Child behavior is often successfully explained (but not always) by how much loving attention a child gets from its role models, and by how much freedom the child gets in pursuing its desires (e.g., if she wants to play with Barbie, then you hurt her confidence by forbidding it, and ultimately lead her to vanity, the very opposite you wanted to achieve by forbidding Barbie). A child is often a delinquent due to insufficient loving attention, or severe repression (and well-meaning parents do a lot of repression, e.g., forcing a child to share when it clearly doesn't want to, or participating in religion). The delinquent behavior of the child is a symbolic cry for loving attention / freedom, which is completely ironic, because we all view it as the child being bad and incurable, but not crying for life. The typical societal response is to punish them in a way to make it even worse: reduce what little loving attention they had even further by locking them up, and telling them that they are bad, which they inherently won't believe. The end result is anger towards society for depriving the child of the freedom and attention that he wanted, which manifests as retaliation against society --- further crime.
Locking kids up because they want more attention and freedom doesn't seem to be the solution, particularly since they come out with a higher probability of worse crimes against society.
I find the article too ambiguous to definitely say that they only buy used books. I can see how you can interpret it that way, but the author's choice of words are slippery, and can be interpreted to allow for new book purchases too.
How can you find a used book if a new edition came out? The nice thing about this service is that you can rent a new edition for $69 as opposed to buying it retail for $123, despite that there is *no* option to buy used. Of course, you could buy that new edition and resell it for lots, but then you have the burden of reselling it... the renting makes it easier.
I kept most of my books. I thought I'd use them, but rarely have, and they just got in my way once I started moving around the world... should have sold them when I had the chance.
Lots of American ISPs are already providing IPv6 because they want to have the government as a customer. Many of you probably could enable IPv6 but don't because your router is incapable of handling IPv6. There are very few home routers that I could find that support IPv6. One that does is Apple's Airport Extreme. I bought that, connected it, and instantly got IPv6 addresses handed out to my home network. Although they are 6to4 addresses, I can connect to other IPv6 hosts, including friends at other ISPs, and ipv6.google.com. When I'm remote, I can connect directly to any of my home computers (when using IPv6) --- no more port forwarding via NAT.
One reason that 6to4 appeals to the ISPs is that it puts a time limit on your IPv6 prefix lease which is tied to the lease on the IPv4 address. Thus when the IPv4 address changes, your IPv6 subnet's prefix changes, which makes it hard to run a server, and you must rely on dyndns. Dyndns with IPv6 is very easy, because your end host knows its IPv6 prefix (and doesn't have to ping a remote host to figure out its IP address as is necessary for a IPv4 host behind NAT), and because everything on your subnet knows instantly when the IPv6 prefix changes, and so you can update the dyndns with a very small race condition.
It is funny to see everyone saying that she was bought out by business interests. I'm not a business interest, and I've been telling Congress that net neutrality is bad. Perhaps there is another side to the story? And I'm not trolling.
And then there's the irony: people on/. so often worry about individual rights, and talk pro freedom, yet in this case they throw the property rights of ISPs out the window (and please don't reply that the common good trumps property rights --- if you do, I'll convince Congress that it is in the public interest to enslave your body and make it available to do my bidding).
It's amazing how prejudiced the responses have been. Try thinking about it. If AOL charges nothing for tech support, then all of their customers subsidize the ones that require tech support. Should the technically savvy have to subsidize the people that abuse technical support?
Plus this is nothing new. Telephone-based customer service is at the customer's expense in lots of places around the world, because the person making the telephone call pays the bill. So it is typical for an ISP to charge a euro or so a minute for the phone call, billed via the phone company with the monthly telephone bill. Someone has to pay the salary of the tech support person. Of course, this can lead to abuse, since the ISP earns more money by inspiring people to call technical support... but that is fraud. The American-style system, where the ISP generally foots the bill for the technical support, might lead to better service since it is in the ISP's interest to lower tech support costs, but in my experience, it doesn't work and instead causes across-the-board higher costs for customers (e.g., with Verizon). My experience with 1&1 in Germany, despite their high cost per tech-support incidence, was fantastic --- they make the U.S. look like they are decades behind.
