The people who think Intel is evil are those who know their products from the inside out. The people who approve most of ARM are those who know their products from the inside out.
ARM didn't set back human progress 30 years with segmented memory. Andy Grove *still* hasn't burned at the stake for that crime, believe it or not.
> Just curious, what's your position on > agression on the part of Ummers in non-Ummah > parts of the world, like, say bombing trains > in Madrid or blowing up skyscrapers in New > York City?
Let's see, $25 vs 1/4 hour... Maybe *your* time is worth less than $100 per hour, but *some* of us have better things to do than build our own flatennae.
The reason the outcome of the Spanish election was favorable to Islamicist interests is that Islamicist interests coincided with the will of the electorate. The same is true in the U.S., where the plurality of the electorate does not wish to aggress against the lands of the Ummah.
IRC for IM, CVS for revision/release control, and a website for shared knowledge. So back then it was manual RCS drops, and a gopher site, now I'm writing C++ and Java instead of Fortran and Lisp, subversion is about to replace CVS, and the website has become an application server. Mutatis mutandis, plus ça change, lalala.
Really, the most advanced computer system that I ever used was a Symbolics Genera Lisp machine, ca. 1987. The best portable IDE I ever used was Wirth's Oberon-2 system ca. 1994. We still have mythical man-months, nobody uses functional languages with type inference for production, and we still use 32-bit address spaces with demand-paged virtual memory. Software is a frustratingly low-tech occupation. Personally, I think DOS and Windows are the principal culprits. I have seen the best minds of my generation sucked dry and wasted by segmented address spaces, BSODs, Visual blech and viruses.
I've found wikipedia to be more reliable than most of the books on the shelves at Barnes & Noble, by orders of precision. Given the way that it is edited by a cast of thousands, it can only be expected to be immune to the kinds of incompetence that bedevil commercial publishing houses.
> as long as there are people out there that > are willing to fly a passenger plane into a > tall building...we should give them something worth dying for.
> "What we're trying to do is not eliminate > those customers, but just diminish the > number of offers we make to them," Anderson > said.
I for one am thankful that they decided not to eliminate those customers... for now. I should plan to move out of missle range, before they change their minds.
Or the millions of volts that will discharge through any conducting cable connecting the surface of the earth to the ionosphere. Or the ultraviolient solar wavicles that will punch through your skull when said ionosphere reaches ground potential.
One of Doc's points is that you, sir, are on drugs. "Drugs" is a word. A phonetic construct used to symbolize a meaning which has a extensional and an intensional structure. Part of the way you are using that word is as a tool to exert political power over others, and it is reasonable for Doc to infer that you fear them, since there is no rational expectation of personal benefit to be derived from that exercise of power. But in fact, you are under the influence of the chemicals which are present in your brain. Many of these are the same chemicals that play important roles in the metabolism, for example, of LSD. Until and unless your brain is analyzed and assayed, there is no particular reason to think that your present brain function is closer to my basal metabolic brain function than it is to my brain function under some undetermined acute stress.
If you will review the text of your exchange with Doc from a neutral perspective, I think you will have to agree that you are just failing to apprehend important aspects of your own nature, behaviour, and operation, and that, willfully.
If you can't get used to life when you're on drugs, maybe you're just not ready for it yet.
That sentence is no more or less meaninful that the inverse which you expressed.
When you're trying to move more than a few Gb/sec, you're going to need specialized hardware. If you're down in range of E1/T1, DS3, any reasonably recent piece of hardware will do. In between, you need to make careful hardware selections, or at least buy something with a few PCI-E slots.
I doubt that you can justify replacing Juniper kit with Zebra kit on a bang/$ basis in that middle tier, unless you are a hobbyist. The top tier belongs to Cisco and a few other heavies. Cisco on the bottom is just a gratuitous waste of money, unless you're scrounging off of ebay.
Calendaring and task management should be integrated, for usability, but integrating mail with Calendaring is a *bad idea*, as Outlook quite adequately demonstrates. What you want in this case is not integration, but *interoperation*.
Since no one is claiming that Yahoo has any obligation to allow others to connect to their service, responding to that claim seems to be beside the point, setting up a straw man, and (need I say?) constipatingly stupid.
What people do claim is that it is annoying, detrimental to their business, and (need I say?) constipatingly stupid.
> With modern crypto you can't logic probe > your way around and break crypto. It is a > hard math problem.
You are making the crypto-utopian mistake that everyone with a cracked code makes: The blocks-world assumption. Real world cracking doesn't restrict itself to the world of equations, but deals with the vulnerabilities inherent in moving a perfect algorithm into an imperfect environment. It just doesn't matter how good your crypto is, if it can be mooted with a few probe clips, or your keys can be lifted, or the decrypted stream intercepted, or.... the number of out-of-band solutions to the cracking problem is limited only by your imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
The people who think Intel is evil are those
who know their products from the inside out.
The people who approve most of ARM are those
who know their products from the inside out.
ARM didn't set back human progress 30 years
with segmented memory. Andy Grove *still*
hasn't burned at the stake for that crime,
believe it or not.
1) The guy works for Microsoft, so he obviously has no morals. Why would you
expect any better?
2) It's not like he took anything of value,
so pardon me if I don't shed a tear for
hasta la vista.
3) So who gives a flying frique?
Oh, it said "underway"... darn.
Umm... isn't it "underweigh"?
