Have you? Did you find anything interesting there?
You see, I have posted the same thing before in Slashdot. There is no child pornography in the internet. None. Zilch. Nothing.
And then people say, "Oh, there is usenet!!!", "You have never seen Freenet!!", "There's Gumbonet!!!"
The simple answer is "No there is NO such thing as child pornography on the internet!!!". If you say otherwise, you are guilty of one of two things: either you are a consumer of child pornography and have never reported your secret cache to the authorities, or you are spreading FUD from hearsay.
After all, the initial singularity from which the universe sprung had to come from somewhere
This argument about the beginning is like saying the number zero must exist because natural numbers must start somewhere. Okay, so there must be some driving principle that made the universe exist. I guess most scientists of any branch of science would believe in this.
Where Christians have gone wrong is in assuming that this driving principle must necessarily be anthropomorphic. It's not god who created man in his image and likeness, it's the opposite, man created god in his image and likeness.
To pray for assistance from god, the creator of the universe, is like praying for assistance from the number zero. Being the origin of everything does not mean being infinitely powerful, infinitely wise, and infinitely good.
We tried streaming and working with those filthy nasty people pirating our shows
And before that we tried ad-based radio and television, and see how it worked out! There's no way the music industry can grow if anyone can listen to music broadcast on the radio bands without paying. How will the artists live?
"catch child pornographers" AKA, pour apprendre ce qui piratent les filmes et musiques par internet....
I have been surfing the web since 1993 and have yet to see one single picture of a child engaged in sex. I see pornographic pictures everywhere in the internet, it's "rule 34", but not a single one of these pictures has a child in it.
However, inexistence of proof is not proof of not existence. If you start from the assumption that child pornography does exist somewhere, then you must create very powerful search tools to find it.
And a very powerful tool is too tempting to be left alone, if it does not accomplish its primary task there might be other uses for it...
System Availability: 99.9270%
Total Uptime: 321d 11h:16m:42s
Total Downtime: 0d 5h:38m:22s
Total Reboots: 11
Mean Time Between Reboots: 29.25 days
Total Bluescreens: 0
Oh, yeah? Compare it to this:
$ uptime
09:46:06 up 913 days, 17:34, 6 users, load average: 0.17, 0.15, 0.07 $ uname -a Linux stoeng01 2.6.20-16-generic #2 SMP Thu Jun 7 19:00:28 UTC 2007 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Of course, this is a server that has a redundant UPS with a diesel generator. My personal computers I turn off whenever I'm not using them, it saves power and reduces my "carbon footprint".
Those 5 hours? Most of them were spent when I added more RAM, but had either a bad module or a bad slot, so I took that long to finally give up and disable 4 modules from BIOS, leaving 3GB (instead of 5GB what I wanted and 1GB of what was before).
Perhaps you should have googled it before wasting your time. Or blaming the hardware, which is what most MS-Windows users do when they get stumped by their OS limitations.
In the old days people would say "no one was ever fired for buying an IBM system". Well, there's at least one chief executive of a major corporation that has been fired for buying a.NET system.
The problem is that an advanced technology does not contain information to infer the intermediate stages.
Take semiconductors, for instance. The first transistor was patented in 1947, by coincidence the year of the alleged UFO crash in New Mexico. Some conspiracy theorists have used this coincidence to claim that semiconductors were reverse engineered from alien technology. But there is a catch.
There is absolutely nothing in a modern semiconductor that could have been used to accelerate the development of the transistor in 1947. Not even the raw material of the chip would be of any use, the first transistors were made of germanium which is not used anymore. The first transistor was built by adding a second contact to a point-contact diode, which had been known for decades. An example of a point-contact diode is the galena detector that has been used in crystal radios for a hundred years now.
From point-contact transistors technology evolved to junction transistors and integrated circuits. There's a step-by-step record of this development that would be much different if it consited of reverse engineering of an advanced technology. A simple look at the first transistor is enough to see that it derives from the crystal detectors that had been used for several decades by 1947.
