So your complaint is that they don't force you not to cheat? The real reason that they don't have damage is because of game play reasons. It's simply not fun to race an endurance race for 2 hours and on the last lap total your car.
If you want the game to behave realistically drive realistically. Don't go slamming into corners and other cars. There's no one forcing you to go into that corner at 120mph.
While you're right about the fact that each cell only female cells only have one active X chromosome, you are incorrect about the nature of the clone.
Each cell has the complete set of DNA. In theory there's nothing stopping the new cat from from having the exact same pattern as the old cat. However, since the pattern has to do with the positioning of the cells and the inactivated X chromosome is random, the probability is very small.
For an excellent discussion of this topic check out this link.
GCC is not threaded (nor am I aware of any threaded compilers, but I'm sure some one will bring one up just to prove me wrong).
However, make files have supported concurrent build steps for quite a while. Try make -j4 on your linux kernel compile to "jump" ahead and build up to four files at once.
Of course your kernel is going to perform worse on an SMP box. Performance you're still limited to the speed of 1 CPU for any 1 call, with additional SMP overhead. The fact that most of the calls don't suffer is reason enough to praise the kernel.
The whole point of parallel processing is provide more processor power for parallel tasks. Try running two (or one threaded client) distrubuted.net clients with hyper threading. That'd be an intresting benchmark. You've got to actually make the processor work to see the difference.
Here's something you probably haven't read: The Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The framers of the constitution originally didn't believe it necessary to define these rights because they had established such a limited government. However, some of the states wanted some basic rights to be enumerated.
The preamble doesn't say that these amendments are granting additional rights, in fact that's contrary to the entire idea of the Constitution. The Constitution is a list of the powers of the government and the restrictions placed on it.
I'd also direct your attention to Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Once again this shows that rights aren't granted by the Government. By default you have your rights, and the Constitution just enumerates a few.
Now your right, the Government can take suppress your rights through legislation and force, but that doesn't mean that you don't have those rights.
I mean seriously, do you think that slaves didn't have the right to free speech just because the government suppressed it? Do you think they magically became humans after the Emancipation Proclamation?
There's nothing sacred about the current government. The only way things change is through the people.
Consider this: During the early 20th century there was a group of people that wanted to change the government. They were not being represented, and they felt that they should demostrate, march, and otherwise coerce the government into changing fundamentally.
Of course these people were women. They couldn't vote, and had to resort to other tactics to get their voices heard. Should these women have been deported, or killed (which is the penalty for treason)?
Who defines what anti-American is? If it's you then you've got no problems, but what if it's someone who disagrees with your position?
And so what, what if you hate the way this country is run? What if with every fiber of your being you wish to see the current government brought down? Does that mean you need to be imprisoned? NO!!
As long as you play by the rules you can hate our government, hate our policies, and still not be anti-American. There are still communists in this country. I see the Communist Party convention on CSPAN every year. These people would like to "subvert" and completely change our government. However they don't resort to violence and terror because our country has a system that allows dissenting voices to organize and be heard. What you're suggesting is to silence the dissenting voice. That is the exact opposite of the principals that this country was founded on.
Please take off your blinders and realize that the world can't only be filled with people who have your exact set of ideals. It's the diversity that makes it fun, and supression of those different from you only leads to violence and death.
If you are so worried about people knowing your entertainment habits, then maybe you are watching some stuff that you shouldn't be watching...
YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
I hate to come out flaming, but you understand that is one of the stupidest statements a person can make, and it seems to be getting more popular.
Don't you understand that people do things in the privacy of their own home that the government or businesses need not know about. People have the right to enjoy whatever entertainment they want without having to worry about the social stigmas it might place upon them.
What limits do we place upon companies who sneak a peek at your CD tray? What happens when the data collected become secretly subpoenaed by the FBI*? Do we want people to go into internment camps for listening to anti-American music?
Hell, whatever happened to common decency? Would you mind me inventorying your house surreptitiously? Don't think there's anything that I shouldn't?
*I implore you to read this link. The FBI can already issue search warrants to for libraries to turn over your reading list, and the library is prohibited by law from telling you this happened. Again, this isn't some Orwellian gloom and doom future. This is our law.
I was listening to this the other day, and for a while I couldn't tell if it was a real person or not. Once you realize it's fake, you start to hear a lot more of the mistakes, but it's way more realistic than anything else I've heard.
Linux doesn't compete against other operating systems? Damn, someone's going to have to tell Microsoft and Sun about that. They seem to be under a different impression.
