ENERGY WAR.
Not a war.
And anyway, a war with Russia and anyone else is going to disrupt exports of energy from Russia, either directly or because the Russians need the energy for the war.
Yes there is: nuclear power.
But you know... NIMBY.
Dieting is as much about quality as quantity.
You don't need to retest everything, you stand on the shoulders of those before you in science. You don't need to redo it, because you know it has been tested multiple times by multiple people and those results have been vetted.
You can even challenge those old findings if you want, and replace them if they prove wrong. Many working theories have been replaced or refined.
I don't think theology and religion are irrational as you seem to suggest, but they are not as objective as science. I would like to hear what you think is an example of religious objectivity. You certainly can't point to a religion based on objectivity, can you? (Unless you lump science as a religion, in which case, ok, fine.)
Nor is science totally objective, but then it becomes sort of a "No true Scotsman" argument if I say non-objective science is not science. There are plenty of theories that are wrong but persist because people won't let go of them.
And it really makes no sense to try and make the Venn Diagram overlap. Science will only work if it is objective as possible, and there is no need for objective knowledge in religion. Ultimately in religion you must believe in something that cannot be measured or proven, and thus is not objective at it's base.
Wave vrs Particle one comes to mind...
Interesting, I did not say Science proved, I said Religion did not.
You jumped to conclusions.
Science does not require belief. Belief is acceptance of something that is not provable.
Scientists who say "We believe the universe started in a Big Bang", for example, are being sloppy.
"We hypothesize/theorize the universe started in a Big Bang"
The closest science has to belief is to "postulate", in other words, "If we assume this is true, then...".
In any case, all three must has some rational basis for the postulate/hypothesis/theory.
Religious is under no such requirement and can make statements about things with no more rational thought that "we say so"
And while some religious edicts can have good scientific reasons to do them, think Islamic purification as a way to avoid disease, or the Jewish dietary restrictions as a way to avoid cross contamination, they are not followed because they are scientifically proved as a true, but because someone said to do it.
Most of what happens at a university has nothing to do with science.
This is one of them. It is a belief system, not a scientific.
Most universities have a religious studies department and that is where this is appropriate.
If you applied that at a University, all of the Liberal Arts would be out, and STEM would be the only thing left.
Evidence based study of a Shakespeare Sonnet? Pottery and graphic design? Film criticism and Foreign language courses?
There is a broad range of subjects between hard objectivity of STEM and pure conjecture of Creationism. And those have a place in the Uni as well.
So does Creationism, if it is related to religious studies which examine belief systems
Science does not believe.
Religion does not prove.
There is no Venn diagram overlapping the two.
Somebody has never heard of the Sohei in Japan and the Shaolin in China? (Shoalin Kung Fu?)
Scaling is application controlled. It has to be willing to use a larger window size.
SSH and FTP do not pick up and use larger windows by default. HPN-SSH specifically addresses this problem. Some implementations like Solaris can pick up larger sizes as well, but the APP has to decide to do it.
Larger TCP Window sizes are slowly creeping into applications, but by no means standard.
I have been fighting this specific issue in my job for the last 4 years, constantly seeing NFS/CIFS/FTP/SCP and lots of other applications like DBs, plus data migration tools like DoubleTake, Platespin, and TDMF trying to pull data over LFNs and using less than 10Mbits of an OC-3 to OC-48 that is no where near capacity or even totally silent.
http://www.psc.edu/index.php/h...
explains the issue and the fix in detail.
Late FreeBSD 8 and up have HPN-SSH by default.
HPN-SSH with the "NONE" encryption option is blinding fast, up to 2.5Gbit per stream on bigger servers. Filling even an OC-48 is possible with very big servers.
Incorrect. Many older protocols don't support it. FTP, SSH based, etc. BOTH sides must agree to the larger window size. As little as
I run into this all the time at work, where moving data over large pipes over long distances still limits transmission speeds. I move datacenters for IBM, so I see it a LOT.
If it were not such a problem, CISCO WAAS, Silverpeak, Riverbed and others would not make appliances to fix this exact problem. Riverbed even makes end user software that talks to concentrators at the corporate datacenter to eliminate TCP window size issues impacting application performance.
True, and it helps file sharing, which tends to have multiple connections. Unless you are encrypting, then the encryption slows you down.
Yes, but both sides have to agree and the protocol has to support it. SCP/SFTP in particular don't, unless you are using PSC's version of SSH that fixes it.
More on that:
Companies won't pay for infinite bandwidth, so they will throttle you eventually.
TCP_WINDOWS_SIZE will put a maximum on how much you can download based on how far away the server is. Anything more than 20 to 30ms and it won't be much faster than what we have today.
Anything that is encrypted is limited to the computational capacity of the CPU, unless you have an encryption acceleration chip. Around 25 to 35Mbps depending on the encryption method and how much load that crypt takes. More secure means more CPU, right now arc_four being the fastest, but least secure.
Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.
