Do you ever condemn the Israelis when they target civilians? And they do pretty much only target civilians. Or do you blame the Palestinian children for jumping in front of that poor blameless Israeli's gun/helicopter/rocket? If the Israeli's didn't attack Palestine in the 50's, then Palestine wouldn't have a reason to hit back. Now go back to throwing candy around and celebrating what is happening in Syria/Iraq/Gaza to Arab civilians. Why do you expect that people whose country was carved up by WWII refugees would just say 'oh well', they win, we should just go over here and live however they say we should. The Israeli's fought for what they believed in, so why would you not expect Palestinians to do the same?
Everyone is going further and further up the chain in terms of the effect on the environment or health etc of Nuclear, Wind, Solar etc etc. So I thought I would throw in another missing number from the number of deaths in the industry dept.
Three points I would like to make (keeping in mind that I am generally pro nuclear over coal):
How many people are aware of the number of deaths each year just in Coal Mines alone. Quoted from China D-News:
"The figure for China is around 7,000 (Official figures indicate more than 7,000 workers die each year in China's coal mines, mainly from poor control of gas density, flooding and lack of safety awareness. However, Hong Kong-based human rights group China Labor Bulletin puts the number of industry deaths at around 20,000."
Secondly, I suspect that a lot of the hysteria and paranoia around nuclear fired power stations is because people relate fission power stations with Nuclear weapons. How many average Joes could tell you the difference between the two? I was shocked recently when I asked quite a few family and friends as to what sort of explosion occured in Chernobyl. Almost without exception they all replied matter-of-factly that it was a nuclear explosion (not hydrogen). Mind you who cares how the rasdioactive material ends up in the atmosphere, its the fact that its there that counts. However there is no blinding flash of radiation, or nuclear winds...etc etc that people associate with Nuclear weapons.
Thirdly, there seems to be a bit of a misconception that Nuclear is both cheaper and cleaner. I wont weigh into the cleaner debate, I have already chosen my horse on that one, but as for cheaper... I live in Australia which has some of the worlds largest uranium deposits however Coal is still a (shit load) cheaper than uranium here. Add that to the comparison between plant build costs and dont expect nuclear to give you a power bill reduction any time soon. - The Nuclear Tourist lists the costs as slightly dearer for Nuclear than coal fired, however this would differ from country to country.
I know I only said three points...but some final things for consideration. In my mind (and I will state here once again that I am generally pro-nuclear) the real safet issues around Nuclear generation are those of politics not engineering or technology (those have for the most part been solved already). The real issue comes about when once responsible governments are replaced by irresponsible governments or economics change etc etc. Suddnely you have the issues of:
reduced capital expenditure on equipment leading to aged plants
reduced focus on safety and controls as costs are cut
the possibility of enriched uranium being sold on black markets to help fund poorly managed economies
the possibility of uranium reactors and their resultant technology being used to research enrichment and possible weapons grade material
inability or unwillingess to deal with waste due to political or financial factors.
Like most things the biggest problem with technology is the people who use or abuse it.
I think there is far too much extremism in this debate (always has been). Until you can define problems both on your side of the fence and your enemies, you will never be able to actually work towards trying to solve them.
The choices are starting to become Linux or Windows as the app server layer. In the past the choice waqs only windows, now that the choice includes Linux we can make the decision to move that way. As soon as betting the business on single image large scale DB server running linux becomes the safest bet we would move that layer as well. The point is that lowest risk at reasonable cost is the main driver.
There is always the option of running Linux on the p690 instead of AIX, but that is hardly low-risk at this stage.
Given all that, yes it is a migration from Windows, it's just that the best way to do this from a business perspective is to do it as the opportunities arise, not just wake up one morning and decide to move all the existing systems to Linux.
This is business, not a hobby so evaluating risks to the business is one of the largest contributing factors to these types of decisions.
Chickens grown for meat aren't raised in cages (what would be the point of that?). Yes they are kept inside in an artificial environment but they are free to wander as much as possible on sawdust and woodshavings generally (not their own faeces)..
Typical self righteous know-more-than-though do-gooder who wouldn't know a rhodesian red if it bit him on his mouse finger...
BTW - I am an IT worker (I am not a chicken farmer, but a chicken farmer's son)...
He says that database programmers are forced to be very careful about the consistency of their data
I think you will find that by 'database programmers', he means the developers that are responsible for actually coding the database engine, not developers responsible for writing applicaitons using the engine..at least that was my take on it. I must admit I read that sentence a couple of times as well.
But hang on, I administer a couple of Origins, and I have never been asked to pay for a IRIX license. They dont charge for it.
In my experience most of the time these things happen because either the latest tools are more easily accesible for Linux, or there are more people around who know linux than IRIX, or the fact that the incremenets in performance/proce are smaller, so you can better match the required grunt. Or lastly you can start a hell of a lor smaller and scale up later (although this doesnt make good economic sense - it is a risk management decision).
