I'm not sure why this is moderated as funny: the truth is the Windows98 --> XP switch was a very different one (very different kernel bringing improved stability) than the XP --> Vista switch which provides mainly eye-candy, so the 95 --> 98 or 98 --> ME switch provide better yardstick for comparison to XP --> Vista.
Funny how you distort the GP's point, he didn't say that there was anything wrong being backed by Red Hat, he said the issue was that Fedora's aim is a *testing ground*.
I don't know you, but myself I would be quite nervous about installing my father's PC for example with something considered as a 'testing ground' from the maker!
Let's take the analogy of 'soap bubbles': soap do create bubbles due to an attractive force (surface tension), there's no repulsive force in the center of the bubbles, so it can be the same for the universe..
There are many things that we don't know about the universe, but you're idea seems needlessly complex.
Maybe but there's also the risk of having the light out due to bad weather: I doubt that much light could be produced if there was too much fog on the city..
Please mod parent up! I'm sick of all these posts (modded up!!) who thinks that writing on a mostly full disk remove the effectiveness of wear-leveling, there is no reason why this should be the case..
[[does Ruby have anything to offer for someone who's already very proficient in Python]]
Not much in my opinion: while I was looking for a language I'd like I found both Python and Ruby and had quite some difficulty to find one that I'd like better than the other one: in fact those language are very similar.
So as you're already using Python, I doubt that you'd see much benefit going to Ruby.
Myself finally I chose Ruby, unfortunately I'm doing much more Perl (bleach) than Ruby..:-(
I wonder why this is +5 insightful: FF is famous for freezing the whole browser when one tab is blocked for whatever reason, which is a really poor design and makes it not very pleasant to use due to these freeze.
I don't know if this could be fixed without a rewrite but this shows really that FF needs more threading, and I think that it should provide better isolation using several process so when an extension crash the whole browser doesn't crash..
It takes as an hypothesis that the multiverse "theory" is a scientific theory, so it show then that science is based on faith..
But the multiverse "theory" isn't at all a scientific theory like relativity is, it is just an hypothesis.
The interest of the multiverse "theory" is just that this is a possible explanation to the question "why our universe is so finely tuned as to create life?"
The usual answer is "because it was created by God" (which isn't an answer at all as this create the questions what is this God? and why does God exist?), the multiverse hypothesis is a better answer as it doesn't rely on such poorly defined concept that God is.
But as currently we have no way to check whether other universe exist or not, the multiverse hypothesis isn't anymore a scientific theory than the Flying Spaghetti Monster/God(s) "theory" are.
Bah, it's the same in France and I think that it's quite logical: what good does it make to remind drivers to take a break, if they can't?
There's a big difference between 'taking a break' and 'eating' as the first one is necessary for safety reason, the other one isn't, no need to be paranoid..
The nice thing about standard^Wspecification/API is that there are so many to choose from:-(
OpenMoko, Android, LiPS,.. there's going to be a selection quite soon: there aren't that many phone manufacturers who wants to develop their own applications..
>>The *only* thing they are doing with it is trying to make sure that *if* and when it becomes a standard that it's good enough and open enough for Free software like Gnome apps to able to implement it.>Of course Gnome backs ODF.
In thoughts only AFAIK: which Gnome component is going to use ODF? Do they have someone working on the standardisation board to ensure that ODF is really good?
IMHO, it's much more important to have a great ODF and a great support for ODF than Microsoft Office XML: so every efforts should be to ensure this, not to help Microsoft Office XML..
>>Nothing religious about it: just logical: if you don't have a way to distinguish fairy tales from 'not testable in any way belief' it's probably because those 'untestable belief' are just that fairy tales.. >That's a fine assertion, but how can you prove it, scientifically or logically? You can't, so it's a religious belief.
Well, if it makes you happy to call this kind of Occam razor, 'if it walk like a duck, quacks like a duck then it's a duck unless you can show a difference' a religious belief, that's fine by me: I couldn't care to discuss such stupid point..
>>>"Not testable in any way" *means* "Science cannot apply to [it]" >>*And* it means baseless, meaningless.. >That's a common religious belief.
Nothing religious about it: just logical: if you don't have a way to distinguish fairy tales from 'not testable in any way belief' it's probably because those 'untestable belief' are just that fairy tales..
>>As it is, trying to convince you would be like convincing a blind man that some colors go together more than others.
Hard, especially since I'm colorblind;-) Anyway, color matching is very much a 'fashion' thing not an hard rule (especially when we remember what was fashionable in the 70s).