> Just curious, what's your position on
> agression on the part of Ummers in non-Ummah
> parts of the world, like, say bombing trains
> in Madrid or blowing up skyscrapers in New
> York City?
Personally, I could take it or leave it.
Let's see, $25 vs 1/4 hour... Maybe *your*
time is worth less than $100 per hour, but
*some* of us have better things to do than
build our own flatennae.
The reason the outcome of the Spanish election was favorable to Islamicist interests is that Islamicist interests coincided with the will of the electorate. The same is true in the U.S., where the plurality of the electorate does not wish to aggress against the lands of the Ummah.
Yeah, shouldn't they be out there incinerating
babies or spreading low-level radioactive waste
over the lands of Islam?
And in that time, the tools haven't changed much.
IRC for IM, CVS for revision/release control, and a website for shared knowledge. So back then it was manual RCS drops, and a gopher site, now I'm writing C++ and Java instead of Fortran and Lisp, subversion is about to replace CVS, and the website has become an application server. Mutatis mutandis, plus ça change, lalala.
Really, the most advanced computer system that I ever used was a Symbolics Genera Lisp machine, ca. 1987. The best portable IDE I ever used was Wirth's Oberon-2 system ca. 1994. We still have mythical man-months, nobody uses functional languages with type inference for production, and we still use 32-bit address spaces with demand-paged virtual memory. Software is a frustratingly low-tech occupation. Personally, I think DOS and Windows are the principal culprits. I have seen the best minds of my generation sucked dry and wasted by segmented address spaces, BSODs, Visual blech and viruses.
I've found wikipedia to be more reliable than most of the books on the shelves at Barnes & Noble, by orders of precision. Given the way that it is edited by a cast of thousands, it can only be expected to be immune to the kinds of incompetence that bedevil commercial publishing houses.
Human nature is like censorship. We just route around it.
> as long as there are people out there that ...we should give them something worth dying for.
> are willing to fly a passenger plane into a
> tall building
> "What we're trying to do is not eliminate
> those customers, but just diminish the
> number of offers we make to them," Anderson
> said.
I for one am thankful that they decided not to
eliminate those customers... for now. I
should plan to move out of missle range,
before they change their minds.
Ah, mp3's of the Fleshtones,
yeah. They oughtta be corrupted already, though.
Or the millions of volts that will discharge through any conducting cable connecting the surface of the earth to the ionosphere.
Or the ultraviolient solar wavicles that will punch through your skull when said ionosphere reaches ground potential.
Ummm... Flashbacks are a boogieman. Naked Lunch has nothing in particular to do with LSD. Thanks for playing.
One of Doc's points is that you, sir, are on
drugs. "Drugs" is a word. A phonetic construct used to symbolize a meaning which has a extensional and an intensional structure. Part of the way you are using that word is as a tool to exert political power over others, and it is reasonable for Doc to infer that you fear them, since there is no rational expectation of personal benefit to be derived from that exercise of power. But in fact, you are under the influence of the chemicals which are present in your brain. Many of these are the same chemicals that play important roles in the metabolism, for example, of LSD. Until and unless your brain is analyzed and assayed, there is no particular reason to think that your present brain function is closer to my basal metabolic brain function than it is to my brain function under some undetermined acute stress.
If you will review the text of your exchange with Doc from a neutral perspective, I think you will have to agree that you are just failing to apprehend important aspects of your own nature, behaviour, and operation, and that, willfully.
If you can't get used to life when you're on drugs, maybe you're just not ready for it yet.
That sentence is no more or less meaninful that the inverse which you expressed.
Better a smiling fool that an embittered, pathetic sage.
The post was a troll, and you just bit.
When you're trying to move more than a few
Gb/sec, you're going to need specialized
hardware. If you're down in range of E1/T1,
DS3, any reasonably recent piece of hardware
will do. In between, you need to make careful
hardware selections, or at least buy something
with a few PCI-E slots.
I doubt that you can
justify replacing Juniper kit with Zebra kit
on a bang/$ basis in that middle tier,
unless you are a hobbyist. The top tier
belongs to Cisco and a few other heavies.
Cisco on the bottom is just a gratuitous
waste of money, unless you're scrounging
off of ebay.
I think the editor misspelled "incredibly
fucking evil".
That's why I stopped flying.
Filesystems are part of the operating system.
Calendaring and task management should be
integrated, for usability, but integrating
mail with Calendaring is a *bad idea*, as
Outlook quite adequately demonstrates. What
you want in this case is not integration, but
*interoperation*.
And how long on an American 220v outlet?
Since no one is claiming that Yahoo has any obligation to allow others to connect to
their service, responding to that claim seems to be beside the point, setting up a straw
man, and (need I say?) constipatingly stupid.
What people do claim is that it is annoying, detrimental to their business, and (need I say?) constipatingly stupid.
Merits? The guy is proposing a system for
conducting conference calls through firewalls
by hijacking DNS servers, and you can use the
term "merits"?
Demerits maybe.
> With modern crypto you can't logic probe
> your way around and break crypto. It is a
> hard math problem.
You are making the crypto-utopian mistake
that everyone with a cracked code makes:
The blocks-world assumption. Real world
cracking doesn't restrict itself to the world
of equations, but deals with the vulnerabilities
inherent in moving a perfect algorithm into
an imperfect environment. It just doesn't
matter how good your crypto is, if it can
be mooted with a few probe clips, or your
keys can be lifted, or the decrypted stream
intercepted, or.... the number of out-of-band
solutions to the cracking problem is limited
only by your imagination.