What a concept! Basing conclusions on experimental evidence from testing via trial and error rather than warping reality to fit your business model. That's incredible!
I just don't get the point of a fancy FS on ones / part.
Basically I want to move across to ext4, but have only gone as far as it seems safe at this time to do so. I have noticed an increase in overall speed on the system.
So you used the "riskier" fs for / where you don't actually need the features it provides and used the "more stable" fs where features could actually be useful because app/fs developers couldn't agree on semantics?
Or I used the potentially riskier filesystem for executables, system wide libraries and config files that are not regularly rewritten to realize a noticeable increase in system speed while leaving the older more reliable filesystem for my important documents, mp3's and personal config files where speed is not so much of a concern.
Only on Linux...
Yes. On Linux I can reinstall my system in 15-20 mins and all the extra packages I use in another 20mins. That time includes making myself a cup of tea. All my personal config files are in/home so I won't have to configure anything after a re-install.
If someone really has no use for a computer, why force them? I know stacks of people that just really have no use for a computer, so they never bothered to learn. In their eyes, a computer is an amazingly complex thing that they haven't even got the slightest handle on. Nor do they see any reason to change. I don't think that there is anything really wrong with that. Why should they shell out on expensive equipment that they don't think they need and don't know how to use?
the vast majority of people (yes even old folk!) know how to fucking using a computer these days. it isnt 1988
But many otherwise very intelligent people find that they cannot understand them. Sometimes it's just that they have no confidence with computers or believe that they cannot use them. In other cases perhaps the need or the interest has never been there. Most people, even very intelligent people, have a 'blind spot' - a subject or activity they find difficult or even mind-numbingly overwhelming.
Eg. I can read and write in ancient Hebrew and Greek, was described as 'brilliant' while studying and am often asked for help in various areas due to my ability to just pick things up on the run and teach/explain/do whatever is required. When I started my own business however I ran into my nemesis. Accounting. It took me over a month to get my head around the basics. Longer still to start to understand my accounting software. Don't know if I'll ever get past the basics with it cos I seriously find it hard to understand.
So I don't give people who don't understand computers a hard time. Most people can send emails and write a text document. Surfing the web is also pretty common. Internet banking is a bonus. If that is all they need, that is all that most people will ever learn and that is ok. When they need something else, they ring me and pay me $60 an hour as a tech. I don't mind at all!
Are all evolutionists in agreement? Likewise I would be surprised if all 2 billion people in the world who identify themselves as some variety of Christian where all in agreement on every issue. You are only picking and choosing the data you want. The sign of a poor scholar...
I agree with you that it is a shame that people like that get any airspace at all. As a Christian and a creationists I can say that people like him are a problem for us. Maybe you will look up some articles on rapid speciation by other creationists scientists herehere here and here.
Oh, and thank you for correcting me on that point.
In my experience, most kids here in Aus who get the ADHD label just have the misfortune of lousy parents who haven't disciplined them properly from an early age. Not the kids fault, just the parents who either don't care enough, are too busy working anyway or just don't know how to rear kids.
Another group of kids have early or mis-diagnosed Narcolepsy and are really just trying to stay alert.
FYI neither do I care for Microsoft, but if you carefully read what I said, you will find that I was pointing to the possibility of MS actually GAINING from the loss of the central contract.
So the NZ gov will not make a contract with MS centrally, leaving individual dept's to tender individually. Well, it just means that the central States Service Commission with it's liking of FOSS will no longer have as much influence on software purchases, leaving possibly less open-minded dept CIO's to make contracts. At a higher price due to lower volume? No great loss for Microsoft there. It may even be a winner for them.
We actually do have inter-species mating, and they do produce offspring. However any time this occurs, the offspring cannot re-produce. They are mules. This is one good way to tell that horses and donkeys are close, but definitely different species despite their similarities. They can even reproduce naturally, but the offspring is not viable. Mules cannot mate and produce more mules. Same with ligers, probably the coolest cat ever, and despite being bred for their magical properties they are still mules that cannot reproduce.
In agreement with the parent. The author of TFA was either an idiot OR an undergrad who thinks he knows something. Is there really that much difference?
The real shame of the article is the misinformation about creationists that it peddles. Creationists do NOT in general deny speciation. The quote used does state that speciation has not actually been observed which is pretty much true. If an argument against someone cannot stand without disinformation, it's time to shut up. It's a shame the author of TFA didn't do just that...
