In Alaska, it's legal to do that. Pot is legal, there are no state taxes, they pay you to live here, and the scenery is fantastic...it's almost enough to make up for having to live here.
Biden, yes yes. Credit corporations are somewhat distinct from the banking cartel, but we're niggling. Overall the parent was correct: both parties are paid rather handsomely by corporate interests, with a small variance in which parties receive money from which corporations.
Responding to someone's comment about how it is pointless to point fingers by singling out someone for blame is disingenuous. One might even say despicable. Clearly a surplus of facts is not equivalent to wisdom.
Somewhat OT, but where did this definition of statism originate? I'm used to seeing statism contrasted with federalism, in (e.g.) discussions of the US constitution.
This alternate use seems to be of somewhat more recent manufacture. Reading the wikipedia article, I get the sense that it's much less of a coherent idea than a tool to lump Bad Things together and ascribe them to one's opponents. I would appreciate anyone able to provide more information on the subject.
The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to.
Only under the loosest of terms. But there are no "mysteries" of Creationism, at least not ones that are intended to be knowable by Man. God created the world in six days (according to one version of events). We don't care how and have only a passing interest in why.
The "advanced levels of things" in science terms is more like "Why is the weak nuclear force so strong compared to gravity?" What the hell happened during nucleosynthesis?
Creationism isn't a search for answers. It is an answer. It fails the test of Occam's razor: it does not adequately explain the observations, and it postulates unnecessary entities. Call it what you like, but it is not science.
3. Most filesystems do equivalent things already by delaying and aggregating writes.
From the OS's point of view the write completes as soon as the data is in cache RAM, which is almost instantly.
As stated, this is a Bad Thing. Most of the time, it is acceptable, but the filesystem (which is what you meant) does occasionally need to be able to force data to be written to disk immediately.
What do they say on Everything2? "Your revolutionary ideas on the future of storage have already occurred to others." Depending on your specific needs, you should:
1) use a ramdisk 2) use a RAID array 3) put the extra RAM to use as general system memory 4) use a file system with a long write delay 5) use a UPS 6) any combination of the above
Also, not using Windows is going to directly affect i/o performance as well as make it simpler to implement the above.
It sounds scary, but I cannot for a moment believe that this could happen. I hate to drag in the old saw, but "the internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it."
I also can't imagine that the rest of the world would appreciate that sort of thing. There'd be international pressure against it. And as I recall, the.xxx TLD issue was pretty close--ICANN really has no motivation to do anything like this, and it would be a move totally at odds with their history (and the principles of the internet in general).
So we're giving time to some nutjob who hasn't got a prayer, and providing something for slashdotters to rant about...par for the course I guess.
I use GIMP on an Eee. I'd rather not have the toolbox always visible. However, if you want that, you have options. Virtual desktops, or making the dialog box 'always on top'...it's a workable situation. It's also a problem for the window manager, not the application. It is a design feature that you can set up the program to display the toolbox or not, and it is far more sensible to use a WM to determine whether a window is showing than any other solution.
Also, since when does Photoshop always have a visible toolbox?
Device management, srsly. I have a little application for hardware drivers on my Ubuntu system. How handy! Except that it's only to manage proprietary drivers.
Bad "standard" configuration? You mean X can be configured to not take all the apps with it when it dies? How?
Others have mentioned various things, but I really like the GIMP's color picker, as seen here.
That said, I really want some equivalent to OpenCanvas on linux. Really, any sort of digital painting program. No, not some MS Paint clone, not even one with layers. GIMP plus custom brushes is workable but clunky, and the UI is terribly unsuited to the task.
He did. He lost the first game he played against the machine. People here need to read the other side of the story. It wasn't an unfair match. The rules were agreed to by both sides. Kasparov was pissy because he thought that humans had interfered with the machine during play. No one can prove that it didn't happen, but I find it highly unlikely.
"Supporting binary drivers...will actually lead to massively increased adoption of Linux."
