|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/28/2012 2:25 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 28/01/2012 02:53, Patrick Elliott nous fit lire :
>> And, must like the "divine right of kings", its purpose wasn't to
>> explain why bad things happened, or give some sort of hope (save in the
>> entirely false sense, rather like the after life of Christianity), but
>> to maintain how things already are. If you don't have a next life, or
>> there isn't someone telling you, "If you do all the right things, it
>> will be better next time", you will act to change things. If you think
>> your deserve what you get, or will be rewarded for suffering it, then,
>> the very act of apposing it is, by definition of how what those rules
>> say about your caste, life, choices, failures, and even luck, evil (or
>> bad karma).
>
> Yep, you have some clues.
> Human nature has a boon: consciousness of its own inescapable death.
> And a malediction: high vulnerability in early years of life.
>
> It generates so much stress on the long term that any derivative is
> happily welcomed: here comes the various religions and ruling systems.
> Most bad positions become acceptable (to most, not for all) if you have
> the possibilities or probabilities to reach the other position in the
> futur. children might become parents, young one might become old ones...
> the vassal system is that kind too: serf to lord, lord to count, count
> to duc, duc to king... and king need a top also to stay similar, it can
> be emperor or god(s). It's also a repetition of the parental scheme of
> younger time... "all is good, I have a powerful and mighty protector"
>
Like I argued just today, on someone complaining about "New atheists",
the problem with entirely false ones, like religion though is that they
anesthetize the people in them with respect to actually trying to change
any inequity. This doesn't address the problems, it merely presents one
with a seemingly plausible reason why they are not *as bad*, while
allowing the problems to perpetuate (or possibly get worse). The example
I used was the LA riots, where a few hundred people ran wild, destroying
their own neighborhoods. Where where the rest of the people, who
outnumbered them by a huge margin? In churches, praying that they
wouldn't be victim to it, and that it would all magically go away. A
tactic which didn't address the questionable verdict that triggered the
event, the sense of powerlessness, the rage, or anything else. It simply
gave people an easy way out of the immediate problem. And, since it did,
it will again, and again, and again, without ever changing anything that
causes the problems.
That is the core thing that makes such stuff dangerous. It doesn't deal
with reality at all, it just hands people a bottle of pain pills, and
tells them, "I hope it goes away on its own."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 28/01/2012 19:53, Patrick Elliott nous fit lire :
> That is the core thing that makes such stuff dangerous. It doesn't deal
> with reality at all, it just hands people a bottle of pain pills, and
> tells them, "I hope it goes away on its own."
to quote (badly, probably) a movie:
"You want the truth ? You can't handle the truth."
(Now in quizz mode, name that movie !)
(in rot13 for you: N Srj Tbbq Zna "Lbh Pna'g Unaqyr gur Gehgu" )
I'd like to beware also about the Allegory of the Cave (Plato).
The one which know the full truth in a company must be fired.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:27:31 +0100, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> to quote (badly, probably) a movie:
> "You want the truth ? You can't handle the truth."
>
> (Now in quizz mode, name that movie !)
A Few Good Men. One of my favourites. Nicholson was extremely well in
the role of Col. Jessup.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2012 4:36 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 04:17 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 1/23/2012 2:42, Invisible wrote:
>>> On 23/01/2012 10:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
>>>> Wait, isn't Pipa some gal who's in the tabloids a lot?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't know; I don't read comic books.
>>
>> "I'm not into Pokeman."
>
> Is it bad that I realise it's actually spelt Pokémon?
Not really, they have been mainstream so long that even non-virgins know
this.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:43:38 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>> It's easier to find jobs to apply to when you have a broader awareness
>> of the world than just what's relevant to you right now.
>
> I doubt you're going to get that by reading some text on a screen. To
> understand what a new capability means, you often need to experience it
> for yourself.
Hmmm, so let me see if I understand this correctly....You're asserting
that one of the methods that I actually use to keep up on technology
doesn't work? Interesting that you'd have insight into what works for me
on such a deep level.
>>> I got the impression that Slashdot was more a forum for idle gossip
>>> and bored people starting flamewars. I wasn't aware any useful
>>> information existed there.
>>
>> It is, but the articles are good pointers to what's important. I
>> rarely read the comments (unless I'm bored). But I have an RSS feed
>> set up from the stories page so I can see what's 'hot', read the story,
>> and follow the link to the source story so I can learn more.
>
> OK, I have to ask: What the hell is this "RSS" everybody keeps
> mentioning?
Google it. If that doesn't work, try "Really Simple Syndication". It's
only all over the web.
