paranoia
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek, madness, from paranous demented, from para- + nous mind
Date: circa 1811
1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
Supposedly, the car has an input of water and an output of water.
Now the laws of thermodynamic says that such a closed system will either, a, do nothing (water going right through it) or b, tend towards entropy (that is stop working when the energy that was in it to begin with has dissapeared).
Now the exception to this would be if they invented a cold fusion engine behind our backs (which they didn't) and the water coming out happened to be less than the water coming in.
You're maths are off by several orders of magnitudes.
The sun outputs roughly 1300 watts of energy per square meeter on the earth. An area half the size of New Mexico would give roughly 2*10^14 Watts of power, thats 0.2 petawatt.
Now the entire world uses 15 terawatt (or did in 2004 according to wikipedia), that's 0.015 petawatts.
Now going with your numbers, of 40% energy efficency (which is a tad high compared to what we have today but it doesn't matter). You need too absorb 18.75% of that energy too supply the entire world with energy (the 15 terawatt i used in calculation included all of the energy used by mankind, nuclear, fossil and renewable, in automobiles and homes).
That's 4.5 hours of 100% absorption or 9 hours of 50% absorption.
What are the odds that any kid would ever-ever-ever have a look at the source code of, for example the network stack and have even the slightest clue of anything going on?
Compare the odds. Suppose that fifteen years from now a kid who got an XO laptop yesterday wants to extend the networking capabilities of the educational computers they have deployed throughout their country. Is it more likely that MS will do this to Windows for them, for free, or is it more likely that they will be able to do it cheaply themselves because they are all running on an OSS base? Apply this same logic to every single facet of operating systems. Will MS add an indexed filesystem for free down the road or will they require all these cash strapped educational facilities to pay for it?
The OSS base isn't about letting some random kid hack the network stack today, it is about making sure these kids are not beholden to MS for improvements in two years or five or ten or fifty.
After the emancipation proclamation all the freed slaves were given 40 acres and a mule. Sure mules were economical, just as Windows might be today if MS is ponying up cash for the project. The problem is, mules are also sterile, making them a dead end and a terrible basis for a long term future. It might live for 30 years, but you'll never breed it with your neighbors' animals and you kids had better hope you making hard cash so you can buy another one when it dies. Windows is the same way. It might work for now, but in the long term you're just building up lock-in and making it harder to ever have a sustainable system not beholden to foreign, commercial interests.
Given that that kid actually got enough knowledge about computers from his XO that he would be capable of such a task, do you really think he could have learned it from looking at source code?
I work with programming and if there is one thing I can tell you, it is that looking at source code never teaches anyone anything. Sure it might make it easier for you to extend the already exisiting functionality if you have access to it, but you will never gain any sort of insight through seeing the code that wasn't already available out there.
What are the odds that any kid would ever-ever-ever have a look at the source code of, for example the network stack and have even the slightest clue of anything going on?
That giving them a closed underpinning is detriment to the educational quality of the OLPC is just a flyby excuse for the OneLinuxLaptopPerChild folks to blame microsoft.
So was this for getting technology to the third world, or to promote the progress of allmighty GNU?
Amusing you are mentioning the scientific method without using it. Allright I'll bite, even though slashdot groupthink seems to be global warming is a hoax.
Ponder that the gas, carbon dioxide, has light reflective properties that when amassed in the athmospere gets similar properties that of the glass in greenhouses. You don't deny the existance of greenhouses now do you?
If that is so, couldn't one set up a model of how an increase or decrease of that gas in the atmosphere would affect the temperature of the hypothetical scenario.
Indeed someone did, in the late 17:th century, Svante Arrhenius set up a model where he predicted that a doubling in the atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase average temperature by 4-6 degrees Celsius (IPCC puts this number closer to 2-4.5 degrees Celsius).
By measurement one has found todays carbon dioxide levels to be 35% higher than thoose of 1835, and the carbon in the new carbondioxide are consisting of isotopes which is consistant with the kind of isotopes it would be of if it came from the burning of fossil fuels (but not from natural sources).
So here I have the scientific method, and what do you have?
Your #1 is a downright lie, CO2 is a very potent very common greenhouse gas, a mere increase by 0.28 percentiles in the atmosphere would increase our global temperature by several degrees celsius.
