No way it is technically feasible simply on terms of manpower.
I have, especially in the past, been a big torrent user. Their have been times in my life that I have consumed as much media as humanly possible and downloaded twice as much as I could consume (all on a 5MB line), and btw spending a significant amount of time simply finding torrents. Their is no way that anyone, no matter how much bandwidth they have, could torrent more then twice what I did (and that is not even really realistic unless their sole concern was using up as much bandwidth as possible).
Their is no way that 75% of all torrent traffic was just 100 times what I was doing (just looking at the torrent sites and all the torrents that I am not involved in that have tons of seeds and leachers).
I assume that they must of mixed up corporations and ISPs with single users.
Well having gone through a few courses that tried to teach me Linux I have a few ideas of what you should not do. You probably do not want to teach it through assignments that simply require linux for no good reason, like "learn Linux because your assignment answers must be handed in with Linux end of line characters" Or simply learn Linux because we want you to. Personally I have not learned anything useful when doing assignments that simply have to learn something for the sake of learning. I would teach Linux, and all other concepts, (if possibly) through realistic challenges/assignments. Think of why they should learn Linux (not simply because you think it is better) and why they will need that knowledge, and give them assignments on those problems, forcing them to learn Linux to complete it.
I really do not see why killing someone would not possibly solve a problem, regardless of the ethics of it. If not killing then little else would have the power to enact change. Not that I think this will have any effect, especially not a good one, but who knows.
On the ethics of it I believe many if not all US states have the death penalty? So the government has pretty much said that it is (or at least might be) acceptable to kill people if you disagree with what they do.
Now personally I would say killing is never Just, but is at least sometimes necessary. And I would not say that the government has a monopoly of either justice or on necessary killings.
But knowing little I would assume that the guy was probably mentally unstable and was not doing it for any good reasons.
Well for the most extreme situations. But for the most part we do not have a scale of intelligence vs how many rights a person gets, and most mentally handicapped are not kept locked up.
This subject brings to mind a famous quote, that while taking about a different subject is similar in spirit, in my opinion. "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi
Personally I do not think that anything does not have the right to be treated nicely. And see little reason to weight a human life over that of a Dolphins, dogs, or even grass.
And they have a right to, as adults paying for a service they can skip class, stay up all night drinking, or not pay attention.
Many people use laptops in class to take notes and their is no reason that this should not be allowed. Now I admit that someone playing a game in front of me in class is really distracting but that is my problem, because theoretically the game might even help them concentrate on a lecture they would otherwise be sleeping through or skipping. And I could be distracted by any number of things others do, so as long as they are not being loud or taking up a huge part of my vision I do not care what they do with their laptop or notepad.
But it is nice for game players to move to the back row, their are a few classes the only reason I attended was because I could play games in the last row, not bother anyone, and at least be in class if the teacher managed to sneak something new into the lecture for once.
It is nice to hear them being honest, it is so annoying how most companies do not do this.
I know of many examples from friends, family, and myself where we have irrefutable proof that a company has screwed up and what do we get every-time? Either the company does not respond or they say nothing is wrong.
I wonder if some study has been done and it is actually better for companies to deny fault even when they know they are wrong.
"Batman: Arkham Asylum lets unauthorized users play through the game as if it were a normal copy, with a single exception: Batman's cape-glide ability doesn't work"
That was not the only thing changed, for example multiple grapple points were disabled throughout the entire game. It was actually the most effective any piracy I have ever seen, they keep on having to recrack the game when they discovered more places that players could not get past.
It is easy to torrent it, but the base does explode if something is done wrong. I think it was introduced to stop just copying the installed files of the game, as when I did that it caused the exploding to happen.
"At some point pigs may fly." Well given enough time I would think it inevitable that evolution would make pigs fly, of course they would no longer be pigs but a totally different creature.
And that is very much why Linux dieing is going to happen at one point. Yes, making a OS from the bottom up is way harder then programming a brand new one. But at some point in the future when possibly no one even knows how to program in any language that any current version of Linux is written in and the way we use computers and how they are made have changed so dramatically that it is no longer recognizable as a computer, someone will write a totally new OS because it will be easier then changing something into something else that it does not resemble in the least.
I really have to disagree with you. Linux, while it currently pretty much represents OSS it not the only possible OSS OS.
