 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:00:03 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Umm. Actually, we probably don't.
Actually, we do:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/01/2012 11:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:00:03 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Umm. Actually, we probably don't.
>
> Actually, we do:
>
> http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
>
Interesting, thanks.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/25/2012 2:57 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 24/01/2012 10:44 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> But yeah, lot of idiots claiming this is the worst president we ever
>> had, and a lot legitimate complaints about him, but he managed in a few
>> months what Bush and Co. couldn't do in a decade, along with a fair long
>> list of other things, none of which would have happened with one of the
>> idiots calling him "the worst" in office instead.
>
> I've noticed that some people regard Obama was the Messiah, the most
> wonderful thing ever to happen in American history. And others regard
> him as pure, liquid evil. Clearly these two viewpoints cannot both be
> correct. Having no clue what Obama has actually done, I have no idea
> which one to believe.
>
The right claims that there are people on the left that think he is like
a messiah. The left, exaggerates, but only slightly, the behavior of the
right, which has literally called him everything from a socialist, to
the anti-christ, to merely, "The worst president ever".
>> Could have been better, but hell.. what can you do when you couldn't
>> probably even pass a law saying, "The sky is blue", without having the
>> less insane Republicans first agree with it, then tack on 50 idiot
>> things that undermine civil liberties, or mandate insane shit, at the
>> behest of the Tea Party, then claim, due to pressure from the same Tea
>> Party crazies that they disagree with it, then finally come out
>> insisting they never thought it was blue in the first place (because
>> they might lose their job, if they went against the crazies now running
>> the Republicans), and all, at least in part, because they want to, "make
>> Obama a one term president".
>
> ...OK, you *do* sound like you're constantly angry.
>
> Also: WTF is this "tea party" I keep hearing about?
>
Complicated... But, in simple terms, early on in the economic problems
there was a semi-grass roots group that started, calling themselves the
"Tea Party", named after the old "Boston Tea Party" in American history.
Certain groups in the right wing noted it, and decided to create a
special bus tour, called the Tea Party Express, which went around and
hijacked the original intent of the movie, spreading a mixed message of,
"Yeah, we believe in the stuff you do, but also.. {big government
rhetoric, anti-liberal rhetoric, pro-evangelical rhetoric, etc., etc.}"
They basically took what might have been an early version of Occupy Wall
Street, and used a lot of rhetoric to distort the facts, including flat
out making them up, so that, by the time election time came along, it
was 100% republicans that got elected from this "movement". Those that
did then went on to do things like:
1. Pass anti-union laws.
2. Pass laws to mangle local voting systems, often, in some cases,
passing one in state A, which made all votes count, so that the
*majority* conservative electorate would be a majority, and passing on
in B, where the existing "everyone's vote counts", was replaced with one
based on "region", because the majority of regions where conservative,
but the actual electorate was *slightly* more liberal. Uh, basically,
lets say you have three districts in both A and B state. In A, 80% of
the voters are conservative, but most of them live in one place, so the
votes would end up being 1 Conservative region:2 Liberal regions.,
while, in B, the "regional" was 2 Conservative:1 Liberal, but 70% of the
"voters" where all liberal. One law changed to prevent the liberal
"regions" winning, against the majority, the other changed, to make sure
the majority vote didn't count, only the regional distribution of them.
3. Pass laws to make more states "right to work", which basically
defangs unions, without eliminating them entirely.
4. Created special rules, by which, in at least one state, every
*elected* official can be arbitrarily fired, as an *emergency measure*,
effectively side stepping the right of the public to determine who runs
the government, and a *appointed* dictator put in place, instead, who
can also fire anyone he likes, move money around any way they like, and
undermine any part of the city government they feel they need to,
including schools, if they *think* its somehow going to fix the cities
finances. The one city this started in, now has massive new problems,
and is *still* not operating on a balanced budget.
And, finally, 5. Pretty much every single one of them, in Washington DC,
has stated that a) they will not do one thing that helps Obama, b) don't
want him to have a second term, c) have even gone so far as to say it
should be their #1 priority to stop that, and d) have the moderate
Republicans conned into thinking these evangelical, anti-gay, anti-roe
vs. wade, anti-poor, pro-rich people, anti-health care, anti-social
safety net, pro-war, pro-oil, anti-AGW, "Tea Party" people, who got
themselves elected in one of the biggest small government, pro-people,
con jobs in American history, are powerful enough they can't apposed
them, and scared shitless about it.
>> We are dealing with some true nuts right now, like the one Senator that
>> has just proposed a bill banning the use of fetuses in human food, on
>> the theory that this is the **only** possible thing that someone might
>> use "recombinant methods" to do, in food manufacturing... WTF?
>
> ...the HELL?! o_O
Yeah, and, that is only the top of the list of stupid. Most are also
pro-Abstinence. They literally deny the very fact that it is an abject
failure, and that *no* evidence exists to suggest it works, for anyone,
including in the places the themselves implemented it. Many of them have
attempted to put in legislation to either distort, sideline, or replace
Evolution, with Intelligent Design, or Creationism. They managed to,
recently, have one of their cronies get arrested for *real* voter fraud,
while trying to prove non-existent fraud. The same morons that where
responsible for destroying a company called Acorn, which a) was
eventually found to have a few irregularities, of the same time found in
many other companies, including some still existing banks, but which
where, after the company was bankrupted, and gone for good, acquitted of
any of the crimes the two, now voter fraud suspects, had originally
accused them of. It should be noted that, despite the fact that Acorn is
4 year old news, some of the "Tea Party" nuts that conned the public
into electing them are *claiming* that Obama somehow "protected" the
company, and its secretly working under another name, to fund is
reelection campaign...
