Slashdot Mirror

http://sc.tri-bit.com/Pope_Plz

But phony bomb threats and DDoS attacks do NOT hurt the CoS, if anything it lets them claim to be victims and shows the attacker is living proof of Gabriels fuckwad theory. If he was standing outside of place where CoS recruits and handing out pamphlets showing their BS is BS THEN he'd be doing some good.

This guy was just enjoying being a dick at home and using a "cause" as an excuse for his dickish behavior.

The nightlies of Microsoft Bob basically killed all positive hype for the program. I don't want to see Microsoft Bob in nighties! It was bad enough seeing Bill Gates wiggling his ass for the cameras.

Oh, nightlies ...

I'll have to ask Clippy for linux and get back to you on that ...

Reminds me of a bit from one of my favorite movies "You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire; you build egos the size of cathedrals; fiber-optically connect the world to every eager impulse; grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green, gold-plated fantasies, until every human becomes an aspiring emperor, becomes his own God... and where can you go from there?"

You mix the combination of giant egos with Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory and you end up with some seriously large douches. But the problem with laws like this is they ALWAYS get abused. Look at the 6 year old who was suspended and looking at being sent to a school for juvenile offenders for bring his cub scout multi-tool to school to eat lunch with. Laws like this will be badly abused, and the last thing we need is one of the last bastions of truly free speech turning into a place where you can't speak your mind for fear of getting arrested or sued. I for one would rather have free speech than some bureaucrat deciding whether or not something I said on a forum could take away my freedom, wouldn't you?

Actually I think he just proved Professor Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory and thereby proving conclusively that no matter how much education or degrees you have attached to you name, you can still be a giant douche on the Internet.

So congratulations Mr Researcher, on proving what everyone else has known since AOHell let the great unwashed loose on the net. I'm sure his next paper will be on how 4Chan is full of trolls that do everything for something called the "LULZ".

Irony is not about reciprocity. If person A does thing X, and somehow it comes back and bites them in the ass, that is not ironic". Instead, "Irony is the use of words in a way to conceal true intention with literal intention. More clearly, irony is when you say one thing but mean another." [not the thing you are describing].

Source: http://www.sc.tri-bit.com/Irony

I will construct a hamster combat machine! I am Skynet!

http://sc.tri-bit.com/images/2/23/pony.jpg

Actually I believe John Gabriel's Greater Internet Theory explained the phenomena in the most clear and concise terms.

Not yours!

Not to mention I don't think I have ever seen you write y'all or ain't in any of your posts so it ain't very hard to tell that we aren't from the same geographical region. Whereas Twitter can't resist using M$ at least once per post.

Twitter if you are reading this,dude let go of the M$ BS,'kay? That bit was old when I was running a Windows help chatroom during the mid '90s. If you don't want to type Microsoft simply use MSFT,which is simple,cuts out half the letters,is easy to understand and look up for those that are too young to have used DOS,and if it makes you feel better we all know that with Vista MSFT was looking at the stock price instead of making an OS that was actually good. But everytime you use that tired old M$ bit you not only out yourself but the first thing anyone thinks,no matter whether what you had to say actually had some merit or not,is this

Wikipedia is your friend.

No, it isn't.

Lal, sir, and lal again: to cite Wikipedia as authority shows that you aren't particularly interested in the quality of your reference. Either way, I'm not particularly worried about it; that you should attempt to provide justification on the explicit contrary of grounds I provided for distrust, using non-germane topics such as your satisfaction with the personal support provided by a company at some point in the past, is the refutation you think isn't there. I'm sorry that you think an adjoinder that directly refutes the parent post is somehow not a refutation, but I'm rather sorrier that I have to listen to you, and I'm about to end the problem.

Instead I provided a list of examples to demonstrate

...your inadequate control of fundamental logic. Yes, we saw. I don't know why you're banging this drum; it's obvious that I find your arguments laughable. It's not as if anyone but you is falling for (or even listening to) this self adulating diatribe.

