Ollie was under the assumption that it was a legal act. They were under the presumption they had found a loophole in the law. Debate that as much as you want, but that's the context.
Claiming that powershell doesn't mess up filenames compared to shell is missing the point because the find command is strong enough to support all file name (and file status) manipulation directly. "Please fix this, but don't do it the Unix way" is not a valid challenge. Passing filenames throuh pipes is not typical with the robust find command already, but there are -0-like switches for that just in case.
Yeah, you and the C guys keep saying that over and over. You've said it so much that you even start to believe it yourself. But out here in the real world we know the truth that native machine code is still faster. C and C++ will always have less performance than asm. You guys need to accept that fact.
That doesn't mean that C and C++ suck. Both of those have significant advantages over ordinary asm. But raw execution speed isn't one of them.
The above reply mentioned a " character, but I thought it might not be obvious that spaces in a variable 'file' are expanded as a single argument when passed to a program as "$file" (with double quotes) through almost any unix shell. No escaping needed. Anybody who's spent two minutes in unix shells here are wondering why you think spaces are difficult for shell scripts.
It's not a valid copyright notice that enables statutory damages: it's registration of the copyright. And the mitigating factor you might be referring to is a claim of innocent infringement, which couldn't be claimed merely because the date is missing from the copyright notice and the name isn't on the same line. It's obviously copyrighted. The formality of the date is mostly to let people know how to find out who to arrange royalties with since it maked it easier to look up (which is no longer so relevant anymore due to computerized indices).
The Berne Conventions eliminated the need to even post a copyright notice. Copyright automatically falls into the hands of the "creator" the moment it is created.
if you want to go after somebody with a DMCA notice on something with no notice and no registration, you can easily register the copyright years later, then go after them.
STV for multi-seat elections is ideal for a proportional representation system. Condercet doesn't satisfy the criterion of proportional representation of the populace in multi-seat elections.
A agree, though, Condercet methods work better than IRV for single-seat positions (such as we have in executive positions), but for houses, proportional representation is the best way to counterbalance the tyranny of a centrist and non-controversial minority against edge minorities that increase the political dialogue.
The Spinozan argument is a reformulation of the ontological argument.
Your ontological argument is simply circular logic and fails for a similar reason to what I provided in my first post: you can't "define" a word as something that must exist, either directly or indirectly. Existence is not a predicable argument -- existence is a part of the a posteriori, not the a priori. You can't even debate existence without experience of existence.
I'm going to call your defined god "hfidkcle". As it's about as meaningful as a random string of characters, from now on. To understand better, it's like saying, "my god is myself, you can't be an atheist because you must believe I exist, for you're talking to me!"
No, that doesn't make me a theist. You simply can't redefine your way into winning the argument. Remember, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any gods, even a pantheistic god, because I don't believe in all things just because you slapped a definition on them.
Moreover, it's not a preconceived notion of god that people expect gods to be metaphysical. It's a common property for 99.99% of the world. Again, you can't redefine words. If we use your terms, then we're speaking a language other than English. I'd be a theist in your language, but not mine, nor the rest of the world's.
It's like saying you can redefine a word to mean something it was never intended to refer to. It's really post-conceived that you changed the definition to be a non-metaphysical god. Look at one of the arguments Nietzsche used to dismiss gods -- if we could see their actions then their behavior is no longer metaphysical, but physical, and then part of the scientific realm, and thus non-evidence becomes a valid reason for dismissing any metaphysical/physical hybrid god. Hence many intellectual god-lovers tend to put him into the completely metaphysical realm, or the physical realm only in a non-scientific way (since we can't test gods).
In discussions past, I typically just change the Spinozan god "hfidkcle" to be "universe". Then if they ask if I believe the universe exists, I say yes. But that doesn't mean I believe in "hfidkcle" in any meaningful fashion. It doesn't actually change my behavior. I merely act as if the universe exists... STILL. So it's really a pointless argument to fall in line with the old Spinozan antinomy.
The proceeds should go to transporting poor families from places where they aren't highly skilled to those places where manual labor is needed.