Also, you and the FSF seem to be in a disagreement about the commercial nature of free software. Check out this page. (Scroll down to the paragraph that starts: "Free software" does not mean "non-commercial")
Sorry, I wanted to address this earlier, but in wanting cover the IP issues first, I forgot, but BlueGecko is wrong. First of all, Apple never sued any theme developers. What they did, however is send a cease and desist letter to all of the theme markers who used Apple trademarks. I hope you can at least understand that trademarks are a form of consumer protection, and that allowing people to clone established company's marks is confusing and hurtful to the consumer.
You want a world where one person discovers something useful, and then no one else can use that something without paying them.
Um, yeah that's exactly what I'm saying, and that's also what the Constitution says in Article 1 Section 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Now I agree that the most important clause of that section is "for a limited time". I don't think people should have an unlimited monopoly, but in order to encourage people to develop things we have the let them profit off from them.
The end goal is to either eliminate intellectual property all-together, or vastly reduce its duration and scope.
Is that the goal of the FSF? I hardly think so. Again if you can back that up with a link, I'd love it. If that really were the goal, then you'd think they'd be opposed to copyrighting their work, but if you look at the bottom every single page on gnu.org, guess what you'll see? Yep, a copyright notice
As far as who came up with the dock first, that's a nice screen shot of twm, but it's obviously a modern one (Netscape, Realplayer in what I'm guessing is the dock). Looks like NeXTStep and twm came out about the same time. NextStep 1.0 was released in 1986, with early releases as far back as 1989. TWM came with X11R1, and assuming the dock was a part of that it'd place it at about September 1987. So neither predates the other, but I did find an interesting usenet post from 1990 about how to configure your twm to look like NeXTStep. It atleast shows that the NeXTStep dock was significantly different/advanced from than whatever was included at the time in twm.
If you can back up the claim that NeXT didn't invent the dock (that is that there's a OS with docks before NeXT), then I'd love to see it.
I love that you bring up cars, because EVERYTHING on a car was patented. You know why the Taurus didn't have rounded headlights the very next year after Porsches? Because those lights are patented, and Ford would either have to develop their own unique design, license the Porsche design, or wait for the patent to expire.
This is not a bad thing. This is also what you fail to address from my first post: What is the motivation for developing new technology if your competitors can immediately take what you've produced and sell it at a lower cost since they did not have to fund the R&D?
Just think of it this way, what if some open-source GUI guru came up with a wonderful new way to do things, something that would revolutionize the desktop and bring Linux to the forefront? Then Microsoft saw the idea and incorporated it into the next version of Windows totally negating any advantage Linux might have, and at the same protecting their position as the market leader. Assuming it was GPL'd you'd claim that they were in violation of the license.
Well, the street goes both ways. By ripping off the Mac GUI you're in violation of their license. In another post you seem to understand this. Just like you can't use even a small bit of GPL'd code and not GPL your program, and you can't take Apple's work without their permission. Remember the only thing that makes the GPL work is the existence of copyright law.
If you believe that closed source is bad, I can respect that. However, that does not give you license to steal from the people who develop closed source software.
On a completely different subject, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but you might want to think about your attitude. Maybe you just like being an ass to people, but you're not going to change anyone's mind by starting of your posts with "Your full of shit" or generally insulting people. You just going to alienate and galvanize people's attitudes against your position simple due to the fact that you're abrasive. If your goal is actually to convince people of your point, you might try using more tact in your posts.
Actually the dock was ripped off some NextStep which Apple now owns.
Intellectual property is not the ultimate evil. You don't have a right to rip off someone's copyrighted works. Now if you want to bitch and moan about the length of copyrights, or the over eagerness of big business to strip away fair use, then I'll support you.
Apple makes lots of things that make computers better. If they couldn't profit off their investment then they probably wouldn't bother. If you want to use a Mac interface, then you need to buy a Mac. Just don't steal their ideas.
I'd disagree. Look at blacksmithing. Modern technology made that job market disappear, but those who still practice the trade probably make more than their predecessors, because it's a much more highly competetive field.
I'm sure there's going to be a handful of these "top name reference actors". They'll be the cream of the crop and make a decent amount of money. Now, if they'll be known by the audience or not, and have the fame associated with top name actors today is another question.
It's not a supply and demand issue. It's an issue of skill. Just like everyone wants to be a (movie|rock|sports) star, doesn't make these low paying positions.
Re:The original poster is not a troll, here's why.
on
IBM's Deep View
·
· Score: 1
Let me know when you can get quake 3 to run at that resolution across the monitors.
Fuel cells are not a power source, hydrogen is the power source. Just like you can Ford, GM, Honda, etc. internal combustion engines off of the same gasoline, you'll be able to do the same with fuel cells.
Slashdot Mirror
My Creative Jukebox III supports VBR
So your complaint is that they don't force you not to cheat? The real reason that they don't have damage is because of game play reasons. It's simply not fun to race an endurance race for 2 hours and on the last lap total your car.