Problems upgrading ubuntu? How are you doing it? I've upgraded via the alternative CD and also over the web on several machines over the last few years without any problems. Sheesh. My 73yo Dad upgrades the system himself without dramas. Either you're running hardware with hit-and-miss support, or you're doing something weird...
It's quite straightforward to track down pathways in the brain responsible for making individual aspects of our perceptions available to the conscious mind
Well, I'm not sure that any neurologist would call the brain straight-forward, but after a great amount of research these areas of the brain have been located and can be numbed, but still the conscious mind is there as a separate thing. It would seem to me that qualia is WHAT we are aware of. I am talking of the fact that we ARE aware.
Exactly, do we really want computers to have consciousness?
I think the question is more like CAN we give computers consciousness? By what mechanism are we even 'aware' at all? Is it possible to imbue a machine with life, or only the appearance of it?
The amazing thing is that we could theoretically spend our days ruled by a set of algorithms (or evolutionary behaviour and thought adaptations) and never actually be conscious of anything, but instead we are aware of our touch, taste, smell, hearing and we can weigh our own thoughts instead of just reacting dumbly to stimulus (input data) like a computer. This, in my view, is the most poignant evidence we have that we exist as more than just completely physical ambling lumps of meat.
creationism is very much a minority opinion amongst christians (in fact I've only ever met one who thought like that, and I've met a lot of christians over the years). The belief in a literal 7 days is something that historically would have been laughed at long before darwin. A few noisy fundies in the US don't get to choose what christianity is, no matter what you might want to think.
As a Christian myself, who has, of course, met thousands of Christians in my work for the Church, would have to question your anecdotal evidence. It is in fact the opposite of what I have found over the years. Also can you give any evidence to your statement about a literal 7 days being considered laughable long before Darwin? If you had done a reasonable amount of research you would find yourself to be quite incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
What a concept! Basing conclusions on experimental evidence from testing via trial and error rather than warping reality to fit your business model. That's incredible!
It will never last in the 'real' world...
Just out of interest, do you run any KDE4 apps?
I just don't get the point of a fancy FS on ones / part.
Basically I want to move across to ext4, but have only gone as far as it seems safe at this time to do so. I have noticed an increase in overall speed on the system.
So you used the "riskier" fs for / where you don't actually need the features it provides and used the "more stable" fs where features could actually be useful because app/fs developers couldn't agree on semantics?
Or I used the potentially riskier filesystem for executables, system wide libraries and config files that are not regularly rewritten to realize a noticeable increase in system speed while leaving the older more reliable filesystem for my important documents, mp3's and personal config files where speed is not so much of a concern.
Only on Linux...
Yes. On Linux I can reinstall my system in 15-20 mins and all the extra packages I use in another 20mins. That time includes making myself a cup of tea. All my personal config files are in /home so I won't have to configure anything after a re-install.
I've been running ext4 for / , but left ext3 for /home where any KDE apps I run could fudge writes. No problems at all.
However, on the Internet, you're almost automatically better informed. Anything you don't know, Google does, or Wikipedia does.
I know this is true. I read it on the internet!
If someone really has no use for a computer, why force them? I know stacks of people that just really have no use for a computer, so they never bothered to learn. In their eyes, a computer is an amazingly complex thing that they haven't even got the slightest handle on. Nor do they see any reason to change. I don't think that there is anything really wrong with that. Why should they shell out on expensive equipment that they don't think they need and don't know how to use?
the vast majority of people (yes even old folk!) know how to fucking using a computer these days. it isnt 1988
But many otherwise very intelligent people find that they cannot understand them. Sometimes it's just that they have no confidence with computers or believe that they cannot use them. In other cases perhaps the need or the interest has never been there. Most people, even very intelligent people, have a 'blind spot' - a subject or activity they find difficult or even mind-numbingly overwhelming.
Eg. I can read and write in ancient Hebrew and Greek, was described as 'brilliant' while studying and am often asked for help in various areas due to my ability to just pick things up on the run and teach/explain/do whatever is required. When I started my own business however I ran into my nemesis. Accounting. It took me over a month to get my head around the basics. Longer still to start to understand my accounting software. Don't know if I'll ever get past the basics with it cos I seriously find it hard to understand.
So I don't give people who don't understand computers a hard time. Most people can send emails and write a text document. Surfing the web is also pretty common. Internet banking is a bonus. If that is all they need, that is all that most people will ever learn and that is ok. When they need something else, they ring me and pay me $60 an hour as a tech. I don't mind at all!