They won't have Television to entice them into debt, but at least they'll now be able to afford the food or have enough space to do their own subsistence farming to survive.
Let's start with families on welfare while we're at it.
Please don't pass that off as enlightenment. All the atheists I know simply don't believe in any deity. I always used to say that it's conceivable that one could come up with a definition of a deity that might exist, but that there's no reason for me to believe in it/them/whatever now or in the past. There might be a reason in the future, but at this very moment and at all moments in the past, I'm an atheist _and_ an agnostic. They are orthogonal properties, my friend.
Now that you've met an atheist that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you'll have to change your story.
You seem to think that a requirement for atheism is the positive belief in the non-existence of all theoretically imaginable deities. Of course, that's bullshit: We all know that 'deity' will always be a subjective term, so there's no point in trying to pin an atheist on that line of thought.
I almost always refuse to discuss atheism with anybody until they start providing defining properties to their superstitions. Otherwise, it's like debating reeds in the wind.
I was critiquing the environmental statement (that lower temperature increases failures) which was a logical conclusion not borne by the data that was repeated by the original poster. In other areas the Google study was merely a collection of SMART data. They did not do much else. I don't doubt that their SMART data was fabricated, just collected without regard to realizing that SMART data (specifically temperature) is not an independent enough of a variable, since drive firmware uses the same figure(s) to adjust its own behavior.
They can only come to their conclusion if the SMART data were calibrated and accurate. If you assume SMART sensor variability, it makes complete sense that temperature sensor miscalibration would lead to premature drive failure, for example, due to overheating. They didn't control for this, so their results are highly suspect to me. They didn't correct for a number of other things that could be related: there's merely some handwaving at the end about one thing they could look into. In truth, there are many things they could have mentioned as influencing their results -- they just didn't see them.
I used to work at Garth Gibson's company, Panasas, so I'm quite familiar with the CMU Parallel Data Lab, and yes, I have read his paper already.:)
I used to work at a hardware manufacturer of HPC storage clusters.
Perhaps Google failed to correct for the fact that most modern drive manufacturers simply turn off write verification at high temperature to save energy output, reduce temperature, and thwart drive failure.
When we got drives with firmware that did this, we sent them back, rejected them, and told them not to do tricks with the firmware. It also killed performance at low temperature, and the software we wrote already handled media failure.
Note that we used a heat chamber to detect behavior like this.
Realize that Google doesn't really have the technical competence and experience to deal with a real study. They have no real R&D laboratory. If you get counter-physical results: analyze them with science, not conjecture.
Remember, Google's just an advertising agency. Anything they publish has the ulterior motive of making them look good. They're so blatant, they even don't want people to think they are evil by having a motto of "don't be evil".
if you don't have actual branches, you get version creep, even if you do that.
This is the main reason I use sourcemage, which is source-based, has all the package management capabilities of gentoo (but easier), and has actual branches.
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia is great and all, but its stated intent to not validate its data (unlike Citizendium, for example) means it has a limited usefulness.
Their articles are shit. Why does /. even link to them?
...so you can be replaced with a robot.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world thoughtfully considers their actions in context with their respective situations.
Ollie was under the assumption that it was a legal act. They were under the presumption they had found a loophole in the law. Debate that as much as you want, but that's the context.
This is what you didn't want me to do:
find . -wholename '*bath*' -print0 | xargs -0 rm
nor this ('+' is an xargs-like operator to replace ';'):
find . -wholename '*bath*' -exec rm '{}' '+'
grep's -0 operates on output, not input since it's not needed (due to find having the capability already),
two ways to do it with perl doing what grep would normally do but with null on input instead of output:
find . -print0 | perl -0ne 'print if grep {/blah/} $_' | xargs -0 rm
find . -print0 | perl -0pe 'grep {s/.*blah.*//} $_' | xargs -0 rm
Now do it in powershell.
Claiming that powershell doesn't mess up filenames compared to shell is missing the point because the find command is strong enough to support all file name (and file status) manipulation directly. "Please fix this, but don't do it the Unix way" is not a valid challenge. Passing filenames throuh pipes is not typical with the robust find command already, but there are -0-like switches for that just in case.
