It is highly unlikely that any one disease will ever kill more than 75%.
Um... IIRC, Ebola Ziaire(sp) kills 90% of its victims. It's really quite nasty too. When people "Crash and bleed out" (ie die), they spew blood everywhere, along with bits of their internal organs. Inside, they tend to look like puree.
um... Actually no. You see the fault lies with AMD soley(sp). I'm not saying that because they had a bug, that happens. I'm saying that because they never announced it.
Yeah yeah, I know they put it in the errata, and even released a WIN2k patch, but that's not the same as announcing that there's a problem. You see they merely announced that there was a problem with Win2k on athlons (and here's the fix! gee aren't we great?).
They never said "There's a bug in the athlon". Had they said that, Linux developers would've known there was a problem. As is, all they knew was that there was a problem with win2k, which doesn't mean squat where linux or any other OS is concerned; the problem could've been anything.
No, it's entirely AMD's fault for not admiting to the whole truth, and saying they made a mistake. (Honestly AMD, no one would've gotten mad, it happens; we understand that. But next time, tell the truth.).
Linux is a minority, like it or not, you cannot expect the whole world to change on your account.
really. let me see what the great sage has to say about that
fortune -m unreasonable
%
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
%
Because YOU are the one communiating, not them. I perfer to use a college level vocabulary to communicate, but if the people I'm communicating with only have a 3rd grade education (like my grandmother), they'll get irritated/confused/hurt at me if I try to use it when talking with them.
The point is simple. When you are saying something, its your respnsibility to make sure you are understood, not mine. Its my responsibility to pay attention and hear/read/whatever what you are saying. But if I can't understand you, I can either ignore you, or, request that you communicate more clearly. Obviously the latter is more polite.
Eastern Kentucky and Southern West Virginia Coal Fields, early 1900's, up to around the 1940's and 1950's. The companies owning the mines, which accounted for almost 100% of employment, paid their employeese with something called scrip, which was a worthless note, useful only at the company store (which everyone shopped at anyway, because the mines owned not only the store, and the mines, and the local govenrment (still do to a great extent), but the houses the people lived in too.).
Since the companies issued the scrip, they set the value. And since there were few labor laws, they set the wages. Which meant they charged high prices at the company store, and paid low wages. The disparity between prices and wages was so great that many people couldn't afford to live from week to week, and so ran up huge debts at the company store (note: the debts were also a result of frequent visits to the local saloon, which was a result of poor living conditions, forced upon the people by their feudal lords (coal companies) -who, as it happenes, also owned the saloons.)
The result of all that, was enforced poverty, and practical slavery, which lead to the massive, and often bloody revolts and labor strikes the area is known for. The most famous, perhpas being the Matewan Massacre (1920), which happened not 15 miles from where I sit typing this now.
In short, no, "alternative" currencies are a Bad Thing . There has to be democratic control of the currency, to prevent such abuses of power from happening elsewhere.
Re:What is "preemtive" for ?
on
Kernel 2.4.17 Out
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That's not *quite* right. Linux has been pre-emptive since the beginning, but in userspace, not kernelspace. IE, system calls, driver code, and other kernel stuff couldn't be preempted, but user code could.
Windows, on the other hand (9x, I don't know about NT) is fully cooperative, meaning that userland isn't preempted either. That, and poor memory protection, is why buggy windows programs can bring the system down, Whereas in linux, only kernel space stuff can lock up the system.
The preempt patch, then just makes the kernel preemptable, so that Linux is fully preemptive, instead of just in userland.
perhaps, but it seems more likely that there is a beginning point beyond which, physics is useless. If physical laws changed that dramatically in the beginning, what about now? I mean we know the universe is expanding, which means we know there are boundaries, which means there is something beyond the boundaries. Once again, beyond those boundaries, Pysics (and knowledge) are useless, for the before stated reasons. Does that mean that as you approach the edge of the universe, physics changes in the same manner that it changes as you approach the beginning of the universe?
The theory that explains everything is equal to 42...
H2G2 references aside, the problem is that once you calculate the beginning of the universe from the theory of Life, The Universe And Everything (ok, one more), you will end up with some sort of infinitely compressed, infinitely dense, infinitely etc.. object(assuming Big bang is even close to correct). But what all that math WON'T tell you, is where the object came from to begin with. All of this didn't arise from some odd perturbation of 0, that's logically impossible (nothingness cant perturb itself, because it doesn't exist). So where did whatever caused the universe come from?
See what I'm driving at? at some point, physics will simply cease to be useful, because before the universe was, there had to be something there to cause the universe. But since physics only deals with matter, space, time, and energy, it cannot answer that question, because those are properties of a universe, not (to our knowledge) a metaverse.
