What counts as "in use"? I bought a Tandy 1000TX for CGA gaming that gets used frequently. I have an 8088 PC clone too, but I haven't found any reason to use it since I have the Tandy. If we're not just talking IBM compatibles, I have a TRS-80 model III, but it's mostly for showing off. I have a Model I too, but no expansion interface or monitor.
What, you don't think your 13 year old is smart enough to find the porn he or she wants? You're not protecting anyone from anything. Your prudery is probably more harmful than the porn you're so afraid of.
Which is why censorship is never acceptable, even if there is a "good" reason for it. The "good" reason is always, always, always merely the thin edge of the wedge.
Any system of logic sufficiently complicated to express anything self referential, or even 'interesting' falls under the basic rules and consequences of the incompleteness theorem.
Yes, there are true statements that cannot be logically proven. But that doesn't make every undecideable proposition true. What it makes them is unknowable, and it makes everyone who claims to know the truth about an undecideable proposition a liar.
You equate intellectual honesty with consistency. Let's just settle for honest and expressing and enumerating that which we pick on faith.
No. If reasons A, B, and C are sufficient to believe proposition P, and reasons A, B, and C also apply to proposition Q, then you must believe both P and Q or neither P and Q. You don't get to pick and choose when your arguments are valid, that's intellectually dishonest.
If you assert that God's non-falsifiability is sufficient reason to believe in God, then the non-falsifiability of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is also sufficient reason to believe in the FSM.
Congrats, you've created a tautology.
Yes, that's essentially what "by definition" means.
It's not very interesting though -- What about that which is not observable now, but may be in the future?
Are you suggesting that God may be provable with advances in technology? Funny how every advance in technology has left us with fewer and fewer reasons to believe in any Gods at all.
If you need a meter to tell you the wind is blowing outside, you probably have a serious problem.
If you think you can tell whether the wind is blowing by making philosophical arguments instead of making observations, you have a serious problem.
But your labcoat does not have a monopoly on truth.
Are there true things that science cannot demonstrate? Yes. Is there any other reliable way to demonstrate their truth? No.
With DOS you can actually IRC from an original IBM 5150 PC. Mike Brutman's mTCP includes an IRC client that runs on any PC. The only thing that keeps me from using it regularly is the lack of multi-server support. mTCP also has an FTP client and FTP server (!) which have become my favorite means for putting files on these old PCs. Far more convenient than zmodem.
Who said anything about lowering standards? Education, at all levels, should be free, voluntary, and rigorous. The primary concern for a prospective student should be whether they are academically qualified, not whether they have money.
Oh, I was confusing AROS proper with AEROS, the AROS on Linux. When you say "AROS is based on AmigaOS", do they share code or is it a clean reimplementation?
you can get the basic point by looking at entropy. An unordered system is not likely to become ordered over time
Entropy can globally increase while decreasing locally without any violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You don't need to write a book about it, it's that simple.
Eternal uncreated existence is required.
This is solved equally by presuming the existence of a "void" just as well as presuming an all powerful creator. Occam's razor prefers the void.
Secondly, most atheists (most people in general) don't know nearly enough philosophy to understand the actual arguments
Atheists know more about religion than religious people do. The real problem is that theologians don't know enough about science to understand that they're spouting nonsense.
You need to look at the credentials of the authority figure you are trusting to know if they have a reasonable position or not.
Seriously? What sort of credentials are valid? Is the pope credentialed enough? What about the Dalai Lama? What happens when they disagree? Do you have anything to offer other than a fallacious argument from authority?
No, short of actual being an acutal first hand witness to the big bang, the only sorts of credentials that matter are scientific. If philosophy actually worked in order to figure out how the world works, we would have invented quantum physics in ancient greece. No, we had to wait until the scientific method was invented, because it's the ONLY method that can actually tell us whether something is true or not.
they assume that if it exists in any way, it can be reached scientifically, and that anything that cannot be reached scientifically, cannot exist
That's not an assumption. That's practically the definition of existence. If if affects this universe, it must be detectable by science. If it doesn't affect this universe, then whether it exists or not is entirely moot.
