They had/have this to a very small small extent. Their implementations are still based around keyword search and extracting keywords out of human readable questions. A truly semantic information structure would be much different, and would allow allow all kinds of new ways to interact with content beyond simple search. Imagine being able to not only ask English language questions, but also to be able to use a scripting languages or something like a semantic regular expression to find customized content. Hell, even tagging is somewhat semantic, and it has truly made a lot of changes to the way we interact with content.
Until the data is there to be queried, one can only imagine the implications of such richly connected data.
This is the accepted standard in English. Some style books will have different rules as to when/if a, the, on, in, etc. should be capitalized, but it's standard English to capitalize titles.
Think about it, though. If drugs were legalized, they wouldn't be as expensive and this list would stop before it starts. It's only the artificial scarcity that allows the downward spiral to begin at all. Plus, if you won't get locked up for possession of "serious" drugs (crack, heroin), it's going to be that much easier to avoid this spiral. Imagine how hard it would be to get a decent job if you have one or more possession violations on your record for crack or even marijuana. A lot of government grants are going to be straight out because of your record. And that leaves people stuck in a position where they are going to fall into this abusive trap.
the victims of violent drug users would say they've been harmed.
They've been hurt by someone, not by a drug. Do we need extra laws when assault and battery are already illegal? It isn't worse because someone was on drugs. They're still responsible, and honestly, who is going to buy PCP when they could go down to the corner store to get amphetamine? Meth and PCP are generally only used because they are cheap to make. There are better, safer drugs out there and if it was legal to sell them, people wouldn't even want meth or PCP. Plus, most stores wouldn't even carry them - no one wants them and they will make the store look bad!
to argue otherwise is just blindness (drug induced, perhaps?)
No need for rational discourse, eh? Or rather, your argument is weak and you feel the need for ad hominem attacks. Nice.
now if you want to lobotomize yourself with big fat dooby, that's cool.
That's not even literally or metaphorically possible! It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about. Do some research; leave the suburbs for a minute or two... you might learn something.
Very often when we screw up our life it brings others down with us Yeah! All those damn pot heads screwing up their lies on evil pot! Your line of reasoning is just plain dumb, partner. If one screws up one's life even with hard drugs (which, I'm sorry, you do not have a right to tell me I can't take them), one loses his/her money and can't buy the drugs anymore. Kinda puts a stop to the abuse, you know? If drugs were legal, there would be no recourse to selling the drugs to keep oneself addicted, and people who are down on their luck would therefore have to get a job. Have you even thought about this issue? Doing drugs doesn't hurt anyone but the user, if even that. Try using some reasoning skills instead of devolving the discussion into ad hominem attacks and faulty similes!
The ID-for-pseudoephedrine laws are not federal, first of all. Secondly, at least her in MO USA, I'm pretty sure that's why they are behind the counter (we are one of the largest meth producing states in the nation). Third, you can take guafenesin at relatively large doses (say 3 or 4 or more pills) without getting sick - quite enough to get a "speed lite" effect from the pseudo. I wouldn't recommend it though. It's nowhere near euphoric as the real thing and doesn't really pep you up more than a red bull, which is much tastier and makes you less jittery.
I'm not a doctor; these are my personal experiences and I would find out the safe doses for yourself if I were you - don't be stupid.
As much as I hate (detest, revile) to admit that a good Vista is good for everyone in someways (slower viruses, etc.),... oh wait. I can't get over hoping Vista dies a horrible flaming death. I don't mean to flame/troll... I know I'm biased.
I wanted to add that without people making hypotheses, there would be no theories to test, which is why we have theoretical physics. Yayo for the scientific method.
Why does this annoy people? It's fun to use "M$." Remember back in the day when everyone had their pet insults like Ahole MacIntrash, M$, PeeSee, etc? That was fun. We all knew it was for fun. What happened to that sense of humor?
You know, you are so full of yourself. First of all religion is not an "affront to human dignity." It could be argued that it is an affront to human reason, maybe, but that is another discussion. Some of what biotech could entail certainly could be an affront to our dignity. There's no need to bring in religion even. Frankly, I would probably kill to stop, say, a race of subhumans being manufactured as servants (a la Brave New World).
Secondly, most people claim to be religious. That's not to say they follow 100% of the doctrine of their choice, but it is untrue to say that most people have debilitated mental faculties (by definition).
I mean come one, give people a break. No one is 100% perfect. Everyone has their flaws. Almost everyone believes at least something that is false or that they can't prove. Don't dismiss religion simply because it is not scientifically provable that what certain people believe is true. Who gives a damn?
Give me a break. We should all be speaking Old English by that logic, which is utterly ridiculous. And look at you, you have no place to talk. You're not even using proper punctuation or capitalization! Ridiculous!!
Man, I loved that Baseball ROM cart for the TRS-80. I didn't like playing it much, but I really got a kick watching it play against itself. I had tons of game cassettes for it, but I could never get the damn tape reader to work!
