I think we'd have a lot less meat eaters with such a system implemented
I think you're over-estimating people's squeamishness. Speaking as someone who was taught how to skin, gut and otherwise prepare a rabbit for eating recently it's astonishing how quickly it goes from "clearly a rabbit" to "clearly meat".
Sure. If you don't know what to do, it's definitely slower. The trick is chaining commands together. ls can order its output by filesize (ascending or descending), head will then get you the n largest files: "ls -S | head -n 12" for twelve.
Actually thinking about it, the easiest way to move those files whould then be to use xargs: "ls -S | head -n 12 | xargs -I% mv %/target/dir/". Oh, and "df -h" will show you the free disk space for all mounted partitions under Linux.
This is all besides the point, though. You're essentially arguing that your shell isn't powerful or obvious enough, and you're right, but using a GUI isn't a fix - like another poster said, it might make the easy things a bit easier but it makes the hard things a lot harder.
What? Of course Unix systems support RAID, both hardware and software. There are also filesystems that can do exactly what you want with non-identical drives, such as (IIRC) ZFS.
I'd find it a lot easier to approach the file-size knapsack problem from a bash prompt with ls, head, mv and maybe cut, but if you want to spend your time clicking around, that's fine by me. All of those utilities are available for windows, by the way.
Well the blame lies on the expert and on the peer review that wasn't properly conducted, not on the people who believed him!!!
Close, but no, the blame lies with the media who persistently presented what was in fact a dissenting view in the face of increasing amounts of evidence that suggested otherwise. I refer you to someone brighter than myself who is known for writing on the subject.
And sometimes it isn't. 365 days times two years divided by five (20%) is 146 days - and that assumes he worked seven days a week and took no holidays.
I'm not saying that's not a lot of porn, but it's not the "331 days!" figure being bandied about.
Um... neither of the two phrases there differ in the way I think you're trying to imply, though they differentiate between the software being Chinese and the censors being Chinese. You're being mislead by alternative meanings for the word "beating" (defeating versus physically injuring), and correspondingly thinking that the "censor" is a person rather than an anonymous collection of hardware/software.
Personally, I'd have been tempted to write "Chinese-Censor-Beating Software", as that implies that the censor is Chinese, rather than the software.
I lose my cool, I'm suddenly being compared to a "lesser class" of women and I'm somehow representing all of womankind here?
Hardly, and I would argue strenuously with hedward's use of "class" (lesser or otherwise). But the generalisation you are objecting to here is the same one that you have been making.
Actually, I think I can clarify the expanding government theory as follows: given an infinite number of politicians, at least one will be doing something that you would agree with. The rest can simply point in his direction. Quoting Shakespeare is optional.
Leaving aside your other points, which I would largely agree with:
Buy a card from a retail store? Fair enough. That seems reasonable.
That is the largest reason I would never use such a service. The whole reason MP3 files are so popular is because they're convenient. I can play them wherever I want, and I can download them pretty much wherever I am. By way of example, watching Jools Holland's Hootenanny at a friend's house on new years eve reminded me that there was an album I wanted to buy. I took my iPod out of my pocket, launched iTunes, and three minutes later owned a copy of the album*. Okay, so that's not exactly MP3, but I'm sure you take my point.
OCP is a real company and I'm a 23-foot-tall ostrich*. that sitehas absolutely no content other than the home page which talks about Brawndo. Someone else said it: there's something fishy about all this...
You win points for irony: you accidently got it right. "You're" is a contraction of "you are", and is what you should have put here to annoy the GP. "Your" denotes possession, and his whole life *is* his.
I largely agree with you; my post above was just attempting to reiterate a point that Turn-X Alphonse had apparently missed. However, I wasn't thinking simply of the number of people killed.
As an aside - I don't necessarily advocate this as an argument, and it seems slightly morbid - could we work out the number of people undergoing severe psychological trauma? According to wikipedia, 2998 people died (or are missing presumed dead) as a direct result of the 9/11 attacks. There will have been further deaths as secondary results, but this figure still pales in comparison to the 652,486 deaths that occur in America every year due to heart disease. I'm not sure that fewer people (family, friends et cetera) will have been affected by these deaths than by the 9/11 attacks - even taking into account the iconic position the WTC took in peoples' minds. Perhaps, not being American, I am missing something fundamental.
I suspect, however, that the issue is one of both spontaneity, and that any one person is directly aware of a limited number of deaths due to heart disease, whereas entire nations watched the 9/11 attacks. So it comes down to what I said before about concentrating attention.