Maybe you should steal a logic 101 class. I'm pretty done explaining the obvious to you, though, so make sure to fill your next post with asinine things like "this type of policy which dictates how people can live their lives", wherein you act as if you somehow have the fundamental right to steal other people's work. For someone so interested in rights, it seems curious that you have not yet considered the rights of the author. But, then, that's because the warezer's worldview does not extend outside their own skin.

You should be happy there are laws enforcing the common sense that people other than you have. That's why nobody's beaten the hell out of you for your self serving reprobia.

I also don't know why you'd think I'd give a damn what someone who steals from me has to say. I'm not the blog poster. I still hate you, and I don't give a shit about your opinions.

She has no clue online what is safe to download and what is not.

Then I am showing her how to use Adept Manger to download software. I am going to tell her if it is not in the Adept Manager, then it is not possible to run it.

You are really setting yourself up there. Asking for polite comments on Slashdot. I will resist the temptation huge to make fun of you for being new to the Internet AND a flaming Apple fanboy and just refer you to this:
http://sc.tri-bit.com/John_Gabriel's_Greater_Internet_Fuckwad_Theory

http://sc.tri-bit.com/images/2/23/pony.jpg

Right. Because more gigahertz means faster.

That is a fallacy big time.

Not really. Of course, I don't actually see anything wrong with wanting to eliminate waste in the development cycle...

It's just you.

No, you can't have a pony.

I remembered the prefix wrongly. It's gigaflop, not teraflop. The first supercomputer was IBM's Stretch project in 1961. Wikipedia's supercomputer articles are full of crap; for example, it cites 800 MFLOPS for the Cray X-MP, when the X-MP could have between two and 192 CPUs, each of which did 230 MFLOPS. Generally speaking, try to refer to something authoratative, like Cray documents on Cray's websites; Wikipedia is not sufficiently vetted. Yes, yes, I know, that comparison to Brittanica and all; I don't care, I find mistakes on Wikipedia all the time. There are two you can see for yourself, one of which is contextually germane.

But, you're right: the line isn't teraflops, I was mistaken. The supercomputer line was broken as a research project in 1961, and became available commercially in 1972. Cray's third machine, the 1S, was their first supercomputer.

In summary: I call bullshit.

Yeah, my mistake. On checking, it's gigaflop, not teraflop. The first supercomputer was the IBM Stretch, in 1961. As far as the wikipedia article, Wikipedia technical articles are not adequately vetted. The phrase in 1929 was "super computing;" that that should be related to supercomputers is rather silly, since the electronic computer wouldn't even appear for another 16 years. It's just a coincidence. A mechanical tabulator computes numbers. No doubt in that era you can also find articles that say "amazing calculator" and "superior abacus." Nonetheless, if either of those became terms in the future, the articles about other such things would not presage them. I should point out that one of Euler's biographies refers to him as a super computer. Should that be considered to impact the definition of the current term, as well?

So, in response to intent, yes, supercomputers appeared in a specific year. I just had the line wrongly; it's gigaflop, which is 1961, not teraflop, which is 1996/7.

Isn't it ironic

Is there not something deliciously ironic about one set of criminals complaining about the illegal, immoral activities of another?

Resistance is not futile. It only makes my penis harder.

http://sc.tri-bit.com/Resistance

Uh huh. For once, Webster's isn't wrong, although its definition is partial in a misleading fashion, and although it's still an absolute trash reference (you might as well be referring to infomercials.) This man is acting neither as a spokesperson nor as a promoter. He is at no point so much as mentioning his employer. All he's doing is passing on a news link to a news aggregator. It turns out that writing out a URL doesn't make you a shill. Similarly, even though I have an advertisement for a company in my sig, I'm not a shill, as I'm not making any actual claims about them.

