Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Why not infect Naegleria fowleri with Mimivirus (Score 1) 149

Naegleria fowleri is close to 100% fatal,

It's close to 100% fatal once symptoms present (and are further successfully diagnosed as n. fowleri). There are confirmed instances of signs that some of the population has unknowingly gotten into their systems, so it may be significantly less than 100% fatal even when infected.

So the number to eye is about 3.5 deaths per year. So it's either the case that exposure is actually very low or else that most that get infected never even know. Pneumonia on the other hand has a much higher death count.

Comment It is horrific, however... (Score 5, Interesting) 149

" 97% of people whose brains start swelling"

So basically, if you start showing the signs, you are probably gone. However, IIRC, they found a fairly large portion of the population actually has antibodies for N. fowleri, indicating that getting infected may not be that uncommon, just that most infected are asymptomatic (or maybe mistook it for some more trivial ailment).

It would be interesting to also know the percentage of exposed who do not experience brain swelling...

Comment Re:no surprise, what people use at home they use t (Score 1) 167

The problem for RH becomes that on top of being wildly successful in the free market, Canonical also promises 24x7 commercial support. People can bitch and moan about their opinion of the quality of that support, but RH simply cannot pretend that they are the only ones that check off that marketing bullet point.

This further reinforces my opinion that RH has pretty much nothing to lose by making RH 'free' and charging for support, rather than this 'sort of not quite' in between state that they are in now by pretending CentOS and RH are different and never should the two mix...

Comment Re:Centos = RHEL really (Score 1) 167

This is a huge part of RH's problem IMO, that they go to great pains to distance functionally identical things. For Ubuntu, the free and supported client base aren't so visibly separate, so it's hard to get a read on how many folks actually pay for it. So stories like this happen, where the gap between RHEL and Ubuntu is presented as hopelessly wide when reality is that they are surprisingly close...

Comment Re:no surprise, what people use at home they use t (Score 3, Interesting) 167

It's when paid businesses go to Ubuntu they have to worry, but the requirements of the customers willing to pay out big money for licenses and support are vastly different than those of desktop users

And here's the rub, they made the desktop platform pretty bleeding edge (major kernel changes are inflicted in routine updates, breaking things like nvidia driver if you choose to use it, not merely being mostly unhelpful about closed source realities but actively making it more painful). Even if drivers didn't break, updates can change things dramatically at a whim, and there's no blessed 'long term' servicing branch that so nearly matches their 6 month cycle releases like Ubuntu does. RedHat is making the free situation needlessly complicated and risky to push people to RHEL, but instead are giving ubuntu the free market. Like you say, the free market by itself is no huge threat, but it influences the commercial market in the long term.

You could also say RedHat has very little to lose by having something more like Ubuntu in lifecycle out there for free. Those folks won't pay for anything, but their mindshare is valuable among the audience that will pay.

Comment Re:The New Napster (Score 1) 144

i love how people use things like this to reject copyright laws all together. NO ONE is bashing in your front door and tazing you because you made a copy of a DVD you purchased.

I did not reject copyright laws altogether. I complained that something that should be legal is not. The argument that no one is *bothering* to prosecute is not a defense of a law existing that could be used to prosecute. If there is a situation that should be legal, the law should be changed to allow that. That doesn't mean 'no copyright', it means that DMCA should be repealed (the things enabled by the DMCA were *already* illegal, DMCA just tries to get ahead of things to prevent even attempting, which interferes with fair use). This isn't a theoretical thing, getting software that decrypts DVD/BluRay is tricky precisely because that software is *actively* pursued.

Comment But is it useful? (Score 4, Interesting) 168

slow compared to other modern examples, but the researchers say their formal verification can also work with faster designs

If we can accept 'slow', it's not that difficult to build an always consistent filesystem. While they can formally verify a faster design should one exist, there remains the question of whether it's possible to be formally proven to be resilient to data loss while taking some of the utterly required performance shortcuts for acceptable performance. I suspect the answer is that some essential performance 'shortcuts' will fail that verification.

Comment Re:The New Napster (Score 1) 144

I agree. There are outlandish things that are forbidden. For example, the DMCA means my ripping of my own personal DVD and Blu Ray discs to HDD is not lawful, which is absurd. Sure string me up for sharing the result of that effort or selling the original while keeping my copy, but that transfer from media to disk itself should absolutely be legal.

However in the case of popcorn time, I don't really see the violation being some silly thing (though claims of how much 'harm' is done in judicial terms can be absurd, jailtime and/or unrealisticly high amounts of damage).

I can also go on an offtopic rant about how the copyright holders are unwilling to provide me a quality experience. I just want to buy a DRM-free mkv or mp4 of their media with high quality and then use some very good software to curate the content (like Emby for example). Popcorn time I've never used, but the principle of the thing doesn't appeal either, I want to actually have my library at hand at any given time.

Comment Re:The New Napster (Score 1) 144

copyright is for a non-digital era.

If anything it is more important in a 'digital era'. The whole point of copyright is to try to protect intellectual 'property' because it's been relatively more trivial to replicate the essence of your work compared to real physical goods. In the 'digital era', the contributing factors to wanting copyright are even stronger as it becomes even more trivial.

Arguments can be made about how you get people to produce this content in an ideal versus a real world, or how long copyright should ask to balance rewarding new creations versus being able to use those works in new and exciting ways. However the realities that have thus far driven the existence of copyright are unchanged.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 157

I don't know about system z, but in some designs there are even redundant midplanes/backplanes, such that you could service them independently.

Yes 'bunch of wires' (traces) can have problems. A metal can corrode, a connector can deform. It's one reason that if you have a fully redundant system and expecting 100% uptime, sometimes a midplane is a worse decision than discretely cabled components. However with redundant and indpendently serviceable mid/backplanes, that no longer becomes a risk.

Comment Re:Ubuntu?! (Score 1, Interesting) 157

you wouldn't know you're running on a "mainframe"

Your accountant would know if it were really running on a mainframe. Your users and developers wouldn't notice any benefit, but your accountant can painfully feel the weight of the mainframe.

This is IBM grasping at relevance of their mainframe platform to a wider audience. The problem is that it's not an appealing architecture for those workloads. If anything this may be making some hardcore mainframe shops wonder more strongly if they should be moving off, since even IBM seems to be legitimizing the 'not-mainframe' way of doing it for mainframe users. Along the lines of how OS/2's windows compatibility made it so that workloads shouldn't bother targeting OS/2 since IBM would support it via windows compatibility. IBM hoped windows compatibility would make users prefer OS/2 so they could run both, but it backfired on the developer end.

"For the love of phlegm...a stupid wall of death rays. How tacky can ya get?" - Post Brothers comics