Ok, look. I MIGHT have misinterpreted, but you said "He spends his life in this chair." I of course assume this to mean that he spends no time with you or his 10 month old kid. Maybe that's not the case, in which case I apologize. But if you literally meant that he sits in front of the computer in lieu of hanging out with his family, I'm going to stand by what I said. Kick him out of the damn chair and make him spend time with both of you.
He spends his life in a chair, while you can't even find the time to research chairs because you're chasing around your 10 month old? Again, maybe I'm grossly misinterpreting but that's fucked up.
You have a 10 month old and you allow your husband to spend his time at home sitting in front of a computer?
I have a boy the same age. I feel scummy enough being away from him the 8 hours per day I spend at work. I restrict my loser-ish computer-sitting to a couple of hours in the evening after he and my wife are both asleep. If I tried to pull crap like sitting on Slashdot in the evening, my wife would literally pull the chair out from under me. You're pretty damn tolerant.
If two things must both happen, and each as a millionth of a chance, then the chance that they both will happen is a million times a million.
No. That is only true for statistically independent events.
Suppose my name is Freezle Mcdoofrong. Out of the 6~ billion people on Earth, there is only the one person with this first name and last name. According to your rule, the probability of somebody having this name is 1 in 6 billion^2. But this is obviously untrue, because the CONDITIONAL probability of having the last name of Mcdoofrong, GIVEN that the first name is Freezle, is exactly 1. Therefore, your estimate is off by a factor of 6 billion.
Hang on a minute! Anti-biotics were not invented until the 1930's.
Penicillin was not invented. It was discovered. Penicillin is a natural compound found in various molds. The mold uses this compound to (can you guess?) fight bacteria. If penicillin could somehow cause bacteria to evolve into "super bugs" and take over the world, it would have already happened, because the compound has been around for millions of years.
This is why doctors ask people to finish the entire bottle when prescribing antibiotics. This is also why we should ban antibacterial hand soaps for domestic use - because when you bathe a population of microbes in something for millions of generations, the odds are that eventually a spontaneous mutation will occur.
It doesn't really matter. The simple act of running water on your hands rinses the vast majority of the bacteria away. The soap helps this further by loosening grease and dirt where bacteria can be trapped. The antibiotics, honestly, are pretty pointless. But it's not going to lead to an outbreak of super bugs. The bacteria have all been physically removed from your hands by the soap itself.
Maybe because it has nothing to do with creation? The creation of the entire universe (something the physicists haven't worked out either, by the way) is hardly related to evolution seen in a laboratory.
Re:completely missing the point with SUV's.
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But cmon, they are still the safest for the people inside
Really? I've driven a few. They almost universally have a large placard, big and obvious, on the driver side sun screen panel: "This vehicle has a high risk of roll over, resulting in serious injury or death." I've seen an SUV flip on the highway right in front of me when the driver attempted to pass another car at high speed. The resulting wreck was most likely not survivable.
"But it's better if somebody crashes into you." I've got a better idea. How about we stop driving like a bunch of fucking morons? Is it really that hard to NOT CRASH INTO SHIT? Maybe somebody should take your license.
Re:SUVs were always mostly a waste
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you need large passenger seating, there are minivans.
There is a better solution for "large passenger seating" (that could be parsed in an alternate, amusing way): it's called a "bus" or a "train."
Up here in the Great White North it's been a constant barrage of news stories: truck plants closing unexpectedly in Ontario, tens of thousands out of work. Apparently neither GM nor Ford actually anticipated a) fuel prices rising this high and b) consumers actually (gasp!) shopping for fuel economy as a result. Almost as if the 1970s never happened.
The problem is, I don't see anybody actually changing their habits. Instead of buying fuel-efficient vehicles and trying to drive fewer miles (or, God forbid, ride a bicycle for shorter trips), people are just whining. As if cheap gas was a right bestowed on all American citizens. I saw a bumper sticker the other day: "Don't buy gas from Chevron until it's back to $2.00." Of course, I paraphrase (the amount is correct). Wow dude, you're making a real statement there.