Real conspiracy vs. complete bullshit, and some people are willing to
back the real criminals, because they are *sure* Obama is secretly being
funded by unknown entities, connected with a defunct company, who
offered financial advice to poor people, when they where still
operating. Huh?
Oh, right, and then there is, "Citizens United", a idiot ruling from the
conservative appointed, conservative Supreme court, which is being used
to field multimillion dollar attack ads, using secret, undisclosed,
money, from who the hell knows, but likely multimillionaire business
men, and then flunkies (since there is no way to get that much out of
the public). And, in some cases, the means by which the money is
shuffled around, makes it impossible to tell if the person being elected
is being "supported" by attack ads, put out by groups, who are secretly
funded, by companies, that those officials have connections to, or stock
in. So, as long as, say Romney doesn't directly tell some group called
"Romney PAC" what to put in the ads, they an get millions from some
company Romney owns stock in, or who like him, because of what he will
do for them, once elected, to run them, and say anything they like in it.
Steven Colbert and one of the other comedians from Comedy Central have
been running a gag for a while now, generating ads "for" Colbert,
through such a PAC, without "coordinating" their messages, with unknown
funding sources, for weeks now, to highlight the idiocy of the whole
thing. lol
Yeah, all you need to know about "Tea Party", is that its the extreme
end of the conservative spectrum in the US, has the moderate
conservatives backed into a corner, at the moment, and they lied their
way into office, on the premise of supporting effective government, when
in reality it was all about rich people getting perks, the poor shafted,
and a shift from legislating things like environment, or health care, to
"moral issues", like abortion, and gay marriage. (the two things they
tried passing bills on, over and over, for the first nearly one year,
after elected, after being elected on a platform or "job creation").
Its kind of hard not to seem a bit... pissed, at these obstructive
assholes, or the way the rest of the Republicans have been bowing and
scraping to them, not to mention how fast *ever* current Republican
presidential candidate has made a run for the bottom, to support the
same idiocy, knowing that its these nut cases that will be deciding,
through bullshit and unbridled funding for campaign commercials, not the
public (who already proved they can be conned), which one of them gets
to try to take out Obama in the election.
They may find that the public isn't quite that stupid though, when it
comes to actually voting, I hope...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/25/2012 6:44 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-01-25 04:57, Invisible a écrit :
>
>>
>> Also: WTF is this "tea party" I keep hearing about?
>>
>
> In the late 1700s, the British colonies in America were getting fed up
> of the King of England raising taxes without letting them have a voice
> in Parliament, so they decided to rebel against the King and declare
> their independence.
>
> One of the first incident of the American revolution was the "Boston Tea
> Party" where tea growers decided to punish the king by dumping all the
> tea bound for England into the harbor. There! Neener! Neener! No you
> can't have tea. Not yours!
>
> Flash forward 240 years.
>
> Groups of people angry about the rising taxes on the working class and
> the runaway government deficit decided to form a protest movement called
> "Taxed Enough Already" or T.E.A. for short. Thus were formed the modern
> day Tea Parties.
>
> Nevermind the fact that taxes on the working class had been going down
> for a few years, that these people were mysteriously very silent while
> the previous president was spending money he didn't have playing war
> games all over the world and that these people - who were for the most
> part very angry at having an uppity negro in the White House - were
> being lied to by millionaires and talk show hosts who were trying to get
> the government to ease restrictions on their investments.
>
Well, you got it partly right. The initial party was what the Occupy
movement replaced. All the other stuff you mention was what it got
hijacked into, by right wing conservatives, and clueless, people, like
Palin, Macheal Backman, and others, who had no damn clue about anything,
other than that: lots of angry people, with confused ideas = opportunity
to derail the new movement, and distort the facts to support what became
the exact opposites (i.e., high taxes for the people out protesting, and
lower ones for rich people, as just one example).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/25/2012 12:53 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> I've noticed that some people regard Obama was the Messiah, the most
>> wonderful thing ever to happen in American history. And others regard
>> him as pure, liquid evil. Clearly these two viewpoints cannot both be
>> correct. Having no clue what Obama has actually done, I have no idea
>> which one to believe.
>
> I think that the major problem is that he promised to do a lot of things
> to make Americans' lives better, but in the end he didn't. Instead of
> standing firm and pushing his original agenda no matter what, seemingly
> he started making compromises and caving in. (Sure, the president cannot
> pass laws, but in the US the president, AFAIK, has quite a lot of influence
> which he can use to influence law making.)
>
His greatest failure was, I believe, taking 3 years to figure out that
the other was scared to death of their newest members, and would *never*
cooperate to do jack shit, via "compromise".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-01-25 14:53, Warp a écrit :
> Also, he promised to close Guantanamo, but he didn't.
Actually, he did sign the order to close the prison at Guantanamo. The
only problem he has is that Congress passed a law that prevents money
from being used to relocate the prisoners anywhere else, and apart from
a few Really Bad Guys(tm) that they want to keep in prison, there are
prisoners at GTMO that no one wants, or who will more than likely be
executed if they are sent home.
--
/*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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> When's the last time you looked at a map, young'un?
>>
>> Of the Middle East? Never.
>
> Maybe that's part of the reason why you have little sense of how the
> world actually is. Just a thought.
Forget Iraq - I don't even know where Cumbria is. And *that* is
something I might plausibly need to actually know at some point. :-P
>> I'm the guy who thought that Brazil was in Europe, remember? Geography
>> was never my strong point. (Or history, actually.)
>
> That's correctable, but you have to correct it. Both of these things are
> quite important.
Notice how this sentence is in the past tense? :-P
>>> Because you're in technology and keeping up on technology trends is
>>> important to furthering a career in technology
>>
>> Really? In what sense?