If you look at the advancement of human technology from the 1950's to today, you could make a very good argument that many technologies currently in use were influenced from alien technology. They may have been reverse engineered, or supplied directly.
I think the rate of advancement in our technology is what proves it's not alien in origin. Or would you say the aliens are feeding us information bit by bit, to let us advance in small steps?
Suppose you were a trader in the South Pacific in the 1920s and you came to an island where people were still in the stone age. Would you trade steel knives for their gold nuggets? Or would you have some more primitive bronze knives and axes specially made because jumping from the stone age to steel tools would be too big a step for them?
Come on, if we were building aircraft on alien designs, wouldn't we have an advanced space program by now, and our flagship spacecraft wouldn't be a 40 year old design, easily compromised by styrofoam or a leaky o-ring??
And if we reverse engineered our spacecraft from the Roswell crash wouldn't they be much more advanced from the start? The V2 rocket designed in the 1940s was able to fly from Belgium and France to England. If humans had suddenly had access to a much more advanced technology in 1947 then shouldn't we have been able to go to the moon and Mars by 1950?
they do sometimes fly them w/certain parts not coated yet ("painted" is probably a gross over-simplification) which can be sea-foam green or school bus yellow (yes, I'm serious) so I guess they could be made out of whatever they recovered at Roswell...;-)
Those parts are probably aluminum that has been anodized with chromium oxides, the result is a sort of greenish yellow color. If you look at photos taken in aircraft factories you'll see many parts colored like that.
What more evidence does one need that.Net is crap?
Anecdotes aren't evidence, but their weight increases with decreasing distance. If your anecdote were about camel traders in some Central Asia mountains I would never give it a second thought.
Computer programming, OTOH, is closer to home, it's not just *one* bad program in C# that crashes, it's everyone who works with computers that has come across one badly written.NET system after another.
There must be something wrong about the whole.NET architecture, maybe it's not the system itself, maybe it's because it attracts too many people who do not have what it takes to become a great programmer, but the proportion of.NET systems that are buggy seems to be much greater than in other platforms.
Why would someone keep this private and/or secret for so long?
Would you admit publicly that you spent your money on the losing format in the video war? It would have been bad enough if it were a VCR, but no, it was a camcorder, which cost much more.
Maximizing an app causes it to completely fill the leftmost monitor that it currently occupies, NOT the entire multi-monitor desktop.
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but what I meant is that the fact that the display might size oddly if the monitors aren't the same resolution does not depend on the OS.
With the one large desktop when you maximize a window it fills both monitors and things might size oddly if your monitors aren't the same size/resolution
That's true and it does not depend on which operating system you're using.
In Windows 7 multiple monitors were made extremely easy to setup
It was extremely easy to setup in Linux long before Windows 7 came out.
Windows multiple monitors also supports having separate monitors where you can maximize a window on a single display, but you can move windows between the monitors or even span multiple monitors. Is this setup possible to do under Linux?
Of course. In Linux, or at least in KDE, there are several other easy ways to handle window resizing. If you mid-click in the maximize button the window is maximized vertically but it keeps the original horizontal size. Conversely, if you right-click in the maximize button the window is maximized horizontally and keeps the vertical size. Want to fine-tune the window size? Press the ALT key and the right mouse button simultaneously, the cursor will grab the *nearest* window border, no need to hit the *exact* pixels of the border.
Finally how do you have putty run an x session? You can use it to do an ssh tunnel, but you'll need something else to handle connection to the xserver.
If you say so. All I know is that it's trivial in Linux, but I always hear people complaining they must install Cygwin and puTTY and I don't know what else to run Xwindow in Windows.
You get to fight over the minimum education a person needs to live in the world.
Sending your children to school does not keep you from presenting your own point of view to them. But it lets them to know other people's points of view. Is that why you are afraid?
Here's a simple car analogy: a Linux user asking for tips on advanced uses of virtual desktops is like an off-road rally racer asking for tips on configuring the differentials on a 4x4. Your answer is "use a Ford Taurus".