I've read several summaries, such as this one, which state that the pilots did something to save the lives of the passengers. But I've never read a news article that provides the information that supports this claim. I'd like to read about what the pilots did to save the situation. Can anyone point out a news article that is actually coherent, and tells more than how many 777s are in service around the world?
When you contribute open source code on your own time, it is an implicit admission that your code is worth little, and so don't be surprised to see someone else take the same view and duplicate it! The value is the fun in writing it, thus there will be some handful of people on the planet that share the same sense of fun, and will duplicate the work. I've seen lots of my stuff duplicated. And I've duplicated other projects. That is how people have fun and learn.
Imagine if you'd gotten money from Sun for your code. Would you care (as much) if they ignored the code? They'd have the right by having purchased it. But having spent money on it, they'd probably be less likely to discard it, and to start from scratch. Money makes a difference.
Jeez, this post is the typical complaint seen in charity work: "Oh, they didn't value my work, and I have no sense of self-worth, so now I'm all upset!" "The people running the charity are all in a clique and don't pay attention to the contributions of the other charity workers. They're destroying the spirit of the organization. Lets go create another organization that cares!" And then the cycle continues. The basic mistake is in thinking that other people have to value your work. They don't. Only you do.
What's wrong with being materialistic? My tools greatly contribute to my free time, and my family time. Bad tools suck up my time (e.g., a dish washer that requires lots of prewashing of the dishes). I'd rather have that time. The phone is no different. I've never found an easy to use phone; they are so poorly designed that I avoid using my phone just to save time. The iPhone looks like a vastly improved tool.
And the iPhone is not a "slightly different design". It is very newsworthy, because it shows that there are a handful of people on this planet that actually try hard to make a good product that helps life. Nearly everyone else gives average effort. Apple seems to have built an environment where people give far more than average effort. That is remarkable. And it is the essence of human existence, for it is achievement. Owning an iPhone is a symbol that someone values achievement.
The solid enclosure is also for structural integrity. Monocoque design. But this is for reducing size and weight, which is covered by your comment.
I'd also guess that Apple satisfies all statutes regarding battery recyclying. With iPods and iPhones it is rather difficult for the average person to dispose of the batteries in the trash (unless they toss the whole device). Apple has increased the probability that batteries are disposed of properly, since you need to have a service shop change the batteries. I believe that environmental laws will force this type of approach more and more in the future.
Oh yeah, in the materials category, you can get sinks and toilets that are so smooth that dirt rarely sticks. You can get vortex toilets (kinda like airplane toilets, but household versions use some water); they prevent clogs. Get a shower/bathtub with a removable hair trap, and thus avoid all plumbing problems. Get a heated Japanese toilet seat that cleans your ass. Or install a shower head on a (long) flexible hose so that you can clean your ass in the morning. Put the toilet's water storage in the wall, so that it doesn't sit awkwardly in the bathroom. Try going with LED lighting. Jeez, there are so many things you can do to improve upon the basic American house experience, and which are high tech. One guiding rule: don't buy at Walmart.
Right on. Definitely focus on the functional aspects of making the house a nice place to live. This means networking and A/V are rather irrelevant. But you needn't rule out high-tech --- you can use the high-tech in the design of the living space. One example is using only indirect lighting, which is a hard problem, but makes a big difference (and tends to get costly, e.g., I have a $440 Poul Henningsen ph 4/3 pendant, which is worth every penny) . Consider using ground-source heat pumps that exchange heat with the ground rather than with the ambient air --- you eliminate a noisy and ugly outdoor heat pump, and substantially improve efficiency. Design for using electrical lawn equipment to reduce noise pollution. Get an induction stove top (are they available in the U.S.?), which gives very fast cooking and efficiency. Buy decent furniture (gets expensive fast); you can find lots of high-tech stuff in this category. Use good materials throughout the house (but this means nothing to the uninitiated), particularly to preempt health problems related to moisture (and hidden mold/fungus). Look into VESA mounts for flat panels. Make sure that you serve coffee in proper cups (i.e., something that retains the right amount of heat, and permits spills like onto a saucer). When it comes to gadgets, look for solutions that keep the gadgets out of site, out of mind, and easy to use. Add decent sound insulation --- you shouldn't be able to hear someone having sex, or taking a piss (and since most guys stand up, design for spray, i.e., don't put a fucking carpet around the toilet but put tile).