>
> If you don't know what technology is out there, how do you expect to know
> when a proposed solution is good or not?
By researching it, obviously.
I'm not saying it's unnecessary to know anything about technology. I'm
saying it seems unnecessary to know about technology we're not actually
using. (Whether it would help my job prospects is another matter... but
you have to find jobs to apply for first.)
>>> and those are two places
>>> where LOTS of news about technology are posted or linked from?
>>
>> Well, that's news to me.
>
> <boggle>
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.
I also got the impression that The Register was a satire site. Hell, it
even subtitles itself "biting the hand that feeds IT". I'm not making
this up. The few times I've read it, it was amusing, but contained no
real-world data.
>> PS. What is Netflix? And does it only operate in America?
>
> It's a streaming movie service, and if you'd been reading Slashdot or The
> Register, you'd know they've just started operating in Europe as well. :)
I still don't comprehend what "streaming" actually means in this context...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I've noticed that some people regard Obama was the Messiah, the most
>> wonderful thing ever to happen in American history. And others regard
>> him as pure, liquid evil. Clearly these two viewpoints cannot both be
>> correct. Having no clue what Obama has actually done, I have no idea
>> which one to believe.
>
> It's subjective.
>
> You could probably learn a lot by reading his Wikipedia entry.
Yeah, but... it's subjective. ;-)
The other day, I read about something called "the church of
scientology". From what Wikipedia said, this is /obviously/ a criminal
organisation that should be shut down immediately. And yet, various
national governments have investigated it and decided either to take no
action, or to officially recognise it as legit. So clearly Wikipedia
isn't presenting the full picture here.
I imagine the same can be said about any topic which people are likely
to have strong opinions about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> there are
> prisoners at GTMO that no one wants, or who will more than likely be
> executed if they are sent home.
Isn't it quite ironic for the US to be worried about that?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:33:17 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>>> When's the last time you looked at a map, young'un?
>>>
>>> Of the Middle East? Never.
>>
>> Maybe that's part of the reason why you have little sense of how the
>> world actually is. Just a thought.
>
> Forget Iraq - I don't even know where Cumbria is. And *that* is
> something I might plausibly need to actually know at some point. :-P
Well, then look that up.
>>> I'm the guy who thought that Brazil was in Europe, remember? Geography
>>> was never my strong point. (Or history, actually.)
>>
>> That's correctable, but you have to correct it. Both of these things
>> are quite important.
>
> Notice how this sentence is in the past tense? :-P
Yes, but my point was to a larger point of not being aware of some fairly
basic information about the world.
>>>> Because you're in technology and keeping up on technology trends is
>>>> important to furthering a career in technology
>>>
>>> Really? In what sense?
>>
>> If you don't know what technology is out there, how do you expect to
>> know when a proposed solution is good or not?
>
> By researching it, obviously.
>
> I'm not saying it's unnecessary to know anything about technology. I'm
> saying it seems unnecessary to know about technology we're not actually
> using. (Whether it would help my job prospects is another matter... but
> you have to find jobs to apply for first.)
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.
Remember I got laid off last May? I'm actually still looking for full
time work, but I've been doing contract work. My current contract is
with the engineering department of the company I got laid off from (it
ends tomorrow, unfortunately - it's been a really fun project). The work
I'm doing is with a cloud technology product.
Now, if I had stuck my head in the sand when cloud technology came along,
I wouldn't have been able to qualify for this contract very well. But I
knew about the product (even though I hadn't used it) and knew what the
capabilities are and what customers might actually want from it.
And the engineering department has been impressed with my ability to
learn their specific technology very quickly. I like to think they'd be
willing to hire me if there was an open position (indeed, that's
something I'm hoping to talk with them about before the end of the day
tomorrow).
I'm not a software engineer. But I have skills that they've seen benefit
them greatly. I can write, I can pick up a product very quickly, and I
can run into a problem and try to fix it myself (indeed on Monday, I was
working with a component that needs to be in the release coming up later
this year, but the engineer assigned to it has taken it over from one who
left and knows very little about the implementation details. I logged 10
bugs against it, and was only able to because I'd hit one, figure out how
to work around it, and continue with the installation until I hit the
next point).
Today and tomorrow, I'm hoping to actually patch the scripts involved to
make the actual fixes quicker for them to implement.
>>>> and those are two places
>>>> where LOTS of news about technology are posted or linked from?
>>>
>>> Well, that's news to me.
>>
>> <boggle>
>
> 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.
> I also got the impression that The Register was a satire site. Hell, it
> even subtitles itself "biting the hand that feeds IT". I'm not making
> this up. The few times I've read it, it was amusing, but contained no
> real-world data.
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.
For example:
http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/25/
amazon_cloud_enterprise_storage/
(That's in today's feed)
>>> PS. What is Netflix? And does it only operate in America?
>>
>> It's a streaming movie service, and if you'd been reading Slashdot or
>> The Register, you'd know they've just started operating in Europe as
>> well. :)
>
> 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
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:55:39 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The right claims that there are people on the left that think he is like
> a messiah. The left, exaggerates, but only slightly, the behavior of the
> right, which has literally called him everything from a socialist, to
> the anti-christ, to merely, "The worst president ever".
Oh, you missed the best one, Patrick....
The lady who asked Rick Santorum (Aside to Andy: He's one of the
Republican candidates trying to get the nomination. While I often
suggest that you google stuff, googling "Santorum" is something you
should NOT do from work. Seriously, wait until you're home. Dan Savage
- a columnist here in the US - Google-bombed his name to mean something
that you're probably better off not knowing.) a question and stated that
Obama isn't our legitimate president because he's an avowed Muslim, etc,
etc, etc - and Santorum didn't correct one thing, later using the excuse
"well, she's an old lady and she was leaning on a cane" as if that had
any relevance to it. Stephen Colbert did an awesome send-up of that
response on Tuesday's Colbert Report.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:35:37 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> I've noticed that some people regard Obama was the Messiah, the most
>>> wonderful thing ever to happen in American history. And others regard
>>> him as pure, liquid evil. Clearly these two viewpoints cannot both be
>>> correct. Having no clue what Obama has actually done, I have no idea
>>> which one to believe.