Windows 7's easy dual-monitor setup has me addicted now!
So, Mr. Ballmer, would you please elucidate us on which is better, to have one big desktop where changing workspaces switches both monitors at once, or having one X session for each display?
I'm curious to know your opinion, since both alternatives have their own advantages and disadvantages and, since configuring Linux for dual monitors is so easy, using any of those two alternatives presents no problems.
BTW, I'm curious by what you say about how easy it is to set up Windows 7. Installing putty to run an X session on *any* older version of Windows is a royal PITA, so if, as you say, Windows 7 now supports Xwindow natively, then I'm really interested in Windows 7!
Slashdot Mirror
No matter how much battery capacity you have, it will eventually run out. If your site truly needs availability, you have to get a diesel generator.
Have you? Did you find anything interesting there?
You see, I have posted the same thing before in Slashdot. There is no child pornography in the internet. None. Zilch. Nothing.
And then people say, "Oh, there is usenet!!!", "You have never seen Freenet!!", "There's Gumbonet!!!"
The simple answer is "No there is NO such thing as child pornography on the internet!!!". If you say otherwise, you are guilty of one of two things: either you are a consumer of child pornography and have never reported your secret cache to the authorities, or you are spreading FUD from hearsay.
This argument about the beginning is like saying the number zero must exist because natural numbers must start somewhere. Okay, so there must be some driving principle that made the universe exist. I guess most scientists of any branch of science would believe in this.
Where Christians have gone wrong is in assuming that this driving principle must necessarily be anthropomorphic. It's not god who created man in his image and likeness, it's the opposite, man created god in his image and likeness.
To pray for assistance from god, the creator of the universe, is like praying for assistance from the number zero. Being the origin of everything does not mean being infinitely powerful, infinitely wise, and infinitely good.
And before that we tried ad-based radio and television, and see how it worked out! There's no way the music industry can grow if anyone can listen to music broadcast on the radio bands without paying. How will the artists live?
I have been surfing the web since 1993 and have yet to see one single picture of a child engaged in sex. I see pornographic pictures everywhere in the internet, it's "rule 34", but not a single one of these pictures has a child in it.
However, inexistence of proof is not proof of not existence. If you start from the assumption that child pornography does exist somewhere, then you must create very powerful search tools to find it.
And a very powerful tool is too tempting to be left alone, if it does not accomplish its primary task there might be other uses for it...
Oh, yeah? Compare it to this:
Of course, this is a server that has a redundant UPS with a diesel generator. My personal computers I turn off whenever I'm not using them, it saves power and reduces my "carbon footprint".
Perhaps you should have googled it before wasting your time. Or blaming the hardware, which is what most MS-Windows users do when they get stumped by their OS limitations.
You mean, like ln -sf thesis thesis_backup?
That's an excellent solution, because it keeps the backup synchronized with the original automatically.
What if your hard drive fails when you try to save and printing is the only alternative you have to keep a record of some important data?
That's easy: Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice.
Now, if I could name *one* atheist, or let's say just moderately religious Republican...
Thanks for the tip. Now go get the complete discography, and rescue your trees from the bark beetles!
The problem is not that badly written programs fail. The problem is that even programs that were supposed to be well written in .NET crash miserably.
In the old days people would say "no one was ever fired for buying an IBM system". Well, there's at least one chief executive of a major corporation that has been fired for buying a .NET system.
The problem is that an advanced technology does not contain information to infer the intermediate stages.
Take semiconductors, for instance. The first transistor was patented in 1947, by coincidence the year of the alleged UFO crash in New Mexico. Some conspiracy theorists have used this coincidence to claim that semiconductors were reverse engineered from alien technology. But there is a catch.
There is absolutely nothing in a modern semiconductor that could have been used to accelerate the development of the transistor in 1947. Not even the raw material of the chip would be of any use, the first transistors were made of germanium which is not used anymore. The first transistor was built by adding a second contact to a point-contact diode, which had been known for decades. An example of a point-contact diode is the galena detector that has been used in crystal radios for a hundred years now.