Now, shills aren't actually by definition hiding their association; I'd say I wasn't sure where Wikipedia got that idea, except that in fact, I do know exactly where it got that idea: from some dude like you who has confused their ability to find poor reference which they know by name, put bold on it and pretend that it supports them, who decides that the definition of some word isn't in line with what they remember, and adds things to the entry which are essentially full of crap. Yes, some shillabers were on the down low, but others were up front about their associations, and just tried to spin a compelling case for the service (whether or not the case was honest is not at issue.) For example, there is the snake oil salesman, and his buddy who comes along to tell what joys that J. P. McFee's Miracle Diamondback Elixir did for his shingles, shackles, shiggelosis and sheehan syndrome. At no point does this person pretend not to know who the snake oil salesman is; indeed it would be contrary to his scam. That is a "public shill," as opposed to a "private shill."

Now, if you were finding out what the word actually meant, instead of taking half a sentence out of context and reading into it as deeply as you could in the desperation to invent yourself into correctness, you might find out that shill explicitly means someone working for a corrupt gambler or peddler; indeed, to shill implies that what is being sold is fake. Maybe you believe ComputerWorld invents its news, like The Onion, but if you don't, then you're just exposing your lack of understanding either of the word or how to track down what it really means.

Merriam Webster is a reasonable mistake; most people don't realize how low quality a reference it is (try AmHet or the Collins dictionary; word cemetaries like Webster and the OED just serve to make men stupider, by accepting any half-assed misunderstanding as a definition in the hoary desperation to inflate word count for sales purposes.) Believing in Wikipedia, though? You should know better.

If you want to criticise the ComputerWorld columnist, go right ahead. I'm not attacking your criticism. Just use appropriate terminology. Whether or not what that man's doing is right isn't what I'm talking about. All I'm saying is that if you say "that man works for the company he links to, he's a total sausage mcmuffin," someone's going to step up and explain that a tasty breakfast sandwich isn't actually a way to describe comercially exploitative manipulation of network news services.

He may be doing something creepy. He is not shilling a damned thing. Stop learning words from dictionaries; without context your understanding of their normative definition is partial in even the most generous of situations.

We aren't talking a win32 style message pump kind of message passing mechanism, are we?

I truly can't stand the message pump in win32 - it always feels like such a 'hack'; I don't have a better solution, though, so I've been waiting for a better form of IPC.

Yet Raven64 said there is no shared memory, so I'm confused on how the message passing happens.

And a pony.

No, you can't have a pony.

Oh, I may have misunderstood. When I responded, I thought you were taking the line that some people take with regards to commonly misunderstood words - my personal pet peeve example being irony, wherein one is somehow excused from being correct with regards to the meaning of the word, on basis that the communicated value - expecting the other side to misunderstand the word in a specific fashion - would be superior. Given that it now seems that you are advocating eschewing large words except when nessecary, I tend actually to agree with you strongly.

My apologies; I misread what you were saying.

Actually, irony is the use of a word to mean something other than its superficial intent.

Now would be truly awefull.

That depends. If the system shows repeated failure, sometimes it can be important to start on a replacement system. Most flaws can be repaired, but every so often you find an architecture built on unsound principles, or a core design failure on which other systems are irrevocably dependant.

Now, I'd like to think that every nuclear plant in the country has a better control system (not that I'd know.) That said, if I walked in and saw a defect rate that PSP and TSP said were a death spiral, you'd better believe I'd suck it up, put down the cash and buy a second engineering team to work in parallel on a replacement product. The only thing worse than a nuclear plant which is radically over budget because of critical system redesign is a nuclear plant which is reduced to hot gas by the lack of critical system redesign.

I applaud you for suggesting caution when discussing the gutting and re-stuffing of the fish. That said, "back in the real world," there are times at which starting over is significantly less expensive in time and money than fixing what you already have. They're rare, and I should hope they essentially don't exist at facilities with safety concerns at this level, but it is important to acknowledge that a software system can be so large a failure that replacement is the better option, so that when you do in fact hit such a situation, you handle it appropriately.

