Slashdot Mirror

Why is overpopulation a laudable thing?

The Japanese home islands are already highly populated -- no need to increase the population. Stabilizing at early-1900s levels would be much more sustainable.

Over population isn't their biggest problem; the population pyramid no longer looks like a pyramid when compared to 1950:

https://www.google.fi/search?q...

If it continues to go in this direction, Japan could be facing serious problems (if they aren't already), unless they implement something like planned immigration, for example. Germany has a similar problem with their population pyramid, but the difference is Germany's rate of net migration per head of the population is over 5.5 times that of Japan's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And Japan's population is almost 60% larger than Germany's; It's not looking good for them at all.

There was no ideological friendliness.

Things aren't quite so simple.

"Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight." - Joseph Goebbels, “Hitlerite Riot in Berlin: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler to Lenin,” New York Times, November 28, 1925

“I know how much the German nation loves its Fuhrer, ... I should therefore like to drink to his heath.” -- Joseph Stalin

From: p. 37, The Collapse of Communism in the USSR: Its Causes and Significance, by Doug Lorimer

Stalin's foreign minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, even denounced a war against Hitlerism as "criminal". In a speech to the Supreme Soviet on October 3, 1939 he stated:

The English government has declared its war aims as nothing more nor less than the annihilation of Hitlerism ... A war of this kind cannont be justified in any way. The ideology of Hitlerism, like any ideological system, can be accepted or rejected -- this is a question of political opinion. But anyone can understand that an ideology cannot be destroyed by force. ... This is why it is sensless, indeed criminal, to wage any such war for the elimination of Hitlerism."

German–Soviet military victory parade in Brest-Litovsk

In these sad times it is exceptionally comforting to see many Parisian workers talking to German soldiers as friends, in the street or at the corner café. Well done, comrades, and keep it up, even if it displeases some of the middle classes - as stupid as they are mischievous. The brotherhood of man will not remain forever a hope: it will become a living reality. --- L 'Humanite, 4 July 1940

Watch The Soviet Story from 38:57 - 44:45

Nazis & Communists: Ideological Bedfellows (Read the whole thing.)

. . . . Max Eastman, an early communist who later saw the light and rejected communism, wrote in his 1937 book The End of Socialism in Russia that the Soviet Union was “a totalitarian state not in essence different from that of Hitler and Mussolini.” Eastman later wrote in a subsequent book, Reflections on the Failure of Socialism (1955): “Stalin’s totalitarian police state is not an approximation to, of something like, or in some respects comparable with Hitler’s. It is the same thing, only more ruthless, more cold-blooded, more astute, more extreme in its economic policies, more explicitly committed to world conquest, and more dangerous to democracy and civilized morals.”

Erica Mann in 1938 noted the common war waged by Bolsheviks and Nazis against God and family, and wrote: “Again, all we have to do is replace ‘Bolshevism’ with ‘National Socialism’ to get a fairly exact picture.” Sir Arnold Lunn wrote in his 1939 book Communism and Socialism: “The quarrel between Communists and Nazis or between Stalin’s Communists and Trotsky’s Communists is not an economic controversy, but a struggle for the spoils of office.”

Herman Rauschning, the Danzig Nazi leader who later repudiated Nazism, wrote in his 1939 book The Revolution of Nihilism: “It is in the nature of things that the planning and methods of work of the Soviet State and the Fascist and the National Socialist States should be growing more and

No, you'll find texts arguing the difference between artistic and literary copyright. If you move the parts around on your copy, artistic copyright is no longer applicable. Literary copyright might still be relevant, but only when the design is not obvious (and those would be covered by patents if it really is novel). I found these three cases described in "Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy":

https://books.google.fi/books?...

In practice, this means that if you don't patent something non-obvious, your circuit diagram only gets protected under copyright as to it's identical reproduction (artistic) or literary protection in some cases if identical components, values etc. are used. However, since most integrated circuits come with reference designs and recommended values for surrounding components, even those can invalidate any protection under literary protection. Going back to the original topic, the board in question is essentially a couple of big ICs and some connectors. There is nothing special on that board, and if you were to take the design, shift components around, change some values, etc. it would look just like any other board that were to use those three chips to do what the original board would do - just with a different layout. Because the design is trivial, any expert will say that this is how a circuit based on those components would be structured. This is why, in the legal sense of the word, copyright on the schematics gives you very little if any protection.

Off-topic but relevant to Slashdot: There's an illustrated guide about telephone exchanges for rotary phones, starting on page 102. Please read it before you complain about bad mobile data speeds.

Captcha: presence – not on my analog telephone service, but we might see it when VoLTE is implemented!

Roundabouts are great, here in Finland there are some places with a lot of them. For instance I recall a spot where is 7 roundabouts within 1500 meters.