From point-contact transistors technology evolved to junction transistors and integrated circuits. There's a step-by-step record of this development that would be much different if it consited of reverse engineering of an advanced technology. A simple look at the first transistor is enough to see that it derives from the crystal detectors that had been used for several decades by 1947.
I think the rate of advancement in our technology is what proves it's not alien in origin. Or would you say the aliens are feeding us information bit by bit, to let us advance in small steps?
Suppose you were a trader in the South Pacific in the 1920s and you came to an island where people were still in the stone age. Would you trade steel knives for their gold nuggets? Or would you have some more primitive bronze knives and axes specially made because jumping from the stone age to steel tools would be too big a step for them?
And if we reverse engineered our spacecraft from the Roswell crash wouldn't they be much more advanced from the start? The V2 rocket designed in the 1940s was able to fly from Belgium and France to England. If humans had suddenly had access to a much more advanced technology in 1947 then shouldn't we have been able to go to the moon and Mars by 1950?
Those parts are probably aluminum that has been anodized with chromium oxides, the result is a sort of greenish yellow color. If you look at photos taken in aircraft factories you'll see many parts colored like that.
Anecdotes aren't evidence, but their weight increases with decreasing distance. If your anecdote were about camel traders in some Central Asia mountains I would never give it a second thought.
Computer programming, OTOH, is closer to home, it's not just *one* bad program in C# that crashes, it's everyone who works with computers that has come across one badly written .NET system after another.
There must be something wrong about the whole .NET architecture, maybe it's not the system itself, maybe it's because it attracts too many people who do not have what it takes to become a great programmer, but the proportion of .NET systems that are buggy seems to be much greater than in other platforms.
Not many humans can drive up the Pike's Peak at racing speed.
If they can create a robotic car to do this then one major criterion for a "human level" AI has been reached.
Would you admit publicly that you spent your money on the losing format in the video war? It would have been bad enough if it were a VCR, but no, it was a camcorder, which cost much more.
You better obey him, or else
Sadly, by denying the common people access to the inner system, Apple is becoming exactly like that "religion" we all love to hate...
Continuing with the car analogy, Windows with Cygwin is to Linux like a Ford Taurus with all-wheel-drive is to a Porsche Cayenne.
Except for the price, of course.
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but what I meant is that the fact that the display might size oddly if the monitors aren't the same resolution does not depend on the OS.
That's true and it does not depend on which operating system you're using.
It was extremely easy to setup in Linux long before Windows 7 came out.
Of course. In Linux, or at least in KDE, there are several other easy ways to handle window resizing. If you mid-click in the maximize button the window is maximized vertically but it keeps the original horizontal size. Conversely, if you right-click in the maximize button the window is maximized horizontally and keeps the vertical size. Want to fine-tune the window size? Press the ALT key and the right mouse button simultaneously, the cursor will grab the *nearest* window border, no need to hit the *exact* pixels of the border.
If you say so. All I know is that it's trivial in Linux, but I always hear people complaining they must install Cygwin and puTTY and I don't know what else to run Xwindow in Windows.
You get to fight over the minimum education a person needs to live in the world.
Sending your children to school does not keep you from presenting your own point of view to them. But it lets them to know other people's points of view. Is that why you are afraid?
You didn't understand the question.
Here's a simple car analogy: a Linux user asking for tips on advanced uses of virtual desktops is like an off-road rally racer asking for tips on configuring the differentials on a 4x4. Your answer is "use a Ford Taurus".
So, Mr. Ballmer, would you please elucidate us on which is better, to have one big desktop where changing workspaces switches both monitors at once, or having one X session for each display?
I'm curious to know your opinion, since both alternatives have their own advantages and disadvantages and, since configuring Linux for dual monitors is so easy, using any of those two alternatives presents no problems.
BTW, I'm curious by what you say about how easy it is to set up Windows 7. Installing putty to run an X session on *any* older version of Windows is a royal PITA, so if, as you say, Windows 7 now supports Xwindow natively, then I'm really interested in Windows 7!