Those who brought the laptops into the system were themselves products of the system. They went through the same schools. The confirm that high school is about fads.
it is a basic requirement that his methodology have gained acceptance in the scientific community,
The results of research are valid or invalid independent of the opinion of the peers. The peers, or others in the scientific community, only recognize its status.
and that he have tested and verified the materials upon which he's based his opinion.
That the materials, methods, etc. are tested and verified is generally done by the researcher (to some extent), as can be seen in most publications. The peers have the option to do the same, but that doesn't necessarily happen.
You wouldn't want your life to be affected by some quack or crackpot using a self taught method that no one's ever heard of before, and who has applied that method in an utterly careless manner
The output of research is self taught. It is often something that no one's ever heard of before --- that is a sign that it is something worth pursuing, since it adds to the knowledge of the field. I find these to be irrelevant criteria for determining whether an approach is useful. Someone has to be the first to do forensic analysis of Skype, for example, and it will be self taught, and never heard of before.
I understand that each side of the dispute wants to vet the experts of the other side. I can see why peer-review and professional status are desired. But they don't change whether something is correct or incorrect, valid or invalid. They just make it easier for people unable to evaluate the situation themselves to rely on general opinion. In the case of people willing to use their own judgement, the peer stuff is irrelevant --- e.g., you'd be consulting slashdot either way.
Generally a prerequisite to become a professor is to earn a PhD. The goal and requirement of a PhD is to create new concepts that our peers had never before conceived. Saying that a professor needs some type of peer-regulated body to review the output of the professor is degrading. It is generally the peers who are unable to understand the new techniques and research created by the professor, and hold us back. A good example could be that I create a new and fantastic forensic approach for detecting illicit file sharing, and since it disrupts the current approaches, and wasn't thought of by the others, and the others haven't enough time to understand the revolutionary paradigm shift of my approach, all the "peers" disapprove of it.
Sorry, but suggesting that he isn't an expert since he has enough guts to stand by his own judgement, and doesn't submit to the idiocy of his peers, is silly.
The measurements are not accurate enough --- that is one reason why global warming proponents have to *declare* that the debate is decided, rather than let the evidence speak for itself.
What are you talking about in regards to a true hypervisor? You don't need a true hypervisor to use VT. The Linux kernel could use VT to run VMs (Xen is then completely unnecessary for open source virtualization).
And by the way... yes... device virtualization is still not there, but your page tables claim is bullshit. If you read the VT (and the SVM) docs, you would realize that you can implement shadow page tables RIGHT NOW. The hardware assists are there.
Of course VT supports shadow page tables; how else could it virtualize? The problem is that it isn't accelerated. The guest OS needs to translate its virtual addresses to physical, like so: v --> p. The hypervisor needs to translate the guest's physical pages to machine pages, like so: p --> h. The TLB needs the final translation of: v --> h. VT offers no acceleration to promote v --> p --> h into the TLB. Currently, the hypervisor must maintain a shadow page table with v --> h, which the hardware automatically adds to the TLB. But the hypervisor must manually perform the translation of v --> p --> h, to add to the shadow page table. That is slow. Future revs of VT will automatically do the v --> p --> h. If you believe that happens now, then show me what I misunderstand, or implement support for it and disprove VMware's performance paper.
Where have you seen VMware discrediting XenSource? I haven't seen that. Can you back this up with some links? Searching for "VMware vs Xensource" was fruitless for me. And searching for "VMware discredits XenSource" was also fruitless.
But Vmware's agitation is understandable. They're about to lose it all to an open source project. Where have I seen this before?
I'll let you in on a secret: if you consider all costs, and return on investment, using VMware is a competitive advantage over using Xen. But I don't care whether you believe me, because if you don't, you'll be at a competitive disadvantage, which is to my benefit.
VMware sells both hardware-accelerated and software virtualization products. They implemented full support for VT (how else would they benchmark it? Plus they were the first to support VT). If you run VMware on 64-bit Windows, then you use VMware's VT product. But because VMware's original software method is faster than the VT method on 32-bit, they continue to use the software approach.
VMware's paper is a typical research paper, published at a peer-reviewed conference. This means that they have used the scientific method. The chances are 99.9999% that you will easily reproduce their results, even if changing the benchmarks.