People are going to have to understand the new reality. Energy isn't free. You do NOT have the right to drive a tank, and you do NOT have the right to go anywhere, at any time, for any distance, on the cheap. What's sad is that public transportation is not keeping up. The infrastructure isn't there. My family went downtown on Sunday for a festival, and we decided to drive two miles to the light rail station and take the train into town. I looked at the ticket price, and realized that it would have actually been cheaper to just drive into town, and that's including the parking fees.
This country just isn't set up to deal with expensive gasoline. There's no way we're going to catch up, at least in the near term (next few years). And in the meantime, people are just going to whine and petition the government to come up with some bullshit strategy to bail them out. It's sickening.
After I ran 6.2 kilometer yesterday, I was feeling thirsty. So I drank 1.6 liter of water. It took 37 minute to walk back to my car. I fired it up, and saw that the engine was already 52 degree from sitting in the hot sun. I got home, and collapsed from exhaustion. I slept an entire 9 hour.
Maybe it's a rule. I'd rather not sound like a fool though.
Any such law wouldn't last more than a few months. The first thing that thousands of people will do when such a law is passed is start accusing each other of cyberbullying on forums such as Fark, Digg, even Slashdot. Basically, if somebody pisses you off, and you can figure out who they are, you can accuse them and drag them into court.
The system will be so bogged down in these bullshit lawsuits/criminal trials that, hopefully, the stupidity of the law will become plain on its face.
The mantra "save the planet" is hugely arrogant. The planet isn't going anywhere. This rock will be here far longer than us, possibly. Quit being intellectually dishonest. What you mean to say is "save the humans."
I'm not even worried about the humans. There will probably be some die-off, but I doubt we're going to go extinct. I'm worried about climate change for personal reasons -- I LIKE my local environment the way it is right now. It could get wetter, it could get dryer, it could get colder or warmer. None of these is likely to wipe out the population of Portland Oregon, but dammit, I like it how it is now. I don't see how that's any more or less valid reason to be concerned.
Wow I feel like a moron for have ever attempted to defend Hans online at all. Like he was friends, and his wife was seeing, a guy that murdered several people.
Why did you ever feel like you should defend him in the first place? The place for his defense (or rather, stunning lack of it) was in the court room. I understand geek solidarity, but just because a guy is smart and writes code we can respect doesn't mean he's incapable of committing murder.
Anyway, we're doing it again, aren't we? He hasn't revealed anything yet. We don't know anything. Maybe we should go out for drinks and think about something else and let the courts deal with Hans Reiser.
I can't even comprehend the stupidity of 900M binaries? Or I can't comprehend the stupidity of a single ~1 gig binary? I'm pretty sure I comprehend both stupidities just fine.
I think her point was that there's one gigantic binary, not an enormous number of tiny ones.
Okay. The sentence, I hope you can admit, was awfully ambiguous. Anyway, the second two paragraphs of my reply still stand. GNU ld seems to exhibit O(N^2) behavior as the number of static libs increases. At one time I went Googling for a technical description of why this was the case. I didn't find any clear answer, but I did find a couple of posts by ld devs basically saying "It isn't going to be fixed." I think because it's too hard. The whole linker needs a rewrite, IMHO.
Believe me, if you've seen the code that runs that site, it's impressive it runs as well as it does. Try to imagine 900M static binaries that take almost an hour to link because of some tiny little code change, because they can't be fucked to make their deployment system deal with dynamic libraries reasonably.
Fuck up a dynamic library and you fuck everything. Fuck up one of those 900M programs and you've fucked 1/900M'th of everything.
What does Amazon's back end compile for? If it's Linux, that's an issue right there. The GNU linker has pathological behavior when linking large numbers of static libraries. I work on a relatively small (~1 million line) codebase and it takes about ten minutes to link. Link it on another platform (e.g. Solaris) and it links in about five seconds.
The problem isn't the huge number of libraries. The problem is that the linker blows.
