Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:My Very Original Thoughts on the Subject (Score 1) 108

Nutrition is a subject for which everybody should understand the basics. Unfortunately, this is hard. Not only is there a ton of conflicting research about how to properly fuel your body, there's a multi-billion-dollar industry with financial incentive to muddy the waters. Further, one of the most basic concepts for how we evaluate food — the calorie — is incredibly imprecise. "Wilbur Atwater, a Department of Agriculture scientist, began by measuring the calories contained in more than 4,000 foods. Then he fed those foods to volunteers and collected their faeces, which he incinerated in a bomb calorimeter. After subtracting the energy measured in the faeces from that in the food, he arrived at the Atwater values, numbers that represent the available energy in each gram of protein, carbohydrate and fat. These century-old figures remain the basis for today's standards."

In addition to the measuring system being outdated, the amount of calories taken from a meal can vary from person to person. Differences in metabolism and digestive efficiency add sizable error bars. Then there are issues with serving sizes and preparation methods. Research is now underway to find a better measure of food intake than the calorie. One possibility for the future is mapping your internal chemistry and having it analyzed with a massive database to see what foods work best for you. Another may involve tweaking your gut microbiome to change how you extract energy from certain foods.

Oh and my captcha is pinhead which obviously refers to the editors.

What I'm curious about is how did he determine that said fecal matter was from the specific food he set out test? It's not like you can fully predict when any one persons (or test subject) will produce fecal matter based on the input foods.

Comment Re:Clever PHBs... (Score 1) 186

"sitting around"? You mean, thinking about the problem being solved, the ways to solve it, the design of the system, the ways to test the code, the edge cases, the potential issues, the possible code approaches and also keeping an eye on the code being written to prevent bugs, bad implementation, laziness or poor practice?

Yeah, sitting around.

I was just quoting TFA. According to TFA, pair programming should allow both people to use the computer, etc; however, what typically ended up was that only one person would use the computer - the more experienced dominating the system usage, and the other would sit there. Yes they may be contributing in discussion, but they won't be gaining the experience necessary to advance.

Comment Re:Relevence of this organization? (Score 4, Informative) 129

Why is this organization even relevant? Which persons involved with the Linux kernel asked for such a foundation, and what was their justification for it?

The Linux Foundation does several things for the community:
1. Pays Linus Torvalds to work on the Linux Kernel. He initially worked for Transmeta, but then when they let him go he was quickly put on the dole by OSDL (now Linux Foundation) in order to help keep him vendor neutral and allow him to focus solely on the Linux Kernel. (While at Transmeta he had some other responsibilities for Transmeta if I'm not mistaken, so most but not all of his time was on the Linux Kernel.)
2. Helps protect the Linux Trademark that Linus officially owns. Linus did not originally trademark the term "Linux"; then someone did and brought a suite against him, so the community (and corporations) stood up, defended it, and then trademarked it, officially giving Linus the ownership. However, Linus is in now way financially capable of defending it against sufficiently funded groups, so having an organization like Linux Foundation help in that respect is very good.
3. Helps show sponsorship of the Linux Kernel. Companies - especially big companies - like to get tax write-offs. By donating to the Linux Foundation (a charity) they get write-offs and they get to build some good will by having their name publicized as a sponsor.
4. Training - Linux Foundation officially does some training, and support. For example, they help companies get into the Kernel Development process, providing access to key developers, and mentoring on how to get contributions accepted. Greg Kroah-Hartman has been quite helpful to a number of companies in that respect; that doesn't mean they get a straight line into having their patches accepted, but that they get mentored on what to do so the patches are *likely* to be accepted - thus more hardware and features are supported by the Linux Kernel.

There's more they do as well, but those are the biggies.

Comment Re:Clever PHBs... (Score 1) 186

Yeah but there is a definite downside - half the time your partner will be coding...

If you read TFA, pair programming typically got skewed so one person was using the computer, typically them ore senior. So...not really half and not sure which person, but one of you will be sitting around while the other does the work.

Comment Re:How many subscribers would we lose if... (Score 1) 302

Ratings of subscription television answer the following questions: Which programs bring in the most subscription revenue? Which programs would make end users more likely to cancel subscriptions if they were canceled?