>>
>> It's subjective.
>>
>> You could probably learn a lot by reading his Wikipedia entry.
>
> Yeah, but... it's subjective. ;-)
Wikipedia is often a starting point rather than an ending point.
> The other day, I read about something called "the church of
> scientology". From what Wikipedia said, this is /obviously/ a criminal
> organisation that should be shut down immediately. And yet, various
> national governments have investigated it and decided either to take no
> action, or to officially recognise it as legit. So clearly Wikipedia
> isn't presenting the full picture here.
CoS is an interesting organisation because of how closely they try to
protect their identity and information, to the point of making it
difficult for anyone to objectively write about them.
They're classified as a religion. "Cult" is probably much more apt a
description, and a cult with some very high-profile members. But what
I've read on the history of it, apparently L. Ron Hubbard (the author)
had a bet with his son that he could create a religion and get people to
donate lots of money to it.
> I imagine the same can be said about any topic which people are likely
> to have strong opinions about.
Certainly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2012 10:10 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:35:37 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>>>> I've noticed that some people regard Obama was the Messiah, the most
>>>> wonderful thing ever to happen in American history. And others regard
>>>> him as pure, liquid evil. Clearly these two viewpoints cannot both be
>>>> correct. Having no clue what Obama has actually done, I have no idea
>>>> which one to believe.
>>>
>>> It's subjective.
>>>
>>> You could probably learn a lot by reading his Wikipedia entry.
>>
>> Yeah, but... it's subjective. ;-)
>
> Wikipedia is often a starting point rather than an ending point.
>
>> The other day, I read about something called "the church of
>> scientology". From what Wikipedia said, this is /obviously/ a criminal
>> organisation that should be shut down immediately. And yet, various
>> national governments have investigated it and decided either to take no
>> action, or to officially recognise it as legit. So clearly Wikipedia
>> isn't presenting the full picture here.
>
> CoS is an interesting organisation because of how closely they try to
> protect their identity and information, to the point of making it
> difficult for anyone to objectively write about them.
>
> They're classified as a religion. "Cult" is probably much more apt a
> description, and a cult with some very high-profile members. But what
> I've read on the history of it, apparently L. Ron Hubbard (the author)
> had a bet with his son that he could create a religion and get people to
> donate lots of money to it.
>
Part of the issue is that, due to the secrecy, and other factors, most
of the "its a church" decisions where made *prior* to a full
understanding of what went on in it. Its now undergoing "reform", what
ever the hell that actually means. But, a lot of the stuff it does, like
requiring people to shell out huge swaths of money to them for bullshit,
or locking people into the religion, etc., are not *that* terribly
different than some Christian cults do. Some of those flat out try to
require their members to "never" associate, if possible, on a
family/social level, with anyone that isn't in the same cult. Though,
they don't usually manage to get by with locking people up, and
preventing them leaving, the way CoS was doing.
But, basically, its sort of a toss up. If you can get by with declaring
"only" it criminal, while excusing nearly identical insanity in other
cults, great, if you can't... the uncomfortable situation arises where
the person trying to ban gets asked, "Yes, but group X, and Y do the
same thing, why are they not illegal too?" And, the only answer anyone
can give is, "Well, they are Christian!" The problem doesn't come up
with Islam, or Hindu, simply because in the former case, everyone is
against the extremist versions that do crazy shit anyway, in the
countries that accept CoS, and in the later case, almost no westerner
has a single damn clue what Karma actually is, the abuses it supports,
or the long list of caste distinctions, and silly restrictions, that
arise out of them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/01/2012 8:10 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> and in the later case, almost no westerner has a single damn clue what
> Karma actually is, the abuses it supports, or the long list of caste
> distinctions, and silly restrictions, that arise out of them.
You're not a fan of "My name is Earl", then?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
BTW, as clarification. My understanding of the "real" meaning behind
Karma would be more or less these rules:
1. Karma doesn't happen "now", its generally punishment for action in a
*prior* life.
2. Its karma that determines if you are lucky/unlucky, born rich, or
poor, gain in business, of fail, and everything else.
3. In the most extreme case, someone from the absolute top caste could
go nuts, murder someone in the bottom caste, and not be charged (at
least in the old days, though maybe less so now), based on the theory
that the higher status of the offender made it divine justice, and the
low caste of the victim made it karma, for something they did wrong, in
the prior life.
The west has turned this into some idiot version of, 'like calls like',
mysticism, and uses the term to describe the fantastically rare cases
where someone does something bad and suffers a similar reward, almost
immediately, rather than the much more common thing, which is to get by
with it, or the nearly as common result of being hammered by some random
event, that is magnitudes out of proportion to the supposed "crime".
Though, the later is often taken as a "sign" that some sort of justice
was served via karma as well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2012 1:20 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 26/01/2012 8:10 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> and in the later case, almost no westerner has a single damn clue what
>> Karma actually is, the abuses it supports, or the long list of caste
>> distinctions, and silly restrictions, that arise out of them.
>
> You're not a fan of "My name is Earl", then?
>
Uh, don't think I have ever heard of it. lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2012 10:07 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:55:39 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> The right claims that there are people on the left that think he is like
>> a messiah. The left, exaggerates, but only slightly, the behavior of the
>> right, which has literally called him everything from a socialist, to
>> the anti-christ, to merely, "The worst president ever".