I, on the other hand, am smart enough to see that they are stating the obvious. If you read the Intel VT spec, you'll see that Intel does nothing for page table virtualization, nor anything for device virtualization. Both are extremely expensive, and besides sti/cli, are the prime candidates for hardware assists. Intel will likely solve this performance issue in future revs, but right now, VT isn't fast enough.
Hmmm, virtualisation? Do you happen to work on Xen?
I've never slaved away for the sole profit of a board of directors and merciless share holders. I've worked for several companies and helped them earn profit, which was paid back to us employees as salary, determined by market rates. And with that salary, I've had a nice life (plus enjoyable work that made me jump out of bed every morning). I have no complaints for the system, except that the very nature of its smooth functioning turns employees into social-welfare types (and thus hypocrites).
In regards to your question, letting the naive and low-level workers have a say in the running of the company would quickly lead to its downfall (I'm not going to explain here why). Most engineers that I've seen dislike and disrespect management; that is because the engineers are ignorant and incapable of thinking out of the box --- managing and directing a company is far more difficult than writing software, and rarely do engineers even *try* to appreciate the decisions that management makes. Try a little experiment: think very hard about what the management chain above you has to do on a daily basis --- this will probably require that you work on this experiment for a week or two, because it is difficult to adjust your thinking so drastically --- and eventually you'll see that your fellow engineers completely misunderstand management.
Slashdot Mirror
Locking kids up because they want more attention and freedom doesn't seem to be the solution, particularly since they come out with a higher probability of worse crimes against society.
I find the article too ambiguous to definitely say that they only buy used books. I can see how you can interpret it that way, but the author's choice of words are slippery, and can be interpreted to allow for new book purchases too.
How can you find a used book if a new edition came out? The nice thing about this service is that you can rent a new edition for $69 as opposed to buying it retail for $123, despite that there is *no* option to buy used. Of course, you could buy that new edition and resell it for lots, but then you have the burden of reselling it ... the renting makes it easier.
I kept most of my books. I thought I'd use them, but rarely have, and they just got in my way once I started moving around the world ... should have sold them when I had the chance.
Lots of American ISPs are already providing IPv6 because they want to have the government as a customer. Many of you probably could enable IPv6 but don't because your router is incapable of handling IPv6. There are very few home routers that I could find that support IPv6. One that does is Apple's Airport Extreme. I bought that, connected it, and instantly got IPv6 addresses handed out to my home network. Although they are 6to4 addresses, I can connect to other IPv6 hosts, including friends at other ISPs, and ipv6.google.com. When I'm remote, I can connect directly to any of my home computers (when using IPv6) --- no more port forwarding via NAT. One reason that 6to4 appeals to the ISPs is that it puts a time limit on your IPv6 prefix lease which is tied to the lease on the IPv4 address. Thus when the IPv4 address changes, your IPv6 subnet's prefix changes, which makes it hard to run a server, and you must rely on dyndns. Dyndns with IPv6 is very easy, because your end host knows its IPv6 prefix (and doesn't have to ping a remote host to figure out its IP address as is necessary for a IPv4 host behind NAT), and because everything on your subnet knows instantly when the IPv6 prefix changes, and so you can update the dyndns with a very small race condition.
Mine works by her yelling at me.
I'm so happy I use Apple.
And then there's the irony: people on /. so often worry about individual rights, and talk pro freedom, yet in this case they throw the property rights of ISPs out the window (and please don't reply that the common good trumps property rights --- if you do, I'll convince Congress that it is in the public interest to enslave your body and make it available to do my bidding).
You understand that it is possible that the government could do more than one thing at a time, right?
Most of us are painfully aware that the government can do multiple stupid things at the same time.
Apple doesn't use EULAs. They use SLAs: http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
Plus this is nothing new. Telephone-based customer service is at the customer's expense in lots of places around the world, because the person making the telephone call pays the bill. So it is typical for an ISP to charge a euro or so a minute for the phone call, billed via the phone company with the monthly telephone bill. Someone has to pay the salary of the tech support person. Of course, this can lead to abuse, since the ISP earns more money by inspiring people to call technical support ... but that is fraud. The American-style system, where the ISP generally foots the bill for the technical support, might lead to better service since it is in the ISP's interest to lower tech support costs, but in my experience, it doesn't work and instead causes across-the-board higher costs for customers (e.g., with Verizon). My experience with 1&1 in Germany, despite their high cost per tech-support incidence, was fantastic --- they make the U.S. look like they are decades behind.