You can't prove they do (except God, or at least some "supernatural" thing that follows the conditions required to create our universe) but that would be where the whole "faith" thing comes into play.
Which is exactly why "faith" is a really bad idea. There are infinitely many things that cannot be proven to exist, and cannot be proven not to exist. If you're intellectually honest, you have to either believe in all of them or none of them.
Skip the speakers and the tuner. I can put a tuner in my PC, and I can hook my HiFi up to my sound card with SPDIF. Hell, you can skip the HDMI and just use DVI for all I care.
"Earning more money" is code for "producing more things that others value".
Bullshit. Earning money is not the same as producing value. There are many many ways to earn money that produce negative value, and many many ways to be valuable that are not rewarded with money. Earning money would be the same as producing value in an ideal world, but we do not live in that world.
Is it possible that there's another solution? Perhaps instead of backporting new patches into an old kernel we could patch 386 support into a new kernel? Replace the code they're removing with something that will allow 386 support without conflicting with the new code?
I don't think there was really a 66mhz 386. The fastest I've seen is 40mhz. IIRC, the 486dx2/66 was the first clock doubled x86 processor which ran at a 33mhz bus speed. So if a 66mhz 386 existed it would have to run on a 66mhz board. Did those exist?
Also, the 100mhz 486s were DX4s. That's 33mhz bus * 3. Intel skipped DX3 for trademark reasons. Of course, you might have a 100mhz DX2 if you ran the board at 50mhz. You can do it with a Cyrix chip. I don't know if you can do it with an Intel DX2.
80 column is actually wider than most readability studies suggest is optimal. It's the human eye and brain that impose the relevant limitation, and they are not obsolete yet.
Not everything we buy has to be an investment. Some things we buy just because we want them. If everything you do has to be an investment, what are you going to do with the returns on that investment, invest again? For what purpose? Investing for the sake of earning more money to invest is pointless.
It's troubling that we as a society are not willing to invest in our citizens. That we are not able to see how we benefit from having educated neighbors. There is absolutely nobody, not one person, who "shouldn't be going" to some sort of educational institution or another. There's always something to learn, and we should strive to make learning the cheapest possible source of entertainment, to encourage as many people as possible to learn as much as possible. That's what makes a society great.
Seems like a modest amount to me. A cup is 8oz, so that's really just 2 16oz coffees. One in the morning and one at lunch, just right to get you through the day.
Any society that does not enable citizens to persue higher education if they wish fails at civilization. We do not exist merely to eat sleep shit and fuck. No everybody doesn't need to go to college, everybody shouldn't need to or have to go to college. But everybody deserves the chance to better themselves, and society as a whole benefits when they do.
It's deeply troubling that the response to "tuitions are too high" is "not everyone needs to go to college" these days. Education is not a luxury that we can afford to go without, it is civilization itself.
VLC was removed from the Apple store because Apple's TOS are incompatible with the GPL. Whether it's appropriate on the Windows store depends on Microsoft.
Yeah, just like I have time for MST3K and Weird Al. It amuses me. Not every moment of your life has to be spent in the persuit of perfection. Besides, some of these games have some interesting ideas, even if they're poorly executed.
It's easier to deal with full sets so you're sure you have something when you want to play it than it is to assemble a "best of" collection. They're only a meg or two a piece. And there's always that day when you want to experience just how bad some of the bad games really are. It helps you appreciate the good games more.
There are plenty of extant copies of any of these vintage (not even antique) consumer goods. I agree that these are as culturally important as anything else in an art museum, but this sale doesn't in any way hinder industry.
Besides, even if you ignore these games entirely, byuu has done far more than $25,000 worth of work preserving these games. Bsnes is arguably not just the best snes emulator but the most accurate emulator ever, which is likely to survive much longer than the cardboard, plastic and silicon being sold.