>
> Oh, you missed the best one, Patrick....
>
> The lady who asked Rick Santorum (Aside to Andy: He's one of the
> Republican candidates trying to get the nomination. While I often
> suggest that you google stuff, googling "Santorum" is something you
> should NOT do from work. Seriously, wait until you're home. Dan Savage
> - a columnist here in the US - Google-bombed his name to mean something
> that you're probably better off not knowing.) a question and stated that
> Obama isn't our legitimate president because he's an avowed Muslim, etc,
> etc, etc - and Santorum didn't correct one thing, later using the excuse
> "well, she's an old lady and she was leaning on a cane" as if that had
> any relevance to it. Stephen Colbert did an awesome send-up of that
> response on Tuesday's Colbert Report.
>
> Jim
Uh, yeah, haven't missed *either* of those. Not sure what they think he
is at this point. Its been everything from, I think, Kenyan, to the
illegitimate son of the clone of Hitler, by now. The "tamest" claim of
all of them has probably been that he "somehow" rigged the election,
using the names of dead people. Which is, at least in part, why Dumb and
Dumber, from the Republican party's, "Unaffiliated, so we have no
control over these people, honest!", sideshow, decided to stop posing at
pimps, to take down loan institutions (i.e. Acorn and the like), using
false video footage, and go straight to committing real voter fraud,
using the names of *living* people. The birther movement is alive and
well for some people. Sadly, so is the belief that having an IQ slightly
higher than Sarah Palin and Macheal Bachman combined makes you, "A
political genuis."
Actually, I am being unfair there. I am sure if you combined their IQs,
it would at least reach "average".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/01/2012 8:24 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>> You're not a fan of "My name is Earl", then?
>>
> Uh, don't think I have ever heard of it. lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Earl
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 26/01/2012 21:23, Patrick Elliott nous fit lire :
> BTW, as clarification. My understanding of the "real" meaning behind
> Karma would be more or less these rules:
>
> 1. Karma doesn't happen "now", its generally punishment for action in a
> *prior* life.
> 2. Its karma that determines if you are lucky/unlucky, born rich, or
> poor, gain in business, of fail, and everything else.
> 3. In the most extreme case, someone from the absolute top caste could
> go nuts, murder someone in the bottom caste, and not be charged (at
> least in the old days, though maybe less so now), based on the theory
> that the higher status of the offender made it divine justice, and the
> low caste of the victim made it karma, for something they did wrong, in
> the prior life.
>
> The west has turned this into some idiot version of, 'like calls like',
> mysticism, and uses the term to describe the fantastically rare cases
> where someone does something bad and suffers a similar reward, almost
> immediately, rather than the much more common thing, which is to get by
> with it, or the nearly as common result of being hammered by some random
> event, that is magnitudes out of proportion to the supposed "crime".
> Though, the later is often taken as a "sign" that some sort of justice
> was served via karma as well.
Speaking of Karma without raising Darma seems a mooth point...
Same as looking at the worshipers of Shiva (goddess of "destruction")
and not understanding their points.
Karma is a concept... judging a concept by its application is like
looking at the concepts of communism applied to Russia, China, Vietnam
and North Korea. The main issue of communism is that the axiom of
rational people is damn wrong. It's a story for 6 year old children so
far in its theory... used to abuse so many millions of people.
(Capitalism is not better, it's just more reality based about the
human's nature).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:10:16 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Part of the issue is that, due to the secrecy, and other factors, most
> of the "its a church" decisions where made *prior* to a full
> understanding of what went on in it. Its now undergoing "reform", what
> ever the hell that actually means.
Oh, goodie, sects for CoS. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2012 12:23, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 1. Karma doesn't happen "now", its generally punishment for action in a
> *prior* life.
I think that depends on whether you ask Buddhists or Wiccams/
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:17:37 -0800, 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."
I didn't know you were that into Herman Cain. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm not saying it's unnecessary to know anything about technology. I'm
>> saying it seems unnecessary to know about technology we're not actually
>> using. (Whether it would help my job prospects is another matter... but
>> you have to find jobs to apply for first.)
>
> 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.
>> 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?
>> I also got the impression that The Register was a satire site. Hell, it
>> even subtitles itself "biting the hand that feeds IT". I'm not making
>> this up. The few times I've read it, it was amusing, but contained no
>> real-world data.
>
> 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.
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.)
>>>> PS. What is Netflix? And does it only operate in America?
>>>
>>> It's a streaming movie service, and if you'd been reading Slashdot or
>>> The Register, you'd know they've just started operating in Europe as
>>> well. :)
>>
>> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> 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.
You don't need that to have a broader awareness of the world, you need many
blurbs and often.
> > 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?
Crowned.
> >>>> PS. What is Netflix? And does it only operate in America?
> >>>
> >>> It's a streaming movie service, and if you'd been reading Slashdot or
> >>> The Register, you'd know they've just started operating in Europe as
> >>> well. :)
> >>
> >> 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.
It means that now rather than going into the closest blockbuster and renting a
movie, or waiting for the movie to show up on TV on a schedule, or waiting for
the illegal torrent to download, you may simply turn on the tv, choose a movie
and watch it on-the-fly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2012 2:43 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> 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.
Its mostly taking the existing "streaming" technology, as understood on
the net, and installing it in other devices, like DVRs, not to mention
digital TVs. The reason this is possible is, of course, because its now
broadcast digital, so uses the same streamable compression systems
(though, in many cases, encrypted). It should be noted however that
MP2/MP4, etc. was actually created to digitally store TV, and the like,
in the first place, for "streaming" between the original source company,
satellites, and base stations (which is to say, either your own dish, or
your cable provider). The primary change has been that they no longer
down-convert to analog. In principle, the same "data" as Youtube sends,
or you get off your DVD, is being used to broadcast your TV programs
now. Its just the encryption, and other key things, used to prevent the
wrong people getting it, which changes at each point in the chain.