Multi-lane roundabouts are not so great. Simply because if you are at the inner lane you need to try to dodge the one on the outer lanes and this can cause some near accidents, haven't seen any though. Interestingly as the one driving on outer-lane is right side of the one driving in inner-lane this means that in the case of accident it is always the fault of the one in the inner-lane.

There is nothing special to learn for driving one-lane roundabout, don't use turn signal when entering and just use the turn signal before the exit you are going to use.

Translated Wiki.

Former equality ombudsman for the country, 2000-2007. Proponent of a "man tax" to make up for men's treatment of women. Currently spokesperson for the social democratic party in gender equality issues. One of the women is active in the same party.

He's one of the most, if not the most, known lawyers in the country.

The Finnish Air Force have a couple of pictures and an analysis of a couple of F18 jet engines exposed to the volcanic ash on the Internet.

The jets were on a routine training flight in northern Finland while the airspace was still open. This stuff does nasty stuff to the engines even with short exposures, it seems.

Original (in Finnish)
Translation (shitty, but understandable)/a)

There's this finnish wannabe-celebrity, who has had some problems with spelling.

And which devices do you mean, Mr. Astroturfer?
As far as games go, Linux has better games support than Vista. If you want games, you buy a console: Wii or PS3. The PS2 is still outselling Xbox. Console for games, linux or mac for work.

I don't know what's this chair called in English, but it really helps keeping the back pain away link.

It's not lapsiporno.info, I don't think.

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.

Google has received notice of a list of web sites from the Internet Watch Foundation (web site URL) that contain child pornography. Google has removed the related web sites from its search results.

Seriously, how difficult would it be for you to show me a list of search providers at install time and let me choose the one I prefer?

See the little Google icon in the Firefox search box? Now click it.

Last I checked, the last choice was also sticky and/or you could set the default somewhere...

Don't see the search engines you like? Head here.

I don't use the search box myself because it's, frankly, pretty clumsy. I use keyword searches because it's much more powerful: Just right click on a search box on any web page, select "Add keyword for this search", and now you can search whatever you want by typing the keyword and search terms to the address bar. ("g firefox keywords", bam. "wp Mozilla Firefox", bam.)

Yes I know their hardware sucks for other reasons also.

I'm not necessarily an expert on the English language, but I tend to not bastardize it as Americans are often said to do (They even call this newfangled language "American" - before you know it someone will produce an American-English dictionary.)

In any case, I didn't think the Anglo-Saxons adopted the Old-french "Mathématique", since I've never seen the word "mathematic" used as a noun in English. Adjective, certainly, and even then it's listed as a variant to "Mathematical".

The nearest word I can find in Websters is "Mathematical" and the noun-plural form we are discussing "Mathematics".

Copy and paste from http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=mathematic

Main Entry: mathematical
Pronunciation: "math-'ma-ti-k&l, "ma-th&-
Variant(s): also mathematic /-tik/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English mathematicalle, from Latin mathematicus, from Greek mathEmatikos, from mathEmat-, mathEma learning, mathematics, from manthanein to learn; probably akin to Gothic mundon to pay attention
1 : of, relating to, or according with mathematics
2 a : rigorously exact : PRECISE b : CERTAIN
3 : possible but highly improbable
- mathematically /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Conclusion: The name of the subject is Mathematic*s*; shortened to Math*s*. We win. Boo-yah.

makes absolutely no sense, as not every mobile phone user has a computer (or one with a USB port).

You are so wrong.

You do not need a laptop to 'USB-charge'

You can pick up a USB Mains Charger for as little as 5 USD.

Ps: Google calculator rules.

I think that every product that contains C.R.A.P. should have a sticker which advices the consumer not to buy it.

No, no, no. You got it all wrong. Microsoft has shown true innovation for Vista. The correct link is here: http://images.google.fi/images?q=rsod&hl=fi&btnG=E tsi+kuvia

The site seems to be slashdotted, so here's the google cache from the site ;)

Indeed the rest of the world can set up their own DNS servers for a new TLD (say '.earth'), but they can't force anyone to contact the root server for that domain. The result will be chaos.

So how exactly would this change the way we access Web sites ?

Let's use google. Results 1 - 10 of about 54,000 from slashdot.org for fuck.

Whereas a license from the copyright holder can be acquired by russian authorities for worldwide distribution (google for "Santiago Treaty"), the license from the industry must be acquired for each country from which the service is accesible.

Interesting. However, "Santiago Treaty" doesn't return anything meaningful. Can you manually link the doc you referred to?

At least not at Taco Bell

<foo/>

form Re: Lisp syntax, what about resynchronization?

... so it had to come up, and one of the least
productive solutions, XML, won the day. I was there, at the conference
table where the first thoughts that became XML surfaced. a few months
earlier, I had proposed the need for a special marker for empty elements
-- and then retracted that proposal because it led to new problems -- but
guess what survived in XML!...