I would not suggest that terrorism be treated anything other than seriously - as I posted elsewhere in this thread that would be callous in the extreme. I was just reiterating the point that the response to terrorist acts as opposed to other events that frankly should be causing concern at the very least has been significantly disproportionate.
Actually, I am English. But other than that, you appear to be agreeing with me. I was going to suggest that the correct solution to a terrorist attack is simply to ignore it, but ignoring loss of life on any scale seems rather callous.
You appear to have missed the gist of the GP's argument, which was that the effort and resources being spent on fighting terrorism (often in ways which, as you point out, are likely to be ineffective) significantly outweigh those being spent on societal problems such as heart disease that actually have a greater impact in terms of number of people directly affected.
Personally, I can't help but view terrorist incidents as being like tantrums thrown by an attention-hungry toddler. It rarely achieves anything in terms of actually affecting how the majority of people live their lives*, but it certainly concentrates the public's attention.
* Of course, this doesn't take into account the way anti-terrorist schemes cause problems for large numbers of people who simply want to fly somewhere (for example). But if you're going to argue that that is part of the terrorists' objectives, then the government is complicit, surely?
I have yet to see anyone make a genuinely convincing argument for using IE over Firefox. On the other hand, I don't think I've seen anyone make a genuinely convincing argument for using Firefox over IE, either. All I can offer is this anecdote:
As a largely web-based software developer, I had cause to be debugging a client's Javascript whilst my boss looked on. After he encountered a similar problem a few days later, he asked what I'd installed in order to see "that nice breakdown of scripts". I directed him to the addons site and told him to search for "Web Developer"*. About an hour after that, which time he had spent browsing through the plugins, he came bounding into the office announcing "IE is s**t again!".
Perhaps the Mozilla team need to leverage this strong customiseability more in the ads? You know, "The browser that can be truly yours" sort of thing?
Slashdot Mirror
I think we'd have a lot less meat eaters with such a system implemented
I think you're over-estimating people's squeamishness. Speaking as someone who was taught how to skin, gut and otherwise prepare a rabbit for eating recently it's astonishing how quickly it goes from "clearly a rabbit" to "clearly meat".
Sure. If you don't know what to do, it's definitely slower. The trick is chaining commands together. ls can order its output by filesize (ascending or descending), head will then get you the n largest files: "ls -S | head -n 12" for twelve.
Actually thinking about it, the easiest way to move those files whould then be to use xargs: "ls -S | head -n 12 | xargs -I% mv % /target/dir/". Oh, and "df -h" will show you the free disk space for all mounted partitions under Linux.
This is all besides the point, though. You're essentially arguing that your shell isn't powerful or obvious enough, and you're right, but using a GUI isn't a fix - like another poster said, it might make the easy things a bit easier but it makes the hard things a lot harder.
What? Of course Unix systems support RAID, both hardware and software. There are also filesystems that can do exactly what you want with non-identical drives, such as (IIRC) ZFS.
I'd find it a lot easier to approach the file-size knapsack problem from a bash prompt with ls, head, mv and maybe cut, but if you want to spend your time clicking around, that's fine by me. All of those utilities are available for windows, by the way.
Well the blame lies on the expert and on the peer review that wasn't properly conducted, not on the people who believed him!!!
Close, but no, the blame lies with the media who persistently presented what was in fact a dissenting view in the face of increasing amounts of evidence that suggested otherwise. I refer you to someone brighter than myself who is known for writing on the subject.
You have no idea how hungry this conversation is making me.
And sometimes it isn't. 365 days times two years divided by five (20%) is 146 days - and that assumes he worked seven days a week and took no holidays. I'm not saying that's not a lot of porn, but it's not the "331 days!" figure being bandied about.
Um... neither of the two phrases there differ in the way I think you're trying to imply, though they differentiate between the software being Chinese and the censors being Chinese. You're being mislead by alternative meanings for the word "beating" (defeating versus physically injuring), and correspondingly thinking that the "censor" is a person rather than an anonymous collection of hardware/software.
Personally, I'd have been tempted to write "Chinese-Censor-Beating Software", as that implies that the censor is Chinese, rather than the software.
I lose my cool, I'm suddenly being compared to a "lesser class" of women and I'm somehow representing all of womankind here?
Hardly, and I would argue strenuously with hedward's use of "class" (lesser or otherwise). But the generalisation you are objecting to here is the same one that you have been making.
