Actually, you can get the NT Boot Manager to start LILO, if you try. You have to grab the first block from the partition and store it as a file under NT - see the NT+Linux HOWTO for details. I've tried it, and it works quite well (a pain in the ass after recompiling the kernel, though.)
Well, I don't have a URL for you, but a couple of the latest players can take the IBM micro harddrives in their CompactFlash slot. That gives you either 170MB or 340MB of storage (of course, they're not solid state, so you can presumably break them by dropping them on a hard surface or something.)
Let's just forget that the damn thing costs $300, shall we? We should be down on our knees worshipping Sony for deigning to bestow this marvel of modern technology upon us.
Yeah, right.
(BTW: What are you babbling about mini phono jacks for? The article says that he was surprised that it uses standard mini phono jacks, rather than the non-standard Sony connector used on Minidisk players, etc.)
Have you ever listened to MP3's at 128Kb/s, as compared with the original CD? There's a world of difference. MP3 compression is lossy - you lose some information, and there's no way to retrieve that information again.
If 128K MP3s sound the same as CDs to you, then you must be nearly deaf.
Let me put it this way - I was using Linux before it was ever the Next Big Thing, I'm using Linux now that it is the Next Big Thing, and if it's ever the Previous Big Thing, I'll still be using Linux.
In other words, I couldn't care less whether it makes it big or not.
1: A post on the same topic was made quite a while ago (search the/. archives if you're really interested.)
2: WTF does he mean by "Object-Oriented"?! That phrase has absolutely zero meaning when applied to the HURD.
The real difference between the HURD and Linux is that the HURD uses a full microkernel architecture, which allows you to all sorts of cool stuff with "servers" that sit between your basic kernel and the rest of userspace.
There are patches available that will take files deleted (deletion in Unix/Linux is actually only removing the last hard link) by users and shift them into a directory that they cannot access otherwise. This directory can then be cleaned otu at convenient intervals. This way, any clueless newbie who figures out how to type "rm -fr *" can just ask root to give them their files back.
Neither speaking, nor verbal nor abstract reasoning, was necessary.
Obviously, by reporting the color (even in the form used by B-K), the respondents have to classify it in some way. That is thought, and at least in some aspects abstract (whatever definition you want to give that term). How can it not be? There's no direct link between your retinas and your writing hand that allows it to do something like what was required in the B-K tests, without first undergoing some form of reasoning.
The B-K tests reached the conclusion that there's a gradual development from a two-color system to a three-color, etc., and that that development is generally the same across all cultures - but it doesn't mean that there's no thought involved in the process. It just means that the thought processes reached similar conclusions in each case.
Nah. I chose the wrong word with "structure", and regretted it immediately after sending the comment when I realized some pedantic bastard would probably jump all over me raving about how "universal grammar" doesn't exist;) What I was talking about was a much lower-level correspondence between language and neural structure; i.e., the sort of thing you're never going to find evidence of in natural language structure. I've never gone along with Chomsky's thinking; it's all too artificial and lacking in any real evidence to back it up. If he's abandoned it, I'm happy, but he sure sent the whole linguistic world on a long detour.
No! You miss my point. An assertion about the role of language in the reporting of direct visual experiences says nothing about its role in abstract reasoning. Which is where the real controversy lies. Does our language guide and inform our mental habits - I think it does.
Your two statements contradict each other. If you refute the influence of the reporting of a particular phenomenon, you must also, by definition, refute the influence of language on thought. There is no such thing as a "direct visual experience"; it all passes through the brain. You're drawing a very artificial line between concrete and abstract thought.
The Lingua Mentalis certainly seems to put S-W in the dustbin of linguistic history, but as far as I'm aware, it's only been proposed as the basis for common language structure, not the be-all and end-all of lingual thought. There's still a long way to go before a direct relationship can be proved (?) between lingual thought and actual expression.
We are talking about Sapir-Whorfe, right? The influence of language on thought? (What there is of it, anyway.) I'll make it clear for you: This is not philosophy.
As for the shortness of my comment, you seem to have a personal vendetta against linguistics, so I didn't think you'd take any notice of any arguments, no matter how reasonable. It appears I was right.
I had a look there, and the only paper to refer to Berlin-Kay gave a very rough overview of it. If you'd actually bothered to read the full paper (as some of us have), you'd know that it is about this very topic.
Keep your "opinions" to yourself, thank you very much, unless you have some facts to back them up.
Speak for yourself, buddy. My linguistics courses were plenty scientific. Perhaps you think that if we don't use numbers, it's not science.
And Berlin-Kay is in no way only about the purely physical process of converting signals from rods and cones in the eye into nerve signals, as you seem to say. If you've ever read their work and understood it, you'd know that. Or perhaps you think that there's nothing behind the eyes doing the processing that allows you to describe color?
Well, the "weak" Sapir-Whorf is generally accepted to be true in some form, just nowhere near as dramatically as in the "strong" S-W. But even so, saying "language influences thought" is like saying "gravity pulls on stuff"; it's right, but it doesn't explain anything that you didn't already know.
Slashdot Mirror
And all this bitching about the link is improving the S/N ratio? Not likely...
Actually, you can get the NT Boot Manager to start LILO, if you try. You have to grab the first block from the partition and store it as a file under NT - see the NT+Linux HOWTO for details. I've tried it, and it works quite well (a pain in the ass after recompiling the kernel, though.)
WTF is going on here? Five comments so far and not a single one on topic.
For those looking for the source code, it can be downloaded from this page.
Try here.