99% of slashdoters don't actually have a clue on the subject. Actually, that makes it a perfect article for/. All kidding aside, some of us do actually know what we are talking about, so...
The userland, mostly. FTFA:
MINIX 3 is [the MINIX kernel] plus a start at building a highly reliable, self-healing, bloat-free operating system... It can run X, etc. As it is mainly for educational purposes, it's more of a proof of concept than an attempt to create a user friendly OS. The article is actually pretty interesting...
Tipper Go... I mean Hillary Clinton is not very liberal, really. I mean, for one, she's pro censorship. Besides health care, she's pretty conservative.
I doubt it's pot. If they were smoking a bunch of weed, they probably would be too stoned to go through the applications without laughing their asses off.
It's probably a bit of a moot point how much is enough. I'm sure OS vendors (and probably Linux and the BSDs first) could set aside as much of the on-board RAM as necessary/desired for critical parts of the OS. Perhaps we could even have a tool to say "run this executable in on-board memory, if possible." I don't claim to know a whole lot about processor tech, but I know that it wouldn't be hard to add this sort of optimization.
. . . one of the key parts of communism is rule by the masses. Ah, yeah. The typical ideological discourse, I know. And yes, I mean "ideological" in the proper meaning of "false conscience", as a set of rationalizations to justify one's actions while hiding their true motivation. The thing is, no ones is rationalizing communism here. Sure, a lot of people who have claimed to be communist have fooled a lot of people into thinking they are building a communist state. Still, if we can take words literally for a moment (it's fun I do it a lot), there has never been a true communism of any large scale. I don't think it could happen in a large group because I have very little faith in humanity!
Now tell me, who is "so used at arguing inside their specific frame of reference that they most of the time lose sight of the broader categories under which their thinking is conditioned?" I'll give you a hint. It's not me. Anyway, what were you saying?
Anyone who is a cynical and isn't a leftist can see that the Marxist "scientific" understanding of History is hardly more than a secular version of the belief in the monotheistic Heaven
Actually, you are thinking of Hegel. Marx's idea of history was a constant struggle between the poor and the rich elite. There's no reason to bring in Christianity. Is this personally how you feel comparing yourself to "lefty Marxists?" Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but it has nothing more in common with Christianity than any (secular | atheistic | monotheistic | polytheistic) idea of Utopia.
That's why the typical communist will always say that a "communist society" never existed.
There really have been no communist societies. People have tried (often as a deception), but there has never been a true communist society. None of the supposed communist nations have ever gotten past the point of having a dictator ruling the country - one of the key parts of communism is rule by the masses. (And believe me, I'm not so naive as to accept the whole of communism. I'm fairly socialist, but not a Marxist.)
This sort of left vs. right crap is blinding you to even a basic understanding of what you're talking about. Go beyond right vs left and look at the actual issues and theories being discussed. And I'm not saying this because you are anti-Marxist or anti-"lefty" or whatever. You simply do not understand the subject you are talking about.
Don't speak on shit unless you know the deal, son.
Slashdot Mirror
They had/have this to a very small small extent. Their implementations are still based around keyword search and extracting keywords out of human readable questions. A truly semantic information structure would be much different, and would allow allow all kinds of new ways to interact with content beyond simple search. Imagine being able to not only ask English language questions, but also to be able to use a scripting languages or something like a semantic regular expression to find customized content. Hell, even tagging is somewhat semantic, and it has truly made a lot of changes to the way we interact with content.
Until the data is there to be queried, one can only imagine the implications of such richly connected data.
This is the accepted standard in English. Some style books will have different rules as to when/if a, the, on, in, etc. should be capitalized, but it's standard English to capitalize titles.
That is both one the most nerdy things I have ever experienced and one of the most awesome.
Think about it, though. If drugs were legalized, they wouldn't be as expensive and this list would stop before it starts. It's only the artificial scarcity that allows the downward spiral to begin at all. Plus, if you won't get locked up for possession of "serious" drugs (crack, heroin), it's going to be that much easier to avoid this spiral. Imagine how hard it would be to get a decent job if you have one or more possession violations on your record for crack or even marijuana. A lot of government grants are going to be straight out because of your record. And that leaves people stuck in a position where they are going to fall into this abusive trap.
the victims of violent drug users would say they've been harmed.
They've been hurt by someone, not by a drug. Do we need extra laws when assault and battery are already illegal? It isn't worse because someone was on drugs. They're still responsible, and honestly, who is going to buy PCP when they could go down to the corner store to get amphetamine? Meth and PCP are generally only used because they are cheap to make. There are better, safer drugs out there and if it was legal to sell them, people wouldn't even want meth or PCP. Plus, most stores wouldn't even carry them - no one wants them and they will make the store look bad!
to argue otherwise is just blindness (drug induced, perhaps?)