[citation needed]
Allowing binary drivers is a terrible idea. It's the same thing with any software component. If anything goes wrong, it's up to the original developer to fix it. If they're unwilling, you're fucked.
You talk about having to update a system because of a new piece of hardware. How about the reverse situation? You upgrade your distro, or your kernel, and the driver stops working. What do you do then?
This is arguably one of the worst features of Windows. You end up being unable to upgrade a machine from (e.g.) Windows 2000 to anything else because of a lack of drivers, and so the machine either sits there and gets hacked for lack of security updates, or you junk the machine and buy new hardware.
How can you possibly look at that situation and say that linux needs to adopt the same model?
Have you used PowerShell? I've been pretty interested in it, but no longer have a windows box to test it out on. The reviews I read seemed pretty biased, but I didn't get the impression that PS was quite as capable. The unix command line is built on a world of text files and standard i/o. Clearly that's not something PS could, should, or is trying to be. Equivalent utility should be our metric, and I'd be terribly interested in any information you could provide in that regard.
Yes, knowledge of the command line is absolutely vital. I'm pretty new to linux myself, but I think I can take this question:)
1) the CLI is the only unified interface that *nix has. Windows changes things up a bit from time to time (the "ribbon" interface is a notable recent example), a lot of things have stayed very much the same. There's a start menu, generally a bunch of icons on the desktop, and you know where to find the start menu, the control panel, etc.
With linux, all you can really depend on is that the root directory exists. Probably most anything else can be changed with sufficient effort*. Certainly you're not guaranteed to have a start bar, program X that provides GUI options for configuring fstab, or even a GUI at all. The CLI interface *is* linux, in a sense. This is not so much of a problem as you'd think, because
2) The CLI is very powerful. It's probably inevitable that with computers existing for as long as they did without GUIs, that someone would have gotten something figured out about how to make that situation workable. But what does 'powerful' mean?
*nix is a programming philosophy that has been expressed in various OS forms. A full list of these principles is worth reading. One of these principles is Everything is a File, which is pretty self-explanatory. Generally speaking, everything is a human-readable text file. Second, unix programs are designed to Do one thing well, and thirdly, they are designed to communicate with each other via standard (text) mechanisms.
Aristotle said, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." and with *nix there's probably an exponential relationship. It's really easy to manipulate anything that involves text and in an OS where everything is a text file, well, things stack up pretty quickly. It's especially good for automating repetitive tasks.
The whole process is probably a lot easier than it sounds, and involves a lot of short commands connected by pipes. So perhaps you want to snag some data off of a web page. $ wget [website].
Perhaps you want only the new stuff on that site, so you use a pipe | and pass the output to the diff program, which compares two files and finds the differences. Then you could have those differences formatted by piping them to sed, and then appended to another file with cat, and then you could presumably have further programs to encode the resulting file as an mp3 and email it to you on alternate thursdays.
Everything in *nix is designed from the ground up to be used like this. And if that isn't enough pain, you can call up perl. Do note: that way lies madness, though there may be method in't.
The CLI isn't good for everything. Photoshop is one good example, others are hopefully obvious. As has been mentioned by others, man pages, tldp, linux.com, and of course google are all good resources. Breaking things can be an excellent way to learn, same with building a system from source. Hmmm...one thing you might try: homework. There are courses on *nix with homework problems online, and sometimes even solutions. It might be the next best thing to taking a course.
Hopefully that was helpful and relatively lucid for 4 am.
First, the people responsible for this belong to both parties, and you can expand your "three senators" to the majority of congress. Senators don't make laws, the Senate as a whole does. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous -- and fucking stupid, don't think that a party affiliation is going to prevent someone from being malicious, incompetent, or acting against your self interest.
Second, your stating that these people blocked legislation that could have prevented this current disaster could easily be rephrased as 'senators blocking additional government regulation of the free market.' Isn't that sort of a pillar of the neoconservative movement, belief in the free market? Probably that's only when it's convenient.
