Re:Sponsored by your local electric company...
on
RC5-64 Success
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I'm not going to get drawn into an argument over why we're in a conflict with Iraq, or even whether or not we need the oil. The answer question is 0.
You've forwarded the proposition that
U.S. and Iraqi soldiers had to die to run the decryption.
Which yields the converse:
If wasn't run, no U.S. and Iraqi soldiers would have had to die.
Which is patently untrue. You're attempt at an emotional appeal as an argument was not only weak, it was stupid. You might as well have said that not turning off your lights when you're not using them causes soldiers to die.
Re:Sponsored by your local electric company...
on
RC5-64 Success
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
None. Your post isn't just insulting, it's idiotic. How many soldiers had to die to provide power for slashdot for the last year? How many had to die so we could play Playstation. The answer is none, always has been none, and will always be none. If you want to protest military action by posting snide comments on the web, at least do it with comments that are relevant, not bullshit rhetoric intended to pull at the audience's emotions.
Uhh, Linus didn't succeed either by that logic. Together they make a complete unix-like operating system. Neither on is useful apart. Well that's not exactly true. GNU tools are used all over, Linux is useless without the GNU part, except for very few exceptions.
Thank you. Yes the correct answer to "What operating system are you running?" is GNU/Linux. Is it much more than a technical point? No. Are ou efforts better used eslewhere? Yes.
Wasting time on trival things like renaming Linux ensures that they remain that way.
Wow, it's a simple concept let me spell it out for you though, since you evidentally have difficulty getting it through your head. THEY ARE RENAMING NOTHING. The FSF is only asking that it be called by it's proper name. Is it trivial, possibly, personally I feel that it's patently obvious when you use the software that the bulk of the OS is GNU, is it wrong, no. Is it renaming, not even close.
Boy are you off. They aren't the ones creating newspeak, everyone who doesn't call the operating system by it's correct name is. That little bit of semantic engineering that shrtens the name to Linux is newspeak. In this case it's not for some nefarious purpose. The people that simply call it Linux either a) don't know any better b) don't understand the concept of an operating system or c) think it's easier to just say Linux (especially since the intended meaning is there). This does not mean that Linux is the correct way to say it, it means that it's easiest. It's what I call the OS, because no one is trying to downplay the involvment of GNU software by changing the name. If that were the case I would stick with the proper name.
While it's a good thing to make sure credit is given to GNU software by asking people to use the right name, I don't think that it's needed. But to call them language police, that's ridiculous and wrong. GNU/Linux is what it is. Linux is an easy to say name that we call it by.
Ok so you had a bad experience, note that's one just like the guy you replied to. Your post is no more proof than his. I've personally never had a problem with any linux dist. I'd say let's vote, but considering the site, it wouldn't be very fair now would it.
[mini-rant] BTW simple enough to fix your problem, just because the autodetect doesn't work doesn't mean it won't run, fix it manually and stop complaining. [/mini-rant]
Wow, strong words, how bout "huge head start". That's why Windows is still the dominant desktop. How about "appeals to the lowest common denominator" that's why Windows is still the dominant desktop.
I'd imagine that if someone found something like the cure for cancer in your DNA, you'd lose your rights to it pretty quickly (assuming you ever had them). It would seem to me that for the good of everyone else in the country (world for that matter) the government would use something along the lines of immiment (sp mistake I know) domain. And in that case more power to them, if I couldn't get my cancer cured because some asshole wanted a million dollars a pop I'd be pretty pissed.
Not to mention this is a fringe backwoods mining planet. What do you expect them to use. A shotgun is essentially a simple device, easy to manufacture with limited resource, at least compared to the weapons the alliance soldiers were carrying. The feel of that planet was well done. The people complaining about the train need to get a clue as well, it wasn't a freaking steam engine for crying out loud. My impression was that the planet was pretty much technologically poor. Except for the influence of the Alliance, for example the train was certainly of a higher technology class than most of the people that lived there had access to, and most likely the mining equipment would have been high tech as well. Why? Because the Alliance would be generating money from the mining operation so they provide quality equipment to facilitate it.
The arguments to the contrary are from the morons who thing that if the weapon isn't covered in blinking lights, it's not technologically advanced enough.