I don't think it is possible to explain how the universe came into existence. To do so, would require some sort of description of what exists outside of the universe - in what, for aguement's sake, I'll call the metaverse. The problem with that, is that physics (and arguably, all of knowledge) is concerned with space, time, energy, and matter; none of which exists (or at least, is known to exist) outside of the universe. That being the case, to figure out how the universe happened, we must rely on metaphysics, whose sole concern is the metaverse.
But, then, we all know that depending on a metaphysicist to tell us something useful is like depending on $1 million falling on your lap in the next 3 seconds....1....2....3! See?
...(although the volume grows faster than the surface, total wisdom will be achieved)
Depends on the shape of the universe. If space is non-euclidean, then there ARE boundaries (even the ponciere`(sp) disk has boundaries, even if they can't be reached.), and everything has limits - even knowledge. Thus, we can know everything. It space is euclidean, then we will never be able to reach the edges of of universe, and thus never know everything.
Of course, then again, one could make the arguement that if space is euclidean, then the universe is boringly simple, and even if we never get to know the name of every tree on every planet, we will be able to understand all of the mechanics behind it all.
> I forsee the company having to regularly reissue a big threat to withdraw their software unless a few thousand people send them some money...
You mean kinda like how PBS occasionally has pledge drives, and says "If we don't raise $13,000,000 in the next hour, children will be deprived of 'Reading Rainbow' for years to come!"?
I don't see them going out of business. Nor do I see Billy Graham, or other Television Outreach (TM) programs going out of business. In fact, they thrive on it (as does PBS). Of course, PBS and Church TV has a bit more of an emotional pull, and we all know how sheep like to have their emotions pulled. But I think it model has its merits- it allows people to get behind something they believe in. Its kinda like giving money to "Save the children". Only less important to Ethiopan children.
> If you want privacy, then you're pretty much out of luck in the US because...
That may be so, but instead of saying "oh well, no more security, so what's the big deal?" Shoudn't we be saying "WHAT'S GOING ON HERE!"? The fact that there is no more (or at least not much) privacy in the US does not mean we should accept it. It means we should fight it. Sure it may even be a loosing battle, but that's not the point. The point is, that freedom is priceless (and privacy == freedom), and we should rather die fighting for it than live apart from it.
Given the choice between 5000 unrequited dead free men, and 1 living in a police state, I cast my lot with the dead.
IANAL, but I believe the legal term is expos facto. If not, the concept still remains, that laws effect only actions taken AFTER the law becomes law. I.E. I rob a bank in May. In July, A law is made, that says that robbing banks is illegal. I cannot be prosecuted, because when I commited teh act, it was legal.
Exactly! That's why we need to give the DOJ et al more invasive powers, like unreasonable search and seizures, for example. We HAVE to catch those potentially hundreds of terrorist before more women and children are killed!
Freedom comes with a price, and freedom is priceless. If those 5000 deaths have to go unrequited so that rest of us can keep our freedom, so be it. Its not an easy thing to say, and in fact is quite unsettling. But we have to take the good with the bad, if we are to live in a free and open society. And in my opinion, freedom is worth the life of every sentient creature in the galaxy, including my own.
I agree that copy protection schemes like this "rent-a-book" junk are a bad idea. But I think there are better ways of fighting it (at least for the moment). Namely, in the courts, and in the stores. I don't think its a good idea to fight immorality and irrationality with more of the same.
I see a sig around here from time to time that says something to the effect of "Software engineers are so infatuated with the fact that they CAN, they never stop to consider whether they SHOULD"
I present the same to you. Certainly any first year CS student could crack such a lousy scheme, but what benefit would there be in that? Who does it serve?
My answer is that it serves you, and you alone, You steal from the author (yes, they're a millionaire. But they got those millions, because they earned it), you steal from the public at large. How? because when you steal the material, you discourage the author from producing more of the same material that you like so well, and so society looses.
This is the simple case, I know. There are still concerns with the evil RIAA &c. But the point here is for you to think about your actions first. I think, that perhaps, just because something can be done, there are times (like this one) when it shouldn't be done.
Slashdot Mirror
hmmm. After clicking through your link, it seems that I stand quite firmly corrected. Thanks.
It is highly unlikely that any one disease will ever kill more than 75%.
Um... IIRC, Ebola Ziaire(sp) kills 90% of its victims. It's really quite nasty too. When people "Crash and bleed out" (ie die), they spew blood everywhere, along with bits of their internal organs. Inside, they tend to look like puree.
Let us hope you are right.
Who's up for making the next slashdot on the internet2 with video comments instead? Count me in :-)
ok, I shouldn't be replying to your sig, but I have to. Hell no! can you imagine the trolls? and what about the goatse links?