So Netflix already has a built in rating system for user, and can 100% accurate determine how many users watch any given video because in both cases they actually *have* that information.

That's a far cry from the Neilssen Rating system which uses statistics to guess at how many people actually watch something by extrapolating data based on a limited sample set.

If anything, Netflix would simply have to just have a third party audit their numbers and process of collection if they really cared about competing with broadcast and something like the Neilssen Rating System. Same for Hulu, Amazon, Pureflix, and others that are selling directly to the customer. After all, which boat would you rather be in or sell to? Someone that *knew* they had 15,000 viewers? Or something they *thought* but could not confirm they had 15,000,000 viewers. One may be cheaper (the 15,000,000) but the other (15,000) would likely produce better results.

Comment Re:You know? Something here is disturbing... (Score 0) 508

Hmm, do you have a link to that? I know it's not a routinely accepted vaccine, but I think part of that is because it's new and it's hard to measure HPV infection status.

Here's a better link and article: http://www.snopes.com/doctors-...

That said, I still don't know a doctor that *does* recommend it. My father-in-law certainly does not; he generally recommends most vaccines but does not see the risk of the HPV "vaccines" as worth it given what the "vaccines" do, which is atypical of a vaccine.

Comment Re:Great! (Score 1) 338

I can't wait to get back to the days of changing each light bulb in my house a couple of times each year.

I've typically found that they either fail quickly or last a really long time...still, avoiding CFLs though and going straight to LEDs. I still buy incandescent though when I can for lamps, etc as they just work better.

We have some CFLs that we got from Sam's Club for $0.99 for a pack of 10 or so; not a big fan and they cause a lot of problems, especially with lamp shades that expect a certain bulb size, or if one of the kids knocks it over and breaks the bulb (releasing the mercury); LEDs and incandescent aren't a problem that way.

Comment Re:Most important vaccine of the century (Score 3, Informative) 508

There's no common test for HPV, and a very large percentage of people have some strain of it. So let's say you have a daughter, who is magically pure and never thinks about sex but is eventually going to grow up and marry a man, and lose her virginity in order to produce children. There's a 1/3 chance that the guy has HPV and doesn't know it.

Only if he's been promiscuous.

There's a significant chance that the HPV causes cervical cancer.

Only if they continue to be promiscuous after contracting HPV...it takes multiple strains to be an issue.

So even in this optimal scenario, not vaccinating your daughter is the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with your daughter's health. In real-life scenarios where teenagers spend most of their free time making out with each other (HPV is transmitted by kissing too), she's guaranteed to be exposed to HPV unless all her friends were vaccinated.

Most strains of HPV are benign, and the body normally flushes them out quite quickly. HPV only becomes an issue when multiple incompatible strains are present at the same time. There's a reason that a vast majority of the population has been exposed to HPV but only an extremely small percentage are suffering any kind of side-effects - a percentage that is smaller than the percentage of people suffering side-effects from the supposed cure.

Comment Re:You know? Something here is disturbing... (Score 0) 508

HPV is most commonly transmitted sexually, but can be transmitted through close skin-skin contact as well. HPV has also been linked to many other cancers, including penile cancer. It does seem like you and your wife are at extremely low risk for contracting HPV, so perhaps the vaccine isn't needed for either of you. That being said, as a public health recommendation, the HPV vaccine is good for most people, and should likely be routinely recommended.

There was an article out recently that 1/3rd of medical doctors do not recommend it as they have concerns about it. It's certainly far from being one of the routinely accepted vaccines (if you can really call it one since it is not a normal vaccine).

Comment Re:You know? Something here is disturbing... (Score 0) 508

See, here's the thing: In order to get the benefit of the HPV vaccine, you have to get it when you are young, not so that you can get it before sexual activity, but because the immune system is still developing at that time, and can produce the most effective and continuing response to HPV. There is a non-zero chance that you and your wife will get HPV. All it takes a divorce, an affair or untimely death to cause new couplings and the risk is there.

Except Gardasil is not a vaccine in the traditional sense and has little to do with the immune system. From my father-in-law (an MD) it's more akin to genetic manipulation than a vaccine, and people either have no side-effects or respond horribly to it - even to the point of death. *He* does not recommend it.