Slashdot Mirror
What counts as "in use"? I bought a Tandy 1000TX for CGA gaming that gets used frequently. I have an 8088 PC clone too, but I haven't found any reason to use it since I have the Tandy. If we're not just talking IBM compatibles, I have a TRS-80 model III, but it's mostly for showing off. I have a Model I too, but no expansion interface or monitor.
What, you don't think your 13 year old is smart enough to find the porn he or she wants? You're not protecting anyone from anything. Your prudery is probably more harmful than the porn you're so afraid of.
Which is why censorship is never acceptable, even if there is a "good" reason for it. The "good" reason is always, always, always merely the thin edge of the wedge.
In the interests of fairness Google should offer an Unsafe Search option.
Any system of logic sufficiently complicated to express anything self referential, or even 'interesting' falls under the basic rules and consequences of the incompleteness theorem.
Yes, there are true statements that cannot be logically proven. But that doesn't make every undecideable proposition true. What it makes them is unknowable, and it makes everyone who claims to know the truth about an undecideable proposition a liar.
You equate intellectual honesty with consistency. Let's just settle for honest and expressing and enumerating that which we pick on faith.
No. If reasons A, B, and C are sufficient to believe proposition P, and reasons A, B, and C also apply to proposition Q, then you must believe both P and Q or neither P and Q. You don't get to pick and choose when your arguments are valid, that's intellectually dishonest.
If you assert that God's non-falsifiability is sufficient reason to believe in God, then the non-falsifiability of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is also sufficient reason to believe in the FSM.
Congrats, you've created a tautology.
Yes, that's essentially what "by definition" means.
It's not very interesting though -- What about that which is not observable now, but may be in the future?
Are you suggesting that God may be provable with advances in technology? Funny how every advance in technology has left us with fewer and fewer reasons to believe in any Gods at all.
If you need a meter to tell you the wind is blowing outside, you probably have a serious problem.
If you think you can tell whether the wind is blowing by making philosophical arguments instead of making observations, you have a serious problem.
But your labcoat does not have a monopoly on truth.
Are there true things that science cannot demonstrate? Yes. Is there any other reliable way to demonstrate their truth? No.
With DOS you can actually IRC from an original IBM 5150 PC. Mike Brutman's mTCP includes an IRC client that runs on any PC. The only thing that keeps me from using it regularly is the lack of multi-server support. mTCP also has an FTP client and FTP server (!) which have become my favorite means for putting files on these old PCs. Far more convenient than zmodem.
Who said anything about lowering standards? Education, at all levels, should be free, voluntary, and rigorous. The primary concern for a prospective student should be whether they are academically qualified, not whether they have money.
Oh, I was confusing AROS proper with AEROS, the AROS on Linux. When you say "AROS is based on AmigaOS", do they share code or is it a clean reimplementation?
You've got to be kidding me.
you can get the basic point by looking at entropy. An unordered system is not likely to become ordered over time
Entropy can globally increase while decreasing locally without any violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You don't need to write a book about it, it's that simple.
Eternal uncreated existence is required.
This is solved equally by presuming the existence of a "void" just as well as presuming an all powerful creator. Occam's razor prefers the void.
Secondly, most atheists (most people in general) don't know nearly enough philosophy to understand the actual arguments
Atheists know more about religion than religious people do. The real problem is that theologians don't know enough about science to understand that they're spouting nonsense.
You need to look at the credentials of the authority figure you are trusting to know if they have a reasonable position or not.
Seriously? What sort of credentials are valid? Is the pope credentialed enough? What about the Dalai Lama? What happens when they disagree? Do you have anything to offer other than a fallacious argument from authority?
No, short of actual being an acutal first hand witness to the big bang, the only sorts of credentials that matter are scientific. If philosophy actually worked in order to figure out how the world works, we would have invented quantum physics in ancient greece. No, we had to wait until the scientific method was invented, because it's the ONLY method that can actually tell us whether something is true or not.
they assume that if it exists in any way, it can be reached scientifically, and that anything that cannot be reached scientifically, cannot exist
That's not an assumption. That's practically the definition of existence. If if affects this universe, it must be detectable by science. If it doesn't affect this universe, then whether it exists or not is entirely moot.
