An acquaintance and I just did a POV-ray scene test. My PII/333 against his PIII/500. His was 15 minutes shorter than my 11 hours 47 minutes. (He also such off the error message stream regarding degenerate triangles which may account for all the diffrence.) It's De Buss, Boss, De Buss. I can't wait to see what benchmark is created to make 750 and 800MHz CPUs look worth buying when installed on 75-100MHz busses. Will it be how long it takes to ten thousand iterations of the routine that fits entirely in the on-board cache? Is there any other that could make it look worth buying?
>"I ask for two reasons. I have been a fan of Bradbury for some time and will always suggest that everybody needs to read _Fahrenheit 451_, but I have also recently read Ken Burke's "Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'". He argues therein that _Mein Kamf_ should not be censored on the grounds that history might repeat itself if we are unaware of what has gone on before."
Mein Kampf is an excellant example of censoring personal dislikes. The same people in different breathes will "expose" it as transparent propaganda and nonsense and also demand it be censored as a seductive philosophy.
Another reason it is a good example of pet peaves being included is that it the "peavers" have some psychotic belief that "it can happen again." On those grounds the writings of Julius Ceasar should be censored. After all, we don't want Italy conquering France again, do we?
Does our dear government censor? Does it have to censor? Were it not for non-NATO sources would we have ever heard the truth about Kosovo? Serbia?
After all NATO only killed about 3000 of them and the total actual provable body count of all Kosovars in 2108. No more. Not the 100,000 NATO lied to us.
And the greatest act of censorship in the war, bombing Serbia's TV station (and murdering ten) because they were telling their side of the story. How improper of them.
There is another type beware of. They are those who will take up any cause as a venue to bring their own trappings along with. This is most commonly a marxist/leftist trick. In the censorship arena we find many who are absolutely against any and all forms of censorship... but some things are just beyond the pale. They feign high principles and make those principles appear as lofty as possible. That is the set up. After the setup comes the "but". The "but" is just so "evil/unacceptable/unbathed" that it overcomes the nobleness of their principles. A variant of this is the old maxim regarding counting the silver when a dinner guest proclaims his high moral standards. It is all just a ruse and a rather transparent one at that.
The best way to fight censorship on the internet is to boycott the vendors of censorware. Object to it use at every opportunity. At every opportunity point out how the vendors have included their own pet political peaves in what is censored.
And that is the soul of the issue. There is a reasonable and long standing interest of parents in control of what their children view. Why is another issue entirely but there is. But when buying there is no way to know what is being blocked other than general categories which are undefined. One of them just added sites related to guns presumably in reaction to Columbine? Why not their favorite rock stars? Maybe they have but they will not tell us. Is that the same vendor of the censorware used by the US Armed Forces that blocks a major website on WWII history? Is our military also being protected from viewing sites on guns? Censorship or secrecy? Which is the threat?
Slashdot Mirror
An acquaintance and I just did a POV-ray scene test. My PII/333 against his PIII/500. His was 15 minutes shorter than my 11 hours 47 minutes. (He also such off the error message stream regarding degenerate triangles which may account for all the diffrence.) It's De Buss, Boss, De Buss. I can't wait to see what benchmark is created to make 750 and 800MHz CPUs look worth buying when installed on 75-100MHz busses. Will it be how long it takes to ten thousand iterations of the routine that fits entirely in the on-board cache? Is there any other that could make it look worth buying?
He was a great scientist, like Mr. Wizard ... filling a similar niche anyway.
But when I first heard of it, I was expecting "long bout with cancer" or some such.
A head-on collision is such bondian way to go.
>"I ask for two reasons. I have been a fan of Bradbury for some time and will always suggest that everybody needs to read _Fahrenheit 451_, but I have also recently read Ken Burke's "Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'". He argues therein that _Mein Kamf_ should not be censored on the grounds that history might repeat itself if we are unaware of what has gone on before."
Mein Kampf is an excellant example of censoring personal dislikes. The same people in different breathes will "expose" it as transparent propaganda and nonsense and also demand it be censored as a seductive philosophy.
Another reason it is a good example of pet peaves being included is that it the "peavers" have some psychotic belief that "it can happen again." On those grounds the writings of Julius Ceasar should be censored. After all, we don't want Italy conquering France again, do we?
Does our dear government censor? Does it have to censor? Were it not for non-NATO sources would we have ever heard the truth about Kosovo? Serbia?
After all NATO only killed about 3000 of them and the total actual provable body count of all Kosovars in 2108. No more. Not the 100,000 NATO lied to us.
And the greatest act of censorship in the war, bombing Serbia's TV station (and murdering ten) because they were telling their side of the story. How improper of them.
There is another type beware of. They are those who will take up any cause as a venue to bring their own trappings along with. This is most commonly a marxist/leftist trick. In the censorship arena we find many who are absolutely against any and all forms of censorship ... but some things are just beyond the pale. They feign high principles and make those principles appear as lofty as possible. That is the set up. After the setup comes the "but". The "but" is just so "evil/unacceptable/unbathed" that it overcomes the nobleness of their principles. A variant of this is the old maxim regarding counting the silver when a dinner guest proclaims his high moral standards. It is all just a ruse and a rather transparent one at that.
The best way to fight censorship on the internet is to boycott the vendors of censorware. Object to it use at every opportunity. At every opportunity point out how the vendors have included their own pet political peaves in what is censored.
And that is the soul of the issue. There is a reasonable and long standing interest of parents in control of what their children view. Why is another issue entirely but there is. But when buying there is no way to know what is being blocked other than general categories which are undefined. One of them just added sites related to guns presumably in reaction to Columbine? Why not their favorite rock stars? Maybe they have but they will not tell us. Is that the same vendor of the censorware used by the US Armed Forces that blocks a major website on WWII history? Is our military also being protected from viewing sites on guns? Censorship or secrecy? Which is the threat?