I applaud you for your attempt. I agree with you, however getting fanboys to agree will be difficult. It's trendy among the sci-fi crowd to immediately bash anything new that comes out (though to be fair you get that in every sub-culture, music, video gaming, ect.) It's a way to display your eliteness because you've been a fan of whatever "thing" you're talking about.
I happened to enjoy the show. I've seen complaints about anachronistic technology that could go either way. All of the complaining about the shotgun could be rationalized just as easily as the complaints about it. (BTW there's also a very well put post that shows how silly the technology complaints are above, kudos to that poster). Earlier on in the comments there are a lot of complaints about flat characters... before the show even aired. Come on people, who cares about the PR, it's just there to tease you into watching. Frankly I thought the characters were well done. The companion, who from the previews and the first part of the show would be the typical "hot chick" who doesn't fall for the likeable captain actually showed some depth with the "pray for them to return safe, don't tell him, I never do" sequence.
The show was good, it wasn't great, rather it isn't great yet. I'll keep taping it, maybe it will get great maybe it will just remain entertaining enough to watch, or maybe it will get terrible. Who knows. But the bashing it took in these comments was incredibly undeserved.
I second that. For mechanics I usually go with Tipler, but I honestly am not a good judge. It's what I used and,not being a physicist, never experienced a wide range of texts.
Amen to your amen. I will admit I have a weakness for the "popular science" books. They're entertaining reads and can be informative, but stuff like "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" as much as I liked reading it will not help you understand physics. Want to understand. Go work through a calc book, then go get a physics text, Tipler or whatever and work through. Do the problems.
I respect the desire to learn more, and if you want a superficial view of this branch of science that's great, but realize that all you are getting is a superficial view. If you want to understand, you must understand the math.
I don't disagree with you. Well not totally at least. If you can't read code and understand it you shouldn't be writing it (note that that is a general you, not blaming you in particular). I don't need my code with subtitles thanks, I know how to read code and only need commentary in places that might be misinterpreted.
Your example actually is about a different area of poor coding skills, though it does relate to commenting. Obviously, the poorer the code the more comments that are needed to understand it. For example: If I was non-english speaking and had to take a translator with me to make myself understood. If my command of english is bad, my translator will have to jump in more often and say "he means...". However, if my command of english is perfect, my translator rarely has to explain my meaning, if at all.
As far as your rant, the problem is real enough, companies do sell some crappy software I won't deny that. But your implied solution is completely wrong. The idea that "companies should not be allowed" to sell anything no matter what the quality is just nonsense. Nobody has the right to dictate to anyone else what they can or cannot attempt to sell. The fault doesn't lie with the companies selling the software it lies with the consumer who continues to purchase it. It's completely about demand. Consumers have given their approval of companies selling buggy software by their willingness to buy it. The reason that you are on the hook for bugs you weren't responsible for is your fault (or someone higher up who bought the software for your company), not the developer of the software. If you knowingly buy software that a company has attached a 'no warranty' EULA to the responsibility is yours plain and simple. Claiming that they should be illegal is one step away from banishing the GPL.
Software that could potentially put lives in danger should be thouroughly examined by the people responsible for buying it. Should the government only buy software that is warrantied by the developer, sure. We have to put our faith in the government for our safety. Does this mean it should be illegal for any company to put out no warranty software, hell no.
When it comes to EULA's I don't feel they should be legally binding when they are legally binding before someone has the chance to read and accept them (sorry UCITA you're a crock of shit), or at least if after purchasing software and reading the EULA the place where you bought the software is legally required to accept a return in you don't agree to the license. It shouldn't be a long drawn out process to contact the manufacturer and have them refund your money.
As a side note, there or dozens of other problems with EULA's not directly related to this discussion that I have problems with, possibly the most serious being the belief of corporations that they can nullify your rights through them.
Hah nice try, give you credit for that. However, it's not that the features are only possible in a GUI, it's that they were only implemented in a gui. Although the question of whether or not command line vim is a gui could be considered a bit fuzzy (other command line apps as well). It's just a different kind, most importantly to me one where I don't have to remove my hands from the keyboard to move around a silly little mouse;). Well that and I prefer a text based app when writing code, I actually fired up gvim today and was going to attempt to use it but it just didn't do it for me.
The point I was trying to make was that the best UI is the one that you work the fastest with which varies from person to person.