If you want the game to behave realistically drive realistically. Don't go slamming into corners and other cars. There's no one forcing you to go into that corner at 120mph.
Baud rates have little to do with digital communications. Even with modems (above 1200 baud) they are not an indictation of throughput.
So you see why the poster says that Medieval Total War taught him more about 14th century world history than his "history classes".
There's more to the world than America and Europe.
While you're right about the fact that each cell only female cells only have one active X chromosome, you are incorrect about the nature of the clone.
Each cell has the complete set of DNA. In theory there's nothing stopping the new cat from from having the exact same pattern as the old cat. However, since the pattern has to do with the positioning of the cells and the inactivated X chromosome is random, the probability is very small.
For an excellent discussion of this topic check out this link.
GCC is not threaded (nor am I aware of any threaded compilers, but I'm sure some one will bring one up just to prove me wrong).
However, make files have supported concurrent build steps for quite a while. Try make -j4 on your linux kernel compile to "jump" ahead and build up to four files at once.
Of course your kernel is going to perform worse on an SMP box. Performance you're still limited to the speed of 1 CPU for any 1 call, with additional SMP overhead. The fact that most of the calls don't suffer is reason enough to praise the kernel.
The whole point of parallel processing is provide more processor power for parallel tasks. Try running two (or one threaded client) distrubuted.net clients with hyper threading. That'd be an intresting benchmark. You've got to actually make the processor work to see the difference.
Damnit, here's the link to the preamble.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Here's something you probably haven't read: The Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The framers of the constitution originally didn't believe it necessary to define these rights because they had established such a limited government. However, some of the states wanted some basic rights to be enumerated.
The preamble doesn't say that these amendments are granting additional rights, in fact that's contrary to the entire idea of the Constitution. The Constitution is a list of the powers of the government and the restrictions placed on it.
I'd also direct your attention to Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Once again this shows that rights aren't granted by the Government. By default you have your rights, and the Constitution just enumerates a few.
Now your right, the Government can take suppress your rights through legislation and force, but that doesn't mean that you don't have those rights.
I mean seriously, do you think that slaves didn't have the right to free speech just because the government suppressed it? Do you think they magically became humans after the Emancipation Proclamation?
There's nothing sacred about the current government. The only way things change is through the people.
Consider this: During the early 20th century there was a group of people that wanted to change the government. They were not being represented, and they felt that they should demostrate, march, and otherwise coerce the government into changing fundamentally.
Of course these people were women. They couldn't vote, and had to resort to other tactics to get their voices heard. Should these women have been deported, or killed (which is the penalty for treason)?
Sigh . . .
Who defines what anti-American is? If it's you then you've got no problems, but what if it's someone who disagrees with your position?
And so what, what if you hate the way this country is run? What if with every fiber of your being you wish to see the current government brought down? Does that mean you need to be imprisoned? NO!!
As long as you play by the rules you can hate our government, hate our policies, and still not be anti-American. There are still communists in this country. I see the Communist Party convention on CSPAN every year. These people would like to "subvert" and completely change our government. However they don't resort to violence and terror because our country has a system that allows dissenting voices to organize and be heard. What you're suggesting is to silence the dissenting voice. That is the exact opposite of the principals that this country was founded on.
Please take off your blinders and realize that the world can't only be filled with people who have your exact set of ideals. It's the diversity that makes it fun, and supression of those different from you only leads to violence and death.
If you are so worried about people knowing your entertainment habits, then maybe you are watching some stuff that you shouldn't be watching...
YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
I hate to come out flaming, but you understand that is one of the stupidest statements a person can make, and it seems to be getting more popular.
Don't you understand that people do things in the privacy of their own home that the government or businesses need not know about. People have the right to enjoy whatever entertainment they want without having to worry about the social stigmas it might place upon them.
What limits do we place upon companies who sneak a peek at your CD tray? What happens when the data collected become secretly subpoenaed by the FBI*? Do we want people to go into internment camps for listening to anti-American music?
Hell, whatever happened to common decency? Would you mind me inventorying your house surreptitiously? Don't think there's anything that I shouldn't?
*I implore you to read this link. The FBI can already issue search warrants to for libraries to turn over your reading list, and the library is prohibited by law from telling you this happened. Again, this isn't some Orwellian gloom and doom future. This is our law.
The next person that says, "methinks" gets a foot in the ass!
I was listening to this the other day, and for a while I couldn't tell if it was a real person or not. Once you realize it's fake, you start to hear a lot more of the mistakes, but it's way more realistic than anything else I've heard.
Aphex Twin?
(Way off topic, but . . .)
Straight lines, eh?
oops that's I Am The Owl is wrong not BlueGecko
Linux doesn't compete against other operating systems? Damn, someone's going to have to tell Microsoft and Sun about that. They seem to be under a different impression.