At some point in the future or past even, someone will write a totally new OSS OS and everyone will like it and gradually Linux will be dropped and the new one taken up.
It is only a matter of time, you cannot keep adding to and changing something forever, eventually you have to start with a clean slate and program for the current hardware, applications, and user expectations using all the fancy new coding techniques developed in the past.
Not that I know any specifics, but windows seems plagued with many of the same problems between versions (So I would guess more remains then it should).
But really these are the best questions to ask when deciding if either of the OSes have reached the end of their usefulness.
I get how a person can write paper for high school kids or some of the easier beginning stuff for university, but he mentions a lot of things that would of been a lot harder.
So is this guys a super genius or are university papers actually very easy to write?
I am not sure about lions, I know they have some order (for example the male(s) go first). and I believed they are similar to a wolf pack with a strict pecking order, as any pack of animal is likely to form. SO I am not certain, but I do not think they fight over it. The important ones might push the less important away, but it is not a fight because both of them know who is the boss.
"had initially thought the presence of meat would provoke bloodlust, believing the response would have helped our primate ancestors hunt." That makes no sense. Why would it be a good thing for are primitive ancestors to want to hunt when they already have caught and butchered meat lying around? So it is just the opposite, because it would help out ancestors out to get agitated and go hunt when the food runs out.
Nutrition is for heath, and having more or less should not significantly effect weight (but is very important for overall heath). So eating a small amount of twinkles a day will cause you to lose weight, but that does not mean you would not die of malnutrition if you continued to only eat junk food for a long time (no matter how much of it you were eating).
I did not find the school chars very uncomfortable but they did not really fit. The only problem I had with size was with the bus seats, so little leg room, it was actually painful.
Because if I add my boss to Facebook and then call him names and say how I hate my job on my wall (something that he has to see if he used Facebook regularly) then he did something wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
To be fare internet forums are offensive too all races and sexes, and I would say are far more offensive to other races then other sexes.
Well that makes sense, but that is not how I read the /. article at all.
And it has to be remembered that most of these people posting lots of high ranking torrents are groups of people and not individuals.
No way it is technically feasible simply on terms of manpower.
I have, especially in the past, been a big torrent user. Their have been times in my life that I have consumed as much media as humanly possible and downloaded twice as much as I could consume (all on a 5MB line), and btw spending a significant amount of time simply finding torrents. Their is no way that anyone, no matter how much bandwidth they have, could torrent more then twice what I did (and that is not even really realistic unless their sole concern was using up as much bandwidth as possible).
Their is no way that 75% of all torrent traffic was just 100 times what I was doing (just looking at the torrent sites and all the torrents that I am not involved in that have tons of seeds and leachers).
I assume that they must of mixed up corporations and ISPs with single users.
Well having gone through a few courses that tried to teach me Linux I have a few ideas of what you should not do.
You probably do not want to teach it through assignments that simply require linux for no good reason, like "learn Linux because your assignment answers must be handed in with Linux end of line characters"
Or simply learn Linux because we want you to.
Personally I have not learned anything useful when doing assignments that simply have to learn something for the sake of learning.
I would teach Linux, and all other concepts, (if possibly) through realistic challenges/assignments.
Think of why they should learn Linux (not simply because you think it is better) and why they will need that knowledge, and give them assignments on those problems, forcing them to learn Linux to complete it.
That is exactly what I thought of when first hearing about this.
I really do not see why killing someone would not possibly solve a problem, regardless of the ethics of it. If not killing then little else would have the power to enact change.
Not that I think this will have any effect, especially not a good one, but who knows.
On the ethics of it I believe many if not all US states have the death penalty?
So the government has pretty much said that it is (or at least might be) acceptable to kill people if you disagree with what they do.
Now personally I would say killing is never Just, but is at least sometimes necessary. And I would not say that the government has a monopoly of either justice or on necessary killings.
But knowing little I would assume that the guy was probably mentally unstable and was not doing it for any good reasons.
The USA would most likely not exist today if a lot of politically motivated and other-wise gunfire was not used.
Well for the most extreme situations. But for the most part we do not have a scale of intelligence vs how many rights a person gets, and most mentally handicapped are not kept locked up.
This subject brings to mind a famous quote, that while taking about a different subject is similar in spirit, in my opinion.
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi
Personally I do not think that anything does not have the right to be treated nicely. And see little reason to weight a human life over that of a Dolphins, dogs, or even grass.
