Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Heard this before (Score 1) 133

My father, who's 87, has smoked since he was 12. He started rolling his own and smoked Camels, sometimes two packs a day. Yeah he's one of those data points that contradict what we're being told and know but there he is still.

A friend has done research on this. The latest indicates that your father likely has really, really good genes that have done a great job of protecting him from the ill effects... but that he'd still be better off if he hadn't smoked at all.

And yeah, I'm waiting for the Cheeto Man ads. Pictures of attractive, skinny women eating big juicy burgers come close, though.

Comment Re:MacBook Pro (Score 1) 237

...but the distinction should be maintained.

Why? How "unixy" Linux or MacOS is is a really rather tired argument by now, isn't? Having cut my unix teeth on Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX, seems like I should be able to tell how "unixy" something is. I have MacOS because of my work, but I hate it. It doesn't really fee like unix to me at all, and I have a hard time understanding how "unixy" it really is since the kernel is a heavily modified mach clone. But whatever, just saying your reasoning on how "unixy" Mac is seems a bit strained to me, even with a big web page with small characters explaining how "unixy" it is.

The point of my post was more to correct the semantics in the discussion than to debate how unixy either OS is. Mac, Linux, *BSD, and Solaris are all sufficiently unixy for me. But I'm not a real neckbeard--I never used AIX or HP-UX.

By "the distinction should be maintained" I meant the distinction between OS and GUI. Why not? GUIs are interchangeable and optional. I do the vast majority of my work in terminal, my cross-platform text editor, and a browser. I care a lot more about how the OS handles path resolution, variables, ssh, port forwarding over ssh, symlinks, shell expansion, regex, etc. than crap like launchctl or X. Is there even a POSIX standard or anything similar regarding windowing systems?

I'd agree that Mac doesn't "feel" Unixy. But in my experience, it implements the standard reliably enough. I'm curious where it falls short for you (aside from personal dislike, which I totally get).

If you haven't read the standards, you might want to glance at IEEE Std 1003.1, 2013.

Comment Re:MacBook Pro (Score 1) 237

Let's clarify real quick. Overall I agree with your point, but:

  1. 1) OS X is not Linux. It's also not "Unixy". Linux is a Unix clone, and OS X is UNIX. Full stop.
  2. 2) "You're in at the deep end of the pool now, so it better be good" and "If you like, I can give you his contact info so you can tell him how wrong he is." come across as very petty and childish. Along the lines of "my dad can beat you up!".
  3. 3) The "main attraction" of Linux is not that the GUI is configurable. The main attraction is that it's stable, free, and easy to manage at scale on servers. The main attraction of LInux on the desktop is... bragging rights? Desktop usage is what, 1% of Linux usage?
  4. 4) sunderland's post equates the GUI with the OS. I am sure he understands the distinction, but the distinction should be maintained. OS X's OS is UNIX. It has a ton of room for customization, replacement with a lot of GNU binaries, etc. It's extremely powerful and compatible with other *nix systems, and absolutely a good base for learning *nix methodology and utilities.
  5. However, the windowing system is not highly customizable. I'd argue it's far better than Windows, and provides a better user experience for the majority of users than GNOME, KDE, etc... but no, you're not going to be editing the source and recompiling with new features.

Personally, I am happiest with Mac on my desk and Linux in my server room (or cloud). The MacBook Pro isn't that much more expensive. It's a great computer with a good (paid) warranty that gives me full support and compatibility with all the tools I need, and I'll never have to waste time fucking with drivers or the latest GNOME stupidity.

Comment Re: Glad to have it (Score 1) 451

I get the point you're trying to make, and don't have data to argue either way, but let's be real here. A high number of dash cam videos being from Russia is evidence of one thing, and one thing only: dash cams are far more popular in Russia.

Yes, yes, actually it's not even evidence of that. It really only tells us Russian dash cam videos are more common online, whether because Russians are more likely to upload to Youtube, more likely to use dash cams, etc.

Comment Re:Key word, "home" (Score 1) 190

You need to quantify what you consider "good enough" in order to answer that.


Second, in more relaxed terms of bandwidth, when do we reach "enough" so that even revolutionary improvements don't really matter any more? Do I really need the ability to download a full 4k movie in under six seconds? I don't mean that as a "640k should be enough for anyone" argument, but at a point in time, yes, 640k did count as "enough" for most purposes, even though at that same point in time we had supercomputers with a whopping 16MB of main RAM.

Doesn't your first statement really answer that?

What we have is already "good enough" for everyone... if all everyone needs to do is communicate in near real time. But we can make use of more. And we will probably always be able to make use of more.

If we want higher video resolution, more video streams, futuristic smell-o-vision, and internet-enabled cyber-robot sex, we'll ask for more speed. When that becomes commonplace, but we want to be able to exchange DNA sequences on dating sites, then we'll need more.