Third, you should perhaps be slightly more constructive in your criticisms. Right now you're just bitching and assigning blame. I guess it's a good old fashioned american pastime (along with killing people in foreign countries for sitting on our resources) but given how well that's been working recently, you might want to try to figure out what the answers to some of these problems are. Having done that, you might want to tell someone. If you fail to solve the issue, you might be able to start a social movement for the promulgation of critical thought.
There once was an art dealer who occasionally received pieces from the great master, Picasso. Of course, even in that day there was a great market for fake art, and Picasso had a relatively easy style to duplicate. So the dealer would take some of the paintings he was not sure about to the master and say, "Master, did you paint this?" and Picasso would say one way or another, most often that the painting was fake.
The dealer grew suspicious however, and one day he goes to Picasso with a painting. "Master, is this a fake?"
Picasso looks a long while at the painting, and says finally, "It is a fake."
"But master! I saw this painting on your easel just last week!"
There's not a lack of information about him in the crown registries.
1) There's probably more information than we know about. These registries are not the most legible things in the world, and they're not organized particularly well. Honestly they sound like about the worst thing ever to try to decipher.
2) We know a great deal about Shakespeare compared to almost any other playwright from the time.
I hesitate to recommend Bill Bryson's work on the subject. He seems to be a popular author, but I don't particularly enjoy his books. It's a decent enough summary of what is and is not known of the life of W. Shakespeare. Then again, so is Wikipedia.
Slashdot Mirror
In Alaska, it's legal to do that. Pot is legal, there are no state taxes, they pay you to live here, and the scenery is fantastic...it's almost enough to make up for having to live here.
Biden, yes yes. Credit corporations are somewhat distinct from the banking cartel, but we're niggling. Overall the parent was correct: both parties are paid rather handsomely by corporate interests, with a small variance in which parties receive money from which corporations.
Responding to someone's comment about how it is pointless to point fingers by singling out someone for blame is disingenuous. One might even say despicable. Clearly a surplus of facts is not equivalent to wisdom.
Somewhat OT, but where did this definition of statism originate? I'm used to seeing statism contrasted with federalism, in (e.g.) discussions of the US constitution.
This alternate use seems to be of somewhat more recent manufacture. Reading the wikipedia article, I get the sense that it's much less of a coherent idea than a tool to lump Bad Things together and ascribe them to one's opponents. I would appreciate anyone able to provide more information on the subject.
No, you don't. Go read the article I linked.
You don't understand Occam's Razor. Go read about it, and then read my post again.
Occam's Razor is one way to show that Creationism is not scientific. There are others.
Oh snap!
The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to.
Only under the loosest of terms. But there are no "mysteries" of Creationism, at least not ones that are intended to be knowable by Man. God created the world in six days (according to one version of events). We don't care how and have only a passing interest in why.
The "advanced levels of things" in science terms is more like "Why is the weak nuclear force so strong compared to gravity?" What the hell happened during nucleosynthesis?
Creationism isn't a search for answers. It is an answer. It fails the test of Occam's razor: it does not adequately explain the observations, and it postulates unnecessary entities. Call it what you like, but it is not science.
1. Hard Drives do this already.
2. Some of the SSDs in question do this already. [TFA]
3. Most filesystems do equivalent things already by delaying and aggregating writes.
From the OS's point of view the write completes as soon as the data is in cache RAM, which is almost instantly.
As stated, this is a Bad Thing. Most of the time, it is acceptable, but the filesystem (which is what you meant) does occasionally need to be able to force data to be written to disk immediately.
What do they say on Everything2? "Your revolutionary ideas on the future of storage have already occurred to others." Depending on your specific needs, you should:
1) use a ramdisk
2) use a RAID array
3) put the extra RAM to use as general system memory
4) use a file system with a long write delay
5) use a UPS
6) any combination of the above
Also, not using Windows is going to directly affect i/o performance as well as make it simpler to implement the above.