I guess not ... that is what I was looking for.
I've read several summaries, such as this one, which state that the pilots did something to save the lives of the passengers. But I've never read a news article that provides the information that supports this claim. I'd like to read about what the pilots did to save the situation. Can anyone point out a news article that is actually coherent, and tells more than how many 777s are in service around the world?
When you contribute open source code on your own time, it is an implicit admission that your code is worth little, and so don't be surprised to see someone else take the same view and duplicate it! The value is the fun in writing it, thus there will be some handful of people on the planet that share the same sense of fun, and will duplicate the work. I've seen lots of my stuff duplicated. And I've duplicated other projects. That is how people have fun and learn.
Imagine if you'd gotten money from Sun for your code. Would you care (as much) if they ignored the code? They'd have the right by having purchased it. But having spent money on it, they'd probably be less likely to discard it, and to start from scratch. Money makes a difference.
Jeez, this post is the typical complaint seen in charity work: "Oh, they didn't value my work, and I have no sense of self-worth, so now I'm all upset!" "The people running the charity are all in a clique and don't pay attention to the contributions of the other charity workers. They're destroying the spirit of the organization. Lets go create another organization that cares!" And then the cycle continues. The basic mistake is in thinking that other people have to value your work. They don't. Only you do.
And the iPhone is not a "slightly different design". It is very newsworthy, because it shows that there are a handful of people on this planet that actually try hard to make a good product that helps life. Nearly everyone else gives average effort. Apple seems to have built an environment where people give far more than average effort. That is remarkable. And it is the essence of human existence, for it is achievement. Owning an iPhone is a symbol that someone values achievement.
I'd also guess that Apple satisfies all statutes regarding battery recyclying. With iPods and iPhones it is rather difficult for the average person to dispose of the batteries in the trash (unless they toss the whole device). Apple has increased the probability that batteries are disposed of properly, since you need to have a service shop change the batteries. I believe that environmental laws will force this type of approach more and more in the future.
Oh yeah, in the materials category, you can get sinks and toilets that are so smooth that dirt rarely sticks. You can get vortex toilets (kinda like airplane toilets, but household versions use some water); they prevent clogs. Get a shower/bathtub with a removable hair trap, and thus avoid all plumbing problems. Get a heated Japanese toilet seat that cleans your ass. Or install a shower head on a (long) flexible hose so that you can clean your ass in the morning. Put the toilet's water storage in the wall, so that it doesn't sit awkwardly in the bathroom. Try going with LED lighting. Jeez, there are so many things you can do to improve upon the basic American house experience, and which are high tech. One guiding rule: don't buy at Walmart.
Right on. Definitely focus on the functional aspects of making the house a nice place to live. This means networking and A/V are rather irrelevant. But you needn't rule out high-tech --- you can use the high-tech in the design of the living space. One example is using only indirect lighting, which is a hard problem, but makes a big difference (and tends to get costly, e.g., I have a $440 Poul Henningsen ph 4/3 pendant, which is worth every penny) . Consider using ground-source heat pumps that exchange heat with the ground rather than with the ambient air --- you eliminate a noisy and ugly outdoor heat pump, and substantially improve efficiency. Design for using electrical lawn equipment to reduce noise pollution. Get an induction stove top (are they available in the U.S.?), which gives very fast cooking and efficiency. Buy decent furniture (gets expensive fast); you can find lots of high-tech stuff in this category. Use good materials throughout the house (but this means nothing to the uninitiated), particularly to preempt health problems related to moisture (and hidden mold/fungus). Look into VESA mounts for flat panels. Make sure that you serve coffee in proper cups (i.e., something that retains the right amount of heat, and permits spills like onto a saucer). When it comes to gadgets, look for solutions that keep the gadgets out of site, out of mind, and easy to use. Add decent sound insulation --- you shouldn't be able to hear someone having sex, or taking a piss (and since most guys stand up, design for spray, i.e., don't put a fucking carpet around the toilet but put tile).
Those who brought the laptops into the system were themselves products of the system. They went through the same schools. The confirm that high school is about fads.
The results of research are valid or invalid independent of the opinion of the peers. The peers, or others in the scientific community, only recognize its status.
and that he have tested and verified the materials upon which he's based his opinion.