If you think the traffic Slashdot is capable of directing to a site is even within the same order of magnitude as what Amazon deals with every day (especially when they're down and people are compulsively reloading), you're insane.
Yes, it does matter, and no, its not like 'barrel mod's...'; I have relatives that don't have high speed internet. And there is no plans to provide it in there area. There is no competition, and to make matters worse, state (and fed) rules prohibit competition, much less new growth.
You're terribly concerned that your relatives can't download pr0n at lightning rates, but the matter of what will happen to them when they get old and suffer from some medical condition they can't afford to treat properly is nothing to you?
It will never live up to the expectations, but if it is good and fun, people will buy it. But I guess that no game can be profitable after 12 years of development.
Can any game be RELEVANT after 12 years of development? It's like people sitting around anxiously awaiting the release of MS-DOS 7.0.
My point is: There are some things (such as roads, broadband, other things that may qualify as a utility or something close to a utility) where we as a society do just have to chip in for the little guy, or it's just not gonna happen.
Health care is a necessity. Roads are only arguably so. The Internet is quite obviously not. If you're trying to suggest that society would collapse and people would die without "broadband for all" then you're delusional, and probably 16 years old.
You're an idiot. So are all the people who modded you insightful. Backups are forever. Sure, you don't save every daily incremental, but you need to keep permanent copies of full backups on, say, a monthly basis.
Are you some kind of sociopath? Permanent archival with a proper logarithmic strategy is certainly something any COMPANY should do. But I'd like to see you tell your mother she's an "idiot" because she doesn't keep a bookshelf of DVDs of everything she's ever put on her laptop.
As far as "backups are forever," you're fucking crazy. Media wears out. Backups aren't forever even if you wanted it.
Slashdot Mirror
If my wife is "intolerant" for wanting her husband to spend time with his family while he's not working, then I'm glad I have an intolerant wife.
Ok, look. I MIGHT have misinterpreted, but you said "He spends his life in this chair." I of course assume this to mean that he spends no time with you or his 10 month old kid. Maybe that's not the case, in which case I apologize. But if you literally meant that he sits in front of the computer in lieu of hanging out with his family, I'm going to stand by what I said. Kick him out of the damn chair and make him spend time with both of you.
He spends his life in a chair, while you can't even find the time to research chairs because you're chasing around your 10 month old? Again, maybe I'm grossly misinterpreting but that's fucked up.
You have a 10 month old and you allow your husband to spend his time at home sitting in front of a computer?
I have a boy the same age. I feel scummy enough being away from him the 8 hours per day I spend at work. I restrict my loser-ish computer-sitting to a couple of hours in the evening after he and my wife are both asleep. If I tried to pull crap like sitting on Slashdot in the evening, my wife would literally pull the chair out from under me. You're pretty damn tolerant.
If two things must both happen, and each as a millionth of a chance, then the chance that they both will happen is a million times a million.
No. That is only true for statistically independent events.
Suppose my name is Freezle Mcdoofrong. Out of the 6~ billion people on Earth, there is only the one person with this first name and last name. According to your rule, the probability of somebody having this name is 1 in 6 billion^2. But this is obviously untrue, because the CONDITIONAL probability of having the last name of Mcdoofrong, GIVEN that the first name is Freezle, is exactly 1. Therefore, your estimate is off by a factor of 6 billion.
Take some stats.
A crack team of researchers make something happen, and the evolutionists clamor about how this is proof evolution exists!
Anybody who claims this is "proof" of anything is by definition not a scientist. Science is not in the business of proving things.
Hang on a minute! Anti-biotics were not invented until the 1930's.
Penicillin was not invented. It was discovered. Penicillin is a natural compound found in various molds. The mold uses this compound to (can you guess?) fight bacteria. If penicillin could somehow cause bacteria to evolve into "super bugs" and take over the world, it would have already happened, because the compound has been around for millions of years.