At times like those, I don't think I could act without a statistical defect control practice. Otherwise, getting out of analysis paralysis would seem to consist of the worst and scariest guess ever.

That depends. If the system shows repeated failure, sometimes it can be important to start on a replacement system. Most flaws can be repaired, but every so often you find an architecture built on unsound principles, or a core design failure on which other systems are irrevocably dependant.

Now, I'd like to think that every nuclear plant in the country has a better control system (not that I'd know.) That said, if I walked in and saw a defect rate that PSP and TSP said were a death spiral, you'd better believe I'd suck it up, put down the cash and buy a second engineering team to work in parallel on a replacement product. The only thing worse than a nuclear plant which is radically over budget because of critical system redesign is a nuclear plant which is reduced to hot gas by the lack of critical system redesign.

I applaud you for suggesting caution when discussing the gutting and re-stuffing of the fish. That said, "back in the real world," there are times at which starting over is significantly less expensive in time and money than fixing what you already have. They're rare, and I should hope they essentially don't exist at facilities with safety concerns at this level, but it is important to acknowledge that a software system can be so large a failure that replacement is the better option, so that when you do in fact hit such a situation, you handle it appropriately.

At times like those, I don't think I could act without a statistical defect control practice. Otherwise, getting out of analysis paralysis would seem to consist of the worst and scariest guess ever.

The fact that you closed with an ad hominem barb leaves me doubtful.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

That's not what irony means.

Here are 42 books that have helped me.

The image you're looking for.

"What is interesting, however, is the fact that these online games (having a virtual social and economic society) can actually be used to find the effects of 'real' world social and economic theories theories."

I think what is even more interesting, is what economists, and idealogues can learn from games, like taking game concepts and ideas and applying them to real world economies. i.e. experimenting with new socio-political economic models, hybrids of the elments of the ideas of the major idealogical 'isms'. (Communism, capitalism, socialism, etc), I think not enough work has really been done with experimenting with new kinds of economies, and NEW ways of measuring value, and also giving each one of us EASIER ways to choose and KNOW how our choices effect the environment, energy usage, etc. Because really, a lot of "abstract" problems are caused through sheer ignorance and the fact that the price of items we by don't really measure or give the consumer information about the "hidden costs" of the items they buy, and the amount of resources they displace or waste they create.

Also in games, game developers try to curb power and cheating, that comes with economic or "real" power in the virutal game world. In the real world, this is exact opposite of what really happens. Next, in the real world, you have no "Servers" on which all people and the things they own and monies they have are stored... Unfortunately, you can get away with a lot the more abstract and removed power is from people because of the extreme specialization modern economies and politics require.

And of course you sometimes get crazy people at the top of a country doing insane things to enrich themselves (or those with much to gain economically that elected them) and bankrupting their own countrymen in violation of international law. (i.e. invasion of iraq).

Lastly, lots of things happen in games, simply because people could never get away with them in the real world. To get an idea, refer to John Gabriel's (Penny Arcade's) Greater internet fuckwad theory: http://sc.tri-bit.com/John_Gabriel's_Greater_Inter net_Fuckwad_Theory

Be careful with JoelOnSoftware...he seems to talk out of his ass a lot. Especially the part where he claims that most programmers don't care about money. I mean, WTF? This is along with his suggestion to blow $800 on office chairs for your employees.

Check this article for a point by point breakdown:
http://blog.sc.tri-bit.com/archives/171

Irony is the form of wordplay wherein one uses a word in contrast to its contextual meaning.

Here (seen from above, side.) They'll try to sidle up to you with humor and good sport, and by being even cuter, though they'll often take it too far. Then they'll try joining forces with other warm, soft, irresistably cuddly things. And, when they say no 'cause they're sneezing, they will object, then do this and eventually start crying.

And, as long as we're on the topic of breeding, how about this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

It can be done.

Then we'll start breeding for intelligence, but it will fail, occasionally miserably, even though they'll get close (in fact, very close.) We'll try to give them special powers or teach them to be college professors.