As to the GP, I agree with them. There's no point in giving kids a lifestyle drug which Gardasil absolutely certainly is and the dangers of Gardasil do *not* outweigh the risks - for HPV to be an issue you must be exposed to multiple strains that conflict with each other while infected (e.g multiple sexual partners in short order). If the kids want to have it when they turn 18 and want to pay for it, fine - that's *their* choice. But I'll do as the GP did as well.

Comment Re:just go ahead and call it ReInvent (Score 1) 184

What? Like Kolab, or Zimbra, or OpenExchange,

Yeah so which one do you think is a better overall experience. I tried Zimbra it was shit, and at that time it was considered the best Exchange alternative.

Personally, I don't know. OpenExchange came out of HP's effort for an Exchange replacement and has been around for over a decade. (I first found it in the last 1990's). All three have support services available - that's Zimbra's business model in fact.

and allow you to use whatever part you find best (dovecot+postfix vs exim vs etc, postgressql vs mysql vs oracle vs etc, etc) underneath (at least, Kolab and Zimbra).

FrankenMail! Just what every organisation loves, a custom built cobbled together solution that no-one knows how to support.

No, it's not. FrankenMail would be taking random solutions to make what you want. Not well documented solutions that were designed to work together, which is the case for the various solutions I listed - the documentation is excellent for all of them.

I *never* recommend MS Exchange or Outlook as a solution.

No because you care more about your religion than your customers requirements. Exchange isn't for everyone, but it does do the job most of the time, which is why most businesses use it.

I don't recommend Outlook or Exchange because they are (a) security nightmares, and (b) costly and (c) bloated tools that divert resources away from solving the business's problems.

Comment Re:just go ahead and call it ReInvent (Score 1) 184

The most basic installation of dovecot+postfix or exim supports 10,000 users and no SQL server is needed. In fact, even at 100,000 users I'm not sure a SQL server is necessary...even in a cluster of them.

Where did you get the idea that you need SQL for Exchange?

Does it need MS SQL Server? No, not for *small* installations. But once you want to start scaling it - once you need more than one Exchange instance - you do as it serves as the backend storage. From where? From the numerous Exchange installations I'm familiar with.

Yes you should have a competent admin, but then you should for 50 or 100 users too. There's nothing miraculous about 1000 users or 10,000 users. As I noted, other solutions have no issue with it and scale far easier on hardware with lower hardware specs.

The point is that once you get to 1000 users, your company is of a size that it doesn't quibble over spending a few dollars to make things run properly. If you run a shop with over a 1000 users, the words "lower hardware specs" shouldn't really be in your vocabulary.

And you missed the point.

The point being, a non-Exchange solution can provide the same functionality at a cheaper cost to the organization based on the hardware requirements alone. Give it the same hardware (for whatever reason) and it'll scale well beyond Exchange.

Example: Outlook and even Exchange can only support 100 email filter rules by default because that's all the memory allows for. If you users need more, you have to increase their profile memory limits to allow for more (server-side for Exchange; Outlook has no such options).

Is this a real problem? I'm sure someone out there must have come across it, but over 100 rules? Who needs more than 100 rules?

Anyone that has a serious e-mail usage will need a lot of rules. So yes, it is a problem. I learned it was due to *memory* requirements after talking with some Exchange support staff because by default on a few kilobytes of memory are provided to a user for their rule-set.

Really? I run a free solution that could easily outdo that. License is $0; and it can run on any $1200 server without issue.

This is the problem with the FOSS logic. Enterprises will quite happily pay for stuff that works, and is backed by reputable support contract. When you flesh that out, you can't satisfy that requirement with your home brew solution.

Sure you can. There's many places that will provide a support contract for the various other mail solutions other there. Or you can put the money into your own staff to support it. That's the beauty of open source - you get the choice.

Support? Near $0 because it Just Works and doesn't need hand-holding.

So you work for free? Who adds new users? Removes users? Maintains the backups? Does DR testing? When your $1200 shitbox blows a PSU, at 2am who is called in to fix that? That shit might fly at Mom and Pop shop or in your basement, but any business that makes money isn't going to run the risk of free stuff breaking and there being only one guy who knows how it all hangs together.