It sounds scary, but I cannot for a moment believe that this could happen. I hate to drag in the old saw, but "the internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it."
I also can't imagine that the rest of the world would appreciate that sort of thing. There'd be international pressure against it. And as I recall, the .xxx TLD issue was pretty close--ICANN really has no motivation to do anything like this, and it would be a move totally at odds with their history (and the principles of the internet in general).
So we're giving time to some nutjob who hasn't got a prayer, and providing something for slashdotters to rant about...par for the course I guess.
No, that's not actually true any more.
Check this out.
I use GIMP on an Eee. I'd rather not have the toolbox always visible. However, if you want that, you have options. Virtual desktops, or making the dialog box 'always on top'...it's a workable situation. It's also a problem for the window manager, not the application. It is a design feature that you can set up the program to display the toolbox or not, and it is far more sensible to use a WM to determine whether a window is showing than any other solution.
Also, since when does Photoshop always have a visible toolbox?
Device management, srsly. I have a little application for hardware drivers on my Ubuntu system. How handy! Except that it's only to manage proprietary drivers.
Bad "standard" configuration? You mean X can be configured to not take all the apps with it when it dies? How?
Others have mentioned various things, but I really like the GIMP's color picker, as seen here.
That said, I really want some equivalent to OpenCanvas on linux. Really, any sort of digital painting program. No, not some MS Paint clone, not even one with layers. GIMP plus custom brushes is workable but clunky, and the UI is terribly unsuited to the task.
He did. He lost the first game he played against the machine. People here need to read the other side of the story. It wasn't an unfair match. The rules were agreed to by both sides. Kasparov was pissy because he thought that humans had interfered with the machine during play. No one can prove that it didn't happen, but I find it highly unlikely.
"Supporting binary drivers...will actually lead to massively increased adoption of Linux."
[citation needed]
Allowing binary drivers is a terrible idea. It's the same thing with any software component. If anything goes wrong, it's up to the original developer to fix it. If they're unwilling, you're fucked.
You talk about having to update a system because of a new piece of hardware. How about the reverse situation? You upgrade your distro, or your kernel, and the driver stops working. What do you do then?
This is arguably one of the worst features of Windows. You end up being unable to upgrade a machine from (e.g.) Windows 2000 to anything else because of a lack of drivers, and so the machine either sits there and gets hacked for lack of security updates, or you junk the machine and buy new hardware.
How can you possibly look at that situation and say that linux needs to adopt the same model?
Have you used PowerShell? I've been pretty interested in it, but no longer have a windows box to test it out on. The reviews I read seemed pretty biased, but I didn't get the impression that PS was quite as capable. The unix command line is built on a world of text files and standard i/o. Clearly that's not something PS could, should, or is trying to be. Equivalent utility should be our metric, and I'd be terribly interested in any information you could provide in that regard.
Yes, knowledge of the command line is absolutely vital. I'm pretty new to linux myself, but I think I can take this question :)
1) the CLI is the only unified interface that *nix has. Windows changes things up a bit from time to time (the "ribbon" interface is a notable recent example), a lot of things have stayed very much the same. There's a start menu, generally a bunch of icons on the desktop, and you know where to find the start menu, the control panel, etc.
With linux, all you can really depend on is that the root directory exists. Probably most anything else can be changed with sufficient effort*. Certainly you're not guaranteed to have a start bar, program X that provides GUI options for configuring fstab, or even a GUI at all. The CLI interface *is* linux, in a sense. This is not so much of a problem as you'd think, because
2) The CLI is very powerful. It's probably inevitable that with computers existing for as long as they did without GUIs, that someone would have gotten something figured out about how to make that situation workable. But what does 'powerful' mean?
*nix is a programming philosophy that has been expressed in various OS forms. A full list of these principles is worth reading. One of these principles is Everything is a File, which is pretty self-explanatory. Generally speaking, everything is a human-readable text file. Second, unix programs are designed to Do one thing well, and thirdly, they are designed to communicate with each other via standard (text) mechanisms.