Better but I'd still be pissed. Just like any author form of expression, you have to assume a basic level of literacy and not explain every last detail to death. I'll admit that that's personal preference to some extent, but in my book, well written code needs only a few well placed comments.
yeah that doesn't quite work work those of use who use vim, and not gvim, but command line vim.
I still think that there are people out there (probably calling themselves "usability experts") who seem to think that a GUI is the answer to everything, and that a GUI based app is inherently better than a command line app.
Ugh, there is certainly such a thing as over-commenting, and from the sound of it you have contracted this disease. If I were reading someone's code and saw:
// set min equal to max
min = max; // increment i
i++;
I'd rip his (or her) head off. There's a balance involved in commenting. Comments are only needed when program flow isn't obvious. Though a comment block summary in front of subroutines is certainly a good idea.
Yeah, I'd like to know who the people are who are doing these benchmarks. I can tell you from a reasonably large amount of experience that that is simply not true. Perl is great, I love it, but I can always beat it with vanilla C. When I need something quick I use Perl, when I need that something to be fast I use C. If I want it to be slow to write and slow to run I use java;) ( I kid Java it's definitely grown on me in the past couple of months). The truth is that any good programmer would have the same results. Yes Perl is optimized, and remarkably so, but that won't beat writing optimized code in C. The virtue of being able to tailor certain parts of a program, say for example reading data into an array is enough to give you the edge. It all boils down to the right tool for the right job.
I should add though, that I did experience the situation you described, Perl was beating my C program. The answer of course is not to conclude that Perl is faster at text jobs, but to figure out where you went wrong in your C code. Here's a helpful hint: You can pick up some tricks by figuring out how Perl does the things it does.
Slashdot Mirror
You've forwarded the proposition that
U.S. and Iraqi soldiers had to die to run the decryption.
Which yields the converse:
If wasn't run, no U.S. and Iraqi soldiers would have had to die.
Which is patently untrue. You're attempt at an emotional appeal as an argument was not only weak, it was stupid. You might as well have said that not turning off your lights when you're not using them causes soldiers to die.
None. Your post isn't just insulting, it's idiotic. How many soldiers had to die to provide power for slashdot for the last year? How many had to die so we could play Playstation. The answer is none, always has been none, and will always be none. If you want to protest military action by posting snide comments on the web, at least do it with comments that are relevant, not bullshit rhetoric intended to pull at the audience's emotions.
2: Because Linus succeeded where GNU failed
was the line from the original, for reference.
Uh, still wrong, Linus didn't create or name an operating system, he wrote a kernel, and named it Linux.
Uh, YOU stated that Linus succeeded at something the GNU project failed at, so you're still wrong.
And no one said anything about changing the name of the kernel. Move along.
Uhh, Linus didn't succeed either by that logic. Together they make a complete unix-like operating system. Neither on is useful apart. Well that's not exactly true. GNU tools are used all over, Linux is useless without the GNU part, except for very few exceptions.
Thank you. Yes the correct answer to "What operating system are you running?" is GNU/Linux. Is it much more than a technical point? No. Are ou efforts better used eslewhere? Yes.
Wasting time on trival things like renaming Linux ensures that they remain that way.
Wow, it's a simple concept let me spell it out for you though, since you evidentally have difficulty getting it through your head. THEY ARE RENAMING NOTHING. The FSF is only asking that it be called by it's proper name. Is it trivial, possibly, personally I feel that it's patently obvious when you use the software that the bulk of the OS is GNU, is it wrong, no. Is it renaming, not even close.
While it's a good thing to make sure credit is given to GNU software by asking people to use the right name, I don't think that it's needed. But to call them language police, that's ridiculous and wrong. GNU/Linux is what it is. Linux is an easy to say name that we call it by.
Pompous my ass, it's the (antithesis(antithesis(of euphony))
[mini-rant]
BTW simple enough to fix your problem, just because the autodetect doesn't work doesn't mean it won't run, fix it manually and stop complaining.
[/mini-rant]
Wow, strong words, how bout "huge head start". That's why Windows is still the dominant desktop. How about "appeals to the lowest common denominator" that's why Windows is still the dominant desktop.