As for the rest, you're entitled to your own opinion, but if you want your opinion to be taken seriously, yes you need proof: our mind does very weird thing to us..
A good example of this, is the 'out of body flying' feeling that some have felt: now it can be triggered 'on demand', and one test was: could people describe objects that they cannot saw from below but that they should have been able to see if their mind was truly flying above? They couldn't describe those objects..
>Nothing in the entirety of existence means anything worthwhile, to anyone, unless it's testable?
If it's untestable, it's just a belief, belief without proof doesn't worth much.
>So. What happens when you die? An awful lot of people seem interested in that idea. Maybe someone should test it out, huh?
I don't understand your question. When you die, your brain stops working so your mind stops, that's what we can deduce from our current medical knowledge, everything else needs proof or it's just an empty assertion.
>>Some religious beliefs are indeed testable on an individual basis, such as various hypotheses of life after death. I happen to have certain beliefs about that, and could indeed find out that they are more or less correct.
So what happens in the life after death and what are your proofs?
Extraordinay claims needs extraordinary proofs, so your proof'd better be strong otherwise you're a crackpot..
>>Religion and Science are not incompatible, they just dont deal with the same areas.
Bah, that's only what religious people claim.. Science is about testable theories and Occam's razor, which can indeded be applied to the "Religious concept", when applied to these, you come to the conclusion that these beliefs are empty being not testable in any way..
Of course, religious people don't like this and claim that Science cannot apply to their religious belief.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure why this is moderated as funny: the truth is the Windows98 --> XP switch was a very different one (very different kernel bringing improved stability) than the XP --> Vista switch which provides mainly eye-candy, so the 95 --> 98 or 98 --> ME switch provide better yardstick for comparison to XP --> Vista.
>Why is it bad that Fedora is backed by Red Hat?
Funny how you distort the GP's point, he didn't say that there was anything wrong being backed by Red Hat, he said the issue was that Fedora's aim is a *testing ground*.
I don't know you, but myself I would be quite nervous about installing my father's PC for example with something considered as a 'testing ground' from the maker!
Let's take the analogy of 'soap bubbles': soap do create bubbles due to an attractive force (surface tension), there's no repulsive force in the center of the bubbles, so it can be the same for the universe..
There are many things that we don't know about the universe, but you're idea seems needlessly complex.
Maybe but there's also the risk of having the light out due to bad weather: I doubt that much light could be produced if there was too much fog on the city..
>Yeah, that MS-Paint has GIMP beat somethin' fierce.
:-)
Well Paint.Net is better for me than The Gimp as it's easier to use (probably not as powerful but I don't care about this)
More seriously, there are many softs, like IL2 Forgotten Battle which are available only on Windows with no equivalent on Linux..
Please mod parent up! I'm sick of all these posts (modded up!!) who thinks that writing on a mostly full disk remove the effectiveness of wear-leveling, there is no reason why this should be the case..
[[does Ruby have anything to offer for someone who's already very proficient in Python]]
:-(
Not much in my opinion: while I was looking for a language I'd like I found both Python and Ruby and had quite some difficulty to find one that I'd like better than the other one: in fact those language are very similar.
So as you're already using Python, I doubt that you'd see much benefit going to Ruby.
Myself finally I chose Ruby, unfortunately I'm doing much more Perl (bleach) than Ruby..
I disagree that increasing RAM on laptop is an useless feature: even if one application cannot use the full 4GB, several apps may.
And on laptops, the disks are slow so paging is even worse than on desktops..
That said, I have a hard time seeing what could use more than 2GB of RAM on a laptop..
I wonder why this is +5 insightful: FF is famous for freezing the whole browser when one tab is blocked for whatever reason, which is a really poor design and makes it not very pleasant to use due to these freeze.
I don't know if this could be fixed without a rewrite but this shows really that FF needs more threading, and I think that it should provide better isolation using several process so when an extension crash the whole browser doesn't crash..
It takes as an hypothesis that the multiverse "theory" is a scientific theory, so it show then that science is based on faith..
But the multiverse "theory" isn't at all a scientific theory like relativity is, it is just an hypothesis.
The interest of the multiverse "theory" is just that this is a possible explanation to the question "why our universe is so finely tuned as to create life?"
The usual answer is "because it was created by God" (which isn't an answer at all as this create the questions what is this God? and why does God exist?), the multiverse hypothesis is a better answer as it doesn't rely on such poorly defined concept that God is.