So, *everything* is not "streamed". And, its the reason why, if you have
a DVR (no idea if you can do it with TVs), you can have "on demand"
programming. Instead of just linking in to the stream that is already
running, like you might do using say WinAmp and online radio, you are
"requesting" the program to start sending to you, at the specific time
you need it, just like you "request" Youtube start playing a movie from
their site.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2012 1:34 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 26/01/2012 8:24 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>> You're not a fan of "My name is Earl", then?
>>>
>> Uh, don't think I have ever heard of it. lol
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Earl
>
>
>
Ah.. Yeah, not something I would have watched, short of having a
lobotomy, sort of like 'The Ghost Whisperer'. I prefer my fiction to
actually be fiction, like 'Being Human'. lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2012 3:04 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 26/01/2012 21:23, Patrick Elliott nous fit lire :
>> BTW, as clarification. My understanding of the "real" meaning behind
>> Karma would be more or less these rules:
>>
>> 1. Karma doesn't happen "now", its generally punishment for action in a
>> *prior* life.
>> 2. Its karma that determines if you are lucky/unlucky, born rich, or
>> poor, gain in business, of fail, and everything else.
>> 3. In the most extreme case, someone from the absolute top caste could
>> go nuts, murder someone in the bottom caste, and not be charged (at
>> least in the old days, though maybe less so now), based on the theory
>> that the higher status of the offender made it divine justice, and the
>> low caste of the victim made it karma, for something they did wrong, in
>> the prior life.
>>
>> The west has turned this into some idiot version of, 'like calls like',
>> mysticism, and uses the term to describe the fantastically rare cases
>> where someone does something bad and suffers a similar reward, almost
>> immediately, rather than the much more common thing, which is to get by
>> with it, or the nearly as common result of being hammered by some random
>> event, that is magnitudes out of proportion to the supposed "crime".
>> Though, the later is often taken as a "sign" that some sort of justice
>> was served via karma as well.
>
> Speaking of Karma without raising Darma seems a mooth point...
> Same as looking at the worshipers of Shiva (goddess of "destruction")
> and not understanding their points.
>
> Karma is a concept... judging a concept by its application is like
> looking at the concepts of communism applied to Russia, China, Vietnam
> and North Korea. The main issue of communism is that the axiom of
> rational people is damn wrong. It's a story for 6 year old children so
> far in its theory... used to abuse so many millions of people.
> (Capitalism is not better, it's just more reality based about the
> human's nature).
Its fairly irrelevant if the "concept" can be reduced to some silly
false causality, which makes people feel better. Just because we would
*like* life to be fair, doesn't mean that universe gives a shit, or
corrects things in the long run. It doesn't. Often, as long as someone
has power, and/or wealth, they can do great harm, and not suffer.
Others, can do no harm their entire lives, and do nothing *but* suffer.
Those are often "poor" people, or those with no power at all.
Its not about its "application". Its about whether or not it has any
basis, what so ever, in reality. And, it simply doesn't.
However, if you are talking about the original origins of the principle,
and how it was used, then you *do* have to look at its application. 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).
Its not about hope, its about conformity. Adding other words to it, like
Darma, as though anything in that concept mitigates it, just helps
perpetuate the original purpose.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2012 9:15 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 1/26/2012 12:23, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 1. Karma doesn't happen "now", its generally punishment for action in a
>> *prior* life.
>
> I think that depends on whether you ask Buddhists or Wiccams/
>
Yeah, well.. I didn't say that they modern twits that believe the new
version didn't manage to mangle half a dozen other things in the process
of getting there. lol But, yeah, they took the name, and the general
concept, from India, mixed in a heavy dose of Wicca, and came up with
something that is less oppressive, but also at least as much based in
reality (which is to say, not at all).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/01/2012 1:42 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/26/2012 1:34 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 26/01/2012 8:24 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You're not a fan of "My name is Earl", then?
>>>>
>>> Uh, don't think I have ever heard of it. lol
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Earl
>>
>>
>>
> Ah.. Yeah, not something I would have watched, short of having a
> lobotomy, sort of like 'The Ghost Whisperer'. I prefer my fiction to
> actually be fiction, like 'Being Human'. lol
Not my cup of tea either but I saw a few episodes when someone else was
watching it. I prefer my TV to be off. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> "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.
...Is it bad that I own a copy of The Pokémon Trainer's Handbook? o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 escreveu:
>>> 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.
bluray is almost 6 years old already. MP4 is almost already in every
browser as part of HTML5 spec.
see what you get for not reading slashdot feeds? You sound almost like
a caveman!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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.
>
> bluray is almost 6 years old already.
And? I used standard definition video as an example because it has more
modest data rate requirements. If broadband is too slow for standard
definition, it is /obviously/ too slow for HD.
> MP4 is almost already in every browser as part of HTML5 spec.
I also thought nobody has implemented HTML5 yet. (Hell, I thought they
hadn't even finished /specifying/ it yet - not that that ever stopped
anybody. :-P )
> see what you get for not reading slashdot feeds? You sound almost like a
> caveman!
Riiiight. Because if I visited Slashdot everyday I would already know
all these things. Oh, wait...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >
> > bluray is almost 6 years old already.
>
> And? I used standard definition video as an example because it has more
> modest data rate requirements. If broadband is too slow for standard
> definition, it is /obviously/ too slow for HD.
>
> > MP4 is almost already in every browser as part of HTML5 spec.