Slashdot Mirror
Do you ever condemn the Israelis when they target civilians? And they do pretty much only target civilians. Or do you blame the Palestinian children for jumping in front of that poor blameless Israeli's gun/helicopter/rocket? If the Israeli's didn't attack Palestine in the 50's, then Palestine wouldn't have a reason to hit back. Now go back to throwing candy around and celebrating what is happening in Syria/Iraq/Gaza to Arab civilians. Why do you expect that people whose country was carved up by WWII refugees would just say 'oh well', they win, we should just go over here and live however they say we should. The Israeli's fought for what they believed in, so why would you not expect Palestinians to do the same?
Everyone is going further and further up the chain in terms of the effect on the environment or health etc of Nuclear, Wind, Solar etc etc. So I thought I would throw in another missing number from the number of deaths in the industry dept.
:
Three points I would like to make (keeping in mind that I am generally pro nuclear over coal):
How many people are aware of the number of deaths each year just in Coal Mines alone.
Quoted from China D-News:
"The figure for China is around 7,000 (Official figures indicate more than 7,000 workers die each year in China's coal mines, mainly from poor control of gas density, flooding and lack of safety awareness. However, Hong Kong-based human rights group China Labor Bulletin puts the number of industry deaths at around 20,000."
Secondly, I suspect that a lot of the hysteria and paranoia around nuclear fired power stations is because people relate fission power stations with Nuclear weapons. How many average Joes could tell you the difference between the two? I was shocked recently when I asked quite a few family and friends as to what sort of explosion occured in Chernobyl. Almost without exception they all replied matter-of-factly that it was a nuclear explosion (not hydrogen). Mind you who cares how the rasdioactive material ends up in the atmosphere, its the fact that its there that counts. However there is no blinding flash of radiation, or nuclear winds...etc etc that people associate with Nuclear weapons.
Thirdly, there seems to be a bit of a misconception that Nuclear is both cheaper and cleaner. I wont weigh into the cleaner debate, I have already chosen my horse on that one, but as for cheaper... I live in Australia which has some of the worlds largest uranium deposits however Coal is still a (shit load) cheaper than uranium here. Add that to the comparison between plant build costs and dont expect nuclear to give you a power bill reduction any time soon. - The Nuclear Tourist lists the costs as slightly dearer for Nuclear than coal fired, however this would differ from country to country.
I know I only said three points...but some final things for consideration. In my mind (and I will state here once again that I am generally pro-nuclear) the real safet issues around Nuclear generation are those of politics not engineering or technology (those have for the most part been solved already). The real issue comes about when once responsible governments are replaced by irresponsible governments or economics change etc etc. Suddnely you have the issues of
reduced capital expenditure on equipment leading to aged plants
reduced focus on safety and controls as costs are cut
the possibility of enriched uranium being sold on black markets to help fund poorly managed economies
the possibility of uranium reactors and their resultant technology being used to research enrichment and possible weapons grade material
inability or unwillingess to deal with waste due to political or financial factors.
Like most things the biggest problem with technology is the people who use or abuse it.
I think there is far too much extremism in this debate (always has been). Until you can define problems both on your side of the fence and your enemies, you will never be able to actually work towards trying to solve them.
Unfortunately, it was the ACCC who SCO first contacted and possibly gave them the green light to go ahead.
The choices are starting to become Linux or Windows as the app server layer. In the past the choice waqs only windows, now that the choice includes Linux we can make the decision to move that way. As soon as betting the business on single image large scale DB server running linux becomes the safest bet we would move that layer as well. The point is that lowest risk at reasonable cost is the main driver.
There is always the option of running Linux on the p690 instead of AIX, but that is hardly low-risk at this stage.
Given all that, yes it is a migration from Windows, it's just that the best way to do this from a business perspective is to do it as the opportunities arise, not just wake up one morning and decide to move all the existing systems to Linux.
This is business, not a hobby so evaluating risks to the business is one of the largest contributing factors to these types of decisions.
Two Words.. Radio Technicians
What a load of chickenshit....
Chickens grown for meat aren't raised in cages (what would be the point of that?). Yes they are kept inside in an artificial environment but they are free to wander as much as possible on sawdust and woodshavings generally (not their own faeces)..
Typical self righteous know-more-than-though do-gooder who wouldn't know a rhodesian red if it bit him on his mouse finger...
BTW - I am an IT worker (I am not a chicken farmer, but a chicken farmer's son)...
He says that database programmers are forced to be very careful about the consistency of their data
I think you will find that by 'database programmers', he means the developers that are responsible for actually coding the database engine, not developers responsible for writing applicaitons using the engine..at least that was my take on it. I must admit I read that sentence a couple of times as well.
But hang on, I administer a couple of Origins, and I have never been asked to pay for a IRIX license. They dont charge for it. In my experience most of the time these things happen because either the latest tools are more easily accesible for Linux, or there are more people around who know linux than IRIX, or the fact that the incremenets in performance/proce are smaller, so you can better match the required grunt. Or lastly you can start a hell of a lor smaller and scale up later (although this doesnt make good economic sense - it is a risk management decision).