Eventually we're gonna make one of these, and then we're gonna be all "what has science done? When will we learn that science on cats is wrong? ... AAAAUGH!." Then the war will begin. Many will die in the ensuing battle. Cats are, after all, ferocious warriors; what we will learn is that they are also brilliant wartime engineers (not joking.) Humanity will forever be scarred by its being forced to resort to the acid chamber.

Besides, we all know where genetic experimentation always leads. Hell, they're already considering it.

On the bright side, check out my lab. (Unfortunately we've had some problems with the nurses,

Here (seen from above, side.) They'll try to sidle up to you with humor and good sport, and by being even cuter, though they'll often take it too far. Then they'll try joining forces with other warm, soft, irresistably cuddly things. And, when they say no 'cause they're sneezing, they will object, then do this and eventually start crying.

And, as long as we're on the topic of breeding, how about this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

It can be done.

Then we'll start breeding for intelligence, but it will fail, occasionally miserably, even though they'll get close (in fact, very close.) We'll try to give them special powers or teach them to be college professors.

Eventually we're gonna make one of these, and then we're gonna be all "what has science done? When will we learn that science on cats is wrong? ... AAAAUGH!." Then the war will begin. Many will die in the ensuing battle. Cats are, after all, ferocious warriors; what we will learn is that they are also brilliant wartime engineers (not joking.) Humanity will forever be scarred by its being forced to resort to the acid chamber.

Besides, we all know where genetic experimentation always leads. Hell, they're already considering it.

On the bright side, check out my lab. (Unfortunately we've had some problems with the nurses,

Here (seen from above, side.) They'll try to sidle up to you with humor and good sport, and by being even cuter, though they'll often take it too far. Then they'll try joining forces with other warm, soft, irresistably cuddly things. And, when they say no 'cause they're sneezing, they will object, then do this and eventually start crying.

And, as long as we're on the topic of breeding, how about this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

It can be done.

Then we'll start breeding for intelligence, but it will fail, occasionally miserably, even though they'll get close (in fact, very close.) We'll try to give them special powers or teach them to be college professors.

Eventually we're gonna make one of these, and then we're gonna be all "what has science done? When will we learn that science on cats is wrong? ... AAAAUGH!." Then the war will begin. Many will die in the ensuing battle. Cats are, after all, ferocious warriors; what we will learn is that they are also brilliant wartime engineers (not joking.) Humanity will forever be scarred by its being forced to resort to the acid chamber.

Besides, we all know where genetic experimentation always leads. Hell, they're already considering it.

On the bright side, check out my lab. (Unfortunately we've had some problems with the nurses,

Here (seen from above, side.) They'll try to sidle up to you with humor and good sport, and by being even cuter, though they'll often take it too far. Then they'll try joining forces with other warm, soft, irresistably cuddly things. And, when they say no 'cause they're sneezing, they will object, then do this and eventually start crying.

And, as long as we're on the topic of breeding, how about this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

It can be done.

Then we'll start breeding for intelligence, but it will fail, occasionally miserably, even though they'll get close (in fact, very close.) We'll try to give them special powers or teach them to be college professors.

Eventually we're gonna make one of these, and then we're gonna be all "what has science done? When will we learn that science on cats is wrong? ... AAAAUGH!." Then the war will begin. Many will die in the ensuing battle. Cats are, after all, ferocious warriors; what we will learn is that they are also brilliant wartime engineers (not joking.) Humanity will forever be scarred by its being forced to resort to the acid chamber.

Besides, we all know where genetic experimentation always leads. Hell, they're already considering it.

On the bright side, check out my lab. (Unfortunately we've had some problems with the nurses,

Here (seen from above, side.) They'll try to sidle up to you with humor and good sport, and by being even cuter, though they'll often take it too far. Then they'll try joining forces with other warm, soft, irresistably cuddly things. And, when they say no 'cause they're sneezing, they will object, then do this and eventually start crying.