That the materials, methods, etc. are tested and verified is generally done by the researcher (to some extent), as can be seen in most publications. The peers have the option to do the same, but that doesn't necessarily happen.
You wouldn't want your life to be affected by some quack or crackpot using a self taught method that no one's ever heard of before, and who has applied that method in an utterly careless manner
The output of research is self taught. It is often something that no one's ever heard of before --- that is a sign that it is something worth pursuing, since it adds to the knowledge of the field. I find these to be irrelevant criteria for determining whether an approach is useful. Someone has to be the first to do forensic analysis of Skype, for example, and it will be self taught, and never heard of before.
I understand that each side of the dispute wants to vet the experts of the other side. I can see why peer-review and professional status are desired. But they don't change whether something is correct or incorrect, valid or invalid. They just make it easier for people unable to evaluate the situation themselves to rely on general opinion. In the case of people willing to use their own judgement, the peer stuff is irrelevant --- e.g., you'd be consulting slashdot either way.
Sorry, but suggesting that he isn't an expert since he has enough guts to stand by his own judgement, and doesn't submit to the idiocy of his peers, is silly.
The measurements are not accurate enough --- that is one reason why global warming proponents have to *declare* that the debate is decided, rather than let the evidence speak for itself.
What are you talking about in regards to a true hypervisor? You don't need a true hypervisor to use VT. The Linux kernel could use VT to run VMs (Xen is then completely unnecessary for open source virtualization).
Of course VT supports shadow page tables; how else could it virtualize? The problem is that it isn't accelerated. The guest OS needs to translate its virtual addresses to physical, like so: v --> p. The hypervisor needs to translate the guest's physical pages to machine pages, like so: p --> h. The TLB needs the final translation of: v --> h. VT offers no acceleration to promote v --> p --> h into the TLB. Currently, the hypervisor must maintain a shadow page table with v --> h, which the hardware automatically adds to the TLB. But the hypervisor must manually perform the translation of v --> p --> h, to add to the shadow page table. That is slow. Future revs of VT will automatically do the v --> p --> h. If you believe that happens now, then show me what I misunderstand, or implement support for it and disprove VMware's performance paper.
I'll let you in on a secret: if you consider all costs, and return on investment, using VMware is a competitive advantage over using Xen. But I don't care whether you believe me, because if you don't, you'll be at a competitive disadvantage, which is to my benefit.
VMware sells both hardware-accelerated and software virtualization products. They implemented full support for VT (how else would they benchmark it? Plus they were the first to support VT). If you run VMware on 64-bit Windows, then you use VMware's VT product. But because VMware's original software method is faster than the VT method on 32-bit, they continue to use the software approach.
VMware's paper is a typical research paper, published at a peer-reviewed conference. This means that they have used the scientific method. The chances are 99.9999% that you will easily reproduce their results, even if changing the benchmarks.
I, on the other hand, am smart enough to see that they are stating the obvious. If you read the Intel VT spec, you'll see that Intel does nothing for page table virtualization, nor anything for device virtualization. Both are extremely expensive, and besides sti/cli, are the prime candidates for hardware assists. Intel will likely solve this performance issue in future revs, but right now, VT isn't fast enough.
Hmmm, virtualisation? Do you happen to work on Xen?
I've never slaved away for the sole profit of a board of directors and merciless share holders. I've worked for several companies and helped them earn profit, which was paid back to us employees as salary, determined by market rates. And with that salary, I've had a nice life (plus enjoyable work that made me jump out of bed every morning). I have no complaints for the system, except that the very nature of its smooth functioning turns employees into social-welfare types (and thus hypocrites).
In regards to your question, letting the naive and low-level workers have a say in the running of the company would quickly lead to its downfall (I'm not going to explain here why). Most engineers that I've seen dislike and disrespect management; that is because the engineers are ignorant and incapable of thinking out of the box --- managing and directing a company is far more difficult than writing software, and rarely do engineers even *try* to appreciate the decisions that management makes. Try a little experiment: think very hard about what the management chain above you has to do on a daily basis --- this will probably require that you work on this experiment for a week or two, because it is difficult to adjust your thinking so drastically --- and eventually you'll see that your fellow engineers completely misunderstand management.