front for a brothel, but that's beside the point.
I mean there are plumbers, electricians, and contractors listed there that are shitty and won't build or fix to code... surely we can't hold the yellow pages responsible.
The Pirate Bay does nothing more than a phone book does. That is, it provides a reference or index entry to an actual object.
What kind of phone book? A white pages? I can't search for plumbers, drug dealers or assassins in a phone book. If I know the specfic name of a person who offerse that service sure I can look him up, but there is no evidence that I can get assassin services from a given listing in the white pages.
Now the yellow pages, sure that's neatly organized into categories. And I can search for plumbers in one. However drug dealers and assassin's aren't listed. What if they were? Would the yellow pages be charged in connection to contributing to drug dealing or murder for hire, but selling the service of linking you to those people? I suspect they would be.
Would they be convicted? Hard to say... especially if it were completely automated online and all listings were self published by end users, and the phone book really exercised zero control over what was listed...
I'm curious though, did you configure the guest yourself, or find it as a pre-rolled virtual machine image?
I ultimately rolled it myself. Partly as a learning exercise, and partly because none of the pre-rolled VMs were quite what I needed. And I didn't know enough to reconfigure them to work the way I needed. (Although now, having rolled my own, I probably could customize a pre-rolled VM.)
There are downsides such as the overhead of emulating a whole machine for a single service, but I'm sure the benefits outweigh them if you have spare host capacity (*2 for redundancy)
Yeah, the overhead of emulating a whole machine is the downside, but the advantages in terms of flexibility, service isolation, and simplicity are clear.
...Why you would run Windows on top of Linux, given not only the stability history but also since now there are now FOSS alternatives for almost anything Windows can provide, without taking a huge hit to the "total cost of ownership".
No. There aren't. Period. There is no FOSS alterantive for LOTs of things, and even when there is switching is cost prohibitive and pointless.
accounting: nope. And migrating to a linux alternative even if one existed would be monstrously expensive for any business of size.
photoshop/illustrator: nope. sure there is the gimp etc, which is all fine and good. But you need to integrate with a workflow where you are exchanging files with other businesses etc you have to use the tools they are using.
microsoft access, filemaker pro, 4D... millions of highly custom applications exist for these to fit business needs. Even if an alternative "application building framework" exists on Linux, the cost of migrating and reimplementing these applications is prohibative. Companies that rely on these won't even consider switching until FM, 4D, etc run on linux natively.
sql server - lots of businesses rely heavily on this. And even if postgresql or mysql, etc could do the job, again, its a massive amount of work to migrate from one to the other.
exchange - nothing needs to be said.
visual studio - sure linux alternatives exist, and you can even just use vi or notepad, but VS2008 is REALLY good.
The above isn't a small list of niche products or categories that only affect a handful of businesses. Millions of businesses rely on multiple of them.
Oh, and at home, there are games blocking a lot of people from leaving windows.
Why you would want to run Linux under the MS Hypervisor is the strange question, unless you just wanted a Linux "sandbox" for some reason. I suspect to get the MS stamp of approval for Windows under Linux they required the reciprocal agreement from RH.
Its not that strange. My first home linux servers ran as VMs under windows, primarily for comfort reasons. I've since gotten comfortable enough that its now linux on linux.
And at work, we have a linux spamassassin VM running on a windows server, simply because that was the simplest deployment option. (We already had the light load Windows Server. Sure we could have installed a linux host, and then run both the Windows Server and spamassassin as VMs under it, (and we would have if we were building the box from scratch), but there wasn't any real point doing that given the windows server was already running just fine.)
And on the desktop... you want the host system to be your primary OS, and VM the others. I personally need windows enough that it would just be silly to run Linux and then VM XP or Vista. And I don't foresee being able to flip them around anytime soon.
No it's not. Because there is more than one criteria, and wind blowing a stone up a hill does not meet the others.
Ah, I wasn't aware you were just adding that criteria to the existing set.
But even so, something like fire also creates negative entropy in a lot of situations. Burn the right materials and resulting heat will result in more complex compounds as a side effect, which is negative entropy.
In fact, thinking about it more, I realize that fire effectively re-captures some of the heat energy it generates by using it to carry burning sparks away ("local negative entropy"). And this is an important part of its reproductive cycle, as by this means it can send offspring to new/distant fuel sources.
And its really no different than how we work... on some level human life is just a slow chemical burn. After all, we just 'burn' sugar by oxidizing it into carbon dioxide and water; and we radiate most of the resulting energy as waste heat, with some energy captured to power the body.