No. Any good business will be looking at how to maintain itself optimally. If there's something that "just works" and needs minimum maintenance, then it's better for the bottom line. The cost of a "just works" open source solution is far lower than the cost for a "just works" Exchange (or Microsoft) solution. For instance, with Microsoft you have (a) the cost of the hardware, (b) the cost of Windows with associated CAL licenses, and (c) the cost of Exchange and associated CAL licenses. With an open source solution, you have (a) the cost of the hardware, and (b) the cost of distribution support contract (see Ubuntu, Red Hat, SuSe, among others); often the cost of the mail servers will be included into the distribution support contract - and neither it nor the OS will have a CAL (client access license).

More sophisticated Exchange installations - as needed by any medium-to-large or enterprise company - will also require a MS SQL installation, the costs replicate out the same way versus using PostgresSQL, MariaDB, and others - all of which you can also get support contracts from the projects too.

In both cases, everything is pretty well documented and established at how they work, and any company will be getting the support contracts from the distributions. I'm not advocating *not* having support contracts for what you use - which is what business managers really like having so they can deflect the blame and get (hopefully) quick responses based on how much they're spending. But the reality is that you can get the support contracts for open source solutions and get better solutions than what Microsoft offers, at cheaper rates.

Comment Re:just go ahead and call it ReInvent (Score 1) 184

If you're only running a very small business (50 employees, even then probably smaller than that), then sure - Exchange can be that simple to administer. Any real Exchange installation is going to consist of a cluster of Exchange Servers backed up by a cluster of MS SQL Servers, all connected to the AD , and none of which are going to be that simple to install or keep running.

The most basic install of Exchange can easily support 1000 users using the default next, next install on a single box. Maintenance consists of ensuring it has regular backups. It really is that simple (I was an Exchange Admin in a previous life and don't recall ever needing SQL for anything)

The most basic installation of dovecot+postfix or exim supports 10,000 users and no SQL server is needed. In fact, even at 100,000 users I'm not sure a SQL server is necessary...even in a cluster of them.

If you have more than 1000 users then you should also have an admin that knows how to deal with greater scale

Yes you should have a competent admin, but then you should for 50 or 100 users too. There's nothing miraculous about 1000 users or 10,000 users. As I noted, other solutions have no issue with it and scale far easier on hardware with lower hardware specs.

And after you have all that setup, then you have to craft in all the little extras for your users to ensure they get the functionality they want.

What are you talking about exactly? The only thing we usually did was show people how to set up their signature. Everything works out of the box.

Example: Outlook and even Exchange can only support 100 email filter rules by default because that's all the memory allows for. If you users need more, you have to increase their profile memory limits to allow for more (server-side for Exchange; Outlook has no such options).

None of those servers are going to be cheap either as the requirements to run it put you towards the more beefy end of servers.

Low end solution is a standard Dell/HP server for $5k, Exchange license for about $4k (depending on user licenses). I guarantee you that any free solution will cost you more than that in labour, support, lost productivity and outages.

Really? I run a free solution that could easily outdo that. License is $0; and it can run on any $1200 server without issue. Support? Near $0 because it Just Works and doesn't need hand-holding.

Comment Re:just go ahead and call it ReInvent (Score 1) 184

Well give us your solution and we'll compare. I won't hold my breath, I've had dozens of these discussion and they always end the same way. FOSS nerds picks Exchange to bits, but refuses to offer an alternate for comparison. Your lack of a suggested alternative speaks louder than anything else...

What? Like Kolab, or Zimbra, or OpenExchange, or... yeah there's other things out there. Are they as integrated as Exchange+Outlook? No, but they do offer the same functionality and are a heck of a lot less of a PITA to administer since they actually build on standards to do their work, and allow you to use whatever part you find best (dovecot+postfix vs exim vs etc, postgressql vs mysql vs oracle vs etc, etc) underneath (at least, Kolab and Zimbra).

My own email server running dovecot+postfix was very quick to setup; the majority of the time configuring it was more getting settings in place to manage DNSSEC, SPF, etc - and even that was short-order. A cluster of them wouldn't be much more. Can't say the same for Exchange (which yes I've dealt with in the past). I *never* recommend MS Exchange or Outlook as a solution.

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no future in time travel.

Working...