In Soviet Russia, um. Well, actually it's getting pretty similar...
Are all evolutionists in agreement? Likewise I would be surprised if all 2 billion people in the world who identify themselves as some variety of Christian where all in agreement on every issue. You are only picking and choosing the data you want. The sign of a poor scholar...
Definitely VIM or with extensions, gedit.
Waffling? Isn't that what politicians do anyway?
I agree with you that it is a shame that people like that get any airspace at all. As a Christian and a creationists I can say that people like him are a problem for us. Maybe you will look up some articles on rapid speciation by other creationists scientists here here here and here. Oh, and thank you for correcting me on that point.
In my experience, most kids here in Aus who get the ADHD label just have the misfortune of lousy parents who haven't disciplined them properly from an early age. Not the kids fault, just the parents who either don't care enough, are too busy working anyway or just don't know how to rear kids.
Another group of kids have early or mis-diagnosed Narcolepsy and are really just trying to stay alert.
FYI neither do I care for Microsoft, but if you carefully read what I said, you will find that I was pointing to the possibility of MS actually GAINING from the loss of the central contract.
Also 'Store times'? Who's time? From what time zone? Sheesh. This guy is stuck in the 1890's.
So the NZ gov will not make a contract with MS centrally, leaving individual dept's to tender individually. Well, it just means that the central States Service Commission with it's liking of FOSS will no longer have as much influence on software purchases, leaving possibly less open-minded dept CIO's to make contracts. At a higher price due to lower volume? No great loss for Microsoft there. It may even be a winner for them.
We actually do have inter-species mating, and they do produce offspring. However any time this occurs, the offspring cannot re-produce. They are mules. This is one good way to tell that horses and donkeys are close, but definitely different species despite their similarities. They can even reproduce naturally, but the offspring is not viable. Mules cannot mate and produce more mules. Same with ligers, probably the coolest cat ever, and despite being bred for their magical properties they are still mules that cannot reproduce.
In agreement with the parent. The author of TFA was either an idiot OR an undergrad who thinks he knows something. Is there really that much difference?
The real shame of the article is the misinformation about creationists that it peddles. Creationists do NOT in general deny speciation. The quote used does state that speciation has not actually been observed which is pretty much true. If an argument against someone cannot stand without disinformation, it's time to shut up. It's a shame the author of TFA didn't do just that...
Problems upgrading ubuntu? How are you doing it? I've upgraded via the alternative CD and also over the web on several machines over the last few years without any problems. Sheesh. My 73yo Dad upgrades the system himself without dramas. Either you're running hardware with hit-and-miss support, or you're doing something weird...
It's quite straightforward to track down pathways in the brain responsible for making individual aspects of our perceptions available to the conscious mind
Well, I'm not sure that any neurologist would call the brain straight-forward, but after a great amount of research these areas of the brain have been located and can be numbed, but still the conscious mind is there as a separate thing. It would seem to me that qualia is WHAT we are aware of. I am talking of the fact that we ARE aware.
Exactly, do we really want computers to have consciousness?
I think the question is more like CAN we give computers consciousness? By what mechanism are we even 'aware' at all? Is it possible to imbue a machine with life, or only the appearance of it?
The amazing thing is that we could theoretically spend our days ruled by a set of algorithms (or evolutionary behaviour and thought adaptations) and never actually be conscious of anything, but instead we are aware of our touch, taste, smell, hearing and we can weigh our own thoughts instead of just reacting dumbly to stimulus (input data) like a computer. This, in my view, is the most poignant evidence we have that we exist as more than just completely physical ambling lumps of meat.
If Linux is The Highlander, then is Windows The Borg?
No, OSX is the Borg. Everything added just becomes part of the collective.
The Chinese black-hats only have to get a job there then...
It's our precious bodily fluids they want to damage!
creationism is very much a minority opinion amongst christians (in fact I've only ever met one who thought like that, and I've met a lot of christians over the years). The belief in a literal 7 days is something that historically would have been laughed at long before darwin. A few noisy fundies in the US don't get to choose what christianity is, no matter what you might want to think.
As a Christian myself, who has, of course, met thousands of Christians in my work for the Church, would have to question your anecdotal evidence. It is in fact the opposite of what I have found over the years. Also can you give any evidence to your statement about a literal 7 days being considered laughable long before Darwin? If you had done a reasonable amount of research you would find yourself to be quite incorrect.