#2 is a strawman, you only require a very small amount cyanide to kill you aswell, that doesn't mean cyanide is harmless.
#3/#4 are appeals to ignore the science for what feels right, nothing in thoose statements disprove global warming, even assuming their validity. Secondly, there have been no increase in solar activity, so why bring it up?
Global warming is very real and it was predicted more than a hundred years ago, yet now that it is happening, people are throwing their hands up and saying conspiracy/hoax/coincidence. Global warming is very real, and it will cost the society alot of money, wheter you beleive in it or not.
Is there anywhere where one could get ahold of the sourcecode to this software, or even a binary. How can this be news for nerds without a proper link to the source?;)
Or well strictly speaking that is not true, I have the following issues with Vista:
* XCOM doesn't work natively, I have to play it in dosbox
* VLC does for some reason not start up several instances when you double-click on a file, I have to start up new instances manually.
* Vista takes up about 10 gigs more harddisk space to install than XP did.
They are all minor nuisances at worst. I wouldn't beleive it if my only experience of vista was slashdot stories, but as I said, they are just slashfud.
* He bought a product
* An automatic checker wrongly accused him of being a pirate
* He decided that next time he'll just pirate it anyway since buying it legally doesn't do squat
Nowhere did he say that he would pirate it to stick it up to the man as you are implying so for no reason does your argument that he should be looking at competitors hold water. Unless you are actually suggesting that he should hold a grudge to the manufacturers becouse of being accused of being a pirate.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure it's not a quote but an attempt to be funny. Altough the mods (and you) seems to have missed the point ;).
Read that as a game masters degree at first, well makes sence that's what you would get from playing alot of dnd. :)
paranoia
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek, madness, from paranous demented, from para- + nous mind
Date: circa 1811
1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
Look at the car as a closed system.
Supposedly, the car has an input of water and an output of water.
Now the laws of thermodynamic says that such a closed system will either, a, do nothing (water going right through it) or b, tend towards entropy (that is stop working when the energy that was in it to begin with has dissapeared).
Now the exception to this would be if they invented a cold fusion engine behind our backs (which they didn't) and the water coming out happened to be less than the water coming in.
Yes, yes, I know trolling, but I couldn't resist it.
No you're not. Unless the collapsing thing was a designed feature.
The sun outputs roughly 1300 watts of energy per square meeter on the earth. An area half the size of New Mexico would give roughly 2*10^14 Watts of power, thats 0.2 petawatt.
Now the entire world uses 15 terawatt (or did in 2004 according to wikipedia), that's 0.015 petawatts.
Now going with your numbers, of 40% energy efficency (which is a tad high compared to what we have today but it doesn't matter). You need too absorb 18.75% of that energy too supply the entire world with energy (the 15 terawatt i used in calculation included all of the energy used by mankind, nuclear, fossil and renewable, in automobiles and homes).
That's 4.5 hours of 100% absorption or 9 hours of 50% absorption.
See, I told you soo; 2008 is the year of linux on the desktop. For real this time.
Yes, lets not blame Windows XP SP3... after all, this has happened with other OS's and other versions of Windows, right?
Oh, wait, this has only happened with XP SP3 machines....
So, again, what's the probability that it isn't Windows XP SP3 doing something wrong?
I'd say 100% seeing as that it is the router that is crashing.Think of it this way, if writing this post made your computer crash, would it be my computers fault, or would it be yours?
It will be nice to never hear anything from him again.
actually its more like :)
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; |1|=|-1|
sqrt function only returns one value
they did use .NET for this app
Compare the odds. Suppose that fifteen years from now a kid who got an XO laptop yesterday wants to extend the networking capabilities of the educational computers they have deployed throughout their country. Is it more likely that MS will do this to Windows for them, for free, or is it more likely that they will be able to do it cheaply themselves because they are all running on an OSS base? Apply this same logic to every single facet of operating systems. Will MS add an indexed filesystem for free down the road or will they require all these cash strapped educational facilities to pay for it?
The OSS base isn't about letting some random kid hack the network stack today, it is about making sure these kids are not beholden to MS for improvements in two years or five or ten or fifty.