>> It has elements of satire, but it actually reports on real stuff. They
>> do hardware reviews and talk about software and technology companies in
>> a real and non-satirical way.
>
> I usually visit Tom's Hardware when I want to see what's happening in
> the hardware world.
I doubt you're going to get that by reading some text on a screen.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist - but I hope that makes the point intended)
> Unfortunately, while there seem to be plenty of sites that track the
> latest up-to-the-minute developments, if you stop paying attention for a
> while, it seems very hard to get back up to speed. Every article assumes
> you've been following the story so far... There don't seem to be any
> high-level summaries around on the Internet. (Except for ones that are
> 10 years old.)
That's why I skim a fair bit of things.
>>> I still don't comprehend what "streaming" actually means in this
>>> context...
>>
>> 2 seconds with Google yielded this:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media
>
> I know what streaming *is*. (Indeed, I knew what it was 15 years ago.)
> I'm failing to comprehend how it applies in this situation.
I'm not sure I understand how this is so difficult to comprehend. Netflix
has servers in their data centres that stream data to clients running the
NetFlix software on them. You pick a movie you want to watch, and you
instantly start watching it.
And before you say it, yes, it actually works. We've only subscribed to
Netflix since before they got into the streaming business.
Or are you going to again claim that something that I use on a regular
basis doesn't exist or is impossible or couldn't *possibly* work? I'm
sure my son would love to know that we didn't actually spend over 3 hours
streaming Battlestar Galactica today and have watched almost all of the
first three series that way. I'm sure it was just a blu-ray disc and we
didn't realise we'd put it in the PS3 to watch it. Yeah, that's it. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> It's easier to find jobs to apply to when you have a broader awareness
>>> of the world than just what's relevant to you right now.
>>
>> I doubt you're going to get that by reading some text on a screen. To
>> understand what a new capability means, you often need to experience it
>> for yourself.
>
> Hmmm, so let me see if I understand this correctly....You're asserting
> that one of the methods that I actually use to keep up on technology
> doesn't work? Interesting that you'd have insight into what works for me
> on such a deep level.
I'm saying that if (for example) I read somewhere that a lot of
companies use Citrix to host their applications, that doesn't really
qualify me for a job managing Citrix. If I had actually /used/ Citrix,
or something vaguely like it, then yes. But having read about how it
exists and people use it? Not so much, no.
>> OK, I have to ask: What the hell is this "RSS" everybody keeps
>> mentioning?
>
> Google it. If that doesn't work, try "Really Simple Syndication". It's
> only all over the web.
Ooo, because I haven't tried *that* before. :-P
OK, so let's see... First hit from Google is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS
(Unless you meant Royal Statistical Society, which I'm pretty sure you
didn't.)
As usual with Wikipedia, the page babbles about updates and feeds and
XML and "syndication" and something about RDF, but utterly fails to
explain WHAT IT IS.
>> I usually visit Tom's Hardware when I want to see what's happening in
>> the hardware world.
>
> I doubt you're going to get that by reading some text on a screen.
That's why I just built a new PC - to experience the Core i7 first-hand. :-P
>> I know what streaming *is*. (Indeed, I knew what it was 15 years ago.)
>> I'm failing to comprehend how it applies in this situation.
>
> I'm not sure I understand how this is so difficult to comprehend. Netflix
> has servers in their data centres that stream data to clients running the
> NetFlix software on them. You pick a movie you want to watch, and you
> instantly start watching it.
>
> And before you say it, yes, it actually works.
The BBC's iPlayer system "works". I mean, it's so horrifyingly blurry
that you sometimes can't see people's faces clearly enough to recognise
who's who, and often the end credits are unreadable. But technically
that still counts as "works", right?
I just looked it up. The transfer rate of a DVD is 10.5 mbit/sec. The
maximum broadband speed you can get is 8 mbit/sec. So... does that mean
that people in America have something faster than ADSL or something?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-01-31 04:12, Invisible a écrit :
>
> I'm saying that if (for example) I read somewhere that a lot of
> companies use Citrix to host their applications, that doesn't really
> qualify me for a job managing Citrix. If I had actually /used/ Citrix,
> or something vaguely like it, then yes. But having read about how it
> exists and people use it? Not so much, no.
>
It would allow you to have a better understanding of how that business
operates. Having a general idea of how entrerpise apps like SAP, BEA
Weblogic, or Websphere work is never a bad thing. While no one would
hopefully expect you to be able to manage their Citrix server farms
based on having read something about it on CNET, it would probably be
easier for you to understand where your job fits in the grander scheme
of things, or helkp you move up the corporate ladder.