>
> I also thought nobody has implemented HTML5 yet. (Hell, I thought they
> hadn't even finished /specifying/ it yet - not that that ever stopped
> anybody. :-P )
>
> > see what you get for not reading slashdot feeds? You sound almost like a
> > caveman!
>
> Riiiight. Because if I visited Slashdot everyday I would already know
> all these things. Oh, wait...
"oh, wait! I know nothing, I want to know nothing and I'm actually trying to
argue with people who know it better."
I don't think you're dumb actually. I think you're a very skilled
attention-whore troll.
I don't time or fun any more for this BS routine...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/31/2012 12:52 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> 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.
Its also used by blogs, and the like, in which case, instead of going to
the blog, you might get the text, and links, packaged differently, for
use in something like a cell phone app. Or, for example, you might have
something like here, where comments are collected, into a single
package, and "filed" along with the original item, sort of like news
readers do with threads.
Basically, its a way of delivering content automatically, to clients
that support it, by "subscribing", the same way you tell a news reader
that you want to get everything sent to povray.off-topic when you log in
to the server, rather than having to go to every single website you want
to read them from.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-01-31 14:52, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> 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.
>
The big advantage to adding disks virtually instead of physically is
that you are not limited by the form factor of the server, the power
output of the PSUs and most importantly, they can be done on the fly,
without having to take an outage.
In your environment, it may not be that big of an issue, but when you
have contracted service level agreements that you will have 99.99%
uptime, you have no other choice. Do the math, that means 1m42s of
downtime per month... try powering off a server, taking it out of the
rack, adding a disk and powering it back on in less than 10 times that!
We've also had the performance discussion before. Yes, the theoretical
access speed of a local SATA drive is much faster than that of a SAN
attached logical disk, but in actual real world practice, with real
world data, there's not much of a difference, even on SANs located
halfway across town in another building.
Which brings us to the last big advantage of SANs. Instant disaster
recovery! Your main office is now a pile of smoldering ruins? No
biggie, just reassing the LUNs from that offsite SAN to another machine
at the business continuity location and power it up, and presto! your
business is back on its feet.
sometimes, taking a small performance hit on each I/O operation is
nothing compared to being able to get the company back up and running
even though a hurricane decided to pay your data centre a visit.
> So in this instance, I know what the world is doing, but I still have
> absolutely no insight at all. It hasn't helped.
>
That's because you keep forgetting that other people may have other
needs than yours. Reading about technology often includes case studies.
From those, you'll learn that the needs of the petrochemical industry
are very different than those of the financial industry, the online
services industry or that of hospitals, for example.
>>>>> 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.
It is also very useful for people who READ news websites as you can
configure an RSS reader to pick up those feeds that interest you and get
the news you want in Thunderbird, for example, instead of having to read
half a dozen different web sites every morning, while your coffee brews.
--
/*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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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.
>
> The big advantage to adding disks virtually instead of physically is
> that you are not limited by the form factor of the server, the power
> output of the PSUs and most importantly, they can be done on the fly,
> without having to take an outage.
But you still need to (at a minimum) reboot the server after you change
the SAN mapping anyway.
> In your environment, it may not be that big of an issue, but when you
> have contracted service level agreements that you will have 99.99%
> uptime, you have no other choice. Do the math, that means 1m42s of
> downtime per month... try powering off a server, taking it out of the
> rack, adding a disk and powering it back on in less than 10 times that!
Uhuh. And when one server physically dies, it's going to be down a tad
longer than 1m42s. So if you don't have the spare capacity to handle
that, a SAN still hasn't solved your problem.
> We've also had the performance discussion before. Yes, the theoretical
> access speed of a local SATA drive is much faster than that of a SAN
> attached logical disk, but in actual real world practice, with real
> world data, there's not much of a difference, even on SANs located
> halfway across town in another building.
This makes no sense at all. How the hell can a 6 Gbit/s SATA link
perform the same as a 100 Mbit/sec Ethernet link? Never mind a 10
Mbit/sec Internet link. That makes no sense at all. (Unless your actual
disks are so feeble that all of them combined deliver less than 10
Mbit/sec of data transfer speed...)
> Which brings us to the last big advantage of SANs. Instant disaster
> recovery! Your main office is now a pile of smoldering ruins? No biggie,
> just reassing the LUNs from that offsite SAN to another machine at the
> business continuity location and power it up, and presto! your business
> is back on its feet.
>
> sometimes, taking a small performance hit on each I/O operation is
> nothing compared to being able to get the company back up and running
> even though a hurricane decided to pay your data centre a visit.
That works if a hurricane takes out the data centre with your SAN in it.
Not so much if it takes out the data centre with your compute devices in
it. :-P
For that, you would need [at least] two geographically remote sites
which duplicate everything - disk and other hardware as well. I'm
struggling to think of a situation where the volume of data produced per
hour is so low that you can actually keep it synchronised over the
Internet. And if it isn't in sync, then a failover to from primary to
secondary system entails data loss.
>> So in this instance, I know what the world is doing, but I still have
>> absolutely no insight at all. It hasn't helped.
>
> That's because you keep forgetting that other people may have other
> needs than yours.
Perhaps. But saying "we work in the financial industry" doesn't tell me
how your needs are different than mine. Really, the only way you'd truly
come to understand this is by actually /working/ in that industry. And
that's just not possible.
>> I'm still failing to see why this is in any way "useful". Unless you run
>> a news website, which I don't.
>
> It is also very useful for people who READ news websites as you can
> configure an RSS reader to pick up those feeds that interest you and get
> the news you want in Thunderbird, for example, instead of having to read
> half a dozen different web sites every morning, while your coffee brews.
Right. So it's a way to track what's new on multiple sites simultaneously?