Well, I guess that balances out with people like me who get waybe one spam a month.
Just don't go signing me up for any, just because I have good luck:-)
um... Actually no. You see the fault lies with AMD soley(sp). I'm not saying that because they had a bug, that happens. I'm saying that because they never announced it.
Yeah yeah, I know they put it in the errata, and even released a WIN2k patch, but that's not the same as announcing that there's a problem. You see they merely announced that there was a problem with Win2k on athlons (and here's the fix! gee aren't we great?).
They never said "There's a bug in the athlon". Had they said that, Linux developers would've known there was a problem. As is, all they knew was that there was a problem with win2k, which doesn't mean squat where linux or any other OS is concerned; the problem could've been anything.
No, it's entirely AMD's fault for not admiting to the whole truth, and saying they made a mistake. (Honestly AMD, no one would've gotten mad, it happens; we understand that. But next time, tell the truth.).
Linux is a minority, like it or not, you cannot expect the whole world to change on your account.
really. let me see what the great sage has to say about that
fortune -m unreasonable
%
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
%
guess that means your point is invalid.
Because YOU are the one communiating, not them. I perfer to use a college level vocabulary to communicate, but if the people I'm communicating with only have a 3rd grade education (like my grandmother), they'll get irritated/confused/hurt at me if I try to use it when talking with them.
The point is simple. When you are saying something, its your respnsibility to make sure you are understood, not mine. Its my responsibility to pay attention and hear/read/whatever what you are saying. But if I can't understand you, I can either ignore you, or, request that you communicate more clearly. Obviously the latter is more polite.
Eastern Kentucky and Southern West Virginia Coal Fields, early 1900's, up to around the 1940's and 1950's. The companies owning the mines, which accounted for almost 100% of employment, paid their employeese with something called scrip, which was a worthless note, useful only at the company store (which everyone shopped at anyway, because the mines owned not only the store, and the mines, and the local govenrment (still do to a great extent), but the houses the people lived in too.).
Since the companies issued the scrip, they set the value. And since there were few labor laws, they set the wages. Which meant they charged high prices at the company store, and paid low wages. The disparity between prices and wages was so great that many people couldn't afford to live from week to week, and so ran up huge debts at the company store (note: the debts were also a result of frequent visits to the local saloon, which was a result of poor living conditions, forced upon the people by their feudal lords (coal companies) -who, as it happenes, also owned the saloons.)
The result of all that, was enforced poverty, and practical slavery, which lead to the massive, and often bloody revolts and labor strikes the area is known for. The most famous, perhpas being the Matewan Massacre (1920), which happened not 15 miles from where I sit typing this now.
In short, no, "alternative" currencies are a Bad Thing . There has to be democratic control of the currency, to prevent such abuses of power from happening elsewhere.
That's not *quite* right. Linux has been pre-emptive since the beginning, but in userspace, not kernelspace. IE, system calls, driver code, and other kernel stuff couldn't be preempted, but user code could.
Windows, on the other hand (9x, I don't know about NT) is fully cooperative, meaning that userland isn't preempted either. That, and poor memory protection, is why buggy windows programs can bring the system down, Whereas in linux, only kernel space stuff can lock up the system.
The preempt patch, then just makes the kernel preemptable, so that Linux is fully preemptive, instead of just in userland.
perhaps, but it seems more likely that there is a beginning point beyond which, physics is useless. If physical laws changed that dramatically in the beginning, what about now? I mean we know the universe is expanding, which means we know there are boundaries, which means there is something beyond the boundaries. Once again, beyond those boundaries, Pysics (and knowledge) are useless, for the before stated reasons. Does that mean that as you approach the edge of the universe, physics changes in the same manner that it changes as you approach the beginning of the universe?
The theory that explains everything is equal to 42...
H2G2 references aside, the problem is that once you calculate the beginning of the universe from the theory of Life, The Universe And Everything (ok, one more), you will end up with some sort of infinitely compressed, infinitely dense, infinitely etc.. object(assuming Big bang is even close to correct). But what all that math WON'T tell you, is where the object came from to begin with. All of this didn't arise from some odd perturbation of 0, that's logically impossible (nothingness cant perturb itself, because it doesn't exist). So where did whatever caused the universe come from?
See what I'm driving at? at some point, physics will simply cease to be useful, because before the universe was, there had to be something there to cause the universe. But since physics only deals with matter, space, time, and energy, it cannot answer that question, because those are properties of a universe, not (to our knowledge) a metaverse.
I don't think it is possible to explain how the universe came into existence. To do so, would require some sort of description of what exists outside of the universe - in what, for aguement's sake, I'll call the metaverse. The problem with that, is that physics (and arguably, all of knowledge) is concerned with space, time, energy, and matter; none of which exists (or at least, is known to exist) outside of the universe. That being the case, to figure out how the universe happened, we must rely on metaphysics, whose sole concern is the metaverse.