This is why doctors ask people to finish the entire bottle when prescribing antibiotics. This is also why we should ban antibacterial hand soaps for domestic use - because when you bathe a population of microbes in something for millions of generations, the odds are that eventually a spontaneous mutation will occur.
It doesn't really matter. The simple act of running water on your hands rinses the vast majority of the bacteria away. The soap helps this further by loosening grease and dirt where bacteria can be trapped. The antibiotics, honestly, are pretty pointless. But it's not going to lead to an outbreak of super bugs. The bacteria have all been physically removed from your hands by the soap itself.
Maybe because it has nothing to do with creation? The creation of the entire universe (something the physicists haven't worked out either, by the way) is hardly related to evolution seen in a laboratory.
But cmon, they are still the safest for the people inside
Really? I've driven a few. They almost universally have a large placard, big and obvious, on the driver side sun screen panel: "This vehicle has a high risk of roll over, resulting in serious injury or death." I've seen an SUV flip on the highway right in front of me when the driver attempted to pass another car at high speed. The resulting wreck was most likely not survivable.
"But it's better if somebody crashes into you." I've got a better idea. How about we stop driving like a bunch of fucking morons? Is it really that hard to NOT CRASH INTO SHIT? Maybe somebody should take your license.
If you need large passenger seating, there are minivans.
There is a better solution for "large passenger seating" (that could be parsed in an alternate, amusing way): it's called a "bus" or a "train."
Up here in the Great White North it's been a constant barrage of news stories: truck plants closing unexpectedly in Ontario, tens of thousands out of work. Apparently neither GM nor Ford actually anticipated a) fuel prices rising this high and b) consumers actually (gasp!) shopping for fuel economy as a result. Almost as if the 1970s never happened.
The problem is, I don't see anybody actually changing their habits. Instead of buying fuel-efficient vehicles and trying to drive fewer miles (or, God forbid, ride a bicycle for shorter trips), people are just whining. As if cheap gas was a right bestowed on all American citizens. I saw a bumper sticker the other day: "Don't buy gas from Chevron until it's back to $2.00." Of course, I paraphrase (the amount is correct). Wow dude, you're making a real statement there.
People are going to have to understand the new reality. Energy isn't free. You do NOT have the right to drive a tank, and you do NOT have the right to go anywhere, at any time, for any distance, on the cheap. What's sad is that public transportation is not keeping up. The infrastructure isn't there. My family went downtown on Sunday for a festival, and we decided to drive two miles to the light rail station and take the train into town. I looked at the ticket price, and realized that it would have actually been cheaper to just drive into town, and that's including the parking fees.
This country just isn't set up to deal with expensive gasoline. There's no way we're going to catch up, at least in the near term (next few years). And in the meantime, people are just going to whine and petition the government to come up with some bullshit strategy to bail them out. It's sickening.
214 megapascal (singular, it's a unit)
Is that really a rule? Not one I was taught.
After I ran 6.2 kilometer yesterday, I was feeling thirsty. So I drank 1.6 liter of water. It took 37 minute to walk back to my car. I fired it up, and saw that the engine was already 52 degree from sitting in the hot sun. I got home, and collapsed from exhaustion. I slept an entire 9 hour.
Maybe it's a rule. I'd rather not sound like a fool though.
Any such law wouldn't last more than a few months. The first thing that thousands of people will do when such a law is passed is start accusing each other of cyberbullying on forums such as Fark, Digg, even Slashdot. Basically, if somebody pisses you off, and you can figure out who they are, you can accuse them and drag them into court.
The system will be so bogged down in these bullshit lawsuits/criminal trials that, hopefully, the stupidity of the law will become plain on its face.
The mantra "save the planet" is hugely arrogant. The planet isn't going anywhere. This rock will be here far longer than us, possibly. Quit being intellectually dishonest. What you mean to say is "save the humans."
I'm not even worried about the humans. There will probably be some die-off, but I doubt we're going to go extinct. I'm worried about climate change for personal reasons -- I LIKE my local environment the way it is right now. It could get wetter, it could get dryer, it could get colder or warmer. None of these is likely to wipe out the population of Portland Oregon, but dammit, I like it how it is now. I don't see how that's any more or less valid reason to be concerned.