If that's all it is, why didn't somebody just *say* so?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-02-01 09:03, Invisible a écrit :
>>>> 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.
>>
>> The big advantage to adding disks virtually instead of physically is
>> that you are not limited by the form factor of the server, the power
>> output of the PSUs and most importantly, they can be done on the fly,
>> without having to take an outage.
>
> But you still need to (at a minimum) reboot the server after you change
> the SAN mapping anyway.
>
No. Do you need to reboot after swapping a CD or a usb key? OSes have
been able to handle adding and removing storage space for a while, now.
Obviously, Windows may complain if you try to pull the C: drive from
under its feet, but you shouldn't actually boot from a SAN drive under
normal circumstances anyway.
I'm no Windows Server expert, so I don't know if it allows you to extend
disk space on the fly, but I do know that many flavors of Unix do allow it.
>> In your environment, it may not be that big of an issue, but when you
>> have contracted service level agreements that you will have 99.99%
>> uptime, you have no other choice. Do the math, that means 1m42s of
>> downtime per month... try powering off a server, taking it out of the
>> rack, adding a disk and powering it back on in less than 10 times that!
>
> Uhuh. And when one server physically dies, it's going to be down a tad
> longer than 1m42s. So if you don't have the spare capacity to handle
> that, a SAN still hasn't solved your problem.
>
Need help moving those goalposts? They look heavy! We weren't talking
about a server dying. We were talking about needing mroe disk space. A
SAN is not the remedy to all problem, obviously. Just like having
onsite generators can help you avoid power outages, but as we saw last
March, they aren't necessarily very helpful if a tsunami took the fuel
tanks away.
>> We've also had the performance discussion before. Yes, the theoretical
>> access speed of a local SATA drive is much faster than that of a SAN
>> attached logical disk, but in actual real world practice, with real
>> world data, there's not much of a difference, even on SANs located
>> halfway across town in another building.
>
> This makes no sense at all. How the hell can a 6 Gbit/s SATA link
> perform the same as a 100 Mbit/sec Ethernet link? Never mind a 10
> Mbit/sec Internet link. That makes no sense at all. (Unless your actual
> disks are so feeble that all of them combined deliver less than 10
> Mbit/sec of data transfer speed...)
>
You're making a strawman argument. No one ever said that SANs run over
10Mbit ethernet. While it is possible to use iSCSI on a 10 or 100 Mbps
ehternet lan, most SAN implementations run dedicated protocols over
fibre at Gbps speeds.
Last time we went over this, I pointed you to studies that showed that
over millions of "real-life" I/O operations, the SAN was performing no
worse than locally-connected disks.
See for example:
http://www.sqlteam.com/article/which-is-faster-san-or-directly-attached-storage
>> Which brings us to the last big advantage of SANs. Instant disaster
>> recovery! Your main office is now a pile of smoldering ruins? No biggie,
>> just reassing the LUNs from that offsite SAN to another machine at the
>> business continuity location and power it up, and presto! your business
>> is back on its feet.
>>
>> sometimes, taking a small performance hit on each I/O operation is
>> nothing compared to being able to get the company back up and running
>> even though a hurricane decided to pay your data centre a visit.
>
> That works if a hurricane takes out the data centre with your SAN in it.
> Not so much if it takes out the data centre with your compute devices in
> it. :-P
>
Most businesses will invest in redundant servers BEFORE investing in
redundant facilities, therefore, if you have more than one data centre
with redundand SANs, you more than likely built your business continuity
plan so that you also have enough CPUs avaialble at both sites to run
your entire operation from just one of those sites, and you probably run
monthly or quarterly disaster drills to make sure that your plan
actually works.
Four 9s and Five 9s uptime is expensive.
> For that, you would need [at least] two geographically remote sites
> which duplicate everything - disk and other hardware as well. I'm
> struggling to think of a situation where the volume of data produced per
> hour is so low that you can actually keep it synchronised over the
> Internet. And if it isn't in sync, then a failover to from primary to
> secondary system entails data loss.
>
Not the Internet, multiple dedicated 10Gbps DWDM links. You'd be
surprised to know that most Fortune 1000 entreprises actually do this
already.
All entreprise database systems (Oracle, DB2, MS-SQL, et al.) allow for
the real-time duplication of the data across multiple tables, so it's
easy to tell your DBMS to write to table 1 on disk E: and to table 2 on
disk F:, and to map those disks to LUNs that are on different physical
SANs. Most SANs can also handle this internally without the server OS
knowing anything about it, just like RAID is transparent to the OS and
applications.
>>> So in this instance, I know what the world is doing, but I still have
>>> absolutely no insight at all. It hasn't helped.
>>
>> That's because you keep forgetting that other people may have other
>> needs than yours.
>
> Perhaps. But saying "we work in the financial industry" doesn't tell me
> how your needs are different than mine. Really, the only way you'd truly
> come to understand this is by actually /working/ in that industry. And
> that's just not possible.
>
Are you saying it's impossible to work in the banking industry? Or are
you saying that the banking industry is so secretive about their work
that you can't even find out how they operate without working there?
Google "Tandem computers". Their story is very well known and was
instrumental to the rise of computers in the financial world. There's
no need to be working at a bank to find out about that. Look at the job
offers for a big bank. If, for example, they're looking for someone
with Solaris and Oracle knowledge and "experience with high-availablilty
is an asset" that should tell you enough about the products used at the
bank in question, and if you're interested to know more about how
Solaris and Oracle handle HA, you can simply go to their web site, read
white papers, Gartner studies, etc...
Of course, you can also decide that it's not worth it to learn about
these things and simply shrug it off, but don't complain that you can't
get jobs outside of the little hole you dug yourself into.
--
/*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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