I'd imagine that if someone found something like the cure for cancer in your DNA, you'd lose your rights to it pretty quickly (assuming you ever had them). It would seem to me that for the good of everyone else in the country (world for that matter) the government would use something along the lines of immiment (sp mistake I know) domain. And in that case more power to them, if I couldn't get my cancer cured because some asshole wanted a million dollars a pop I'd be pretty pissed.
The arguments to the contrary are from the morons who thing that if the weapon isn't covered in blinking lights, it's not technologically advanced enough.
I happened to enjoy the show. I've seen complaints about anachronistic technology that could go either way. All of the complaining about the shotgun could be rationalized just as easily as the complaints about it. (BTW there's also a very well put post that shows how silly the technology complaints are above, kudos to that poster). Earlier on in the comments there are a lot of complaints about flat characters... before the show even aired. Come on people, who cares about the PR, it's just there to tease you into watching. Frankly I thought the characters were well done. The companion, who from the previews and the first part of the show would be the typical "hot chick" who doesn't fall for the likeable captain actually showed some depth with the "pray for them to return safe, don't tell him, I never do" sequence.
The show was good, it wasn't great, rather it isn't great yet. I'll keep taping it, maybe it will get great maybe it will just remain entertaining enough to watch, or maybe it will get terrible. Who knows. But the bashing it took in these comments was incredibly undeserved.
Might want to try dropping the commas, that's not going to give you what you want. ;)
Hey if I didn't say it someone else would have.
I second that. For mechanics I usually go with Tipler, but I honestly am not a good judge. It's what I used and ,not being a physicist, never experienced a wide range of texts.
I respect the desire to learn more, and if you want a superficial view of this branch of science that's great, but realize that all you are getting is a superficial view. If you want to understand, you must understand the math.
Your example actually is about a different area of poor coding skills, though it does relate to commenting. Obviously, the poorer the code the more comments that are needed to understand it. For example: If I was non-english speaking and had to take a translator with me to make myself understood. If my command of english is bad, my translator will have to jump in more often and say "he means
As far as your rant, the problem is real enough, companies do sell some crappy software I won't deny that. But your implied solution is completely wrong. The idea that "companies should not be allowed" to sell anything no matter what the quality is just nonsense. Nobody has the right to dictate to anyone else what they can or cannot attempt to sell. The fault doesn't lie with the companies selling the software it lies with the consumer who continues to purchase it. It's completely about demand. Consumers have given their approval of companies selling buggy software by their willingness to buy it. The reason that you are on the hook for bugs you weren't responsible for is your fault (or someone higher up who bought the software for your company), not the developer of the software. If you knowingly buy software that a company has attached a 'no warranty' EULA to the responsibility is yours plain and simple. Claiming that they should be illegal is one step away from banishing the GPL.
Software that could potentially put lives in danger should be thouroughly examined by the people responsible for buying it. Should the government only buy software that is warrantied by the developer, sure. We have to put our faith in the government for our safety. Does this mean it should be illegal for any company to put out no warranty software, hell no.
When it comes to EULA's I don't feel they should be legally binding when they are legally binding before someone has the chance to read and accept them (sorry UCITA you're a crock of shit), or at least if after purchasing software and reading the EULA the place where you bought the software is legally required to accept a return in you don't agree to the license. It shouldn't be a long drawn out process to contact the manufacturer and have them refund your money.
As a side note, there or dozens of other problems with EULA's not directly related to this discussion that I have problems with, possibly the most serious being the belief of corporations that they can nullify your rights through them.
The point I was trying to make was that the best UI is the one that you work the fastest with which varies from person to person.
Better but I'd still be pissed. Just like any author form of expression, you have to assume a basic level of literacy and not explain every last detail to death. I'll admit that that's personal preference to some extent, but in my book, well written code needs only a few well placed comments.
I still think that there are people out there (probably calling themselves "usability experts") who seem to think that a GUI is the answer to everything, and that a GUI based app is inherently better than a command line app.
min = max;
i++;
I'd rip his (or her) head off. There's a balance involved in commenting. Comments are only needed when program flow isn't obvious. Though a comment block summary in front of subroutines is certainly a good idea.
I should add though, that I did experience the situation you described, Perl was beating my C program. The answer of course is not to conclude that Perl is faster at text jobs, but to figure out where you went wrong in your C code. Here's a helpful hint: You can pick up some tricks by figuring out how Perl does the things it does.