Also, you and the FSF seem to be in a disagreement about the commercial nature of free software. Check out this page. (Scroll down to the paragraph that starts: "Free software" does not mean "non-commercial")
Sorry, I wanted to address this earlier, but in wanting cover the IP issues first, I forgot, but BlueGecko is wrong. First of all, Apple never sued any theme developers. What they did, however is send a cease and desist letter to all of the theme markers who used Apple trademarks. I hope you can at least understand that trademarks are a form of consumer protection, and that allowing people to clone established company's marks is confusing and hurtful to the consumer.
You want a world where one person discovers something useful, and then no one else can use that something without paying them.
Um, yeah that's exactly what I'm saying, and that's also what the Constitution says in Article 1 Section 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Now I agree that the most important clause of that section is "for a limited time". I don't think people should have an unlimited monopoly, but in order to encourage people to develop things we have the let them profit off from them.
The end goal is to either eliminate intellectual property all-together, or vastly reduce its duration and scope.
Is that the goal of the FSF? I hardly think so. Again if you can back that up with a link, I'd love it. If that really were the goal, then you'd think they'd be opposed to copyrighting their work, but if you look at the bottom every single page on gnu.org, guess what you'll see? Yep, a copyright notice
As far as who came up with the dock first, that's a nice screen shot of twm, but it's obviously a modern one (Netscape, Realplayer in what I'm guessing is the dock). Looks like NeXTStep and twm came out about the same time. NextStep 1.0 was released in 1986, with early releases as far back as 1989. TWM came with X11R1, and assuming the dock was a part of that it'd place it at about September 1987. So neither predates the other, but I did find an interesting usenet post from 1990 about how to configure your twm to look like NeXTStep. It atleast shows that the NeXTStep dock was significantly different/advanced from than whatever was included at the time in twm.
If you can back up the claim that NeXT didn't invent the dock (that is that there's a OS with docks before NeXT), then I'd love to see it.
I love that you bring up cars, because EVERYTHING on a car was patented. You know why the Taurus didn't have rounded headlights the very next year after Porsches? Because those lights are patented, and Ford would either have to develop their own unique design, license the Porsche design, or wait for the patent to expire.
This is not a bad thing. This is also what you fail to address from my first post: What is the motivation for developing new technology if your competitors can immediately take what you've produced and sell it at a lower cost since they did not have to fund the R&D?
Just think of it this way, what if some open-source GUI guru came up with a wonderful new way to do things, something that would revolutionize the desktop and bring Linux to the forefront? Then Microsoft saw the idea and incorporated it into the next version of Windows totally negating any advantage Linux might have, and at the same protecting their position as the market leader. Assuming it was GPL'd you'd claim that they were in violation of the license.
Well, the street goes both ways. By ripping off the Mac GUI you're in violation of their license. In another post you seem to understand this. Just like you can't use even a small bit of GPL'd code and not GPL your program, and you can't take Apple's work without their permission. Remember the only thing that makes the GPL work is the existence of copyright law.
If you believe that closed source is bad, I can respect that. However, that does not give you license to steal from the people who develop closed source software.
On a completely different subject, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but you might want to think about your attitude. Maybe you just like being an ass to people, but you're not going to change anyone's mind by starting of your posts with "Your full of shit" or generally insulting people. You just going to alienate and galvanize people's attitudes against your position simple due to the fact that you're abrasive. If your goal is actually to convince people of your point, you might try using more tact in your posts.
Actually the dock was ripped off some NextStep which Apple now owns.
Intellectual property is not the ultimate evil. You don't have a right to rip off someone's copyrighted works. Now if you want to bitch and moan about the length of copyrights, or the over eagerness of big business to strip away fair use, then I'll support you.
Apple makes lots of things that make computers better. If they couldn't profit off their investment then they probably wouldn't bother. If you want to use a Mac interface, then you need to buy a Mac. Just don't steal their ideas.
I'd disagree. Look at blacksmithing. Modern technology made that job market disappear, but those who still practice the trade probably make more than their predecessors, because it's a much more highly competetive field.
I'm sure there's going to be a handful of these "top name reference actors". They'll be the cream of the crop and make a decent amount of money. Now, if they'll be known by the audience or not, and have the fame associated with top name actors today is another question.
It's not a supply and demand issue. It's an issue of skill. Just like everyone wants to be a (movie|rock|sports) star, doesn't make these low paying positions.
Let me know when you can get quake 3 to run at that resolution across the monitors.
Just like we never mastered flying, I mean if Leonardo Da Vinci couldn't get his flying machine off the ground no one will!
Fuel cells are not a power source, hydrogen is the power source. Just like you can Ford, GM, Honda, etc. internal combustion engines off of the same gasoline, you'll be able to do the same with fuel cells.