Well, I don't have a URL for you, but a couple of the latest players can take the IBM micro harddrives in their CompactFlash slot. That gives you either 170MB or 340MB of storage (of course, they're not solid state, so you can presumably break them by dropping them on a hard surface or something.)
Let's just forget that the damn thing costs $300, shall we? We should be down on our knees worshipping Sony for deigning to bestow this marvel of modern technology upon us.
Yeah, right.
(BTW: What are you babbling about mini phono jacks for? The article says that he was surprised that it uses standard mini phono jacks, rather than the non-standard Sony connector used on Minidisk players, etc.)
Have you ever listened to MP3's at 128Kb/s, as compared with the original CD? There's a world of difference. MP3 compression is lossy - you lose some information, and there's no way to retrieve that information again.
If 128K MP3s sound the same as CDs to you, then you must be nearly deaf.
I didn't - I've got it running Linux/m68k now. What's your point?
Let me put it this way - I was using Linux before it was ever the Next Big Thing, I'm using Linux now that it is the Next Big Thing, and if it's ever the Previous Big Thing, I'll still be using Linux.
In other words, I couldn't care less whether it makes it big or not.
1: A post on the same topic was made quite a while ago (search the
2: WTF does he mean by "Object-Oriented"?! That phrase has absolutely zero meaning when applied to the HURD.
The real difference between the HURD and Linux is that the HURD uses a full microkernel architecture, which allows you to all sorts of cool stuff with "servers" that sit between your basic kernel and the rest of userspace.
And I've gone back to calling "Anonymous Cowards" "Flaming Bastards"...
People are not bees.
But let's just agree to disagree, OK?
There are patches available that will take files deleted (deletion in Unix/Linux is actually only removing the last hard link) by users and shift them into a directory that they cannot access otherwise. This directory can then be cleaned otu at convenient intervals.
This way, any clueless newbie who figures out how to type "rm -fr *" can just ask root to give them their files back.
Um... you're doing it again. You state:
Neither speaking, nor verbal nor abstract reasoning, was necessary.
Obviously, by reporting the color (even in the form used by B-K), the respondents have to classify it in some way. That is thought, and at least in some aspects abstract (whatever definition you want to give that term). How can it not be? There's no direct link between your retinas and your writing hand that allows it to do something like what was required in the B-K tests, without first undergoing some form of reasoning.
The B-K tests reached the conclusion that there's a gradual development from a two-color system to a three-color, etc., and that that development is generally the same across all cultures - but it doesn't mean that there's no thought involved in the process. It just means that the thought processes reached similar conclusions in each case.
Nah. I chose the wrong word with "structure", and regretted it immediately after sending the comment when I realized some pedantic bastard would probably jump all over me raving about how "universal grammar" doesn't exist
What I was talking about was a much lower-level correspondence between language and neural structure; i.e., the sort of thing you're never going to find evidence of in natural language structure. I've never gone along with Chomsky's thinking; it's all too artificial and lacking in any real evidence to back it up. If he's abandoned it, I'm happy, but he sure sent the whole linguistic world on a long detour.
In order for a comparison to be truely objective, it needs to be based on numbers over which there cannot be dispute, ie, benchmarks.
I've yet to see benchmarks that weren't disputed. As the saying goes, "There are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks"...
NOOO!!!! You'll bring out all the gun nuts, and the whole discussion will disappear in a mass of raging flame and gunfire!!
No! You miss my point. An assertion about the role of language in the reporting of direct visual experiences says nothing about its role in abstract reasoning. Which is where the real controversy lies. Does our language guide and inform our mental habits - I think it does.
Your two statements contradict each other. If you refute the influence of the reporting of a particular phenomenon, you must also, by definition, refute the influence of language on thought. There is no such thing as a "direct visual experience"; it all passes through the brain. You're drawing a very artificial line between concrete and abstract thought.
Yeah. Whatever.
Sheesh.
Hey, I'm on your side
The Lingua Mentalis certainly seems to put S-W in the dustbin of linguistic history, but as far as I'm aware, it's only been proposed as the basis for common language structure, not the be-all and end-all of lingual thought. There's still a long way to go before a direct relationship can be proved (?) between lingual thought and actual expression.
We are talking about Sapir-Whorfe, right? The influence of language on thought? (What there is of it, anyway.) I'll make it clear for you: This is not philosophy.
As for the shortness of my comment, you seem to have a personal vendetta against linguistics, so I didn't think you'd take any notice of any arguments, no matter how reasonable. It appears I was right.
I had a look there, and the only paper to refer to Berlin-Kay gave a very rough overview of it. If you'd actually bothered to read the full paper (as some of us have), you'd know that it is about this very topic.
Keep your "opinions" to yourself, thank you very much, unless you have some facts to back them up.
Speak for yourself, buddy. My linguistics courses were plenty scientific. Perhaps you think that if we don't use numbers, it's not science.
And Berlin-Kay is in no way only about the purely physical process of converting signals from rods and cones in the eye into nerve signals, as you seem to say. If you've ever read their work and understood it, you'd know that. Or perhaps you think that there's nothing behind the eyes doing the processing that allows you to describe color?
Um...that has about zero to do with Sapir-Whorf. You're way too far into the realm of cultural anthropology for it to be applicable.
Well, the "weak" Sapir-Whorf is generally accepted to be true in some form, just nowhere near as dramatically as in the "strong" S-W. But even so, saying "language influences thought" is like saying "gravity pulls on stuff"; it's right, but it doesn't explain anything that you didn't already know.