But as currently we have no way to check whether other universe exist or not, the multiverse hypothesis isn't anymore a scientific theory than the Flying Spaghetti Monster/God(s) "theory" are.
Bah, it's the same in France and I think that it's quite logical: what good does it make to remind drivers to take a break, if they can't?
There's a big difference between 'taking a break' and 'eating' as the first one is necessary for safety reason, the other one isn't, no need to be paranoid..
The nice thing about standard^Wspecification/API is that there are so many to choose from :-(
OpenMoko, Android, LiPS,.. there's going to be a selection quite soon: there aren't that many phone manufacturers who wants to develop their own applications..
>which can be mighty irritating when comparing your log files with those of other systems
Are those other system on the same LAN?
If yes, synchronise one server (two for redondancy) and use it as the time reference for all your systems..
>>The *only* thing they are doing with it is trying to make sure that *if* and when it becomes a standard that it's good enough and open enough for Free software like Gnome apps to able to implement it.>Of course Gnome backs ODF.
In thoughts only AFAIK: which Gnome component is going to use ODF? Do they have someone working on the standardisation board to ensure that ODF is really good?
IMHO, it's much more important to have a great ODF and a great support for ODF than Microsoft Office XML: so every efforts should be to ensure this, not to help Microsoft Office XML..
'By default' doesn't mean that Gnome is always used: at work we use RHE3, but a majority of users use KDE, not Gnome..
But then you need proof to explain why the simplest one isn't the correct explanation.
>>Nothing religious about it: just logical: if you don't have a way to distinguish fairy tales from 'not testable in any way belief' it's probably because those 'untestable belief' are just that fairy tales..
>That's a fine assertion, but how can you prove it, scientifically or logically? You can't, so it's a religious belief.
Well, if it makes you happy to call this kind of Occam razor, 'if it walk like a duck, quacks like a duck then it's a duck unless you can show a difference' a religious belief, that's fine by me: I couldn't care to discuss such stupid point..
>>>"Not testable in any way" *means* "Science cannot apply to [it]"
>>*And* it means baseless, meaningless..
>That's a common religious belief.
Nothing religious about it: just logical: if you don't have a way to distinguish fairy tales from 'not testable in any way belief' it's probably because those 'untestable belief' are just that fairy tales..
>>As it is, trying to convince you would be like convincing a blind man that some colors go together more than others.
;-) Anyway, color matching is very much a 'fashion' thing not an hard rule (especially when we remember what was fashionable in the 70s).
Hard, especially since I'm colorblind
As for the rest, you're entitled to your own opinion, but if you want your opinion to be taken seriously, yes you need proof: our mind does very weird thing to us..
A good example of this, is the 'out of body flying' feeling that some have felt: now it can be triggered 'on demand', and one test was: could people describe objects that they cannot saw from below but that they should have been able to see if their mind was truly flying above?
They couldn't describe those objects..
>Nothing in the entirety of existence means anything worthwhile, to anyone, unless it's testable?
If it's untestable, it's just a belief, belief without proof doesn't worth much.
>So. What happens when you die? An awful lot of people seem interested in that idea. Maybe someone should test it out, huh?
I don't understand your question. When you die, your brain stops working so your mind stops, that's what we can deduce from our current medical knowledge, everything else needs proof or it's just an empty assertion.
>>Some religious beliefs are indeed testable on an individual basis, such as various hypotheses of life after death. I happen to have certain beliefs about that, and could indeed find out that they are more or less correct.
So what happens in the life after death and what are your proofs?
Extraordinay claims needs extraordinary proofs, so your proof'd better be strong otherwise you're a crackpot..
>"Not testable in any way" *means* "Science cannot apply to [it]"
*And* it means baseless, meaningless..
>>Religion and Science are not incompatible, they just dont deal with the same areas.
Bah, that's only what religious people claim..
Science is about testable theories and Occam's razor, which can indeded be applied to the "Religious concept", when applied to these, you come to the conclusion that these beliefs are empty being not testable in any way..
Of course, religious people don't like this and claim that Science cannot apply to their religious belief.
Looking at libarc website http://libarc.sourceforge.net/: the license indicated here isn't the GPL..
So either it's not the same libarc or its license has changed or the website is incorrect or the issue happen in some other file but not in libarc..
Even mom&pops shops have been doing it for a long time: best customers are treated better.
I just don't understand how patents can be delivered for such obvious things..