Attributes in XML are inherited from SGML and they were thingking markup for textual documents. When you want to represent data it being attribute or not is completely irrelevant.

Whether something is an attribute or element is _completely_ arbitrary.
It is based on some arbitrary choices in the design process that reveal
absolutely no inherent qualities. For purely pragmatic reasons, SGML
folks will use attributes for some things and elements for others because
their tools can deal with some things in attributes and some things in
elements. The faulty idea that attributes say something "about" the
element and sub-elements somehow constitute be their contents is the same
premature structuring that premature optimization of code suffers from.
The whole language is incredibly misdesigned in making that distinction.

Deep explanation: From:The horror that is XML

... XML, being the single suckiest syntactic invention in the history of
mankind, offers you several layers at which you can do exactly the same
thing very differently, in fact so differently that it takes effort to
see that they are even related.

<foo type="bar">zot</foo> actually defines three different views on the
same thing: Whather what you are really after is foo, bar, or zot,
depends on your application. XML is only a overly complex and otherwise
meaningless exercise in syntactic noise around the message you want to
send. Its notion of "structure" must be regarded as the same kind of
useless baggage that come with language that have been designed by people
who have completely failed to understand what syntax is all about. It is
therefore a mistake to try to shoe-horn things into the "structure" that
XML allows you to define.

In the abaove example, foo can be the application-level element, or it
can be the syntax-level element and bar the application-level element.
It is important to realize that SGML and XML offer a means to control
only the generic identifier (foo) and their nesting, but that it is often
important to use another attribute for the application. This was part of
the reason for #FIXED in the attribute default specification and the
purpose of omitting attributes from the actual tags. In my view, this is
probably the only actually useful role that attributes can play, but
there are other, much more elegant, ways to accomplish the same goal, but
not within the SGML framework. Now, whether you use one of the parts of
the markup, or use the contents of an element for your application is
another design choice. The markup may only be useful for validation
purposes, anyway.

Let me illustrate:

<if><condition>...</condition>
<then>...</then>
<else>...</else>
</if>

The XML now contains all the syntax information of the "host" language.
Many people think this is the _only_ granularity at which XML should be
used, and they try to enforce as much structure as possible, which

<foo/>

form Re: Lisp syntax, what about resynchronization?

... so it had to come up, and one of the least
productive solutions, XML, won the day. I was there, at the conference
table where the first thoughts that became XML surfaced. a few months
earlier, I had proposed the need for a special marker for empty elements
-- and then retracted that proposal because it led to new problems -- but
guess what survived in XML!...

Attributes in XML are inherited from SGML and they were thingking markup for textual documents. When you want to represent data it being attribute or not is completely irrelevant.

Whether something is an attribute or element is _completely_ arbitrary.
It is based on some arbitrary choices in the design process that reveal
absolutely no inherent qualities. For purely pragmatic reasons, SGML
folks will use attributes for some things and elements for others because
their tools can deal with some things in attributes and some things in
elements. The faulty idea that attributes say something "about" the
element and sub-elements somehow constitute be their contents is the same
premature structuring that premature optimization of code suffers from.
The whole language is incredibly misdesigned in making that distinction.

Deep explanation: From:The horror that is XML

... XML, being the single suckiest syntactic invention in the history of
mankind, offers you several layers at which you can do exactly the same
thing very differently, in fact so differently that it takes effort to
see that they are even related.

<foo type="bar">zot</foo> actually defines three different views on the
same thing: Whather what you are really after is foo, bar, or zot,
depends on your application. XML is only a overly complex and otherwise
meaningless exercise in syntactic noise around the message you want to
send. Its notion of "structure" must be regarded as the same kind of
useless baggage that come with language that have been designed by people
who have completely failed to understand what syntax is all about. It is
therefore a mistake to try to shoe-horn things into the "structure" that
XML allows you to define.

In the abaove example, foo can be the application-level element, or it
can be the syntax-level element and bar the application-level element.
It is important to realize that SGML and XML offer a means to control
only the generic identifier (foo) and their nesting, but that it is often
important to use another attribute for the application. This was part of
the reason for #FIXED in the attribute default specification and the
purpose of omitting attributes from the actual tags. In my view, this is
probably the only actually useful role that attributes can play, but
there are other, much more elegant, ways to accomplish the same goal, but
not within the SGML framework. Now, whether you use one of the parts of
the markup, or use the contents of an element for your application is
another design choice. The markup may only be useful for validation
purposes, anyway.