But, then, we all know that depending on a metaphysicist to tell us something useful is like depending on $1 million falling on your lap in the next 3 seconds....1....2....3! See?
...(although the volume grows faster than the surface, total wisdom will be achieved)
Depends on the shape of the universe. If space is non-euclidean, then there ARE boundaries (even the ponciere`(sp) disk has boundaries, even if they can't be reached.), and everything has limits - even knowledge. Thus, we can know everything. It space is euclidean, then we will never be able to reach the edges of of universe, and thus never know everything.
Of course, then again, one could make the arguement that if space is euclidean, then the universe is boringly simple, and even if we never get to know the name of every tree on every planet, we will be able to understand all of the mechanics behind it all.
Just a few thoughts...
I'm reading this speech, and the whole time, I'm thinking of Mark Antony, as he said the following"
"Here! under leave of Brutus and the rest! For they are all, all honorable men..."
Half expected to see a war where Octavian Gains the throne, and Mark Antony ends up in Egypt.
Nonetheless, She did make some really good points....
> I forsee the company having to regularly reissue a big threat to withdraw their software unless a few thousand people send them some money...
You mean kinda like how PBS occasionally has pledge drives, and says "If we don't raise $13,000,000 in the next hour, children will be deprived of 'Reading Rainbow' for years to come!"?
I don't see them going out of business. Nor do I see Billy Graham, or other Television Outreach (TM) programs going out of business. In fact, they thrive on it (as does PBS). Of course, PBS and Church TV has a bit more of an emotional pull, and we all know how sheep like to have their emotions pulled. But I think it model has its merits- it allows people to get behind something they believe in. Its kinda like giving money to "Save the children". Only less important to Ethiopan children.
> If you want privacy, then you're pretty much out of luck in the US because...
That may be so, but instead of saying "oh well, no more security, so what's the big deal?" Shoudn't we be saying "WHAT'S GOING ON HERE!"? The fact that there is no more (or at least not much) privacy in the US does not mean we should accept it. It means we should fight it. Sure it may even be a loosing battle, but that's not the point. The point is, that freedom is priceless (and privacy == freedom), and we should rather die fighting for it than live apart from it.
Given the choice between 5000 unrequited dead free men, and 1 living in a police state, I cast my lot with the dead.
AC kernels? Now THAT's open source at its best. I mean just think Annonymous Cowards writing an OS, and they don't even know each other....
heh thanks. I learned about that like in the 8th grade. After a BSCS, things begin to slip, like spelling ;-0
IANAL, but I believe the legal term is expos facto. If not, the concept still remains, that laws effect only actions taken AFTER the law becomes law. I.E. I rob a bank in May. In July, A law is made, that says that robbing banks is illegal. I cannot be prosecuted, because when I commited teh act, it was legal.
I think, then, that old hardware is exempt.
Exactly! That's why we need to give the DOJ et al more invasive powers, like unreasonable search and seizures, for example. We HAVE to catch those potentially hundreds of terrorist before more women and children are killed!
Freedom comes with a price, and freedom is priceless. If those 5000 deaths have to go unrequited so that rest of us can keep our freedom, so be it. Its not an easy thing to say, and in fact is quite unsettling. But we have to take the good with the bad, if we are to live in a free and open society. And in my opinion, freedom is worth the life of every sentient creature in the galaxy, including my own.
I agree that copy protection schemes like this "rent-a-book" junk are a bad idea. But I think there are better ways of fighting it (at least for the moment). Namely, in the courts, and in the stores. I don't think its a good idea to fight immorality and irrationality with more of the same.
Code Red!! NOOOO!
I just got rid of that this morning, not again!
I see a sig around here from time to time that says something to the effect of "Software engineers are so infatuated with the fact that they CAN, they never stop to consider whether they SHOULD"
I present the same to you. Certainly any first year CS student could crack such a lousy scheme, but what benefit would there be in that? Who does it serve?
My answer is that it serves you, and you alone, You steal from the author (yes, they're a millionaire. But they got those millions, because they earned it), you steal from the public at large. How? because when you steal the material, you discourage the author from producing more of the same material that you like so well, and so society looses.
This is the simple case, I know. There are still concerns with the evil RIAA &c. But the point here is for you to think about your actions first. I think, that perhaps, just because something can be done, there are times (like this one) when it shouldn't be done.
after spending $$$millions on usability testing...
don't you mean making millions on usability testing? the way I see it, I've been paying to beta test for M$ since win3.1.
I don't want to beta test. I use linux.