Yeah, you and the C guys keep saying that over and over. You've said it so much that you even start to believe it yourself. But out here in the real world we know the truth that native machine code is still faster. C and C++ will always have less performance than asm. You guys need to accept that fact.
That doesn't mean that C and C++ suck. Both of those have significant advantages over ordinary asm. But raw execution speed isn't one of them.
ls -s | lpr
this seems like a bad way to go about it:
"ls | select fullname,length | sort name | format-list | out-printer"
ls -s prints the size and the name, and it sorts by name by default, and it's formatted nicely already. You might mean one per line, in which case:
ls -s1 | lpr
Perl can invoke all shell commands too by placing backquotes (or using the qx operator) around them just like a regular shell: ``
The above reply mentioned a " character, but I thought it might not be obvious that spaces in a variable 'file' are expanded as a single argument when passed to a program as "$file" (with double quotes) through almost any unix shell. No escaping needed. Anybody who's spent two minutes in unix shells here are wondering why you think spaces are difficult for shell scripts.
Put quotes around $file and ${file%avi}mpg like "${file%avi}mpg" and yes it will.
It's not a valid copyright notice that enables statutory damages: it's registration of the copyright. And the mitigating factor you might be referring to is a claim of innocent infringement, which couldn't be claimed merely because the date is missing from the copyright notice and the name isn't on the same line. It's obviously copyrighted. The formality of the date is mostly to let people know how to find out who to arrange royalties with since it maked it easier to look up (which is no longer so relevant anymore due to computerized indices).
The Berne Conventions eliminated the need to even post a copyright notice. Copyright automatically falls into the hands of the "creator" the moment it is created.
if you want to go after somebody with a DMCA notice on something with no notice and no registration, you can easily register the copyright years later, then go after them.
STV for multi-seat elections is ideal for a proportional representation system. Condercet doesn't satisfy the criterion of proportional representation of the populace in multi-seat elections.
A agree, though, Condercet methods work better than IRV for single-seat positions (such as we have in executive positions), but for houses, proportional representation is the best way to counterbalance the tyranny of a centrist and non-controversial minority against edge minorities that increase the political dialogue.
The proposal was only for legalizing non-commercial performance/distribution of the work, which negates your argument.
Apparently his argument was actually well-conceived because it already accounted for your exact criticism.
Sounds like you've just discovered Spinoza.
The Spinozan argument is a reformulation of the ontological argument.
Your ontological argument is simply circular logic and fails for a similar reason to what I provided in my first post: you can't "define" a word as something that must exist, either directly or indirectly. Existence is not a predicable argument -- existence is a part of the a posteriori, not the a priori. You can't even debate existence without experience of existence.
I'm going to call your defined god "hfidkcle". As it's about as meaningful as a random string of characters, from now on. To understand better, it's like saying, "my god is myself, you can't be an atheist because you must believe I exist, for you're talking to me!"
No, that doesn't make me a theist. You simply can't redefine your way into winning the argument. Remember, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any gods, even a pantheistic god, because I don't believe in all things just because you slapped a definition on them.
Moreover, it's not a preconceived notion of god that people expect gods to be metaphysical. It's a common property for 99.99% of the world. Again, you can't redefine words. If we use your terms, then we're speaking a language other than English. I'd be a theist in your language, but not mine, nor the rest of the world's.
It's like saying you can redefine a word to mean something it was never intended to refer to. It's really post-conceived that you changed the definition to be a non-metaphysical god. Look at one of the arguments Nietzsche used to dismiss gods -- if we could see their actions then their behavior is no longer metaphysical, but physical, and then part of the scientific realm, and thus non-evidence becomes a valid reason for dismissing any metaphysical/physical hybrid god. Hence many intellectual god-lovers tend to put him into the completely metaphysical realm, or the physical realm only in a non-scientific way (since we can't test gods).