No need for rational discourse, eh? Or rather, your argument is weak and you feel the need for ad hominem attacks. Nice.
now if you want to lobotomize yourself with big fat dooby, that's cool.
That's not even literally or metaphorically possible! It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about. Do some research; leave the suburbs for a minute or two... you might learn something.
The ID-for-pseudoephedrine laws are not federal, first of all. Secondly, at least her in MO USA, I'm pretty sure that's why they are behind the counter (we are one of the largest meth producing states in the nation). Third, you can take guafenesin at relatively large doses (say 3 or 4 or more pills) without getting sick - quite enough to get a "speed lite" effect from the pseudo. I wouldn't recommend it though. It's nowhere near euphoric as the real thing and doesn't really pep you up more than a red bull, which is much tastier and makes you less jittery.
I'm not a doctor; these are my personal experiences and I would find out the safe doses for yourself if I were you - don't be stupid.
As much as I hate (detest, revile) to admit that a good Vista is good for everyone in someways (slower viruses, etc.), ... oh wait. I can't get over hoping Vista dies a horrible flaming death. I don't mean to flame/troll... I know I'm biased.
I agree with you... don't call people trash though.
I wanted to add that without people making hypotheses, there would be no theories to test, which is why we have theoretical physics. Yayo for the scientific method.
Why does this annoy people? It's fun to use "M$." Remember back in the day when everyone had their pet insults like Ahole MacIntrash, M$, PeeSee, etc? That was fun. We all knew it was for fun. What happened to that sense of humor?
You know, you are so full of yourself. First of all religion is not an "affront to human dignity." It could be argued that it is an affront to human reason, maybe, but that is another discussion. Some of what biotech could entail certainly could be an affront to our dignity. There's no need to bring in religion even. Frankly, I would probably kill to stop, say, a race of subhumans being manufactured as servants (a la Brave New World).
Secondly, most people claim to be religious. That's not to say they follow 100% of the doctrine of their choice, but it is untrue to say that most people have debilitated mental faculties (by definition).
I mean come one, give people a break. No one is 100% perfect. Everyone has their flaws. Almost everyone believes at least something that is false or that they can't prove. Don't dismiss religion simply because it is not scientifically provable that what certain people believe is true. Who gives a damn?
Oh fuck yeah! Bard's Tale was kick ass.
Give me a break. We should all be speaking Old English by that logic, which is utterly ridiculous. And look at you, you have no place to talk. You're not even using proper punctuation or capitalization! Ridiculous!!
Man, I loved that Baseball ROM cart for the TRS-80. I didn't like playing it much, but I really got a kick watching it play against itself. I had tons of game cassettes for it, but I could never get the damn tape reader to work!
* Integrity
* PikeOS
* Symbian
* L4Linux
* Singularity
* K42
* Mac OS X
* HURD
* Coyotos
There, fixed that for you
Tipper Go... I mean Hillary Clinton is not very liberal, really. I mean, for one, she's pro censorship. Besides health care, she's pretty conservative.
I doubt it's pot. If they were smoking a bunch of weed, they probably would be too stoned to go through the applications without laughing their asses off.
It's probably a bit of a moot point how much is enough. I'm sure OS vendors (and probably Linux and the BSDs first) could set aside as much of the on-board RAM as necessary/desired for critical parts of the OS. Perhaps we could even have a tool to say "run this executable in on-board memory, if possible." I don't claim to know a whole lot about processor tech, but I know that it wouldn't be hard to add this sort of optimization.
Now tell me, who is "so used at arguing inside their specific frame of reference that they most of the time lose sight of the broader categories under which their thinking is conditioned?" I'll give you a hint. It's not me. Anyway, what were you saying?
Anyone who is a cynical and isn't a leftist can see that the Marxist "scientific" understanding of History is hardly more than a secular version of the belief in the monotheistic Heaven
Actually, you are thinking of Hegel. Marx's idea of history was a constant struggle between the poor and the rich elite. There's no reason to bring in Christianity. Is this personally how you feel comparing yourself to "lefty Marxists?" Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but it has nothing more in common with Christianity than any (secular | atheistic | monotheistic | polytheistic) idea of Utopia.
That's why the typical communist will always say that a "communist society" never existed.
There really have been no communist societies. People have tried (often as a deception), but there has never been a true communist society. None of the supposed communist nations have ever gotten past the point of having a dictator ruling the country - one of the key parts of communism is rule by the masses. (And believe me, I'm not so naive as to accept the whole of communism. I'm fairly socialist, but not a Marxist.)
This sort of left vs. right crap is blinding you to even a basic understanding of what you're talking about. Go beyond right vs left and look at the actual issues and theories being discussed. And I'm not saying this because you are anti-Marxist or anti-"lefty" or whatever. You simply do not understand the subject you are talking about.
Don't speak on shit unless you know the deal, son.