You can't prove they do (except God, or at least some "supernatural" thing that follows the conditions required to create our universe) but that would be where the whole "faith" thing comes into play.
Which is exactly why "faith" is a really bad idea. There are infinitely many things that cannot be proven to exist, and cannot be proven not to exist. If you're intellectually honest, you have to either believe in all of them or none of them.
Skip the speakers and the tuner. I can put a tuner in my PC, and I can hook my HiFi up to my sound card with SPDIF. Hell, you can skip the HDMI and just use DVI for all I care.
Isn't AROS an interface built on top of Linux?
"Earning more money" is code for "producing more things that others value".
Bullshit. Earning money is not the same as producing value. There are many many ways to earn money that produce negative value, and many many ways to be valuable that are not rewarded with money. Earning money would be the same as producing value in an ideal world, but we do not live in that world.
Is it possible that there's another solution? Perhaps instead of backporting new patches into an old kernel we could patch 386 support into a new kernel? Replace the code they're removing with something that will allow 386 support without conflicting with the new code?
I don't think there was really a 66mhz 386. The fastest I've seen is 40mhz. IIRC, the 486dx2/66 was the first clock doubled x86 processor which ran at a 33mhz bus speed. So if a 66mhz 386 existed it would have to run on a 66mhz board. Did those exist?
Also, the 100mhz 486s were DX4s. That's 33mhz bus * 3. Intel skipped DX3 for trademark reasons. Of course, you might have a 100mhz DX2 if you ran the board at 50mhz. You can do it with a Cyrix chip. I don't know if you can do it with an Intel DX2.
80 column is actually wider than most readability studies suggest is optimal. It's the human eye and brain that impose the relevant limitation, and they are not obsolete yet.
My 386 has 4mb of RAM and no math coprocessor. No Linux on this thing.
Not everything we buy has to be an investment. Some things we buy just because we want them. If everything you do has to be an investment, what are you going to do with the returns on that investment, invest again? For what purpose? Investing for the sake of earning more money to invest is pointless.
It's troubling that we as a society are not willing to invest in our citizens. That we are not able to see how we benefit from having educated neighbors. There is absolutely nobody, not one person, who "shouldn't be going" to some sort of educational institution or another. There's always something to learn, and we should strive to make learning the cheapest possible source of entertainment, to encourage as many people as possible to learn as much as possible. That's what makes a society great.
Seems like a modest amount to me. A cup is 8oz, so that's really just 2 16oz coffees. One in the morning and one at lunch, just right to get you through the day.
Any society that does not enable citizens to persue higher education if they wish fails at civilization. We do not exist merely to eat sleep shit and fuck. No everybody doesn't need to go to college, everybody shouldn't need to or have to go to college. But everybody deserves the chance to better themselves, and society as a whole benefits when they do.
It's deeply troubling that the response to "tuitions are too high" is "not everyone needs to go to college" these days. Education is not a luxury that we can afford to go without, it is civilization itself.
VLC was removed from the Apple store because Apple's TOS are incompatible with the GPL. Whether it's appropriate on the Windows store depends on Microsoft.
Yeah, just like I have time for MST3K and Weird Al. It amuses me. Not every moment of your life has to be spent in the persuit of perfection. Besides, some of these games have some interesting ideas, even if they're poorly executed.
Please do. Do you have a ZX spectrum?
It's easier to deal with full sets so you're sure you have something when you want to play it than it is to assemble a "best of" collection. They're only a meg or two a piece. And there's always that day when you want to experience just how bad some of the bad games really are. It helps you appreciate the good games more.
There are plenty of extant copies of any of these vintage (not even antique) consumer goods. I agree that these are as culturally important as anything else in an art museum, but this sale doesn't in any way hinder industry.
Besides, even if you ignore these games entirely, byuu has done far more than $25,000 worth of work preserving these games. Bsnes is arguably not just the best snes emulator but the most accurate emulator ever, which is likely to survive much longer than the cardboard, plastic and silicon being sold.