I think, when it comes to technology, everyone has it backwards. Supply drives demand.

Comment Re:Where in the US Constitution..... (Score 1) 574

...where within the enumerated responsibilities and rights of the Federal Govt. that it is charged with picking winners and losers in industry

I hate the "picking winners and losers" argument. The phrase needs to die. Every single thing the government is tasked to do requires picking winners and losers.

Judicial Branch - inherently picks winners and losers
Congress - inherently picks winners and losers -- every spending bill, appropriation, regulation, trade treaty, etc. has a winner and loser in the private sector
Executive - need I continue?

Comment Re:Iran is not trying to save money (Score 1) 409

> They are trying to build a nuclear weapon

Prove it.

So far everyone who has tried to prove this claim - including the CIA and Mossad - has come up short.

No, nobody seriously thinks that. The CIA isn't even trying to prove it.

Unfortunately, everyone is reading a bunch of journalists who lack even the slightest ability to parse nuance. Iran is trying to build a nuclear breakout capability.

Every serious report that has ever been issued says exactly the same thing: No evidence of a nuclear weapons program, undeniably overwhelming evidence of Iran attempting to gain breakout capability.

Yes, there is evidence of weapons-related development (delivery systems, etc.). Yes, they have a growing enrichment program that is geared towards weaponization. Yes, they want to be able to build a weapon. No, there is no evidence that they have built a weapon or plan to immediately do so.

Breakout capability is still scary, though. It means they can have all the pieces in place to produce a weapon before anyone can mobilize sufficient resources to stop them. Given the regime's behavior, you should be able to understand why that concerns the rest of the region.

I've posted this with complete links and lots of details, but I'm not bothering to do it anymore.

Comment Re:Yes, it's called redundancy (Score 1) 107

I fear you may be right, and that's exactly why they don't do it more often... but I think that also underscores my point a bit. Shouldn't they work to get it to the point where users won't be impacted?

Netflix does this pretty aggressively and users don't seem to notice. Though I realize for most companies I am being very idealistic.

Comment Re:Another great Scalia line (Score 1) 1083

I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't have found an inalienable right to buggery in the Constitution, but it seems agreeable to you. "Gay marriage" would have been anathema. But again that is no obstacle for you to freely invent and overlook as desired.

The founding fathers also did not see a right to freedom for blacks, suffrage for women, suffrage for non-property owning white men, or mixed-race marriage.

Funny enough, most openly discussed the need for protection of minority (in the original sense) rights in a democracy. Given that they were at the forefront of "freedom for all" in the context of the norms of their time, it is fairly likely that they would support all of those rights if they adopted modern norms.

Either way, it's all very irrelevant. The founding fathers were very clear about both 1) the separation of church and state and 2) protection of minorities from majorities. These, combined with the 14th amendment and mixed-race marriage protections form a solid legal basis.

Comment Re:Yes, it's called redundancy (Score 1) 107

Because doing it right involves a full fail-over test including transferring loads or test loads, DNS auto-reconfiguration, and possibly even paying extra to bring up extra capacity elsewhere. You need to make sure it happens right when it's needed. Extra paperwork, overtime, it's all in there.

If the system is architected well, shouldn't all of those steps be automated... including monitoring and failover success/failure?

Comment Re:Anyway (Score 1) 546

I'm really too tired to pull links in response to this clueless tripe today. Spies can and do prevent wars by conveying credible information regarding intent, capabilities, and plans.

A government's public statements cannot be trusted. Verification from reliable assets? Very valuable.

It is extremely likely that a soviet spy/American traitor prevented the Cuban missile crisis from leading to nuclear war. The US was actually planning to invade, and did not know that Cuba both a) already had nukes and b) the Soviets lacked the ability to prevent local commanders from using them (no centralized code system). Woops!

Comment Re:Replace everything by the same thing, sure ... (Score 1) 189

Replacing all windows7 installs by new windows7 installs will for sure remove the possibility of the same malware hitting again. DOH!
Maybe change platform.
There are 2 other OS to consider, MacOS and Linux.

An important organization should always have 2 completely different platforms.
Not only 2 different browsers on the same OS, but different OS. And by different I don't mean a Microsoft-different who state the XP is not NT and is not Win7. It's all windows!
Same goes for Linux, where redhat or debian is not different, it stays Linux. Sunos may be different.

double the admin costs, half the interoperability... for an increased attack surface and a higher increased zero-day count on any given day?

The way I see it, the problem isn't that % of workstations are infected. The problem is that all their data are belong to someone else. I think they'd be better off rearchitecting and rethinking things than mixing OSes for the sake of diversifying IT.

"Lead us in a few words of silent prayer." -- Bill Peterson, former Houston Oiler football coach