In discussions past, I typically just change the Spinozan god "hfidkcle" to be "universe". Then if they ask if I believe the universe exists, I say yes. But that doesn't mean I believe in "hfidkcle" in any meaningful fashion. It doesn't actually change my behavior. I merely act as if the universe exists... STILL. So it's really a pointless argument to fall in line with the old Spinozan antinomy.
s/I'll/It'll/
The proceeds should go to transporting poor families from places where they aren't highly skilled to those places where manual labor is needed.
They won't have Television to entice them into debt, but at least they'll now be able to afford the food or have enough space to do their own subsistence farming to survive.
Let's start with families on welfare while we're at it.
Yeah, we could setup a stage and then auction off the people with the highest skills.
I'll be just like south of the mason-dixon line before the war.
Please don't pass that off as enlightenment. All the atheists I know simply don't believe in any deity. I always used to say that it's conceivable that one could come up with a definition of a deity that might exist, but that there's no reason for me to believe in it/them/whatever now or in the past. There might be a reason in the future, but at this very moment and at all moments in the past, I'm an atheist _and_ an agnostic. They are orthogonal properties, my friend.
Now that you've met an atheist that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you'll have to change your story.
You seem to think that a requirement for atheism is the positive belief in the non-existence of all theoretically imaginable deities. Of course, that's bullshit: We all know that 'deity' will always be a subjective term, so there's no point in trying to pin an atheist on that line of thought.
I almost always refuse to discuss atheism with anybody until they start providing defining properties to their superstitions. Otherwise, it's like debating reeds in the wind.
I was critiquing the environmental statement (that lower temperature increases failures) which was a logical conclusion not borne by the data that was repeated by the original poster. In other areas the Google study was merely a collection of SMART data. They did not do much else. I don't doubt that their SMART data was fabricated, just collected without regard to realizing that SMART data (specifically temperature) is not an independent enough of a variable, since drive firmware uses the same figure(s) to adjust its own behavior.
:)
They can only come to their conclusion if the SMART data were calibrated and accurate. If you assume SMART sensor variability, it makes complete sense that temperature sensor miscalibration would lead to premature drive failure, for example, due to overheating. They didn't control for this, so their results are highly suspect to me. They didn't correct for a number of other things that could be related: there's merely some handwaving at the end about one thing they could look into. In truth, there are many things they could have mentioned as influencing their results -- they just didn't see them.
I used to work at Garth Gibson's company, Panasas, so I'm quite familiar with the CMU Parallel Data Lab, and yes, I have read his paper already.
I used to work at a hardware manufacturer of HPC storage clusters.
Perhaps Google failed to correct for the fact that most modern drive manufacturers simply turn off write verification at high temperature to save energy output, reduce temperature, and thwart drive failure.
When we got drives with firmware that did this, we sent them back, rejected them, and told them not to do tricks with the firmware. It also killed performance at low temperature, and the software we wrote already handled media failure.
Note that we used a heat chamber to detect behavior like this.
Realize that Google doesn't really have the technical competence and experience to deal with a real study. They have no real R&D laboratory. If you get counter-physical results: analyze them with science, not conjecture.
Remember, Google's just an advertising agency. Anything they publish has the ulterior motive of making them look good. They're so blatant, they even don't want people to think they are evil by having a motto of "don't be evil".
Only NAZI-sympathizers invoke Godwin, AC, no pun intended
if you don't have actual branches, you get version creep, even if you do that.
This is the main reason I use sourcemage, which is source-based, has all the package management capabilities of gentoo (but easier), and has actual branches.
I run servers on the stable branch.
sourcemage has had this longer than gentoo has.
It's actually a _lot_ better at it, too, since dependency analysis is more difficult than revdep-rebuild comprehends.
The public school system was left behind by the federal government's NCLB act, of which the express purpose was to defund inner city schools.
If you don't want to be sued, don't do bad shit, and don't do anything liable to bite you in the ass. If you don't like juries, move to Iran.
The war on poverty was surrendered when Reagan took office. The war on the meek is growing at an increasing rate.
http://beachimpeach.org/
Looks like they'll have to organize another one!