For example, my current job is network performance & capacity planning.
I gather usage statistics from Cisco devices, and make nice graphs
with them. However, knowing a little about the applications running on
the servers connected to these switch ports allows me to be more helpful
when a problem ticket comes in saying "Users say that app XYZ is slow"
instead of having to wait for someone else to ask me to look for errors
on port 15 of switch C.
>>> OK, I have to ask: What the hell is this "RSS" everybody keeps
>>> mentioning?
>>
>> Google it. If that doesn't work, try "Really Simple Syndication". It's
>> only all over the web.
>
> As usual with Wikipedia, the page babbles about updates and feeds and
> XML and "syndication" and something about RDF, but utterly fails to
> explain WHAT IT IS.
>
This is similar to what news organizations do with newsfeeds from
Reuters, AP, AFP, etcept it's for the common mortal. It's a
standardized way to package news items (or in many cases, blog entries).
It allows you to view content that comes from other sources. Some
people use that to put "in the news..." sections on their websites, some
others use RSS readers to gather news flashes and what nots from
multiple sources they find interesting.
For example, If I had a website devoted to 3D graphics, I could set up
RSS feeds from various makers of 3D software (those, that have a feed,
of course!) and whenever they had news releases or announcements, they
would automagically show up on my web site, without me having to hunt
for them.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand how this is so difficult to comprehend. Netflix
> > has servers in their data centres that stream data to clients running the
> > NetFlix software on them. You pick a movie you want to watch, and you
> > instantly start watching it.
> >
> > And before you say it, yes, it actually works.
>
> The BBC's iPlayer system "works". I mean, it's so horrifyingly blurry
> that you sometimes can't see people's faces clearly enough to recognise
> who's who, and often the end credits are unreadable. But technically
> that still counts as "works", right?
>
> I just looked it up. The transfer rate of a DVD is 10.5 mbit/sec. The
> maximum broadband speed you can get is 8 mbit/sec. So... does that mean
> that people in America have something faster than ADSL or something?
no, it simply means MP4 does a way better job at compressing than DVD codecs...
they are watching non-blurry HD streams, real-time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The BBC's iPlayer system "works". I mean, it's so horrifyingly blurry
>> that you sometimes can't see people's faces clearly enough to recognise
>> who's who, and often the end credits are unreadable. But technically
>> that still counts as "works", right?
>>
>> I just looked it up. The transfer rate of a DVD is 10.5 mbit/sec. The
>> maximum broadband speed you can get is 8 mbit/sec. So... does that mean
>> that people in America have something faster than ADSL or something?
>
> no, it simply means MP4 does a way better job at compressing than DVD codecs...
> they are watching non-blurry HD streams, real-time.
DVD is MPEG2. (?) I thought nobody had implemented MPEG4 yet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/01/2012 13:36, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-01-31 04:12, Invisible a écrit :
>>
>> I'm saying that if (for example) I read somewhere that a lot of
>> companies use Citrix to host their applications, that doesn't really
>> qualify me for a job managing Citrix. If I had actually /used/ Citrix,
>> or something vaguely like it, then yes. But having read about how it
>> exists and people use it? Not so much, no.
>>
>
> It would allow you to have a better understanding of how that business
> operates. Having a general idea of how entrerpise apps like SAP, BEA
> Weblogic, or Websphere work is never a bad thing
Sure. But (for example) I gather that some people use SAN technology. I
cannot for the life of me begin to imagine why you would accept such a
massive performance hit in exchange for the mere ability to plug and
unplug disks virtually rather than physically. But apparently everybody
is doing it, for reasons unknown.
So in this instance, I know what the world is doing, but I still have
absolutely no insight at all. It hasn't helped.
>>>> OK, I have to ask: What the hell is this "RSS" everybody keeps
>>>> mentioning?
>>>
>>> Google it. If that doesn't work, try "Really Simple Syndication". It's
>>> only all over the web.
>>
>> As usual with Wikipedia, the page babbles about updates and feeds and
>> XML and "syndication" and something about RDF, but utterly fails to
>> explain WHAT IT IS.
>
> This is similar to what news organizations do with newsfeeds from
> Reuters, AP, AFP, etcept it's for the common mortal. It's a standardized
> way to package news items (or in many cases, blog entries). It allows
> you to view content that comes from other sources. Some people use that
> to put "in the news..." sections on their websites, some others use RSS
> readers to gather news flashes and what nots from multiple sources they
> find interesting.
I'm still failing to see why this is in any way "useful". Unless you run
a news website, which I don't.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|