Aristotle said, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." and with *nix there's probably an exponential relationship. It's really easy to manipulate anything that involves text and in an OS where everything is a text file, well, things stack up pretty quickly. It's especially good for automating repetitive tasks.
The whole process is probably a lot easier than it sounds, and involves a lot of short commands connected by pipes. So perhaps you want to snag some data off of a web page.
$ wget [website].
Perhaps you want only the new stuff on that site, so you use a pipe | and pass the output to the diff program, which compares two files and finds the differences. Then you could have those differences formatted by piping them to sed, and then appended to another file with cat, and then you could presumably have further programs to encode the resulting file as an mp3 and email it to you on alternate thursdays.
Everything in *nix is designed from the ground up to be used like this. And if that isn't enough pain, you can call up perl. Do note: that way lies madness, though there may be method in't.
The CLI isn't good for everything. Photoshop is one good example, others are hopefully obvious. As has been mentioned by others, man pages, tldp, linux.com, and of course google are all good resources. Breaking things can be an excellent way to learn, same with building a system from source. Hmmm...one thing you might try: homework. There are courses on *nix with homework problems online, and sometimes even solutions. It might be the next best thing to taking a course.
Hopefully that was helpful and relatively lucid for 4 am.
I'm not sure what screwed up my hyperlink, but I was referring to this site
Maybe I forgot the closing tag or something.
Spin, spin, spin.
First, the people responsible for this belong to both parties, and you can expand your "three senators" to the majority of congress. Senators don't make laws, the Senate as a whole does. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous -- and fucking stupid, don't think that a party affiliation is going to prevent someone from being malicious, incompetent, or acting against your self interest.
Second, your stating that these people blocked legislation that could have prevented this current disaster could easily be rephrased as 'senators blocking additional government regulation of the free market.' Isn't that sort of a pillar of the neoconservative movement, belief in the free market? Probably that's only when it's convenient.
Third, you should perhaps be slightly more constructive in your criticisms. Right now you're just bitching and assigning blame. I guess it's a good old fashioned american pastime (along with killing people in foreign countries for sitting on our resources) but given how well that's been working recently, you might want to try to figure out what the answers to some of these problems are. Having done that, you might want to tell someone. If you fail to solve the issue, you might be able to start a social movement for the promulgation of critical thought.
Oh, sorry. I forgot, this is /.
Carry on.
I like it better when the customer is not always right.
Allow me to share a well-worn anecdote.
There once was an art dealer who occasionally received pieces from the great master, Picasso. Of course, even in that day there was a great market for fake art, and Picasso had a relatively easy style to duplicate. So the dealer would take some of the paintings he was not sure about to the master and say, "Master, did you paint this?" and Picasso would say one way or another, most often that the painting was fake.
The dealer grew suspicious however, and one day he goes to Picasso with a painting. "Master, is this a fake?"
Picasso looks a long while at the painting, and says finally, "It is a fake."
"But master! I saw this painting on your easel just last week!"
"Oh yes. I paint many fakes."
There's not a lack of information about him in the crown registries.
1) There's probably more information than we know about. These registries are not the most legible things in the world, and they're not organized particularly well. Honestly they sound like about the worst thing ever to try to decipher.
2) We know a great deal about Shakespeare compared to almost any other playwright from the time.
I hesitate to recommend Bill Bryson's work on the subject. He seems to be a popular author, but I don't particularly enjoy his books. It's a decent enough summary of what is and is not known of the life of W. Shakespeare. Then again, so is Wikipedia.
We'd call the result Alaska, except it's the wrong color. Must have been a mixup at the dye factory or something.
Someone better fix it, quick, or Palin's head will continue to expand until she really can see Russia from her house.
If we can find the truth, that will be enough.
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,-that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
Thanks, that was good for a laugh.
Serious discussions of the luminiferous aether await any who click through that link.