After the emancipation proclamation all the freed slaves were given 40 acres and a mule. Sure mules were economical, just as Windows might be today if MS is ponying up cash for the project. The problem is, mules are also sterile, making them a dead end and a terrible basis for a long term future. It might live for 30 years, but you'll never breed it with your neighbors' animals and you kids had better hope you making hard cash so you can buy another one when it dies. Windows is the same way. It might work for now, but in the long term you're just building up lock-in and making it harder to ever have a sustainable system not beholden to foreign, commercial interests.
Given that that kid actually got enough knowledge about computers from his XO that he would be capable of such a task, do you really think he could have learned it from looking at source code?
I work with programming and if there is one thing I can tell you, it is that looking at source code never teaches anyone anything. Sure it might make it easier for you to extend the already exisiting functionality if you have access to it, but you will never gain any sort of insight through seeing the code that wasn't already available out there.
That giving them a closed underpinning is detriment to the educational quality of the OLPC is just a flyby excuse for the OneLinuxLaptopPerChild folks to blame microsoft.
So was this for getting technology to the third world, or to promote the progress of allmighty GNU?
Ponder that the gas, carbon dioxide, has light reflective properties that when amassed in the athmospere gets similar properties that of the glass in greenhouses. You don't deny the existance of greenhouses now do you?
If that is so, couldn't one set up a model of how an increase or decrease of that gas in the atmosphere would affect the temperature of the hypothetical scenario.
Indeed someone did, in the late 17:th century, Svante Arrhenius set up a model where he predicted that a doubling in the atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase average temperature by 4-6 degrees Celsius (IPCC puts this number closer to 2-4.5 degrees Celsius).
By measurement one has found todays carbon dioxide levels to be 35% higher than thoose of 1835, and the carbon in the new carbondioxide are consisting of isotopes which is consistant with the kind of isotopes it would be of if it came from the burning of fossil fuels (but not from natural sources).
So here I have the scientific method, and what do you have?
Your #1 is a downright lie, CO2 is a very potent very common greenhouse gas, a mere increase by 0.28 percentiles in the atmosphere would increase our global temperature by several degrees celsius.
#2 is a strawman, you only require a very small amount cyanide to kill you aswell, that doesn't mean cyanide is harmless.
#3/#4 are appeals to ignore the science for what feels right, nothing in thoose statements disprove global warming, even assuming their validity. Secondly, there have been no increase in solar activity, so why bring it up?
Global warming is very real and it was predicted more than a hundred years ago, yet now that it is happening, people are throwing their hands up and saying conspiracy/hoax/coincidence. Global warming is very real, and it will cost the society alot of money, wheter you beleive in it or not.
Is there anywhere where one could get ahold of the sourcecode to this software, or even a binary. How can this be news for nerds without a proper link to the source? ;)
Or well strictly speaking that is not true, I have the following issues with Vista:
* XCOM doesn't work natively, I have to play it in dosbox
* VLC does for some reason not start up several instances when you double-click on a file, I have to start up new instances manually.
* Vista takes up about 10 gigs more harddisk space to install than XP did.
They are all minor nuisances at worst. I wouldn't beleive it if my only experience of vista was slashdot stories, but as I said, they are just slashfud.
More people use it than all the unix versions combined. All this vista bashing is mostly slashfud.
I use it, I have no issues with it. Not a single one.
You can't possibly call genocide self-defense.
So is silverlight and .net but they are still considered proprietary.
Hint; there's more to being free than just being open, atleast if you ask RMS or the rest of the free software community.
It's cool, it works with difference in temperatures.
Oh wait cool, sorry about that didn't mean to be all cold.
Oh wait cold... I'll just shut up now...
More like:
* He bought a product
* An automatic checker wrongly accused him of being a pirate
* He decided that next time he'll just pirate it anyway since buying it legally doesn't do squat
Nowhere did he say that he would pirate it to stick it up to the man as you are implying so for no reason does your argument that he should be looking at competitors hold water. Unless you are actually suggesting that he should hold a grudge to the manufacturers becouse of being accused of being a pirate.
12 blog comments!? That's 12 times as many as there are linux users. Microsoft will have hell to pay!
string s;
//do stuff here
using(StreamReader sr = new StreamReader(path)) {
while((s = sr.ReadLine()) != null) {
}
}
While I am aware that you probably shave of a couple of bytes using fopen and fscanf the difference is hardly there.
What exactly is so hard with? File.WriteAllBytes(path, bytes); Do you know the meaning of abstraction?