Wow I feel like a moron for have ever attempted to defend Hans online at all. Like he was friends, and his wife was seeing, a guy that murdered several people.
Why did you ever feel like you should defend him in the first place? The place for his defense (or rather, stunning lack of it) was in the court room. I understand geek solidarity, but just because a guy is smart and writes code we can respect doesn't mean he's incapable of committing murder.
Anyway, we're doing it again, aren't we? He hasn't revealed anything yet. We don't know anything. Maybe we should go out for drinks and think about something else and let the courts deal with Hans Reiser.
I can't even comprehend the stupidity of 900M binaries? Or I can't comprehend the stupidity of a single ~1 gig binary? I'm pretty sure I comprehend both stupidities just fine.
I think her point was that there's one gigantic binary, not an enormous number of tiny ones.
Okay. The sentence, I hope you can admit, was awfully ambiguous. Anyway, the second two paragraphs of my reply still stand. GNU ld seems to exhibit O(N^2) behavior as the number of static libs increases. At one time I went Googling for a technical description of why this was the case. I didn't find any clear answer, but I did find a couple of posts by ld devs basically saying "It isn't going to be fixed." I think because it's too hard. The whole linker needs a rewrite, IMHO.
Believe me, if you've seen the code that runs that site, it's impressive it runs as well as it does. Try to imagine 900M static binaries that take almost an hour to link because of some tiny little code change, because they can't be fucked to make their deployment system deal with dynamic libraries reasonably.
Fuck up a dynamic library and you fuck everything. Fuck up one of those 900M programs and you've fucked 1/900M'th of everything.
What does Amazon's back end compile for? If it's Linux, that's an issue right there. The GNU linker has pathological behavior when linking large numbers of static libraries. I work on a relatively small (~1 million line) codebase and it takes about ten minutes to link. Link it on another platform (e.g. Solaris) and it links in about five seconds.
The problem isn't the huge number of libraries. The problem is that the linker blows.
If you think the traffic Slashdot is capable of directing to a site is even within the same order of magnitude as what Amazon deals with every day (especially when they're down and people are compulsively reloading), you're insane.
Its nothing like Java.
Stunning insight. A language "for people who hate Java" is nothing like Java? Wow.
Yes, it does matter, and no, its not like 'barrel mod's...'; I have relatives that don't have high speed internet. And there is no plans to provide it in there area. There is no competition, and to make matters worse, state (and fed) rules prohibit competition, much less new growth.
You're terribly concerned that your relatives can't download pr0n at lightning rates, but the matter of what will happen to them when they get old and suffer from some medical condition they can't afford to treat properly is nothing to you?
It will never live up to the expectations, but if it is good and fun, people will buy it. But I guess that no game can be profitable after 12 years of development.
Can any game be RELEVANT after 12 years of development? It's like people sitting around anxiously awaiting the release of MS-DOS 7.0.
My point is: There are some things (such as roads, broadband, other things that may qualify as a utility or something close to a utility) where we as a society do just have to chip in for the little guy, or it's just not gonna happen.
Health care is a necessity. Roads are only arguably so. The Internet is quite obviously not. If you're trying to suggest that society would collapse and people would die without "broadband for all" then you're delusional, and probably 16 years old.
are you fucking serious?
No -- I was (pretty obviously) being sarcastic. But congrats on making an ass of yourself.
You're an idiot. So are all the people who modded you insightful. Backups are forever. Sure, you don't save every daily incremental, but you need to keep permanent copies of full backups on, say, a monthly basis.
Are you some kind of sociopath? Permanent archival with a proper logarithmic strategy is certainly something any COMPANY should do. But I'd like to see you tell your mother she's an "idiot" because she doesn't keep a bookshelf of DVDs of everything she's ever put on her laptop.
As far as "backups are forever," you're fucking crazy. Media wears out. Backups aren't forever even if you wanted it.