The reason fire and a mule are hard to distinguish in terms of 'life' is that when you get right down to it, its not that fire is somehow perversely life-like, but rather that life essentially IS a fire.
What trade nerf are you referring to? I actually just started the EQ2 trial, so I'm curious, not defensive.
I forgive Blizzard alot because they NEVER beat me down like EQ-EQ2 did.
I played WoW for several months, but ultimately couldn't get over how simple it was. I played EQ1 prior to WoW, and I now wonder if WoW needed the nerf bat less, because it was a lot more bland to start with so that imbalances that needed 'correction' don't crop up nearly as often.
How about "Life is negative entropy" ?
You mean local negative entropy? Because nothing, even life, is net negative entropy. The amount of entropy created getting you to where you are now was astronomical.
Of course the trouble with local negative entropy is that then wind blowing a stone up a hill is "life".
I'm curious how they can be sure it is you in the picture given the look of the full costume.
The next photo over has a picture of him eating a slice of pizza with a key part of the costome crammed under his arm?
why is there this preconception that linking to content that you know full well is illegal, is acceptable?
Because 'speech' is not 'action', and speech has special legal protections. Child porn, hate speech, and yelling fire in a crowded theatre are against the law, but pretty much anything else goes.
A website qualifies as speech.
i'm yet to see a good defense for this. your an accessory to a crime if you knowingly aid it.
Whoah. Your getting WAY ahead of yourself here.
First, TPB doesn't 'aid' anybody. Visitors helped themselves, using software that interpreted information they had on their site. Information isn't generally of its own sake illegal.
Second, you indicate that you are an accessory to a crime if you you knowingly aid it. Which crime exactly are you referring too? Even in the states the 'making available' theory is losing ground fast. If making available isn't a crime, then linking to someone who is making it available can't be an accessory to a crime.
Third, this is Sweden, not the US. The laws in Sweden are more relaxed than the US (and 'making available' is having trouble in the US... so its hard to imagine it flying in Sweden. What crime in Sweden are you referring too, exactly, that you allege they aided?
As you can see, derivative and distribution are two separate rights granted to the copyright holder.
1) It doesn't really matter. If the copyright holder is ok with them creating a derivate work, then he won't sue them. Its not like the police will intervene and stop anyone from creating a derivative work.
2) While the author may hold the rights to derivate works, fair use could be used as a defense for a modified/derivative work used within the company made from a legitimately purchased copy.
So its perefectly ok to buy a book, and highlight the passages you like, and cut out the pages you don't like, creating a derivative work, regardless of what the original author wants.
(Its not ok, to turn around and start renting those copies out... however, as the blockbuster case determined, but that is a separate issue.)
No, it is not. It means that the quanta of control are larger.
That's one meaning. Its not the only one.
More granular means more grain like (not more grains)
No. "granular" doesn't mean "grain like". So "more granular" doesn't mean "more 'grain like'"
Granular means "made up of grains"; so "more granular" means "more 'made up of grains'" and that's ambiguous. The more could refer to the number of grains, or it could refer to to more pronounced grains.
Same goes for "spikey". If I tell my stylist I want my hair to be "more spikey" that's ambiguous -- do I want more spikes (more in number), more pointy spikes (more spike pointiness)? or bigger spikes (more spike size)? Any interpretation is reasonable.
More granular means more grain like (not more grains), which means the grains are more evident. Because they are ... LARGER.
Still ambiguous. If I wanted wood with 'more grain', that means more stripes, not fewer larger ones. Or it might mean that I want the same number of stripes but with greater contrast between them. In any case I can't recall ever hearing someone say they want 'more grain' in connection with 'LARGER' stripes.
For a fixed parameter range more granular means the quanta are larger,
No. Its ambiguous. I don't know if you want more grains, or larger grains, or in fact whether you want the same number of grains the same size but with more definition between them.
and higher resolution means they are smaller.
That's correct. "Higher resolution" is unambiguous. "more granular" isn't.
If we're going to argue about the meaning of the word...
When something is granular, it is made up of chunks.
When something is granular it is made of granules, or 'grains'. Typically something granular is made of numerous grains that form a larger unit.
When something is more granular, the chunks are larger, it has more of the characteristics of being grainy.
That doesn't really follow. The characteristic of being granular is that it has granules or grains. "More granular" is actually ambiguous.