And, as long as we're on the topic of breeding, how about this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

It can be done.

Then we'll start breeding for intelligence, but it will fail, occasionally miserably, even though they'll get close (in fact, very close.) We'll try to give them special powers or teach them to be college professors.

Eventually we're gonna make one of these, and then we're gonna be all "what has science done? When will we learn that science on cats is wrong? ... AAAAUGH!." Then the war will begin. Many will die in the ensuing battle. Cats are, after all, ferocious warriors; what we will learn is that they are also brilliant wartime engineers (not joking.) Humanity will forever be scarred by its being forced to resort to the acid chamber.

Besides, we all know where genetic experimentation always leads. Hell, they're already considering it.

On the bright side, check out my lab. (Unfortunately we've had some problems with the nurses,

Here (seen from above, side.) They'll try to sidle up to you with humor and good sport, and by being even cuter, though they'll often take it too far. Then they'll try joining forces with other warm, soft, irresistably cuddly things. And, when they say no 'cause they're sneezing, they will object, then do this and eventually start crying.

And, as long as we're on the topic of breeding, how about this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

It can be done.

Then we'll start breeding for intelligence, but it will fail, occasionally miserably, even though they'll get close (in fact, very close.) We'll try to give them special powers or teach them to be college professors.

Eventually we're gonna make one of these, and then we're gonna be all "what has science done? When will we learn that science on cats is wrong? ... AAAAUGH!." Then the war will begin. Many will die in the ensuing battle. Cats are, after all, ferocious warriors; what we will learn is that they are also brilliant wartime engineers (not joking.) Humanity will forever be scarred by its being forced to resort to the acid chamber.

Besides, we all know where genetic experimentation always leads. Hell, they're already considering it.

On the bright side, check out my lab. (Unfortunately we've had some problems with the nurses,

Here (seen from above, side.) They'll try to sidle up to you with humor and good sport, and by being even cuter, though they'll often take it too far. Then they'll try joining forces with other warm, soft, irresistably cuddly things. And, when they say no 'cause they're sneezing, they will object, then do this and eventually start crying.

And, as long as we're on the topic of breeding, how about this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

It can be done.

Then we'll start breeding for intelligence, but it will fail, occasionally miserably, even though they'll get close (in fact, very close.) We'll try to give them special powers or teach them to be college professors.

Eventually we're gonna make one of these, and then we're gonna be all "what has science done? When will we learn that science on cats is wrong? ... AAAAUGH!." Then the war will begin. Many will die in the ensuing battle. Cats are, after all, ferocious warriors; what we will learn is that they are also brilliant wartime engineers (not joking.) Humanity will forever be scarred by its being forced to resort to the acid chamber.

Besides, we all know where genetic experimentation always leads. Hell, they're already considering it.

On the bright side, check out my lab. (Unfortunately we've had some problems with the nurses,

Here (seen from above, side.) They'll try to sidle up to you with humor and good sport, and by being even cuter, though they'll often take it too far. Then they'll try joining forces with other warm, soft, irresistably cuddly things. And, when they say no 'cause they're sneezing, they will object, then do this and eventually start crying.

And, as long as we're on the topic of breeding, how about this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

It can be done.

Then we'll start breeding for intelligence, but it will fail, occasionally miserably, even though they'll get close (in fact, very close.) We'll try to give them special powers or teach them to be college professors.

Eventually we're gonna make one of these, and then we're gonna be all "what has science done? When will we learn that science on cats is wrong? ... AAAAUGH!." Then the war will begin. Many will die in the ensuing battle. Cats are, after all, ferocious warriors; what we will learn is that they are also brilliant wartime engineers (not joking.) Humanity will forever be scarred by its being forced to resort to the acid chamber.

Besides, we all know where genetic experimentation always leads. Hell, they're already considering it.

On the bright side, check out my lab. (Unfortunately we've had some problems with the nurses,