... be treated as non-persons?
It seems pretty ridiculous to use intelligence to decide if we should treat something else well or not.
That was one of the best anti DRM argument I have ever heard.
Agree 100%.
And they have a right to, as adults paying for a service they can skip class, stay up all night drinking, or not pay attention.
Many people use laptops in class to take notes and their is no reason that this should not be allowed. Now I admit that someone playing a game in front of me in class is really distracting but that is my problem, because theoretically the game might even help them concentrate on a lecture they would otherwise be sleeping through or skipping.
And I could be distracted by any number of things others do, so as long as they are not being loud or taking up a huge part of my vision I do not care what they do with their laptop or notepad.
But it is nice for game players to move to the back row, their are a few classes the only reason I attended was because I could play games in the last row, not bother anyone, and at least be in class if the teacher managed to sneak something new into the lecture for once.
It is nice to hear them being honest, it is so annoying how most companies do not do this.
I know of many examples from friends, family, and myself where we have irrefutable proof that a company has screwed up and what do we get every-time? Either the company does not respond or they say nothing is wrong.
I wonder if some study has been done and it is actually better for companies to deny fault even when they know they are wrong.
"Batman: Arkham Asylum lets unauthorized users play through the game as if it were a normal copy, with a single exception: Batman's cape-glide ability doesn't work"
That was not the only thing changed, for example multiple grapple points were disabled throughout the entire game.
It was actually the most effective any piracy I have ever seen, they keep on having to recrack the game when they discovered more places that players could not get past.
It is easy to torrent it, but the base does explode if something is done wrong.
I think it was introduced to stop just copying the installed files of the game, as when I did that it caused the exploding to happen.
"At some point pigs may fly."
Well given enough time I would think it inevitable that evolution would make pigs fly, of course they would no longer be pigs but a totally different creature.
And that is very much why Linux dieing is going to happen at one point. Yes, making a OS from the bottom up is way harder then programming a brand new one.
But at some point in the future when possibly no one even knows how to program in any language that any current version of Linux is written in and the way we use computers and how they are made have changed so dramatically that it is no longer recognizable as a computer, someone will write a totally new OS because it will be easier then changing something into something else that it does not resemble in the least.
I really have to disagree with you.
Linux, while it currently pretty much represents OSS it not the only possible OSS OS.
At some point in the future or past even, someone will write a totally new OSS OS and everyone will like it and gradually Linux will be dropped and the new one taken up.
It is only a matter of time, you cannot keep adding to and changing something forever, eventually you have to start with a clean slate and program for the current hardware, applications, and user expectations using all the fancy new coding techniques developed in the past.
Not that I know any specifics, but windows seems plagued with many of the same problems between versions (So I would guess more remains then it should).
But really these are the best questions to ask when deciding if either of the OSes have reached the end of their usefulness.
I get how a person can write paper for high school kids or some of the easier beginning stuff for university, but he mentions a lot of things that would of been a lot harder.
So is this guys a super genius or are university papers actually very easy to write?
I am not sure about lions, I know they have some order (for example the male(s) go first).
and I believed they are similar to a wolf pack with a strict pecking order, as any pack of animal is likely to form.
SO I am not certain, but I do not think they fight over it. The important ones might push the less important away, but it is not a fight because both of them know who is the boss.
"had initially thought the presence of meat would provoke bloodlust, believing the response would have helped our primate ancestors hunt."
That makes no sense.
Why would it be a good thing for are primitive ancestors to want to hunt when they already have caught and butchered meat lying around?
So it is just the opposite, because it would help out ancestors out to get agitated and go hunt when the food runs out.
Hunger strikes have worked when the person(s) you are trying to convince are not responsible for you.
Nutrition is for heath, and having more or less should not significantly effect weight (but is very important for overall heath).
So eating a small amount of twinkles a day will cause you to lose weight, but that does not mean you would not die of malnutrition if you continued to only eat junk food for a long time (no matter how much of it you were eating).
I am pretty sure most countries in the developed world do not allow discrimination on the basis of weight.
I did not find the school chars very uncomfortable but they did not really fit. The only problem I had with size was with the bus seats, so little leg room, it was actually painful.
Because if I add my boss to Facebook and then call him names and say how I hate my job on my wall (something that he has to see if he used Facebook regularly) then he did something wrong?