It could mean: more granules or grains -- ie more of the actual characteristic that makes it granular.
Or it could mean, as you say, larger granules or grains -- ie more pronounced characteristics
Granular and continuous are antonyms.
So? More grains doesn't make it 'more opposite', in fact, the fundamental theorem of calculus is that you can approximate continuity with lots of small discontunities... and if you let the number of discontinuites rise to infinity, their size goes zero and it becomes continuous.
What the OP meant is that he achieved more fine grained control.
Correct. And fine grained is a better way of putting it because its not ambiguous.
Not more granular control; more granular control would be worse control than the original resolution.
More granular control is ambiguous. Although easily understood from the context.
It's one thing to speak in abstract probabilities, make historical references to plagues that ended before you were born, talk about the greater good, etc. etc. When you're the one on the front line watching human beings be maimed in the name of "the greater good," you start to question whose greater good is really being served, and do I really want to participate?
You raise a valid point. The further removed from the carnage of those decisions the easier it is to make those decisions without feeling the consequences.
But still, can you really say they are making the wrong decisions?
There was a rather grisly murder on a bus in Canada a few months ago. A passenger, pulled a knife and killed and decapitated a fellow passenger. Horrific stuff.
What should they do about it? The family will have to bear this tragedy for the rest of their lives, and I'm sure we can all agree that no one should ever have to experience this.
But in reality, what should we REALLY do about it? Nothing. We should do nothing. As hard as it is to accept, especially for the people who suffered the most, its the right course of action. We can't make the world safe from a crazy person. Even if we went to the trouble of screening and searching every passenger who ever gets on a bus in North America (and just think what that would mean; think of all the greyhounds stopping in buttfuck nowhere...). The crazy person would have just killed somone somere where else...maybe at a McDonalds. Maybe at the theatre. Maybe at the mall. Maybe in line to get searched for weapons before getting on a bus.
The point I'm making is the people most directly affected by these sorts of things are the least rational at deciding what to do about them. You need some distance to have a practical perspective. As hard as it might be to have a child needlessly suffer, its insanity to spare them that suffering by switching to a policy that WILL lead to 10x as many to suffer, and doubly insane if you don't even know if it will actually spare the child you are trying to save. Yet, a parent, watching their child suffer will not hesitate to make that "locally optimal", "globally catastrophic" type of decision.
I empathize with you. I have kids myself.
Remember this is one country without a domestic car concern...the only such country in the entire so called G8! Canada? Give me a break!
http://www.zenncars.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZENN_Motor_Company
You insensitive clod. ;)
The difference here is that there was not anywhere near the percentage of people that preferred 98 over 2000 as there are that prefer xp over vista.
Doesn't fucking matter. MS holds the copyright to XP. They can choose to give it away, not sell it, or charge whatever they want for it until long after most of us are dead. What people prefer is completely irrelevant. We can either choose to buy what Microsoft decides to offer, or not, but we don't get to decide what they offer... at least that would be true for most companies.
This isn't that cut and dried because Microsofts status as a "monopoloy" changes the game a bit, but even so, this is bullshit.
Also back when 2000 came out, it was very easy to still obtain a machine bundled with 98se, for a long time.
That's primarily because Windows 2000 was more an upgrade to Windows NT4 not Windows 98. 98 wasn't discontinued when 2k was launched. It was discontinued when ME launched. (And it was very difficult to find a Win98 machine after ME launched.)
That sounds really stupid. People end up handling those cables.
The idea was to make eating the cable jacket toxic, not make merely touching it toxic. And going further in that vein, it would make more sense to not make it actually lethally 'toxic', but just taste repugnant to a rat (or taste like something that it would associate with toxic). Sort of like that 'anti-thumbsucking' stuff you put on a kids thumb to help keep them from sucking it...
I wish I had a source for this... but I remember reading somewhere that rats are generalist foragers who will try nibbling on just about anything they come across to see if it's edible or not. When they come across a foreign substance (a seed, a fruit, a piece of garbage, a nice shiny cable), they'll try a few bites of it. if it makes them sick, they //////////////// remember not to eat it again- apparently they have very good memory.
I crossed out the throw it up part, for ya. But it raises an interesting possibility; what if you just coated the cables in a bit of something highly poisonous... they'll take their first tiny nibble, and then leave it the hell alone. It won't get rid of the rats, but your cables will be fine.
I wonder if anyone makes cables with a rat-away coating. If not.. patent pending. ;)