There's a recently released mod that ports Decay to the PC. Oh, and I'll second that vote for Minerva.
That's all right, you wouldn't be if we cut it off.
No, I meant deaf monkeys. Also politicians.
Actually, I think I can clarify the expanding government theory as follows: given an infinite number of politicians, at least one will be doing something that you would agree with. The rest can simply point in his direction. Quoting Shakespeare is optional.
Given an infinite number of deaf monkeys, yes, eventually.
This theory may explain the increasing size of government.
Hence the once-popular, now slightly outdated expression "Born with no sense of irony in his mouth."
Actually, y'know what? Never mind.
http://www.google.com/search?q=sarcasm
That is the largest reason I would never use such a service. The whole reason MP3 files are so popular is because they're convenient. I can play them wherever I want, and I can download them pretty much wherever I am. By way of example, watching Jools Holland's Hootenanny at a friend's house on new years eve reminded me that there was an album I wanted to buy. I took my iPod out of my pocket, launched iTunes, and three minutes later owned a copy of the album*. Okay, so that's not exactly MP3, but I'm sure you take my point.
* I am not the life of the party.
OCP is a real company and I'm a 23-foot-tall ostrich*. that sitehas absolutely no content other than the home page which talks about Brawndo. Someone else said it: there's something fishy about all this...
* I'll find a costume if I absolutely *have* to.
You win points for irony: you accidently got it right. "You're" is a contraction of "you are", and is what you should have put here to annoy the GP. "Your" denotes possession, and his whole life *is* his.
I think you probably mean a clique mentality. A cliché mentality would be one that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I largely agree with you; my post above was just attempting to reiterate a point that Turn-X Alphonse had apparently missed. However, I wasn't thinking simply of the number of people killed.
As an aside - I don't necessarily advocate this as an argument, and it seems slightly morbid - could we work out the number of people undergoing severe psychological trauma? According to wikipedia, 2998 people died (or are missing presumed dead) as a direct result of the 9/11 attacks. There will have been further deaths as secondary results, but this figure still pales in comparison to the 652,486 deaths that occur in America every year due to heart disease. I'm not sure that fewer people (family, friends et cetera) will have been affected by these deaths than by the 9/11 attacks - even taking into account the iconic position the WTC took in peoples' minds. Perhaps, not being American, I am missing something fundamental.
I suspect, however, that the issue is one of both spontaneity, and that any one person is directly aware of a limited number of deaths due to heart disease, whereas entire nations watched the 9/11 attacks. So it comes down to what I said before about concentrating attention.
I would not suggest that terrorism be treated anything other than seriously - as I posted elsewhere in this thread that would be callous in the extreme. I was just reiterating the point that the response to terrorist acts as opposed to other events that frankly should be causing concern at the very least has been significantly disproportionate.
Actually, I am English. But other than that, you appear to be agreeing with me. I was going to suggest that the correct solution to a terrorist attack is simply to ignore it, but ignoring loss of life on any scale seems rather callous.
You appear to have missed the gist of the GP's argument, which was that the effort and resources being spent on fighting terrorism (often in ways which, as you point out, are likely to be ineffective) significantly outweigh those being spent on societal problems such as heart disease that actually have a greater impact in terms of number of people directly affected.
Personally, I can't help but view terrorist incidents as being like tantrums thrown by an attention-hungry toddler. It rarely achieves anything in terms of actually affecting how the majority of people live their lives*, but it certainly concentrates the public's attention.
* Of course, this doesn't take into account the way anti-terrorist schemes cause problems for large numbers of people who simply want to fly somewhere (for example). But if you're going to argue that that is part of the terrorists' objectives, then the government is complicit, surely?
I have yet to see anyone make a genuinely convincing argument for using IE over Firefox. On the other hand, I don't think I've seen anyone make a genuinely convincing argument for using Firefox over IE, either. All I can offer is this anecdote:
As a largely web-based software developer, I had cause to be debugging a client's Javascript whilst my boss looked on. After he encountered a similar problem a few days later, he asked what I'd installed in order to see "that nice breakdown of scripts". I directed him to the addons site and told him to search for "Web Developer"*. About an hour after that, which time he had spent browsing through the plugins, he came bounding into the office announcing "IE is s**t again!".
Perhaps the Mozilla team need to leverage this strong customiseability more in the ads? You know, "The browser that can be truly yours" sort of thing?
* I know, Firebug. We got onto that later.