Let me illustrate:

<if><condition>...</condition>
<then>...</then>
<else>...</else>
</if>

The XML now contains all the syntax information of the "host" language.
Many people think this is the _only_ granularity at which XML should be
used, and they try to enforce as much structure as possible, which

Me too. A couple of examples:

When you search for images of "Dramatic Disneysea" in Japanese, a recent event in Tokyo Disney Resort (it ran during summer-fall 2004) , you find no images.
When you search for an event from the year 2002, "D-Pop Magic", you get 173 results.

Both return thousands of results in the normal search.

Me too. A couple of examples:

When you search for images of "Dramatic Disneysea" in Japanese, a recent event in Tokyo Disney Resort (it ran during summer-fall 2004) , you find no images.
When you search for an event from the year 2002, "D-Pop Magic", you get 173 results.

Both return thousands of results in the normal search.

I second that. The card/chip should be made as generally usable as possible like CPUs do but emphasizing maximum I/O throughput using technologies like embedded DRAM(eDRAM) providing extremely high bandwidths and littering rest of the card with empty sockets for additional [C/G]PUs and/or small highspeed memory modules like DDR2/DDR3 SODIMMs when available.

Then massively scalable architecture using speedy external bus (like SLI) without the need to use AGP/PCIe slots at all! Think separate racks for multiple blades of these cards and only single "interface"card in AGP/PCIe slot directing data into that highspeed external bus. Tilebased rendering would be nice.

Raw power over sophistication works if entry-level is low enough, like almost empty card with basic stuff but lots of expandability through parallel solutions and empty slots.

use mirrors instead:

http://www.google.co.jp/
http://www.google.fr/
http://www.google.se/
http://www.google.fi/
http://www.google.ca/

all above seem to be responsive atleast to me

Yes, "bagle", but if you do the same query with correct spelling, eg beagle, you get something relevant. How odd... :)

Funny.

If you try to google Bagle assembler "source code"

you'll get

Microsoft shares source code with students - ZDNet UK News

I have problem accessing the original. Here's the google cache version: http://www.google.fi/search?q=cache:M2evSXeG0NcJ:w ww.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/rebuttal/+&hl=fi

Do you have a source for that? Everything I have ever read about the relationship of ColdFire and 68k indicates that the ColdFire is basically a modified 68k design, with most of the CISC complexities removed. A little googling found me this 1997 usenet post
which claims in some detail that the coldfire 51xx series is a modified 68040 and the 52xx series is a modified 68060.

Are you talking about this Linus ?

Tannenbaum to Linux:
I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is a
fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not
get a high grade for such a design :-) from this thread

well, most probably he meant it as a joke(hiding the name behind blank number and all).

as a sidenote, here is the google pdf-to-html cache of it: http://www.google.fi/search?q=cache:m0TMQYgIlIoJ:w ww.cs.rochester.edu/sosp2003/papers/p125-ghemawat. pdf+&hl=fi&ie=UTF-8

add waste to it(for smallish, i don't know how you would define small but i'm not saying that we have a network with ~10-20 people, networks way much more better. perfect for sharing between people who known for long from irc & etc, knows how to route between nodes too and you can ask it to saturate your up and downlinks with extra data so it's impossible to prove if you're moving anything even).

nullsoft doesn't approve it's distribution officially anymore(i guess something to do with the owners, never bothered to look into it more, since it's very easy to get it and theres even waste.sf.net , and add to that the wide amount of download places found with http://www.google.fi/search?q=waste+download&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=fi&btnG=Google-haku&lr=/a)

Make another note. I'm a software integrator.
I juggle with Diabolo and play drums.

So all technical people have some creative and weird hobbies to counter the ones and zeros?

How about you?

Here
is a google cache from the site, where the source code used to be (from some reason, the site is currently down). Those sources were from 1979 and so, so i don't think they have any meaning in this.

http://www.google.fi/search?q=aspartame&ie=UTF-8&o e=UTF-8&hl=fi&btnG=Google-haku&lr=

yeah you shouldn't make assumptions on what comes off from google straight away.

however, there are studies that DO show aspartame as harmful, it tastes like crap, and has no real reason to be used instead of sugar(yeah sugar has energy but drink water then it's not like your going to get rid of fatty ass by drinking alternatives, eh, and they're just as bad to teeth as well, dissolving them).

the biggest gist is that it got through the check system by weaseling a bit.

hmm... i wonder why the more caring types of my family stopped drinking sweetened stuff(educated in medical, reading studies occasionally).

7000 as a number is just absurd too.

"Of the 90 non-industry-sponsored studies, 83 (92%) identified one or more problems with aspartame. Of the 7 studies which did not find a problems, 6 of those studies were conducted by the FDA. Given that a number of FDA officials went to work for the aspartame industry immediately following approval (including the former FDA Commissioner), many consider these studies to be equivalent to industry-sponsored research."

uh, i guess he is restructuring the webpage..

anyways here is the google cache of what was there .. here.